CAR_Public/190514.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, May 14, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 96

                            Headlines

104TH STREET RESTAURANT: Does Not Pay Min., OT Wages, Says Bonola
3M COMPANY: Beach Seeks Damages for Earplug-related Injuries
3M COMPANY: Boughton Sues Over Injuries From Defective Earplugs
3M COMPANY: Bowden Files Suit Over Injuries From Defective Earplugs
3M COMPANY: Combat Earplugs Caused Hearing Injuries, Phillips Says

3M COMPANY: Dotson Seeks Damages for Earplug-related Injuries
3M COMPANY: Faces Lewis Suit Over Injuries From Faulty Earplugs
3M COMPANY: Faces Spurlock Suit Over Defective Combat Earplugs
3M COMPANY: Kuehner Sues Over Injuries From Defective Earplugs
3M COMPANY: Mauzy Seeks Damages for Earplug-Related Injuries

3M COMPANY: Misrepresents Earplug Safety, Cunningham Claims
3M COMPANY: Reed Files Suit Over Defective Earplugs
3M COMPANY: Smothers Sues Over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
3M COMPANY: Thomas Files Suit Over Injuries From Defective Earplugs
ABC CORP: Bautista Seeks Overtime Pay for Hours Worked Over 40/Week

ALKERMES PLC: Gagnon Class Action Suit Ongoing
ALKERMES PLC: Karimian and McDermott Class Suits Consolidated
ALKERMES PLC: NY Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
AMERICAN HONDA: Elkins Sues Over Vehicle's Condenser Defect
ANYTIME FTNESS: Sent Unsolicited SMS Ads, Bergeron Suit Says

APPLE INC: iPhone Owners May Sue for Monopolization, SCOTUS Says
ARS NATIONAL: Jin Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
ARS NATIONAL: Kucur Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
ASSET RECOVERY: Williamson Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Penn.
ASTOR HOUSE: West Files ADA Suit in E.D. Wisconsin

AT&T INC: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Fraud Suit
BALL METAL: Ct. Orders Class Discovery Submission in Westfall Suit
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Ignacuinos Files Tort Class Suit in Conn.
BOEING CO: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action in Illinois
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Celgene Acquisition-Related Suits Ongoing

CANADA: Lawyer's Licensed Revoked for Stealing Settlement Money
CASINO RAMA: Decision on Proposed $60MM Class Action Expected
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Colorado Judge Tosses Securities Class Action
COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH: Salazar Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA
CONAGRA BRANDS: Loses Bid to Consolidate Margarine Class Actions

CREDIT COLLECTION: Court Dismisses F. Riccio's FDCPA Suit
CVS PHARMACY: Court Narrows Discovery in N. Kilby Suit
DEL MAR, CA: Hedayatzadeh Files Civil Rights Class Action
DOMINION ENERGY: City of Warren Suit on SCANA Merger Still Pending
DOMINION ENERGY: DESC to Owe 55% of Damages in NND Employment Suit

DOMINION ENERGY: Federal Court 10b-5 Case v. SCANA Still Pending
DOMINION ENERGY: Hearing on DESC Ratepayer Pact Set for This Month
DOMINION ENERGY: Metzler Lawsuit on SCANA Merger Remains Pending
DOMINION ENERGY: RICO Class Action Remains Pending
DOMINION ENERGY: Santee Cooper Ratepayers Class Suit Still Pending

DOUBLE DOWN: Court Stays A. Benson Suit Pending Arbitration Appeal
DOUBLE VV INC: Matlock Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
DUNHAM'S ATHLEISURE: Migyanko Files ADA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
EL POLLO LOCO: Expects Court OK on Deal for 4 Suits Before 2020
EL POLLO LOCO: Turocy Case Settlement Underway

FIRST CHOICE: Wolf Popper Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
FIRST SOLAR: Supreme Court Appeal in "Smilovits" Underway
FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Rizzo Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
FISHER-PRICE INC: Barton Brings Suit Over Dangerous Infant Sleeper
FUNKO INC: Bids to Nix Securities Suit in King County Still Pending

FUNKO INC: Lead Plaintiff in Kanugonda Class Suit Amends Complaint
GENERAL MOTORS: Nardizzi Files Sues Over Defective Wheels
GOHEALTH LLC: Certification of 2 Classes Sought in Roby TCPA Suit
GOOGLE INC: Supreme Court Wrestles with Cy Pre Settlement Issue
GRAHAM RESTAURANT: Violates NY Spread of Hours Order, Tapia Says

HAYNES INVESTMENTS: Appeals Ruling in Gibbs RICO Suit to 4th Cir.
HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Fraud Suit
HOSPITAL SERVICE: La. App. Reverses Dismissal in V. Leet's Suit
HYUNDAI: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Theta II Engines
ILUKA RESOURCES: Harbour Litigation Exits Funding Agreement

INDEPENDENT BANK: Discovery Ongoing in BOH Acquisition-Related Suit
INTEGRATED TECH: Abellaneda Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: LIBOR Suits on Antitrust Matters Ongoing
INTERNATIONAL RECOVERY: Taylor Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
J.G. WENTWORTH: Gill Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Loan Officers

JDBN LLC: Sushi Chef Seeks Proper Wages Under FLSA and NYLL
JOE COLE PLUMBING: Hancotte Sues Over Unpaid Travel Time to Miami
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Angione Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Armstead Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Assatourians Talc Suit to C.D. Calif.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Avino Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Babb Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Beetem Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Berdue Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Frederick Talc Injury Suit to D. Del.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Jackson Talc Injury Suit to M.D. Fla.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Jacobs Talc Injury Suit to D. Delaware
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Kurten Talc Injury Suit to D. Delaware
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Lefton Talc Injury Suit to N.D. Ohio
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes McGonigle Talc Injury Suit to D. Del.

KONICA MINOLTA: Noriesta Suit Removed to C.D. California
KUSHCO HOLDINGS: May Sues Over Share Price Drop
LASALLE GROUP: Court Conditionally Certifies Wage & Hour Class
LIBERTY POWER: Faces Katz Class Suit in Colorado
LOUISIANA: La. App. Vacates Class Certification in S. Gross Suit

MASTERED LANGUAGES: Translators Seek Proper Overtime Pay
MCEWEN LAW FIRM: Malpractice Suit Remanded to Circuit Court
MDL 2885: Ascanio Suit Consolidated in 3M Earplug Lititigation
MDL 2885: Lyle Suit Consolidated in 3M Earplug Litigation
MENLO THERAPEUTICS: McKay Securities Class Action Underway

MENLO THERAPEUTICS: Savelstrov Securities Class Suit Underway
MIDLAND CREDIT: Camarda Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
MOHAMMAD AL-MOJIL: Faces Class Action Over 2008 IPO
MONSANTO CO: Accused by Alonzo Suit of Selling Defective Roundup
MONSANTO CO: Slinkard Files Suit Over Roundup(R) Product

MONSANTO COMPANY: Myers Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Puckett Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Ruffner Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Scott Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MOTEL 6: Settles Class Action Over Reporting Guests to ICE

MYLAN NV: Must Face Narrowed EpiPen Class-Action Suit, Judge Rules
MYLAN NV: Shearman & Sterling Discusses Securities Suit Ruling
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Brushingham Suit to Recover Damages and Costs
NCAA: Hodges Seeks Redress for Student-Athletes' Injuries
NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS: 2d Cir Flips Tort Claim Dismissal in Johnson

NORTHLAND GROUP: Muldowney Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. New York
NRG ENERGY: Still Defends Griffoul Class Action
NUTANIX INC: Wolf Popper Files Securities Fraud Suit
OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Gronich Suit
PALCO INC: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Says Danna

PEOPLE'S UNITED: Judge Tosses EB-5 Investors' Proposed Class Suit
PG&E CORP: 100 Complaints Filed over 2018 Camp Fire as of Jan. 28
PG&E CORP: 750 Complaints Filed over 2017 Northern Calif. Wildfires
PG&E CORP: Current, Former Execs Face York County Securities Suit
PG&E CORP: Securities Lawsuit over Camp Fire Underway

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Accused by Janow Suit of Violating FDCPA
POST FOODS: Krommenhock Moves to Certify Class With 9 Subclasses
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP: Age Discrimination Suit Certified
QUINCY BIOSCIENCE: Spath Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y.
RADIUS GLOBAL: Highley Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey

RODAN & FIELDS: Court Narrows Claims in Lash Boost Suit
RP ONSITE: Faces Kelly et al. Suit over Background Checks
SADER POWER: Court Awards $1.5MM Counsel Fee in Torregano Suit
SAN DIEGO, CA: Verdun Files Civil Rights Class Action
SELECTIVE SERVICE: Appeals Decision in National Coalition Suit

SENTINEL OFFENDER: Judge Set to Rule on Settlement on May 24
SOLANTIC CORPORATION: Wood Atter Files Suit in Florida
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Garay Wage & Hour Suit Remanded to State Court
SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT: Navarrete Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
SUNTRUST BANKS: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action in Georgia

T.L. CANNON: Court Awards $1.5MM Counsel Fee in M. Roach Suit
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Hart Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premiums
TEAM GOLIATH: Does not Pay Delivery Drivers Minimum, Overtime Wages
TELUS COMMS: Business Customers' Claims to Go to Arbitration
TWIN DONUT: Cortes Sorza Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages

UMPQUA BANK: $97.5MM Attorney's Fees in Connolly Settlement Deal
UNITED STATES: Seeks Review of Hardy Suit Ruling
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: Gray Sues Over Biometric Data Retention
VIEGA LLC: Al's Discount Suit Transferred to M.D. Pa.
VIEGA LLC: Plumber's Shop Suit Transferred to M.D. Pa.

VMSB LLC: Bonilla Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Overtime Wages
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Bernstein Litowitz Requests $12MM in Legal Fees
WALMART INC: Morris Files  Mislabeling Suit Over Shake Product
WALMART: $160MM Settlement Obtains Final Court Approval
WATCH GANG: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

WELCH FOODS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Misleading Labels
WESTCONNEX: Dentons Explores Options for Class Action
WESTERN EXPRESS: Class of Truckers Certified in Elmy FLSA Suit
YOUNG LIVING: Faces Rico Class Action in Texas
ZHEJIANG HUAHAI: Faces Martinez Product Liability Suit in N.J.

[*] BakerHostetler Attorney Discusses Absent Class Members Issue
[REDACTED]

                            *********

104TH STREET RESTAURANT: Does Not Pay Min., OT Wages, Says Bonola
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bartolome Francisco Bonola and Gildardo Bonola, on behalf of
themselves and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
104th Street Restaurant Inc. d/b/a Tony's Pizzeria Restaurant and
Ernesto Laucella, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02603 (E.D. N.Y.,
May 2, 2019) is an action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") seeking (i)
compensation for wages paid at less than the statutory minimum
wage, (ii) unpaid wages from defendants for overtime work for which
they did not receive overtime premium pay as required by law, and
(iii) liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA and the NYLL, because
defendants' violations lacked a good faith basis.

Plaintiffs were employed at Tony's as busboys from approximately
1996 through October 2018.

Defendants owned and operated an Italian restaurant in Queens.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     David Stein, Esq.
     SAMUEL & STEIN
     38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
     New York, NY 10001
     Phone: (212) 563-9884
     Email: dstein@samuelandstein.com



3M COMPANY: Beach Seeks Damages for Earplug-related Injuries
------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL A. BEACH v. 3M COMPANY, AEARO HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO
INTERMEDIATE, LLC, AEARO, LLC and AEARO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Case No.
3:19-cv-00943-RV-EMT (N.D. Fla., April 23, 2019), seeks damages
from 3M and its subsidiary entities for injuries caused by the use
of 3M's defective dual-ended Combat Arms Earplugs, version 2 during
the Plaintiff and other veterans' military service.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has suffered substantial
hearing loss as the result of the use of the defective 3M combat
earplugs.

3M Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in St. Paul, Minnesota.  3M is one of the largest
companies in the United States and is in the business of designing,
manufacturing and selling worker safety products which include
hearing protection devices.

Aearo Holding LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business in St. Paul, Minnesota.  AHC was
formerly known as Aearo Holding Corp. and is a wholly owned
subsidiary of 3M Company.

Aearo Technologies LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
its principal place of business in St. Paul.  ATL is a subsidiary
of Aearo Holding LLC and 3M Company, and has operated under the
assumed business names "Aearo Company" and "Aearo Technologies."

Aearo Intermediate LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
its principal place of business in Indianapolis, Indiana.  ATI was
formerly known as Aearo Technologies, Inc.  ATI is a subsidiary of
Aearo Holding LLC and 3M Company.

Aearo LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Indianapolis.  AL is a subsidiary of
Aearo Holding LLC and 3M Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael W. Gaines, Esq.
          Tim L. Bowden, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TIM BOWDEN
          306 Northcreek Blvd., Suite 200
          Goodlettsville, TN 37072
          Telephone: (615) 859-1996
          Facsimile: (615) 859-1921
          E-mail: mwgaines01@gmail.com
                  bowden_law@bellsouth.net


3M COMPANY: Boughton Sues Over Injuries From Defective Earplugs
---------------------------------------------------------------
DARRIN BOUGHTON v. 3M COMPANY, AEARO HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO
INTERMEDIATE, LLC, AEARO, LLC and AEARO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Case No.
3:19-cv-00942-RV-HTC (N.D. Fla., April 23, 2019), arises out of a
multi-year, multi-million-dollar fraud perpetrated on the United
States Government and the men and women, who served in the United
States military by one of the largest companies in the country,
3M.

From approximately 2003 through 2015, 3M sold to the U.S. military
tens of thousands of defective earplugs, the dual-ended Combat Arms
Earplugs, version 2 ("Combat Arms Earplugs") for the use of U.S.
soldiers and service men and women in combat and training, says the
complaint.  The Plaintiff alleges that the defective Combat Arms
Earplugs have caused thousands of individual service members
permanent and irreparable hearing injuries.

3M Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in St. Paul, Minnesota.  3M is one of the largest
companies in the United States and is in the business of designing,
manufacturing and selling worker safety products which include
hearing protection devices.

Aearo Holding LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business in St. Paul, Minnesota.  AHC was
formerly known as Aearo Holding Corp. and is a wholly owned
subsidiary of 3M Company.

Aearo Technologies LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
its principal place of business in St. Paul.  ATL is a subsidiary
of Aearo Holding LLC and 3M Company, and has operated under the
assumed business names "Aearo Company" and "Aearo Technologies."

Aearo Intermediate LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
its principal place of business in Indianapolis, Indiana.  ATI was
formerly known as Aearo Technologies, Inc.  ATI is a subsidiary of
Aearo Holding LLC and 3M Company.

Aearo LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Indianapolis.  AL is a subsidiary of
Aearo Holding LLC and 3M Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael W. Gaines, Esq.
          Tim L. Bowden, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TIM BOWDEN
          306 Northcreek Blvd., Suite 200
          Goodlettsville, TN 37072
          Telephone: (615) 859-1996
          Facsimile: (615) 859-1921
          E-mail: mwgaines01@gmail.com
                  bowden_law@bellsouth.net


3M COMPANY: Bowden Files Suit Over Injuries From Defective Earplugs
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW BOWDEN v. 3M COMPANY, AEARO HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO
INTERMEDIATE, LLC, AEARO, LLC and AEARO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Case No.
3:19-cv-00944-MCR-MJF (N.D. Fla., April 23, 2019), arises out of a
multi-year, multi-million-dollar fraud perpetrated on the United
States Government and the men and women, who served in the United
States military by one of the largest companies in the
country--3M.

From approximately 2003 through 2015, 3M sold to the U.S. military
tens of thousands of defective earplugs, the dual-ended Combat Arms
Earplugs, version 2 ("Combat Arms Earplugs") for the use of U.S.
soldiers and service men and women in combat and training, says the
complaint.  The Plaintiff alleges that the defective Combat Arms
Earplugs have caused thousands of individual service members
permanent and irreparable hearing injuries.

3M Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in St. Paul, Minnesota.  3M is one of the largest
companies in the United States and is in the business of designing,
manufacturing and selling worker safety products which include
hearing protection devices.

Aearo Holding LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business in St. Paul, Minnesota.  AHC was
formerly known as Aearo Holding Corp. and is a wholly owned
subsidiary of 3M Company.

Aearo Technologies LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
its principal place of business in St. Paul.  ATL is a subsidiary
of Aearo Holding LLC and 3M Company, and has operated under the
assumed business names "Aearo Company" and "Aearo Technologies."

Aearo Intermediate LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
its principal place of business in Indianapolis, Indiana.  ATI was
formerly known as Aearo Technologies, Inc.  ATI is a subsidiary of
Aearo Holding LLC and 3M Company.

Aearo LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Indianapolis.  AL is a subsidiary of
Aearo Holding LLC and 3M Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael W. Gaines, Esq.
          Tim L. Bowden, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TIM BOWDEN
          306 Northcreek Blvd., Suite 200
          Goodlettsville, TN 37072
          Telephone: (615) 859-1996
          Facsimile: (615) 859-1921
          E-mail: mwgaines01@gmail.com
                  bowden_law@bellsouth.net


3M COMPANY: Combat Earplugs Caused Hearing Injuries, Phillips Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER WADE PHILLIPS v. 3M COMPANY, AEARO HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO
INTERMEDIATE, LLC, AEARO, LLC and AEARO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Case No.
3:19-cv-00951-MCR-EMT (N.D. Fla., April 23, 2019), alleges that the
Plaintiff was injured as a direct and proximate result of 3M's
fraudulent misrepresentations of its defective Combat Arms
Earplugs.

From approximately 2003 through 2015, 3M sold to the U.S. military
tens of thousands of defective earplugs, the dual-ended Combat Arms
Earplugs, version 2 ("Combat Arms Earplugs") for the use of U.S.
soldiers and service men and women in combat and training, says the
complaint.  The Plaintiff alleges that the defective Combat Arms
Earplugs have caused thousands of individual service members
permanent and irreparable hearing injuries.

3M Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in St. Paul, Minnesota.  3M is one of the largest
companies in the United States and is in the business of designing,
manufacturing and selling worker safety products which include
hearing protection devices.

Aearo Holding LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business in St. Paul, Minnesota.  AHC was
formerly known as Aearo Holding Corp. and is a wholly owned
subsidiary of 3M Company.

Aearo Technologies LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
its principal place of business in St. Paul.  ATL is a subsidiary
of Aearo Holding LLC and 3M Company, and has operated under the
assumed business names "Aearo Company" and "Aearo Technologies."

Aearo Intermediate LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
its principal place of business in Indianapolis, Indiana.  ATI was
formerly known as Aearo Technologies, Inc.  ATI is a subsidiary of
Aearo Holding LLC and 3M Company.

Aearo LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Indianapolis.  AL is a subsidiary of
Aearo Holding LLC and 3M Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael W. Gaines, Esq.
          Tim L. Bowden, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TIM BOWDEN
          306 Northcreek Blvd., Suite 200
          Goodlettsville, TN 37072
          Telephone: (615) 859-1996
          Facsimile: (615) 859-1921
          E-mail: mwgaines01@gmail.com
                  bowden_law@bellsouth.net


3M COMPANY: Dotson Seeks Damages for Earplug-related Injuries
-------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB DOTSON v. 3M COMPANY, AEARO HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO
INTERMEDIATE, LLC, AEARO, LLC and AEARO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Case No.
3:19-cv-00936-MCR-GRJ (N.D. Fla., April 23, 2019), seeks damages
from 3M and its subsidiary entities for injuries caused by the use
of 3M's defective dual-ended Combat Arms Earplugs, version 2 during
the Plaintiff and other veterans' military service.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has suffered substantial
hearing loss as the result of the use of the defective 3M combat
earplugs.

3M Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in St. Paul, Minnesota.  3M is one of the largest
companies in the United States and is in the business of designing,
manufacturing and selling worker safety products which include
hearing protection devices.

Aearo Holding LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business in St. Paul, Minnesota.  AHC was
formerly known as Aearo Holding Corp. and is a wholly owned
subsidiary of 3M Company.

Aearo Technologies LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
its principal place of business in St. Paul.  ATL is a subsidiary
of Aearo Holding LLC and 3M Company, and has operated under the
assumed business names "Aearo Company" and "Aearo Technologies."

Aearo Intermediate LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
its principal place of business in Indianapolis, Indiana.  ATI was
formerly known as Aearo Technologies, Inc.  ATI is a subsidiary of
Aearo Holding LLC and 3M Company.

Aearo LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Indianapolis.  AL is a subsidiary of
Aearo Holding LLC and 3M Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael W. Gaines, Esq.
          Tim L. Bowden, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TIM BOWDEN
          306 Northcreek Blvd., Suite 200
          Goodlettsville, TN 37072
          Telephone: (615) 859-1996
          Facsimile: (615) 859-1921
          E-mail: mwgaines01@gmail.com
                  bowden_law@bellsouth.net


3M COMPANY: Faces Lewis Suit Over Injuries From Faulty Earplugs
---------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC WAYNE LEWIS v. 3M COMPANY, AEARO HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO
INTERMEDIATE, LLC, AEARO, LLC and AEARO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Case No.
3:19-cv-00948-MCR-HTC (N.D. Fla., April 23, 2019), arises out of a
multi-year, multi-million-dollar fraud perpetrated on the United
States Government and the men and women, who served in the United
States military by one of the largest companies in the country,
3M.

From approximately 2003 through 2015, 3M sold to the U.S. military
tens of thousands of defective earplugs, the dual-ended Combat Arms
Earplugs, version 2 ("Combat Arms Earplugs") for the use of U.S.
soldiers and service men and women in combat and training, notes
the complaint.  The Plaintiff contends that the defective Combat
Arms Earplugs have caused thousands of individual service members
permanent and irreparable hearing injuries.

3M Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in St. Paul, Minnesota.  3M is one of the largest
companies in the United States and is in the business of designing,
manufacturing and selling worker safety products which include
hearing protection devices.

Aearo Holding LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business in St. Paul, Minnesota.  AHC was
formerly known as Aearo Holding Corp. and is a wholly owned
subsidiary of 3M Company.

Aearo Technologies LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
its principal place of business in St. Paul.  ATL is a subsidiary
of Aearo Holding LLC and 3M Company, and has operated under the
assumed business names "Aearo Company" and "Aearo Technologies."

Aearo Intermediate LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
its principal place of business in Indianapolis, Indiana.  ATI was
formerly known as Aearo Technologies, Inc.  ATI is a subsidiary of
Aearo Holding LLC and 3M Company.

Aearo LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Indianapolis.  AL is a subsidiary of
Aearo Holding LLC and 3M Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael W. Gaines, Esq.
          Tim L. Bowden, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TIM BOWDEN
          306 Northcreek Blvd., Suite 200
          Goodlettsville, TN 37072
          Telephone: (615) 859-1996
          Facsimile: (615) 859-1921
          E-mail: mwgaines01@gmail.com
                  bowden_law@bellsouth.net


3M COMPANY: Faces Spurlock Suit Over Defective Combat Earplugs
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER SPURLOCK v. 3M COMPANY, AEARO HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO
INTERMEDIATE, LLC, AEARO, LLC and AEARO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Case No.
3:19-cv-00949-MCR-HTC (N.D. Fla., April 23, 2019), arises out of a
multi-year, multi-million-dollar fraud perpetrated on the United
States Government and the men and women, who served in the United
States military by one of the largest companies in the country,
3M.

From approximately 2003 through 2015, 3M sold to the U.S. military
tens of thousands of defective earplugs, the dual-ended Combat Arms
Earplugs, version 2 ("Combat Arms Earplugs") for the use of U.S.
soldiers and service men and women in combat and training, says the
complaint.  The Plaintiff alleges that the defective Combat Arms
Earplugs have caused thousands of individual service members
permanent and irreparable hearing injuries.

3M Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in St. Paul, Minnesota.  3M is one of the largest
companies in the United States and is in the business of designing,
manufacturing and selling worker safety products which include
hearing protection devices.

Aearo Holding LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business in St. Paul, Minnesota.  AHC was
formerly known as Aearo Holding Corp. and is a wholly owned
subsidiary of 3M Company.

Aearo Technologies LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
its principal place of business in St. Paul.  ATL is a subsidiary
of Aearo Holding LLC and 3M Company, and has operated under the
assumed business names "Aearo Company" and "Aearo Technologies."

Aearo Intermediate LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
its principal place of business in Indianapolis, Indiana.  ATI was
formerly known as Aearo Technologies, Inc.  ATI is a subsidiary of
Aearo Holding LLC and 3M Company.

Aearo LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Indianapolis.  AL is a subsidiary of
Aearo Holding LLC and 3M Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael W. Gaines, Esq.
          Tim L. Bowden, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TIM BOWDEN
          306 Northcreek Blvd., Suite 200
          Goodlettsville, TN 37072
          Telephone: (615) 859-1996
          Facsimile: (615) 859-1921
          E-mail: mwgaines01@gmail.com
                  bowden_law@bellsouth.net


3M COMPANY: Kuehner Sues Over Injuries From Defective Earplugs
--------------------------------------------------------------
KEITH KUEHNER v. 3M COMPANY, AEARO HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO
INTERMEDIATE, LLC, AEARO, LLC and AEARO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Case No.
3:19-cv-00937-MCR-GRJ (N.D. Fla., April 23, 2019), arises out of a
multi-year, multi-million-dollar fraud perpetrated on the United
States Government and the men and women, who served in the United
States military by one of the largest companies in the country,
3M.

From approximately 2003 through 2015, 3M sold to the U.S. military
tens of thousands of defective earplugs, the dual-ended Combat Arms
Earplugs, version 2 ("Combat Arms Earplugs") for the use of U.S.
soldiers and service men and women in combat and training, says the
complaint.  The Plaintiff alleges that the defective Combat Arms
Earplugs have caused thousands of individual service members
permanent and irreparable hearing injuries.

3M Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in St. Paul, Minnesota.  3M is one of the largest
companies in the United States and is in the business of designing,
manufacturing and selling worker safety products which include
hearing protection devices.

Aearo Holding LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business in St. Paul, Minnesota.  AHC was
formerly known as Aearo Holding Corp. and is a wholly owned
subsidiary of 3M Company.

Aearo Technologies LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
its principal place of business in St. Paul.  ATL is a subsidiary
of Aearo Holding LLC and 3M Company, and has operated under the
assumed business names "Aearo Company" and "Aearo Technologies."

Aearo Intermediate LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
its principal place of business in Indianapolis, Indiana.  ATI was
formerly known as Aearo Technologies, Inc.  ATI is a subsidiary of
Aearo Holding LLC and 3M Company.

Aearo LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Indianapolis.  AL is a subsidiary of
Aearo Holding LLC and 3M Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael W. Gaines, Esq.
          Tim L. Bowden, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TIM BOWDEN
          306 Northcreek Blvd., Suite 200
          Goodlettsville, TN 37072
          Telephone: (615) 859-1996
          Facsimile: (615) 859-1921
          E-mail: mwgaines01@gmail.com
                  bowden_law@bellsouth.net


3M COMPANY: Mauzy Seeks Damages for Earplug-Related Injuries
------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN MAUZY v. 3M COMPANY, AEARO HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO
INTERMEDIATE, LLC, AEARO, LLC and AEARO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Case No.
3:19-cv-00947-MCR-MJF (N.D. Fla., April 23, 2019), seeks damages
from 3M and its subsidiary entities for injuries caused by the use
of 3M's defective dual-ended Combat Arms Earplugs, version 2 during
the Plaintiff and other veterans' military service.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has suffered substantial
hearing loss as the result of the use of the defective 3M combat
earplugs.

3M Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in St. Paul, Minnesota.  3M is one of the largest
companies in the United States and is in the business of designing,
manufacturing and selling worker safety products which include
hearing protection devices.

Aearo Holding LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business in St. Paul, Minnesota.  AHC was
formerly known as Aearo Holding Corp. and is a wholly owned
subsidiary of 3M Company.

Aearo Technologies LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
its principal place of business in St. Paul.  ATL is a subsidiary
of Aearo Holding LLC and 3M Company, and has operated under the
assumed business names "Aearo Company" and "Aearo Technologies."

Aearo Intermediate LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
its principal place of business in Indianapolis, Indiana.  ATI was
formerly known as Aearo Technologies, Inc.  ATI is a subsidiary of
Aearo Holding LLC and 3M Company.

Aearo LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Indianapolis.  AL is a subsidiary of
Aearo Holding LLC and 3M Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael W. Gaines, Esq.
          Tim L. Bowden, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TIM BOWDEN
          306 Northcreek Blvd., Suite 200
          Goodlettsville, TN 37072
          Telephone: (615) 859-1996
          Facsimile: (615) 859-1921
          E-mail: mwgaines01@gmail.com
                  bowden_law@bellsouth.net


3M COMPANY: Misrepresents Earplug Safety, Cunningham Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
ADAM CUNNINGHAM v. 3M COMPANY, AEARO HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO
INTERMEDIATE, LLC, AEARO, LLC and AEARO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Case No.
3:19-cv-00941-MCR-GRJ (N.D. Fla., April 23, 2019), alleges that the
Defendants have acted with outrageous and deliberate indifference
to the rights and safety of the Plaintiff and to the thousands upon
thousands of other members of the U.S. military by misrepresenting
the safety of 3M's defective dual-ended Combat Arms Earplugs,
version 2.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has suffered substantial
hearing loss as the result of the use of the defective 3M combat
earplugs.

3M Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in St. Paul, Minnesota.  3M is one of the largest
companies in the United States and is in the business of designing,
manufacturing and selling worker safety products which include
hearing protection devices.

Aearo Holding LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business in St. Paul, Minnesota.  AHC was
formerly known as Aearo Holding Corp. and is a wholly owned
subsidiary of 3M Company.

Aearo Technologies LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
its principal place of business in St. Paul.  ATL is a subsidiary
of Aearo Holding LLC and 3M Company, and has operated under the
assumed business names "Aearo Company" and "Aearo Technologies."

Aearo Intermediate LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
its principal place of business in Indianapolis, Indiana.  ATI was
formerly known as Aearo Technologies, Inc.  ATI is a subsidiary of
Aearo Holding LLC and 3M Company.

Aearo LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Indianapolis.  AL is a subsidiary of
Aearo Holding LLC and 3M Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael W. Gaines, Esq.
          Tim L. Bowden, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TIM BOWDEN
          306 Northcreek Blvd., Suite 200
          Goodlettsville, TN 37072
          Telephone: (615) 859-1996
          Facsimile: (615) 859-1921
          E-mail: mwgaines01@gmail.com
                  bowden_law@bellsouth.net


3M COMPANY: Reed Files Suit Over Defective Earplugs
---------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL REED v. 3M COMPANY, AEARO HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO
INTERMEDIATE, LLC, AEARO, LLC and AEARO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Case No.
3:19-cv-00945-MCR-EMT (N.D. Fla., April 23, 2019), accuses the
Defendants of misrepresenting defective earplugs used by U.S.
soldiers and service men and women.

From approximately 2003 through 2015, 3M sold to the U.S. military
tens of thousands of defective earplugs, the dual-ended Combat Arms
Earplugs, version 2 ("Combat Arms Earplugs") for the use of U.S.
soldiers and service men and women in combat and training, notes
the complaint.  The Plaintiff alleges that the defective Combat
Arms Earplugs have caused thousands of individual service members
permanent and irreparable hearing injuries.

3M Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in St. Paul, Minnesota.  3M is one of the largest
companies in the United States and is in the business of designing,
manufacturing and selling worker safety products which include
hearing protection devices.

Aearo Holding LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business in St. Paul, Minnesota.  AHC was
formerly known as Aearo Holding Corp. and is a wholly owned
subsidiary of 3M Company.

Aearo Technologies LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
its principal place of business in St. Paul.  ATL is a subsidiary
of Aearo Holding LLC and 3M Company, and has operated under the
assumed business names "Aearo Company" and "Aearo Technologies."

Aearo Intermediate LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
its principal place of business in Indianapolis, Indiana.  ATI was
formerly known as Aearo Technologies, Inc.  ATI is a subsidiary of
Aearo Holding LLC and 3M Company.

Aearo LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Indianapolis.  AL is a subsidiary of
Aearo Holding LLC and 3M Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael W. Gaines, Esq.
          Tim L. Bowden, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TIM BOWDEN
          306 Northcreek Blvd., Suite 200
          Goodlettsville, TN 37072
          Telephone: (615) 859-1996
          Facsimile: (615) 859-1921
          E-mail: mwgaines01@gmail.com
                  bowden_law@bellsouth.net


3M COMPANY: Smothers Sues Over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSH SMOTHERS v. 3M COMPANY, AEARO HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO
INTERMEDIATE, LLC, AEARO, LLC and AEARO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Case No.
3:19-cv-00940-MCR-GRJ (N.D. Fla., April 23, 2019), arises out of a
multi-year, multi-million-dollar fraud perpetrated on the United
States Government and the men and women, who served in the United
States military by one of the largest companies in the country,
3M.

From approximately 2003 through 2015, 3M sold to the U.S. military
tens of thousands of defective earplugs, the dual-ended Combat Arms
Earplugs, version 2 ("Combat Arms Earplugs") for the use of U.S.
soldiers and service men and women in combat and training, notes
the complaint.  The Plaintiff alleges that the defective Combat
Arms Earplugs have caused thousands of individual service members
permanent and irreparable hearing injuries.

3M Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in St. Paul, Minnesota.  3M is one of the largest
companies in the United States and is in the business of designing,
manufacturing and selling worker safety products which include
hearing protection devices.

Aearo Holding LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business in St. Paul, Minnesota.  AHC was
formerly known as Aearo Holding Corp. and is a wholly owned
subsidiary of 3M Company.

Aearo Technologies LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
its principal place of business in St. Paul.  ATL is a subsidiary
of Aearo Holding LLC and 3M Company, and has operated under the
assumed business names "Aearo Company" and "Aearo Technologies."

Aearo Intermediate LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
its principal place of business in Indianapolis, Indiana.  ATI was
formerly known as Aearo Technologies, Inc.  ATI is a subsidiary of
Aearo Holding LLC and 3M Company.

Aearo LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Indianapolis.  AL is a subsidiary of
Aearo Holding LLC and 3M Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael W. Gaines, Esq.
          Tim L. Bowden, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TIM BOWDEN
          306 Northcreek Blvd., Suite 200
          Goodlettsville, TN 37072
          Telephone: (615) 859-1996
          Facsimile: (615) 859-1921
          E-mail: mwgaines01@gmail.com
                  bowden_law@bellsouth.net


3M COMPANY: Thomas Files Suit Over Injuries From Defective Earplugs
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GREG THOMAS v. 3M COMPANY, AEARO HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE,
LLC, AEARO, LLC and AEARO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Case No.
3:19-cv-00939-MCR-GRJ (N.D. Fla., April 23, 2019), seeks damages
from 3M and its subsidiary entities for injuries caused by the use
of 3M's defective dual-ended Combat Arms Earplugs, version 2 during
the Plaintiff and other veterans' military service.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has suffered substantial
hearing loss as the result of the use of the defective 3M combat
earplugs.

3M Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in St. Paul, Minnesota.  3M is one of the largest
companies in the United States and is in the business of designing,
manufacturing and selling worker safety products which include
hearing protection devices.

Aearo Holding LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business in St. Paul, Minnesota.  AHC was
formerly known as Aearo Holding Corp. and is a wholly owned
subsidiary of 3M Company.

Aearo Technologies LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
its principal place of business in St. Paul.  ATL is a subsidiary
of Aearo Holding LLC and 3M Company, and has operated under the
assumed business names "Aearo Company" and "Aearo Technologies."

Aearo Intermediate LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
its principal place of business in Indianapolis, Indiana.  ATI was
formerly known as Aearo Technologies, Inc.  ATI is a subsidiary of
Aearo Holding LLC and 3M Company.

Aearo LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Indianapolis.  AL is a subsidiary of
Aearo Holding LLC and 3M Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael W. Gaines, Esq.
          Tim L. Bowden, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TIM BOWDEN
          306 Northcreek Blvd., Suite 200
          Goodlettsville, TN 37072
          Telephone: (615) 859-1996
          Facsimile: (615) 859-1921
          E-mail: mwgaines01@gmail.com
                  bowden_law@bellsouth.net


ABC CORP: Bautista Seeks Overtime Pay for Hours Worked Over 40/Week
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Bautista, individually and on behalf all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ABC Corp. d/b/a Ocean
Restaurant, John Doe a/k/a "Boss" and "Lin" Doe, Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-03963 (S.D. N.Y., May 2, 2019) alleges violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law
("NYLL"), arising from Defendants' various willful and unlawful
employment policies, patterns and/or practices.

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

Plaintiff Bautista was hired by Defendants as a delivery worker
from on or about October 24, 2014 to March 2016.

ABC Corp d/b/a Ocean Restaurant, is a domestic business corporation
organization.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALKERMES PLC: Gagnon Class Action Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------
Alkermes plc 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 briefing on the motion for
reconsideration filed in Gagnon v. Alkermes plc, et al., was
scheduled to be completed on May 2, 2019.

On November 22, 2017, a purported stockholder of the Company filed
a putative class action against the Company and certain of its
officers (collectively, "Defendants") in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York captioned Gagnon v.
Alkermes plc, et al., No. 1:17-cv-09178.

This complaint was amended twice since its initial filing. The
second amended complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of Alkermes securities during the period of February 24,
2015 through November 14, 2017 and alleged violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
based on allegedly false or misleading statements and omissions
regarding the Company's marketing practices related to VIVITROL.
The lawsuit sought, among other things, unspecified damages for
alleged inflation in the price of securities, and reasonable costs
and expenses, including attorneys' fees. On June 29, 2018,
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.
On March 28, 2019, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York issued an order granting Defendants'
motion to dismiss and dismissing the case in its entirety and with
prejudice. On April 11, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for
reconsideration. Briefing on the motion for reconsideration will be
completed on May 2, 2019.

Alkermes plc, a biopharmaceutical company, researches, develops,
and commercializes pharmaceutical products to address unmet medical
needs of patients in various therapeutic areas in the United
States, Ireland, and internationally. Alkermes plc was founded in
1987 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


ALKERMES PLC: Karimian and McDermott Class Suits Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alkermes plc 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 United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York consolidated the Karimian v. Alkermes
plc, et al., No. 1:18-cv-07410 and McDermott v. Alkermes plc, et
al., No. 1:19-cv-00624 cases and appointed a lead plaintiff.

On December 27, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company filed
a putative class action against the Company and certain of its
officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York captioned Karimian v. Alkermes plc, et al.,
No. 1:18-cv-07410.

On January 31, 2019, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
similar putative class action against the Company and the same
officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York captioned McDermott v. Alkermes plc, et al.,
No. 1:19-cv-00624.

These complaints were filed on behalf of putative classes of
purchasers of Alkermes securities during the period of February 17,
2017 through November 1, 2018 and allege violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
based on allegedly false or misleading statements and omissions
regarding the Company's regulatory submission for ALKS 5461 and the
FDA's review and consideration of that submission. The lawsuits
seek, among other things, unspecified money damages, prejudgment
and postjudgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees
and other costs.

On March 12, 2019, the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York consolidated the two cases and appointed a
lead plaintiff.

Alkermes plc, a biopharmaceutical company, researches, develops,
and commercializes pharmaceutical products to address unmet medical
needs of patients in various therapeutic areas in the United
States, Ireland, and internationally. Alkermes plc was founded in
1987 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


ALKERMES PLC: NY Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on
March 28, 2019, Judge William H. Pauley of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a
motion to dismiss a putative securities class action asserting
claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder against a pharmaceutical company and certain of its
executives.  Gagnon v. Alkermes PLC, -- F. Supp. 3d -- , 2019 WL
1388700 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2019).  Plaintiff alleged that
defendants made misleading statements in investor and analyst calls
and public filings concerning the efficacy of the company's
opioid-dependence drug Vivitrol and the reasons for increased
revenue from Vivitrol, which plaintiff alleged actually resulted
from deceptive marketing and lobbying tactics.  Id. at *2.  The
Court held that all but one of the alleged misstatements were not
actionable, and as to the one actionable misstatement, plaintiff
had failed to adequately allege scienter.  Because the Court had
previously given plaintiff an opportunity to replead, the action
was dismissed with prejudice.

The Court determined that certain alleged misstatements regarding
the growth in Vivitrol sales were non-actionable puffery.
Specifically, the Court found statements that the growth was
"organic," "grassroots," and "viral" were too general to cause a
reasonable investor to rely upon them.  Id. at *7.  The Court also
found statements that the company followed customary marketing
practices to be non-actionable generalizations about the company's
business practices.  Id. at *8.  Further, the Court found various
other alleged misstatements insufficient to support a claim,
determining that alleged misstatements concerning the drug's
efficacy were not designed to be "ironclad guarantees" of the
drug's effectiveness, but merely explained how the drug was
designed to work.  Id. at *11.  The Court also rejected plaintiff's
claims that statements that Vivitrol was for those who wanted to
"live a drug-free life" were misleading, concluding that such
statements were too vague and aspirational to be actionable, and
held that statements claiming the drug was different from its
competitors merely highlighted the functional distinctions among
the drugs on the market.  Id.

The Court held, however, that one alleged misstatement was
actionable (if barely)???a statement that the company was seeing
"accelerating sales growth" driven by organic growth and the
company's "focus on criminal justice programs," which plaintiff
alleged omitted the true nature of the company's improper marketing
activities, which allegedly involved misrepresentations as to its
efficacy.  Id. at *8.  While emphasizing that the securities laws
do not impose a general duty to disclose mismanagement or uncharged
criminal conduct, the Court determined that a duty to disclose the
true nature of the company's alleged marketing efforts arose
because the company had put the reasons for its success at issue.
Id. at *9.  Thus, at this stage, the Court found that plaintiff had
adequately pleaded an "actionable half-truth."  Id.

The Court, however, held that scienter was not adequately alleged
as to this single actionable misstatement.  First, the Court
considered whether plaintiff had adequately alleged scienter based
on a "motive and opportunity to commit the fraud."  Plaintiff
argued that the individual defendants' stock sales were indicative
of a motive to defraud investors, but the Court found that these
sales did not suggest the requisite "concrete and personal benefit
as a result of the alleged fraud" because the sales came before the
alleged misstatement and also because they were part of a
consistent pattern of monthly sales.  Id. at *13.

The Court also rejected plaintiff's argument for an inference of
scienter based on "conscious misbehavior or recklessness," as
plaintiff did not contend that defendants undertook deliberately
illegal behavior or failed to check information that they had a
duty to monitor.  Id.  The Court concluded the complaint did not
allege that the executive who made the alleged misstatement (or any
other corporate insider) "knew contrary facts or had access to
information contradicting" the statement.  Id. at *14.  While
plaintiff pointed to a white paper allegedly circulated by the
company criticizing a competing drug, as well as a meeting with a
Maryland state official in which the company was asked not to
disparage its competitors, plaintiff failed to allege specific
facts suggesting that the executive who made the alleged
misstatement knew or had access to this information.  Id.

Finally, the Court also rejected plaintiff's allegations of
corporate scienter, noting that plaintiff had not identified an
individual whose scienter could be imputed onto the company and
that plaintiff had not established that the challenged statements
were otherwise so important or dramatic that they would have been
approved by corporate officials with sufficient information to know
that the statement was false.  Id. at *14-15. [GN]


AMERICAN HONDA: Elkins Sues Over Vehicle's Condenser Defect
-----------------------------------------------------------
DAVID ELKINS and LAURA ELKINS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO.,
INC., a California Corporation, and HONDA NORTH AMERICA, INC., a
California Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-00818 (C.D.
Cal., May 2, 2019) is an action for damages and equitable relief
against Defendants.

Between 2016 and the present, Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class
purchased or leased the Class Vehicles, defined as: 2015 - 2019
Honda Civic vehicles ("Class Vehicles"). One of the most popular
basic standard features found in virtually every car in the United
States is the air conditioner. However, from the date of their
manufacture and before they are put into the stream of commerce,
the air conditioning in the Class Vehicles has a common defect--the
design, location, and materials used to manufacture the condenser
cannot withstand ordinary and expected driving conditions
("Condenser Defect"). The condensers, present in the Class
Vehicles, are integral to the performance of the air conditioner as
it is the primary method of dissipating the heat absorbed by the
refrigerant gas in the evaporator. Simply put, if the condenser is
not intact in a closed system, gas will escape, heat will not
transfer and the Class Vehicle's air conditioning will not function
properly, if at all.

The Class Vehicles were negligently designed and/or manufactured by
Honda in that the condenser is placed in a position on the vehicles
that is vulnerable to contact from rocks, pebbles and other road
debris during normal driving conditions on paved roadways. Despite
the clear vulnerability of the condenser to contact, Honda has
failed to design the Class Vehicles in a manner that would provide
protection to the condenser, such as a guard or grill. The Class
Vehicles were also negligently designed and/or manufactured by
Honda in that the condenser is manufactured out of materials that
cannot withstand the force of even minor impacts from rocks,
pebbles and other small road debris that all vehicles encounter
during normal driving conditions. As a result, the condensers are
easily damaged causing the air conditioning system to malfunction,
which results in expensive repairs that Honda refuses to cover
under warranty.

If the Plaintiff and the members of the Plaintiff Class had known
about the Condenser Defect at the time of sale or lease, Plaintiffs
would have not purchased or leased the Class Vehicles, or would
have demanded that the price or cost be reduced. They did not
receive the benefit of their bargain, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs purchased a brand new 2016 Honda Civic EX-T from Honda
of Thousand Oaks, located in Thousand Oaks, California on April 3,
2016.

American Honda Motor Co., Inc. ("AHM") is a corporation organized
under the laws of the State of California and has its principal
place of business in Torrance, California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.
     21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Phone: (323) 306-4234
     Fax: (866) 633-0228
     Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com

          - and ???

     Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
     Adam A. Edwards, Esq.
     GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
     800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
     Knoxville, TN 37929
     Email: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
            adam@gregcolemanlaw.com


ANYTIME FTNESS: Sent Unsolicited SMS Ads, Bergeron Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Ramsey J. Bergeron, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Anytime Fitness AZ Development Group,
L.L.C. and L13cky Health L.L.C., d/b/a Anytime Fitness, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02790-CDB (D. Ariz., May 2, 2019)
brought this action for legal and equitable remedies resulting from
the illegal actions of Defendants in transmitting promotional SMS
text messages en masse to Plaintiff's cellular telephone and the
cellular telephones of thousands of other individuals across the
country, without prior "express written consent" within the meaning
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").

Neither Plaintiff nor any of the proposed class members provided
their "prior express written consent" or any other form of consent
to allow Defendants or any affiliate, subsidiary, or agent of
Defendants to transmit SMS text message advertisements to Plaintiff
or to any of the proposed class members' cellular telephone numbers
by means of an "automatic telephone dialing system," within the
meaning of the TCPA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is an individual and a "person" and a citizen and
resident of Scottsdale, Arizona.

Anytime Fitness AZ Development Group, L.L.C. is an Arizona Limited
Liability Company doing business in Arizona.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Scott C. Harris, Esq.
     Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP
     900 W. Morgan Street
     Raleigh, NC 27603
     Phone: (919) 600-5003
     Fax: (919) 600-5035
     Email: scott@wbmllp.com

          - and -

     Edward H. Maginnis, Esq.
     Maginnis Law, PLLC
     4801 Glenwood Ave, Suite 310
     Raleigh, NC 27612
     Phone: (919) 526-0450
     Fax:  (919) 882-8763
     Email: emaginnis@maginnislaw.com

          - and -

     Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
     Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC
     7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230
     Boca Raton, FL 33487
     Phone: (561) 826-5477
     Fax: (561) 961-5684
     Email: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com



APPLE INC: iPhone Owners May Sue for Monopolization, SCOTUS Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
In APPLE INC. v. PEPPER ET AL., No. 17???204 (U.S.), the U.S.
Supreme Court held that under Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431
U. S. 720, iPhone owners were direct purchasers who may sue Apple
for alleged monopolization.

Apple Inc. sells iPhone applications, or apps, directly to iPhone
owners through its App Store -- the only place where iPhone owners
may lawfully buy apps.  Most of those apps are created by
independent developers under contracts with Apple.  Apple charges
the developers a $99 annual membership fee, allows them to set the
retail price of the apps, and charges a 30% commission on every app
sale.  Respondents, four iPhone owners, sued Apple, alleging that
the company has unlawfully monopolized the aftermarket for iPhone
apps.  Apple moved to dismiss, arguing that the iPhone owners could
not sue because they were not direct purchasers from Apple under
Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U. S. 720.  The District Court
agreed, but the U.S. Court of the Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed, concluding that the iPhone owners were direct purchasers
because they purchased apps directly from Apple.

Section 4 of the Clayton Act provides that "any person who shall be
injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden
in the antitrust laws may sue."  According to the Supreme Court,
this broad text readily covers consumers who purchase goods or
services at higher-than-competitive prices from an allegedly
monopolistic retailer.  Applying Section 4, the Supreme Court has
consistently stated that "the immediate buyers from the alleged
antitrust violators" may maintain a suit against the antitrust
violators, citing Kansas v. UtiliCorp United Inc., 497 U. S. 199,
207, but has ruled that indirect purchasers who are two or more
steps removed from the violator in a distribution chain may not
sue.  Unlike the consumer in Illinois Brick, the iPhone owners here
are not consumers at the bottom of a vertical distribution chain
who are attempting to sue manufacturers at the top of the chain,
the Court said.  The absence of an intermediary in the distribution
chain between Apple and the consumer is dispositive, the Court
ruled.

Apple argues that Illinois Brick allows consumers to sue only the
party who sets the retail price, whether or not the party sells the
good or service directly to the complaining party. But the Supreme
Court pointed out that that theory suffers from three main
problems:

   1. It contradicts statutory text and precedent by requiring the
Court to rewrite the rationale of Illinois Brick and to gut its
longstanding bright-line rule.  Any ambiguity in Illinois Brick
should be resolved in the direction of the statutory text, which
states that "any person" injured by an antitrust violation may sue
to recover damages.

   2. Apple's theory is not persuasive economically or legally. It
would draw an arbitrary and unprincipled line among retailers based
on their financial arrangements with their manufacturers or
suppliers. And it would permit a consumer to sue a monopolistic
retailer when the retailer set the retail price by marking up the
price it had paid the manufacturer or supplier for the good or
service but not when the manufacturer or supplier set the retail
price and the retailer took a commission on each sale.

   3. Apple's theory would provide a roadmap for monopolistic
retailers to structure transactions with manufacturers or suppliers
so as to evade antitrust claims by consumers and thereby thwart
effective antitrust enforcement.

The Court pointed out that contrary to Apple's argument, the three
Illinois Brick rationales for adopting the direct-purchaser rule
cut strongly in respondents' favor.

First, Apple posits that allowing only the upstream app developers
-- and not the downstream consumers -- to sue Apple would mean more
effective antitrust enforcement.  But that makes little sense, and
it would directly contradict the longstanding goal of effective
private enforcement and consumer protection in antitrust cases.

Second, Apple warns that calculating the damages in successful
consumer antitrust suits against monopolistic retailers might be
complicated.  But Illinois Brick, according to the Supreme Court,
is not a get-out-of-court-free card for monopolistic retailers to
play any time that a damages calculation might be complicated.

Third, Apple claims that allowing consumers to sue will result in
"conflicting claims to a common fund -- the amount of the alleged
overcharge," the Court said, citing Illinois Brick, 431 U. S., at
737.

But this is not a case where multiple parties at different levels
of a distribution chain are trying to recover the same
passed-through overcharge initially levied by the manufacturer at
the top of the chain, the Supreme Court concluded.

Justice Kavanaugh, delivered the opinion of the Court, in which
Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan, joined. Justice
Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts
and Justices Thomas and Alito, joined.

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's Opinion dated May 13, 2019,
is available for free at https://tinyurl.com/y6xpf9xz

Apple Inc., Defendant, is represented by:

     Daniel Murray Wall, Esq.
     Sadik Harry Huseny, Esq.
     Christopher S. Yates, Esq.
     Latham & Watkins LLP
     Tel: 415-395-8240

         - and -

     J. Scott Ballenger, Esq.
     Latham & Watkins LLP
     Tel: 202-637-2200

Plaintiffs, Robert Pepper, Stephen H. Schwartz, Edward W. Hayter,
and Eric Terrell, represented by:

     Alexander H. Schmidt, Esq.
     Mark C. Rifkin, Esq.
     Michael Liskow, Esq.
     Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
     Tel: 212-545-4600

         - and -

     Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
     Francis M. Gregorek, Esq.
     Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
     Tel: 619-239-4599


ARS NATIONAL: Jin Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARS National Services
Inc. The case is styled as Sunhee Jin individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARS National Services
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02627 (E.D. N.Y., May 3, 2019).

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

ARS National Services, Inc. offers accounts receivable management
services. It caters to financial services organizations; banks; and
credit card companies. The company is based in Escondido,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ARS NATIONAL: Kucur Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARS National Services
Inc. The case is styled as Suleyman Kucur individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARS National
Services Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02629 (E.D. N.Y., May 3,
2019).

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

ARS National Services, Inc. offers accounts receivable management
services. It caters to financial services organizations; banks; and
credit card companies. The company is based in Escondido,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ASSET RECOVERY: Williamson Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Penn.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asset Recovery
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Veronica Williamson on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Asset
Recovery Solutions, LLC, John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-01925-PD (E.D. Pa., May 3, 2019).

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

Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC is a full service asset recovery
management company. They offer a full range of solutions that
includes credit cards, student loans, consumer loan, automotive and
retail.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     ROBERT P. COCCO, ESQ.
     LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT P. COCCO PC
     1500 WALNUT ST., STE 900
     PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102
     Phone: (215) 351-0200
     Fax: (215) 922-3874
     Email: rcocco@rcn.com


ASTOR HOUSE: West Files ADA Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against THE ASTOR HOUSE, LLC.
The case is styled as Mary West on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE ASTOR HOUSE, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00653-WED (E.D. Wis., May 3, 2019).

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

The Astor House was the first luxury hotel in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AT&T INC: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., announces that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of all persons or entities who acquired
AT&T Inc. (NYSE: T) securities pursuant to and/or traceable to the
Form S-4 Registration Statement and Prospectus filed in connection
with AT&T's June 2018 acquisition of and merger with Time Warner.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement touted false
and misleading financial results, trends, and metrics and omitted
material facts rendering those financial results, trends, and
metrics materially misleading.  The complaint further alleges that
the Registration Statement touted yearly and quarterly growth
trends in AT&T's Entertainment Group segment, particularly Video
Entertainment, including quarterly subscriber gains in its DirecTV
Now service sufficient to offset any decrease in traditional
satellite DirecTV subscribers, such that AT&T was experiencing an
ongoing trend of total video subscriber "Net Additions."

If you acquired AT&T securities pursuant to and/or traceable to the
registration statement and suffered a loss, have information, have
information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters please contact:

         Brandon Walker, Esq.
         Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
         Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
         Telephone: (212) 355-4648
         Website: www.bespc.com
                  https://bespc.com/t/  
         Email: investigations@bespc.com
                fortunato@bespc.com
                walker@bespc.com [GN]


BALL METAL: Ct. Orders Class Discovery Submission in Westfall Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California, Sacramento Division, an Order regarding Class Discovery
in the case captioned ROBERT WESTFALL, DAVID E. ANDERSON, LYNN
BOBBY, and DAVID ELLINGER, Plaintiffs, v. BALL METAL BEVERAGE
CONTAINER CORP., Defendant. Case No. 2:16-cv-02632-KJM-CKD. (E.D.
Cal.)

The Defendant provided the Plaintiffs with a proposed discovery
plan, including input from an expert qualified in statistical class
sampling, that based on the expert's opinion, 121 class members
randomly selected from the total class of 169 individuals must be
deposed to meet the minimum requirement to provide statistically
significant evidence that there is liability for violation of
California meal or rest period rules on a class-wide basis.

The Plaintiffs provided a written response to the Defendant's
proposed discovery plan, absent input from any expert, that only
10% of the putative class (total of 16 persons) should be deposed.

The Defendant provided the Plaintiffs with a rebuttal expert report
responding to the Plaintiffs' proposed discovery plan, taking the
position that the Plaintiffs' proposal was wholly inadequate as the
Plaintiffs' proposed sample size was less than the size established
precedent for statistical sampling to establish wage and hour
violations across a putative class has already found too small such
that it violates a defendant's due process rights;

Accordingly, a discovery dispute has arisen between the Parties
concerning the number, extent, and nature of class member
depositions to be taken.

Pursuant to the Court's Order on the Joint Stipulation Regarding
Class Discovery and Trial Plan (ECF No. 86), the Parties submit the
Joint Report, regarding aspects of a discovery plan that are
agreed-upon, describing their respective positions on the discovery
dispute, and proposing a schedule for completing such discovery:

   1. Aspects of the discovery plan that are agreed upon:

      The Parties agree that additional discovery, including class
member depositions is warranted. The Parties further agree that
they have met and conferred as required by Civil Local Rule 251(b)
in a good faith effort to resolve the outstanding dispute regarding
the additional discovery without court action.  

   2. Description of Dispute regarding Discovery Plan:

      Defendant's Position -- In a certified wage and hour class
action case, to the extent Plaintiffs seek to introduce class-wide
evidence based on testimony from a limited number of witnesses,
Plaintiffs must submit a trial plan supported by sound statistical
science according to which the trial may be conducted based on such
limited evidence without inhibiting the defendant's due process
rights.

      Defendants submitted a proposed class discovery plan to
Plaintiffs, including an expert report supported by statistical
science, proposing 121 class members be randomly selected from the
total class size of 169 persons, to provide statistically
significant evidence that there is liability for violation of
California meal or rest period rules on a class-wide bases, given
the various job titles and conflicting facts with Plaintiffs'
theory among class members. Depositions of the randomly selected
121 class members would last approximately 2-3 hours each, with
approximately five (5) days of such depositions taking place every
calendar month until completed.

     Plaintiff's Position -- Plaintiff's theory of liability rests
on a system wide practice/policy that affects all putative class
members. The primary gist of the dispute is that when the employees
used the Suitable Resting Facilities they did so on the condition
that they remained vigilant and continued to work by monitoring
pages much like the security guards in California's recent
California Supreme Court decision in Augustus v. ABM Security
Services Inc., 2 Cal.5th 257 (2016).

This constant monitoring deprived them of meal and rest periods
free from all duties. It is Plaintiffs' contention that BALL's use
of the public address system and its requirement that employees
listen to the communications to see if they applied to them and
respond if necessary commonly affected all plaintiffs and class
members. Plaintiffs therefore oppose Defendant's trial plan which
seeks to depose 121 of the 169 putative class members as
unnecessary and overly burdensome for a system wide
practice/policy. Defendant has access to records that cover many of
the subjects that they seek to examine the putative class
including.

Proposed Schedule for Completing Discovery, and Modifications to
Other Pre-Trial Deadlines

The Parties agree that all pre-trial dates should be vacated, to be
re-set based on the outcome of Judge Delaney's resolution of the
discovery dispute set forth herein. However, below are the
respective dates that the Parties propose should each of them
prevail on the dispute
The Parties shall submit the discovery dispute1 referenced in the
above stipulation, for resolution by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K.
Delaney pursuant to Civil Local Rule 251;
All current pre-trial deadlines are vacated; and  

Within fourteen (14) days of Judge Delaney's ruling on the Parties'
discovery dispute, the Parties shall submit a joint report re
pre-trial schedule, to include dates for fact and expert discovery
cutoff, motion cutoffs, and trial.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 28, 2019 Order is
available at  https://tinyurl.com/y2c6v6ss from Leagle.com.

Robert Westfall, Plaintiff, represented by Erin M. Scharg, Eason &
Tamborin & Matthew R. Eason, Eason & Tambornini.

Ball Metal Beverage Container Corporation, a Colorado Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Christopher M. Ahearn --
cahearn@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher & Phillips LLP, Erin Jillian
Price -- eprice@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher & Phillips LLP & John
Keith Skousen -  jskousen@fisherphillips.com - Fisher & Phillips,
LLP.


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Ignacuinos Files Tort Class Suit in Conn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticas Inc. The case is styled as Carl Ignacuinos on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Boehringer
Ingelheim Pharmaceuticas Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00672
(D. Conn., May 3, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Tort Product Liability.

Boehringer Ingelheim is a global pharmaceutical company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Stephen M. Bourtin, Esq.
     The Boyd Law Group
     68 Southfield Avenue
     Two Stamford Landing
     Stamford, Suite 100
     Stamford, CT 06902
     Phone: (203) 921-0322
     Fax: (203) 975-1110
     Email: sbourtin@theboydlawgroup.com


BOEING CO: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that Boeing's legal troubles grew on April 9 as a
new lawsuit accused the company of defrauding shareholders by
concealing safety deficiencies in its 737 MAX planes before two
fatal crashes led to their worldwide grounding.

The proposed class action filed in Chicago federal court seeks
damages for alleged securities fraud violations, after Boeing's
market value tumbled by $34 billion within two weeks of the March
10 crash of an Ethiopian Airlines 737 MAX.

Chief Executive Dennis Muilenburg and Chief Financial Officer
Gregory Smith were also named as defendants.

Boeing spokesman Charles Bickers had no immediate comment.

According to the complaint, Boeing "effectively put profitability
and growth ahead of airplane safety and honesty" by rushing the 737
MAX to market to compete with Airbus SE, while leaving out "extra"
or "optional" features designed to prevent the Ethiopian Airlines
and Lion Air crashes.

It also said Boeing's statements about its growth prospects and the
737 MAX were undermined by its alleged conflict of interest from
retaining broad authority from federal regulators to assess the
plane's safety.

Richard Seeks, the lead plaintiff, said Boeing's compromises began
to emerge after the Ethiopian Airlines crash killed all 157
onboard, five months after the Lion Air crash killed 189.

Seeks said he bought 300 Boeing shares in early March, and sold
them at a loss within the last two weeks. The lawsuit seeks damages
for Boeing stock investors from Jan. 8 to March 21.

Shareholders often file lawsuits accusing companies of securities
fraud for concealing material negative information that causes the
stock price to decline upon becoming public.

Chicago-based Boeing faces many other lawsuits over the crashes,
including by victims' families and by participants in its employee
retirement plans.

Boeing said on April 9 that aircraft orders in the first quarter
fell to 95 from 180 a year earlier, with no orders for the 737 MAX
following the worldwide grounding.

On April 5, it said it planned to cut monthly 737 production to 42
planes from 52, and was making progress on a 737 MAX software
update to prevent further accidents.

The case is Seeks v Boeing Co et al, U.S. District Court, Northern
District of Illinois, No. 19-02394. [GN]


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Celgene Acquisition-Related Suits Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 the company
continues to defend class action suits related to its acquisition
of Celgene Corp.

Following the announcement of the Company's planned acquisition of
Celgene Corp., thirteen complaints were filed by Celgene
shareholders in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware, U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware seeking to enjoin the
Company's planned acquisition of Celgene.

The complaints in these actions name as defendants Celgene and the
members of Celgene's Board of Directors. Five of these complaints
also name the Company and Burgundy Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company that was formed solely for the purpose of
completing the pending acquisition of Celgene and will be merged
with and into Celgene upon the completion of the acquisition, as
defendants. Of the complaints naming the Company as a defendant,
four are styled as putative class actions. The plaintiffs allege
violations of various federal securities laws and breaches of
fiduciary duties in connection with the acquisition of Celgene by
the Company. Two of these complaints were voluntarily dismissed in
April 2019.

Separately, a fourteenth complaint styled as a putative class
action was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
on behalf of the Company's shareholders naming members of the
Company's Board of Directors as defendants. This complaint alleges
that each of the members of the Company's Board of Directors
breached his or her fiduciary duties to the Company and its
shareholders by failing to disclose material information about the
pending acquisition. The lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed in April
2019.

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.


CANADA: Lawyer's Licensed Revoked for Stealing Settlement Money
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Buist, writing for The Hamilton Spectator, reports that
Hamilton lawyer John Findlay had his licence to practice law
revoked on April 9 after being found guilty of professional
misconduct for misappropriating nearly $2 million from a class
action settlement fund.

The Law Society of Ontario tribunal ordered Findlay to pay $1.75
million in restitution to make up for the missing money. He was
also ordered to pay $51,500 in legal costs to the tribunal.

Findlay did not appear at the hearing in downtown Toronto. He sent
a letter indicating it wouldn't be prudent for him to appear and
answer questions since he is facing criminal proceedings on the
same matter.

He indicated in the letter he was prepared to accept whatever
decision the tribunal made.

Attempts to reach Findlay, who lives in Caledonia, were
unsuccessful.

Findlay has been charged with theft, fraud and breach of trust for
allegedly taking nearly $2 million from a trust account for class
action participants.

The disciplinary action and criminal charges relate to Findlay's
actions as the legal counsel for a class-action lawsuit launched in
2006 on behalf of property owners and businesses in Caledonia that
suffered losses during an Indigenous land claim dispute over the
Douglas Creek Estates housing development.

The tense standoff resulted in violence and blockades that closed
Argyle Street and Highway 6 -- two major routes in Caledonia.

The lawsuit against several parties, including the Ontario
government and the OPP, was settled in 2011 for $20 million.

The first signs of trouble came to light when the Law Society
conducted a spot audit of Findlay's law firm in June 2014.

In May 2017, Findlay self-reported to the Law Society that he had
used up nearly $2 million from the settlement fund's reserves and
was "not able to replenish the funds."

The three-member tribunal panel found Findlay guilty on five
separate allegations.

They found he misappropriated $1.99 million from the settlement
fund and that the money had started to go missing as early as March
2012, five years before he reported himself to the Law Society.

The tribunal found that Findlay had breached a court order
requiring him to keep $1.5 million in a reserve account and that he
breached a second court order when he failed to disburse the
settlement funds as ordered by the court.

The panel also found Findlay guilty of misleading a lawyer for
Ontario's Attorney General when he said the money was held in GIC
funds when in fact Findlay had already misappropriated the money,
and guilty of misleading the Law Society and its auditor by falsely
stating he still had the money in interest-bearing accounts.

"It's fact, he stole money," Law Tribunal chair Paul Cooper said at
one point during the April 9 hearing.

"He lied to an auditor, another lawyer and judges."

Findlay has been suspended from practicing law since June 2017.

"The misappropriation was on a large scale, it went on for a number
of years and it affected a number of clients," said Lindsay Beck,
lawyer for the Law Society of Ontario who presented the case
against Findlay.

"It wasn't the case of an 'Oops' or an administrative error," Beck
said.

On top of the money misappropriated by Findlay, he and his law firm
had already been paid $3.3 million in fees and disbursements for
their work as legal counsel for the class action lawsuit.

It was not made clear at the hearing what happened to the money
Findlay misappropriated. There was a suggestion some of the money
may have been used to prop up Trefoil Marine, described as one of
Findlay's companies.

It wasn't the first time Findlay was under suspension by the Law
Society for misappropriating money from a trust fund.

He was suspended from 2001 to 2003 for misappropriating $75,000 in
1997 and 1998. [GN]


CASINO RAMA: Decision on Proposed $60MM Class Action Expected
-------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Conneller, writing for Casino.Org News, reports that lawyers
for Casino Rama in Orillia, Ontario at a Superior Court hearing on
March 28 denied that as many as 200,000 people had been affected by
a hacker who breached its servers in 2016 and stole sensitive
customer information -- they put the figure at 10,000 to 11,000,
the Canadian Press reports.

A judge said a decision on whether to allow a proposed class-action
lawsuit that seeks $60 million in damages from the casino -- which
is owned by the Chippewas of Rama First Nation -- could be expected
in May.

It was the first time representatives of the casino had given any
indication of the number of victims of the cyberattack, which
resulted in the publication private information -- including names,
addresses, credit files, gambling losses, income and place of
employment -- of 10,900 people.

Some of the victims had been part of the casino's voluntary
self-exclusion program.

The hacker dumped 4.5 gigabytes of data, or 14,000 files, into the
public domain, but claimed to have stolen much more and threatened
to release 150 gigabytes.

Full Extent of Breach Unclear

The casino's reluctance to talk numbers has come back to bite it,
as it now seeks to limit the number of people that could
potentially join the suit, if it is allowed to proceed.

The plaintiffs note the hacker's claim to have thousands of
additional files and that the casino sent notifications to tens of
thousands of people not ten thousand after the attack, warning them
their personal details may have been compromised.

Cathy Beagan-Flood, Esq. -- cbe@blakes.com -- representing the
casino, said this was merely a precaution and the casino should not
be punished for its transparency.

But the plaintiffs argue the casino has not been transparent at
all.

"The specifics of when the hacker infiltrated Casino Rama's
network, how the hacker infiltrated Casino Rama's network and
servers, and the full extent of the data stolen by the hacker, were
not released by Casino Rama, and are unknown to the plaintiffs,"
says the filing.

'Inadequate' Security

Lawyer for the plaintiffs, Ted Charney, Esq. --
tedc@charneylawyers.com -- cited a report from Ontario's privacy
commissioner that concluded the casino did not have "reasonable
security measures in place to prevent unauthorized access to
records of personal information," and that it had failed to
effectively investigate an attack on one server, before the hacker
struck again on a second server.

Charney argued the alleged negligence warrants a broader class
definition for the suit: "Thank goodness we now have the
commissioner's report," he said. "We have evidence now that a
substantial number of patrons had data on the two servers. There's
some basis in fact that their information wasn't adequately
protected." [GN]


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Colorado Judge Tosses Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on
March 29, 2019, Judge Wiley Y. Daniel of the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado dismissed with prejudice a
putative securities class action asserting claims under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder against
the restaurant chain Chipotle and certain of its executives.  Nardy
v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-1760 (WYD) (STV), slip
op. (D. Colo. Mar. 29, 2019), ECF No. 64.  Plaintiffs alleged that,
in the wake of foodborne illness outbreaks at Chipotle restaurants,
defendants made misrepresentations and omissions regarding the
company's compliance with food safety regulations and its
implementation and training of employees on food safety practices.
The Court held that plaintiffs' various allegations failed to
assert actionable misrepresentations, or in certain cases did not
adequately allege scienter, or loss causation.

Plaintiffs' allegations centered on statements that Chipotle had
made expressing the importance of food safety, the Company's
dedication to food safety, and steps Chipotle was taking to improve
food safety in the wake of well-publicized outbreaks.  With respect
to statements that employee training and food safety programs were
in compliance with applicable law, the Court concluded that
Chipotle's actions were consistent with its statements and that
plaintiffs failed to identify applicable laws that Chipotle was not
in compliance with.  Id. at 21-25.  The Court also concluded that
statements regarding Chipotle's investments and confidence in its
employees, confidence in its food safety programs, and statements
that it was undertaking efforts to make its food as safe as
possible, were expressions of confidence in future progress that no
reasonable investor would base their investment decisions upon.
Id. at 28-31.

The Court also rejected plaintiffs' claims for violations of Items
303 and 503 of the SEC Rules.  First, the Court held that, although
there was no ruling on the issue from the Tenth Circuit Court of
Appeals, a violation of Items 303 or 503, which call for disclosure
of, among other things, significant events, risks, or trends, did
not by themselves constitute a violation of Rule 10b-5 but,
instead, would only be "probative of what a company is otherwise
obliged to disclose."  Id. at 20 (quoting Anderson v. Abbott Labs,
140 F. Supp. 2d 894, 909 (N.D. Ill. 2001)).  Second, the Court
rejected plaintiffs' claims that failure to disclose alleged
training and safety risks constituted violations of Rule 10b-5
because plaintiffs had failed to adequately allege either loss
causation or scienter.  Specifically, the Court held that
plaintiffs had failed to plead loss causation with regard to
certain events because news of store-specific outbreaks did not
disclose underlying issues with regard to Chipotle's safety
measures and that plaintiffs had failed to plead knowledge or
scienter with regard to allegations of insufficient training.  Id.
at 32-34.  With respect to allegations that Chipotle's omissions
regarding food safety audits, remediation efforts, imperfect
culture, and additional outbreaks were actionable, the Court also
disagreed, holding that Chipotle had already disclosed that it
remained at "high risk for food-borne illness" even after
implementing remediation efforts and that outbreaks continued to
have a negative impact on performance.  Id. at 34-38.

The Court also considered and rejected plaintiffs' motion for leave
to amend.  Plaintiffs argued that they had received additional
documentation since the filing of their complaint that proved the
existence of an outbreak that was allegedly omitted from
defendants' filings.  The Court held that this argument was
"futile," given that the Court had rejected claims that
non-disclosure of any specific outbreak was actionable, "regardless
of whether those outbreaks were confirmed or refuted."  Id. at 40.
Second, the Court rejected plaintiffs' argument that statements
made by an individual defendant on an earnings call would salvage
certain claims.  The Court concluded that these statements did not
support plaintiffs' claims because they were made before the class
period and also because they concerned the implementation of food
safety protocols and the quality of the company's employees,
matters that the Court had already determined were either not
material misrepresentations or were mere puffery.  Id. [GN]


COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH: Salazar Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH SALAZAR AND JEAN MANUEL PEREZ MIRO, and other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH SERVICES,
INC., A Foreign Profit Corporation, MORRILLO M. HALL, JR.,
Individually, JIM VAN DUSEN Individually, JUDY C. HALL,
individually, MELL HALL Individually, JAMES MONCRIEF Individually,
GARY G. PALMER, Individually, EDWIN COOPER, III, Individually, TODD
S. HALL, Individually, STUART CLARK, Individually, and NED COOPER,
Individually, Defendant, Case No. 88917907 (11th Circuit Ct., Dade
Cty., Fla. May 2, 2019) seeks overtime compensation and other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week or more
weeks in one during his employment with Defendants, notes the
complaint. Likewise, the other employees similarly situated to
Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours in one or more
work weeks during their employment with Defendants.  However,
Defendants did not pay them time and one-half wages for all of the
overtime hours worked, says the complaint.

Plaintiff performed non-exempt duties in connection with her
employment as a cashier and server for Defendants in Miami-Dade
County, Florida.

Comprehensive Health Services, Inc. was an enterprise engaged in
interstate commerce or in the production of goods for
commerce.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Anthony Georges-Pierre, Esq.
     Max L. Horowitz, Esq.
     REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
     44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
     Miami, FL 33130
     Phone: (305) 416-5000
     Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
     Email: agp@rgpattorneys.com
            mhorowitz@rgpattorneys.com


CONAGRA BRANDS: Loses Bid to Consolidate Margarine Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tomas Kassahun, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California has denied a motion to consolidate two class action
complaints against Conagra over the alleged mislabeling of trans
fat in margarine.

According to the opinion, plaintiff Troy Backus was rejected as a
class representative in 2016 for presenting individualized issues
and failing to satisfy the typicality requirement. Backus then
filed another putative class action against Conagra with new
plaintiffs Marjel McFaddin and Mark Beasley, according to the
ruling.

In the ruling issued March 5, District Judge William Alsup said
Backus has already failed class certification and there is a risk
that his individualized issues could cause confusion.

According to the opinion, Backus brought his class action in
January 2016 against Conagra Brands Inc.'s alleged use and
mislabeling of artificial trans fats in its margarine products.

Backus purchased and consumed a variety of margarine spreads and
sticks under the brand name Fleischmann's, which was manufactured
and sold by ConAgra Foods, predecessor to defendant Conagra Brands,
the opinion stated.

"Backus' amended complaint alleged various claims for relief for
Conagra's use of artificial trans fat, on the basis that using
artificial trans fat in food products was unlawful and unfair, and
for its product mislabeling, on the basis that its labels
misrepresented the product," Alsup wrote.

When Backus filed another class action against Conagra with new
plaintiffs McFaddin and Beasley, Alsup said the complaint included
the use and mislabeling claims that had already been dismissed.

"Accordingly, Conagra again filed a motion to dismiss," the opinion
stated. "With the motion still pending, however, both the Backus
and McFaddin actions were stayed in October 2017 in light of two
separate actions, both also brought by plaintiffs' counsel, fully
briefed and pending before our court of appeals that teed up the
same issues of law that controlled these actions."

Alsup said the benefits of allowing Backus to file as a class
representative is unclear.

"Plaintiffs' counsel stated at oral argument that the benefit was
access to discovery from the Backus action," the opinion stated.
"That benefit, however, can still be achieved without consolidation
and without the possible confusion caused by plaintiff Backus's
individualized issues. Thus, the motion to consolidate is denied."


Alsup said the counsel for plaintiffs had attached a consolidated,
amended complaint that recycles arguments and "claims already
rejected in the Backus action to attempt to gain another bite of
the apple."

"The consolidated complaint attempts to reintroduce claims related
to the use of partially hydrogenated oils that had already been
dismissed in the Backus action," the opinion stated. "...Thus, the
motion to amend the complaints with claims related to the use of
partially hydrogenated oils is denied."

Alsup also denied the attempt to reintroduce mislabeling claims
that were based on labels claiming "70 percent less saturated fat"
and "100 percent less cholesterol" than butter.

"Those mislabeling claims were dismissed in the Backus action and
plaintiffs has provided no change in factual or legal circumstance
to support why they should be allowed again," the opinion stated.

Alsup however said the mislabeling claims and the healthy lifestyle
mislabeling claim that survived the original Backus action can be
included in the amended complaints. [GN]


CREDIT COLLECTION: Court Dismisses F. Riccio's FDCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued an Opinion granting Defendant's Motion for a Judgment on the
Pleadings in the case captioned FRANK RICCIO, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CREDIT COLLECTION
SERVICES, and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendant. Civil Action No. 17-8889
(FLW) (LHG). (D.N.J.).

The Defendant moves for a judgment on the pleadings dismissing
Plaintiff's claims, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(c).

This putative class action suit against Defendant Credit Collection
Services (CCS), arises out of Plaintiff Frank Riccio's (Plaintiff)
claim that Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act (FDCPA), by sending a debt-collection letter that failed to
adequately notify Plaintiff of his rights to dispute a debt.

The Defendant now moves for a judgment on the pleadings, arguing
that the Plaintiff fails to state a legal claim under the FDCPA.

FDCPA

Congress enacted the FDCPA to eliminate abusive debt collection
practices by debt collectors. The purpose of the FDCPA is to ensure
that consumers are protected from fraudulent practices by
prohibiting certain abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection
practices. Under the FDCPA, a debt collector is prohibited from
engaging in any conduct the natural consequences of which is to
harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the
collection of debt. As such, a debt collector cannot use any false,
deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with
the collection of any debt.

Section 1692g

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated Section
1692g(a)(3) by sending an initial communication, i.e.the October 7
Letter, that failed to effectively inform Plaintiff what he must do
in order to dispute the alleged debt.

Under these provisions of the FDCPA, debt collectors must provide
consumers with an explanation of their rights, which is known as a
validation notice. The mere inclusion of the statutory debt
validation notice in the debt collection letter by debt collectors
is not sufficient to comply with the law, however, true compliance
with the FDCPA by debt collectors requires that the validation
notice is conveyed effectively to the debtor.

Here, the Plaintiff maintains that, although the October 7 Letter
contained the statutorily mandated validation notice informing
Plaintiff how to dispute his debt, the letter also contained
extraneous contact information that overshadows or contradicts the
notice. This allegedly overshadowing language consisted of an
invitation for Plaintiff to call CCS should he have any questions,
concerns or would simply like personal assistance, and two separate
telephone numbers at which to contact CCS.

According to the Plaintiff, these pieces of information could have
confused the least sophisticated consumer that he could dispute the
debt by calling one of the two numbers, when, in the Third Circuit,
any dispute, to be effective, must be in writing.

Here, in contrast, the sentence inviting the consumer to call CCS's
customer service agents has no mention of disputing the debt. The
only reference of disputing the debt is found in the standard
validation notice a paragraph below, which, as discussed,
explicitly instructs Plaintiff to dispute the debt in writing.
Moreover, nothing about the form of the letter overshadows or
contradicts the information in the validation notice.
Additionally, the CCS letter is one-sided, presented in a single
font that is sufficiently large to read, and limited to a single
correspondence. While the letter includes two contact phone
numbers, the mere inclusion of contact information other than a
debt-collector's mailing address does not in itself create a claim
under 15 U.S.C Section 1692g. Therefore, the CCS letter does not
instruct or suggest an alternative method of disputing the debt
beyond what the letter instructs in the validation notice.  

The Plaintiff's Section1692g claim, therefore, fails.

Section 1692e

The Plaintiff's Section 1692e claim is premised on the same
allegations as his Section 1692g claim regarding the debt
collection letter. Because Plaintiff's Section 1692g claim fails,
correspondingly, his Section1692e claim also fails. Section
1692e(10) prohibits the use of any false representation or
deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to
obtain information concerning a consumer. Indeed, when allegations
under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e(10) are based on the same language or
theories as allegations under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g, the analysis
of the Section 1692g claim is usually dispositive. Even if it were
not dispositive, the language used in the debt collection letter is
not a false representation or deceptive, because the language
cannot be reasonably read to have two or more different meanings,
one of which is incorrect.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff cannot sustain his Section 1692e claim.

The Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted,
and the Plaintiff's claims are, therefore, dismissed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 28, 2019 Opinion
is available at   https://tinyurl.com/yxrekaqg from Leagle.com.

FRANK RICCIO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by JOSEPH K. JONES, Jones, Wolf &
Kapasi, LLC & BENJAMIN JARRET WOLF, Jones, Wolf & Kapasi, LLC.

CREDIT COLLECTION SERVICES, Defendant, represented by ANDREW
MICHAEL SCHWARTZ -- amschwartz@mdwcg.com -- MARSHALL DENNEHEY
WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN, PC.


CVS PHARMACY: Court Narrows Discovery in N. Kilby Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an Order granting in part and denying Defendant's
Request for an Order Compelling Plaintiff to Supplement and/or
Amend Her Responses to Interrogatories in the case captioned NYKEY
A KILBY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CVS PHARMACY, INC., Defendant. Case No.
09cv2051-MMA(KSC). (S.D. Cal.)

Before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion for Determination of
Discovery Dispute.

In the Joint Motion, defendant seeks an order compelling plaintiff
to amend her responses to six contention interrogatories. Plaintiff
contends that she has already provided complete responses to these
interrogatories based on the information available to her and has
advised defendant that she will supplement her responses when fact
discovery is complete and her experts have completed an analysis of
the topics addressed in the interrogatories.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 states that each interrogatory
must, to the extent it is not objected to, be answered separately
and fully in writing under oath. In other words, parties have an
obligation to respond to interrogatories to the fullest extent
possible.

With the exception of Interrogatory No. 14, all of the contention
interrogatories that are the subject of the parties' Joint Motion
are somewhat duplicative as they all seek the same or similar
information.  

Interrogatory No. 14 seeks related but different information in
that it requires plaintiff to state all facts supporting her
contention that each cash stand at each CVS store in California
during the relevant time period may be modified to accommodate the
use of a suitable seat by clerk/cashiers. Interrogatory No. 14 is
compound, because it also requires plaintiff to describe in detail
each and every modification for each and every cash stand.

Plaintiff's Objections. Plaintiffs responses to all of the
contention interrogatories at issue include the following
boilerplate objections: The interrogatory is vague and ambiguous,
overbroad, and compound. These objections lack specificity. As a
result, the Court will not consider any of these objections unless
plaintiff provided further explanation and clarification in the
Joint Motion.

First, plaintiff argues in the Joint Motion that Interrogatory Nos.
3, 11, 13, and 14 are unduly burdensome, because defendant expects
plaintiff to provide a separate, individual response for each cash
stand at each CVS store in California even though CVS has about 944
stores in California and each store has several cash stands.  

Defendant argues that plaintiff should be compelled to respond to
Interrogatory Nos. 3, 11, 13, and 14 on a store-by-store and cash
stand-by-cash stand basis, because she intends to try the case as a
representative action under California's Private Attorneys General
Act (PAGA) without certifying a class under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23. Defendant believes plaintiffs intent is to represent
clerk/cashiers at about 850 stores in California.  

Since plaintiff has stated that her response to Interrogatory Nos.
3, 11, 13, and 14 would be the same for every store and every cash
stand at CVS stores in California, it appears that plaintiffs
theory of the case is that the nature of the work performed by
clerk/cashiers reasonably permits the use of a suitable seat
regardless of variations among stores and check stand
configurations. If this is plaintiffs position, she is entitled to
her theory of the case, but her responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3,
11, 13, and 14 should include a statement to this effect. Based on
plaintiffs theory of the case and the large number of stores and
cash stands involved, the Court agrees with plaintiff that it would
be overly burdensome to require her to provide a separate,
individualized response to Interrogatory Nos. 3, 11, 13, and 14 on
a store-by-store and cash stand-by-cash stand basis.

In sum, the Court finds that defendant's request for an order
compelling plaintiff to provide separate, individualized answers
for each and every cash stand at each and every CVS store in
California in response to Interrogatory Nos. 3, 11, 13, and 14 must
be DENIED.

Second, plaintiff argues that all of the contention interrogatories
at issue in the parties' Joint Motion are overly broad, because
they require plaintiff to state all facts rather than the material
or principal facts that support her allegations. Plaintiff is
correct. Contention interrogatories should not require the
answering party to provide a narrative account of its case. Courts
will generally find contention interrogatories] overly broad and
unduly burdensome on their face to the extent they ask for every
fact or all facts which support identified allegations or defenses.


Accordingly, to the extent defendant requests an order compelling
plaintiff to provide all facts in response to Interrogatory Nos. 3,
4, 5, 11, 13, and 14, the request is DENIED. Plaintiff need only
respond to these interrogatories by providing the material or
principal facts that support her contentions.

Third, plaintiffs responses to all of the above-referenced
interrogatories include the following objections: The interrogatory
is premature in that factual discovery is not yet complete, and the
interrogatory asks for expert testimony and work product before
expert disclosures and discovery have occurred.

Defendant's view is that plaintiff already has enough information
to provide complete responses to the contention interrogatories at
issue, because CVS previously 11 produced extensive discovery
including hundreds if not thousands of hours of surveillance video
from five of its stores.

Regardless, as defendant contends, plaintiff had an obligation to
respond to all of the subject interrogatories to the fullest extent
possible based on the information she had at the time the responses
were due, even though she intended to supplement them later with
information compiled by experts. Therefore, the Court will consider
whether plaintiffs current responses to defendant's contention
interrogatories are adequate.

Plaintiffs Response to Interrogatory No. 3. Defendant argues that
plaintiffs current response to Interrogatory No. 3 is
non-responsive, evasive, and/or incomplete, because she did not set
forth the facts that support her allegations.  

As set forth above, plaintiff need only respond by setting forth
the material or principal facts that support her contentions, and
it is also not necessary for plaintiff to provide a separate,
individualized answer for each and every cash stand at each and
every CVS store in California in response to Interrogatory No. 3.
With these limitations in mind, the Court cannot conclude that
plaintiffs response to Interrogatory No. 3 is inadequate.  
Therefore, the Court finds that defendant's request for an order
compelling plaintiff to provide a further response to Interrogatory
No. 3 must be DENIED.

Plaintiff's Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 4, 5, 11, 13, and 14.
Defendant argues that plaintiff's current responses to these
interrogatories are non-responsive, evasive, and/or incomplete,
because she did not set forth the facts that support her
allegations and made non-specific references to her own deposition
testimony; declarations; and anticipated testimony of witnesses.  

Interrogatory No. 4 essentially seeks the same information as
Interrogatory No. 3. In response to Interrogatory No. 4, plaintiff
was expected to state the material or principal facts supporting
her contention in the Complaint that many of the tasks the
clerk/cashier performs, including scanning merchandise, receiving
payment, making change, and waiting for customers, could be
performed from a seated position. Instead of responding with the
relevant facts, such as those set forth in her response to
Interrogatory No. 3, plaintiff responded to Interrogatory No. 4
with general citations to a list of voluminous evidence believed to
support her contention that the listed tasks can be done while
seated. Plaintiff then provided similar responses to Interrogatory
Nos. 5, 11, 13, and 14 by citing to voluminous evidence without
setting forth any supporting facts.  

As outlined more fully above, the only exception is that in
response to Interrogatory Nos. 11, 13, and 14, plaintiff is not
required to provide separate, individualized answers for each and
every cash stand at each and every CVS store in California.
Therefore, as limited herein, the Court finds that defendant's
request for an order compelling plaintiff to provide further
responses to Interrogatory Nos. 4, 5, 11, 13, and 14 must be
GRANTED.

Defendant's request for an order compelling plaintiff to provide
further responses to interrogatories must be GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part as follows:

Defendant's request for an order compelling plaintiff to provide
separate, individualized answers for each and every cash stand at
each and every CVS store in California in response to Interrogatory
Nos. 3, 11, 13, and 14 is DENIED.

To the extent defendant requests an order compelling plaintiff to
provide all facts in response to Interrogatory Nos. 3, 4, 5, 11,
13, and 14, the request is DENIED. Plaintiff need only respond to
these interrogatories by providing the material or principal facts
that support her contentions.
Defendant's request for an order compelling plaintiff to provide a
further response to Interrogatory No. 3 is DENIED.

Defendant's request for an order compelling defendant to provide
further responses to Interrogatory Nos. 4, 5, 11, 13, and 14 is
GRANTED with limitations. As noted above, plaintiff must amend her
responses by providing the principal or material facts that are
responsive to each of these interrogatories but need not provide
separate, individualized responses for each and every cash stand at
each and every CVS store in California in response to Interrogatory
Nos. 11, 13, and 14.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 28, 2019 Order is
available at  https://tinyurl.com/y3hhrkys from Leagle.com.

Nykeya Kilby, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by James F. Clapp --
jclapp@clapplegal.com -- Clapp & Lauinger LLP, Kevin J. McInerney
-- kevin@mcinerneylaw.net -- McInerney & Jones & Marita Murphy
Lauinger -- mlauinger@clapplegal.com -- Clapp & Lauinger LLP.

CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Defendant, represented by Geoffrey Moss --
gmoss@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, Michael D.
Weil -- mweil@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP,
Timothy J. Long -- tjlong@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington and
Sutcliffe & Stephanie Gail Lee, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
LLP.


DEL MAR, CA: Hedayatzadeh Files Civil Rights Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of Del Mar et
al. The case is styled as Kahila H. Hedayatzadeh on behalf of
herself and a class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
City of Del Mar, Does 1-150, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-00842-BEN-BLM (S.D. Cal., May 3, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Deprivation
of Rights.

Del Mar is a beach city in San Diego County, California. Del Mar is
Spanish for "of the sea" or "by the sea," which reflects its
location on the coast of the Pacific Ocean.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ramin Rezaie Hariri, Esq.
     Hariri Law Group
     Suite 1100
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 363-2889
     Fax: (619) 810-0791
     Email: ramin@haririlaw.com


DOMINION ENERGY: City of Warren Suit on SCANA Merger Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dominion Energy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019, that the "City of Warren" lawsuit over a
merger transaction is still pending.

In January 2018, a purported class action was filed against SCANA,
Dominion Energy and certain former executive officers and directors
of SCANA in the State Court of Common Pleas in Lexington County,
South Carolina (the City of Warren Lawsuit).  The plaintiff
alleges, among other things, that defendants violated their
fiduciary duties to shareholders by executing a merger agreement
that would unfairly deprive plaintiffs of the true value of their
SCANA stock, and that Dominion Energy aided and abetted these
actions.  Among other remedies, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin
and/or rescind the merger.

In February 2018, Dominion Energy removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina, and filed a
Motion to Dismiss in March 2018.  In June 2018, the case was
remanded back to the State Court of Common Pleas in Lexington
County.

Dominion Energy appealed the decision to remand to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, where the appeal has been
consolidated with a similar appeal in the Metzler lawsuit and
remains pending.  In October 2018, the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina granted Dominion Energy's motion to stay
pending appeal.  This case is pending.

Dominion Energy said it cannot currently estimate the financial
statement impacts of this matter, but there could be a material
impact to its results of operations, financial condition and/or
cash flows.


DOMINION ENERGY: DESC to Owe 55% of Damages in NND Employment Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dominion Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019, that Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc. (DESC)
would have at least a 55% proportional share in any damages owed
upon the ultimate outcome in an employment class action and
indemnification related to the NND Project.

NND Project is a V.C. Summer Units 2 and 3 new nuclear development
project under which SCANA and Santee Cooper undertook to construct
two Westinghouse AP1000 Advanced Passive Safety nuclear units in
Jenkinsville, South Carolina.

In July 2018, a case filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina was certified as a class action on
behalf of persons who were formerly employed at the NND Project.
The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that SCANA, Fluor
Corporation and Fluor Enterprises, Inc. violated the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act in connection with the
decision to stop construction at the NND Project.  The plaintiffs
allege that the defendants failed to provide adequate advance
written notice of their terminations of employment and are seeking
damages, which are estimated to be as much as US$75 million.  DESC
as co-owner of the NND Project would have a 55% proportional share
in any damages owed upon the ultimate outcome.  The ultimate loss
could rise due to the Fluor defendants seeking indemnification from
DESC.


DOMINION ENERGY: Federal Court 10b-5 Case v. SCANA Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dominion Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019, that the so-called Federal Court 10b-5 securities
suit against SCANA Corporation is still pending.

Dominion Energy's acquisition of SCANA was completed on January 1,
2019 pursuant to the terms of the SCANA Merger Agreement, which was
entered on January 2, 2018. The SCANA Merger Approval Order (Final
order) was issued by the South Carolina Commission on December 21,
2018.

In September 2017, a purported class action was filed against SCANA
and certain former executive officers and directors in the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina.  Subsequent
additional purported class actions were separately filed against
all or nearly all of these defendants.

In January 2018, the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina consolidated these suits, and the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint in March 2018.  The plaintiffs
allege, among other things, that the defendants violated
Section10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that the individually
named defendants are liable under Section20(a) of the same act.

In June 2018, the defendants filed motions to dismiss.

In March 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions
to dismiss.  This case is pending.

Dominion Energy said it cannot currently estimate the financial
statement impacts of this matter, but there could be a material
impact to its results of operations, financial condition and/or
cash flows.


DOMINION ENERGY: Hearing on DESC Ratepayer Pact Set for This Month
------------------------------------------------------------------
A fairness hearing on the settlement of a ratepayer class action
case against Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc. (DESC), SCANA
Corporation, and the State of South Carolina is set to be heard in
May 2019, according to Dominion Energy, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2019.

In May 2018, a consolidated complaint against DESC, SCANA and the
State of South Carolina was filed in the State Court of Common
Pleas in Hampton County, South Carolina (the DESC Ratepayer Case).
In September 2018, the court certified this case as a class action.
The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that DESC was negligent
and unjustly enriched, breached alleged fiduciary and contractual
duties and committed fraud and misrepresentation in failing to
properly manage the NND Project, and that DESC committed unfair
trade practices and violated state anti-trust laws.  The plaintiffs
sought a declaratory judgment that DESC may not charge its
customers for any past or continuing costs of the NND Project,
sought to have SCANA and DESC's assets frozen and all monies
recovered from Toshiba Corporation and other sources be placed in a
constructive trust for the benefit of ratepayers and sought
specific performance of the alleged implied contract to construct
the NND Project.

In December 2018, the State Court of Common Pleas in Hampton County
entered an order granting preliminary approval of a class action
settlement and a stay of pre-trial proceedings in the DESC
Ratepayer Case.  The settlement agreement, contingent upon the
closing of the SCANA Combination, provided that SCANA and DESC
would establish an escrow account and proceeds from the escrow
account would be distributed to the class members, after payment of
certain taxes, attorneys' fees and other expenses and
administrative costs.

The escrow account would include (1) up to US$2.0 billion, net of a
credit of up to US$2.0 billion in future electric bill relief,
which would inure to the benefit of the escrow account in favor of
class members over a period of time established by the South
Carolina Commission in its order related to matters before the
South Carolina Commission related to the NND Project, (2) a cash
payment of US$115 million and (3) the transfer of certain
DESC-owned real estate or sales proceeds from the sale of such
properties, which counsel for the DESC Ratepayer Class estimate to
have an aggregate value between US$60 million and US$85 million.
At the closing of the SCANA Combination, SCANA and DESC funded the
cash payment portion of the escrow account.

The court has scheduled a fairness hearing on the settlement in May
2019.

Any distribution from the escrow account is subject to court
approval.  As a result, in the first quarter of 2019, Dominion
Energy recorded a charge of US$169 million (US$126 million
after-tax) charge, reflected in impairment of assets and other
charges in the Consolidated Statements of Income.


DOMINION ENERGY: Metzler Lawsuit on SCANA Merger Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dominion Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019, that the Metzler lawsuit over a merger transaction
remains pending.

In February 2018, a purported class action was filed against
certain former directors of SCANA and DESC and Dominion Energy in
the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland County, South Carolina
(the Metzler Lawsuit).  The allegations made and the relief sought
by the plaintiffs are substantially similar to those in the City of
Warren Lawsuit.

In February 2018, Dominion Energy removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina, and filed a
Motion to Dismiss in March 2018.  In August 2018, the case was
remanded back to the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland
County.  Dominion Energy appealed the decision to remand to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, where the appeal has
been consolidated with the City of Warren Lawsuit.  This case is
pending.

Dominion Energy said it cannot currently estimate the financial
statement impacts of this matter, but there could be a material
impact to its results of operations, financial condition and/or
cash flows.


DOMINION ENERGY: RICO Class Action Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------
Dominion Energy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019, that the purported class action against SCANA
Corporation, Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc. (DESC) and
certain former executive officers, are still pending.

In January 2018, a purported class action was filed, and
subsequently amended, against SCANA, DESC and certain former
executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of
South Carolina.  The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that
SCANA, DESC and the individual defendants participated in an
unlawful racketeering enterprise in violation of RICO and conspired
to violate RICO by fraudulently inflating utility bills to generate
unlawful proceeds.

The Company said, "The DESC Ratepayer Class Action settlement
contemplates dismissal of claims by DESC ratepayers in this case
against DESC, SCANA and their officers.  This case is pending.
Dominion Energy cannot currently estimate the financial statement
impacts of this matter, but there could be a material impact to its
results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows."


DOMINION ENERGY: Santee Cooper Ratepayers Class Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dominion Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019, that the purported class action complaint, as
amended, filed by Santee Cooper ratepayers remains pending.

In September 2017, a purported class action was filed by Santee
Cooper ratepayers against Santee Cooper, DESC, Palmetto Electric
Cooperative, Inc. and Central Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. in
the State Court of Common Pleas in Hampton County, South Carolina
(the Santee Cooper Ratepayer Case).  The allegations are
substantially similar to those in the DESC Ratepayer Case.  The
plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the defendants may not
charge the purported class for reimbursement for past or future
costs of the NND Project.

In March 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint including
as additional named defendants, including certain then current and
former directors of Santee Cooper and SCANA.

In June 2018, Santee Cooper filed a Notice of Petition for Original
Jurisdiction with the Supreme Court of South Carolina.

In December 2018, Santee Cooper filed its answer to the plaintiffs'
fourth amended complaint and filed cross claims against DESC.  This
case is pending.

Dominion Energy said it cannot currently estimate the financial
statement impacts of this matter, but there could be a material
impact to its results of operations, financial condition and/or
cash flows.


DOUBLE DOWN: Court Stays A. Benson Suit Pending Arbitration Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Tacoma, issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to
Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal of this Court's Order Denying
Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case captioned
ADRIENNE BENSON AND MARY SIMONSON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DOUBLE DOWN
INTERACTIVE, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, and
INTERNATIONAL GAME TECHNOLOGY, a Nevada corporation, Defendant.
Case No. 2:18-cv-00525-RBL. (W.D. Wash.).

The matter is before the Court on Defendants, Double Down
Interactive, LLC, and International Game Technology's (Double
Down), Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal of this Court's
Order Denying Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration.   

The dispute is a class action to recover money lost playing
electronic gambling games available through Facebook and mobile
apps.
  
Double Down appealed and filed this Motion, arguing that a stay
should be granted because the appeal raises serious legal
questions, such as whether repeatedly playing a game or using an
app can give rise to constructive notice.  

Double Down also argues it would suffer irreparable harm if it must
litigate this potential class action in the lower court while
arguing for arbitration before the Ninth Circuit.

Plaintiffs respond that a stay should not be granted because the
questions raised by Double Down are not serious legal questions
since they are not novel, do not speak to the merits of the case,
and the core legal issue of a browsewrap agreement is aged and
settled.  

Serious Legal Questions

Double Down raises six potential serious legal questions in its
Motion. The most critical are (1) whether questioning the formation
of a browsewrap agreement presents a serious legal question, (2)
whether repeatedly playing a game or using an app while a notice is
present on the game screen creates constructive notice, and (3)
whether affirmatively downloading a game from the app store where
the Terms are posted establishes constructive notice.  

Double Down argues that even if the serious legal question factor
only somewhat favors a stay, the Court should stay proceedings
while the appeal is pending. Plaintiffs argue that Double Down does
not meet the standard required for a serious legal question because
the issue of contract formation is not novel and the Ninth Circuit
has already established clear and consistent precedent in
interpreting browsewrap agreements.  

Here, Double Down raises a somewhat novel question of contract
formation regarding whether repetitive use of an app can give rise
to actual or constructive notice. Even though this Court stands by
its prior decision that the hyperlinks in Double Down's apps fall
short of the well-established standard from Nguyen, 763 F.3d at
1177, like in Kum Tat, there is no clear precedent by the Ninth
Circuit or the Supreme Court squarely addressing the issue of
repetitive use of an app.   

Because there is no precedent squarely on point, Double Down meets
the serious legal question standard, albeit minimally.

Irreparable Harm to Applicant

Double Down argues it would suffer irreparable harm because
continued litigation will deprive it of the contractual right to
arbitrate claims on an individual basis. Plaintiffs respond that
the financial burdens would also be incurred in private
arbitration, and are not the type of irreparable harm the court
requires to satisfy this part of the test.

For a moving party to be considered irreparably injured for the
purposes of a motion to stay, that injury must be categorically
irreparable. Nevertheless, a stay is not a matter of right, even if
irreparable injury might otherwise result.

Double Down would suffer irreparable harm because of the risk of
arbitration becoming moot and the possibility of having to litigate
a class action. Courts have determined that the defendants face a
particular risk of irreparable harm when they have appealed an
order refusing to compel arbitration of a potential class action.
If there is a valid arbitration agreement, one party is deprived of
the inexpensive and expeditious means by which the parties had
agreed to resolve their disputes.  Although the Court did not find
that a valid browse wrap agreement exists here, Double Down would
still suffer irreparable harm when forced to litigate a class
action unnecessarily.

Furthermore, if the court of appeals does not reverse, there is a
chance the parties will settle their dispute shortly after, making
any litigation that took place at the trial level a waste of
resources. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of Double Down.

Balance of Harms in Favor of Applicant

Double Down asserts that if it is successful on appeal, but the
proceedings in district court are not stayed, arbitration will
become moot and rendered meaningless. It further argues that
Plaintiffs would not suffer comparable harm if the Court issues a
stay because no discovery has taken place, and no class action has
been certified.  

Plaintiffs respond that they are suffering irreparable harm by
delaying their day in court, and fear this will lead to evidence
decaying and witnesses' memories fading. Plaintiff is also
concerned that Double Down, which is largely run internationally,
might scale down domestic operations or be purchased by another
corporation less willing to participate in these proceedings.  

In weighing these factors, courts apply a sliding scale approach
whereby the factors are balanced so that a stronger showing of one
may offset a weaker showing of another.

Here, the equities tilt in favor of Double Down because the risk
that arbitration will become moot is significantly greater compared
to the monetary damages Plaintiffs may suffer. The Court does not
find Plaintiffs argument regarding the decay of evidence or the
possibility that another organization would not cooperate
persuasive. Furthermore, Plaintiffs don't have much to lose, since
they are simply seeking restitution for the money lost, whereas
Double Down risks having to defend a class action versus arguing
individual claims in arbitration. This factor therefore weighs in
favor of Double Down.

Public Interest

Double Down argues that a stay would serve judicial economy and
public interest because to continue litigation in both courts would
risk redundancy or inconsistent actions. Plaintiffs state this type
of illegal online gambling continues to go unregulated thereby
increasing gambling addiction and significantly impacting the
citizens of Washington State. Courts have observed that issuing a
stay avoids wasting judicial resources and is in keeping with the
federal policy favoring arbitration. These rationales apply equally
here. Although the Court determined that no arbitration agreement
was formed in this case, it is at least possible that Double Down's
appeal could still result in a reversal that would put arbitration
back on the table. The public interest factor thus favors Double
Down.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 28, 2019 Order is
available at  https://tinyurl.com/y5jyf96q from Leagle.com.

Adrienne Benson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Mary Simonson, Plaintiffs, represented by Cecily C.
Shiel -- cshiel@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS, Janissa Ann
Strabuk -- jstrabuk@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS, Benjamin
H. Richman -- brichman@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, pro hac vice,
Eve-Lynn Rapp -- erapp@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, pro hac vice, J.
Eli Wade-Scott -- ewadescott@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, pro hac
vice, Rafey S. Balabanian -- rbalabanian@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC,
pro hac vice & Todd Logan -- tlogan@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, pro
hac vice.

Double Down Interactive LLC, a Washington limited liability
company, Defendant, represented by Cyrus E. Ansari --
cyrusansari@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, Jaime Drozd Allen ???
jaimeallen@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, Stuart R. Dunwoody --
stuartdunwoody@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE & Benjamin J.
Robbins -- benrobbins@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE.
International Game Technology, a Nevada corporation, Defendant,
represented by Adam T. Pankratz ??? adam.pankratz@ogletree.com --
OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, Bonnie Lau  --
bonnie.lau@dentons.com -- DENTONS US LLP, pro hac vice & William M.
Gantz -- Bill.gantz@dentons.com -- DENTONS US LLP, pro hac vice.


DOUBLE VV INC: Matlock Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Matlock, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Double VV Inc., Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-02209 (W.D. Mo., April 30, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum and overtime wages without any tip credit deduction,
liquidated damages, attorney fees, litigation costs and damages for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Kansas Minimum Wage
and Maximum Hours Law and the Kansas Wage Payment Act.

Plaintiff worked as a hostler driver and container lift operator
from August 2016 to September 2018. Matlock claims to be denied
overtime wages for time worked in excess of forty hours in
individual work weeks, because Double VV improperly classified him
as exempt.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark V. Dugan, Esq.
      Heather J. Schlozman, Esq.
      DUGAN SCHLOZMAN, LLC
      8826 Santa Fe Drive, Suite, 307
      Overland Park, KS 66212
      Telephone: (913) 322-3528
      Facsimile: (913) 904-0213
      Email: mark@duganschlozman.com
             heather@duganschlozman.com


DUNHAM'S ATHLEISURE: Migyanko Files ADA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DUNHAM'S ATHLEISURE
CORPORATION. The case is styled as Ronald J. Migyanko individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
DUNHAM'S ATHLEISURE CORPORATION doing business as: DUNHAM'S SPORTS,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00514-DSC (W.D. Pa., May 3, 2019).

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

Dunham's Sports is a regional sporting goods superstore chain owned
by Dunham's Athleisure Corporation, with stores located in the
Midwestern to Southeastern United States. The chain specializes in
athletic equipment, clothing, guns, and other sports-related
items.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
     Carlson Lynch, LLP
     1133 Penn Avenue
     5th Floor
     Pittsburgh, PA 15222
     Phone: (412) 322-9243
     Email: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com


EL POLLO LOCO: Expects Court OK on Deal for 4 Suits Before 2020
---------------------------------------------------------------
El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 27, 2019, that its settlement in principle in four
lawsuits has been codified on April 26, 2019.  The Company
anticipates that the settlement will be approved by the Court
before the end of the year.

The four lawsuits are:

     * Olvera, et al. v. El Pollo Loco, Inc., et al.,
     * Martha Perez v. El Pollo Loco, Inc.,
     * Maria Vega, et al. v. El Pollo Loco, Inc., and
     * Gonzalez v. El Pollo Loco, Inc.   

On or about February 24, 2014, a former employee filed a class
action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Orange, under the caption Elliott Olvera, et al v. El Pollo Loco,
Inc., et al (Case No. 30-2014-00707367-CU-OE-CXC) (the "Olvera
Action") on behalf of all putative class members (all hourly
employees from 2010 to the present) alleging certain violations of
California labor laws, including failure to pay overtime
compensation, failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks, and
failure to provide itemized wage statements.

The putative lead plaintiff's requested remedies include
compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement
of profits, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.  No specific
amount of damages sought was specified in the complaint.

The parties reached a settlement in principle on January 24, 2019
of all claims brought on behalf of approximately 32,000 putative
class members in the Olvera Action, as well as all claims for
failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide meal
periods and rest breaks, and failure to provide itemized wage
statements brought in the class actions captioned Martha Perez v.
El Pollo Loco, Inc. (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC624001)
(the "Perez Action"), Maria Vega, et al. v. El Pollo Loco, Inc.
(Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC649719 (the "Vega Action"),
and Gonzalez v. El Pollo Loco, Inc. (Los Angeles Superior Court
Case No. BC712867) (the "Gonzalez Action") and codified such
settlement on April 26, 2019.

The settlement reached in the Olvera Action, Perez Action, Vega
Action, and Gonzalez Action resolves all potential claims from
April 12, 2010 through April 1, 2019 that the Company's California
based restaurant employees may have against El Pollo Loco for the
failure to pay all compensation owed, failure to pay overtime
compensation, failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks and
failure to provide itemized wage statements, among other wage and
hour related claims.  It is anticipated that the settlement will be
approved by the Court before the end of the year.

A US$16.3 million accrual of an expected settlement amount related
to this matter was recorded as of December 26, 2018.  Purported
class actions alleging wage and hour violations are commonly filed
against California employers.  The Company has similar cases
pending that overlap in part with the Olvera action and fully
expects to have to defend against similar lawsuits in the future.

El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiary El Pollo Loco,
Inc., develops, franchises, licenses, and operates quick-service
restaurants under the El Pollo Loco name. The company was formerly
known as Chicken Acquisition Corp. and changed its name to El Pollo
Loco Holdings, Inc. in April 2014. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Costa Mesa, California.


EL POLLO LOCO: Turocy Case Settlement Underway
----------------------------------------------
The Stipulation of Settlement for the "Turocy, et al." suit was set
to be heard on May 13, 2019, according to El Pollo Loco Holdings,
Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 27, 2019.

Daniel Turocy, et al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., et al. (Case
No. 8:15-cv-01343) was filed in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California on August 24, 2015, and Ron
Huston, et al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., et al. (Case No.
8:15-cv-01710) was filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California on October 22, 2015.

The two lawsuits have been consolidated, with co-lead plaintiffs
and class counsel.  A consolidated complaint was filed on January
29, 2016, on behalf of co-lead plaintiffs and others similarly
situated, alleging violations of federal securities laws in
connection with Holdings common stock purchased or otherwise
acquired and the purchase of call options or the sale of put
options, between May 1, 2015 and August 13, 2015 (the "Class
Period").

The named defendants are Holdings; Stephen J. Sather, Laurance
Roberts, and Edward J. Valle (collectively, the "Individual
Defendants"); and Trimaran Pollo Partners, LLC, Trimaran Capital
Partners, and Freeman Spogli & Co. (collectively, the "Controlling
Shareholder Defendants").

Among other things, Plaintiffs allege that, in 2014 and early 2015,
Holdings suffered losses due to rising labor costs in California
and, in an attempt to mitigate the effects of such rising costs,
removed a US$5 value option from the Company's menu, which resulted
in a decrease in traffic from value-conscious consumers.
Plaintiffs further allege that during the Class Period, Holdings
and the Individual Defendants made a series of materially false and
misleading statements that concealed the effect that these factors
were having on store sales growth, resulting in Holdings stock
continuing to be traded at artificially inflated prices.

As a result, Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class
allegedly suffered damages in connection with their purchase of
Holdings' stock during the Class Period.  In addition, Plaintiffs
allege that the Individual Defendants and Controlling Shareholder
Defendants had direct involvement in, and responsibility over, the
operations of Holdings, and are presumed to have had, among other
things, the power to control or influence the transactions giving
rise to the alleged securities law violations.

In both cases, Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages, as
well as costs and expenses (including attorneys' fees).

On July 25, 2016, the Court issued an order granting, without
prejudice, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss plaintiff's complaint for
failure to state a claim.  Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend
their complaint, and filed an amended complaint on August 22,
2016.

Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and on March 20,
2017, the Court dismissed the amended complaint and granted
Plaintiffs leave to file another amended complaint.  Plaintiffs
filed another amended complaint on April 17, 2017.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on or
about May 17, 2017.  The Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss
the third amended complaint on August 4, 2017.  On December 8,
2017, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, and on
July 3, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion and certified a
class as to all of Plaintiffs' claims.  Defendants filed a petition
for appellate review of a portion of the Court's July 3, 2018 class
certification order.  On October 19, 2018 the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals denied the petition.

On January 23, 2019, the parties filed a Notice of Settlement and
Joint Request for Order to Stay Proceedings, stating the parties
have reached an agreement in principle to settle the claims and
allegations in the action and are negotiating the terms of a
Stipulation of Settlement.

On January 24, 2019, the Court ordered that all proceedings in the
action be stayed until April 3, 2019, on or before which the
parties were to file a Stipulation of Settlement and a motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement.  On April 3, 2019,
Plaintiffs filed the Stipulation of Settlement and a Motion for
Preliminary Approval of the Settlement.  The Court set the motion
for hearing on May 13, 2019.  

Defendants maintain that the Plaintiffs' claims are without merit,
and have entered into the settlement to eliminate the
uncertainties, burden and expense of further protracted
litigation.

El Pollo Loco said, "A US$20.0 million accrual of an expected
settlement amount related to this matter was recorded as of
December 26, 2018."

El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiary El Pollo Loco,
Inc., develops, franchises, licenses, and operates quick-service
restaurants under the El Pollo Loco name. The company was formerly
known as Chicken Acquisition Corp. and changed its name to El Pollo
Loco Holdings, Inc. in April 2014. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Costa Mesa, California.


FIRST CHOICE: Wolf Popper Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP filed a securities class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
against First Choice Healthcare Solutions, Inc. ("First Choice")
(OTC: FCHS) and its former Chairman, CEO, and President Christian
Romandetti, Sr.  The case, MAZ Partners LP v. First Choice
Healthcare Solutions, Inc., No. 6:19-cv-00619 (M.D. Fla.), asserts
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 on behalf of MAZ Partners and a
proposed Class of purchasers of First Choice common stock between
April 1, 2014 and November 14, 2018 ("Class Period").

The action alleges that during the Class Period, defendants were
engaged in an undisclosed pump and dump scheme that manipulated and
artificially inflated the price of First Choice common stock, and
failed to disclose their involvement, rendering certain of their
public statements materially misleading.  On November 15, 2018,
after a federal criminal indictment and an SEC enforcement action
were announced against Romandetti and his co-conspirators, First
Choice common stock declined $0.66 per share or nearly 65%, to
close at $0.35 per share.

If you are a member of the proposed Class and wish to serve as Lead
Plaintiff, you must file a motion with the Court no later than May
28, 2019.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other Class members in directing the litigation.  Any
member of the proposed Class may move the Court to serve as Lead
Plaintiff through counsel of their choice.  Members may also choose
to do nothing and remain part of the proposed Class.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests please
contact:

         Chet B. Waldman, Esq.
         Wolf Popper LLP
         Telephone: 877.370.7703
         Website:  www.wolfpopper.com
         Email: cwaldman@wolfpopper.com [GN]


FIRST SOLAR: Supreme Court Appeal in "Smilovits" Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., et al., the U.S.
Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the Defendants' petition for
writ of certiorari, according to First Solar's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2019.

On March 15, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit titled
Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-00555-DGC,
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona (hereafter "Arizona District Court") against the Company
and certain of the Company's current and former directors and
officers.  The complaint was filed on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded
securities between April 30, 2008 and February 28, 2012 (the "Class
Action").  The complaint generally alleges that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by making false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial performance and prospects.  The action includes
claims for damages, including interest, and an award of reasonable
costs and attorneys' fees to the putative class.

On July 23, 2012, the Arizona District Court issued an order
appointing as lead plaintiffs in the Class Action the Mineworkers'
Pension Scheme and British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme
(collectively, the "Pension Schemes").  The Pension Schemes filed
an amended complaint on August 17, 2012, which contains similar
allegations and seeks similar relief as the original complaint.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 14, 2012.  On
December 17, 2012, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss.
On October 8, 2013, the Arizona District Court granted the Pension
Schemes' motion for class certification and certified a class
comprised of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded securities of the Company between April 30, 2008
and February 28, 2012 and were damaged thereby, excluding
defendants and certain related parties.  Merits discovery closed on
February 27, 2015.

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on March 27, 2015.
On August 11, 2015, the Arizona District Court granted defendants'
motion in part and denied it in part, and certified an issue for
immediate appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (the "Ninth
Circuit").  First Solar filed a petition for interlocutory appeal
with the Ninth Circuit, and that petition was granted on November
18, 2015.  On May 20, 2016, the Pension Schemes moved to vacate the
order granting the petition, dismiss the appeal, and stay the
merits briefing schedule.

On December 13, 2016, the Ninth Circuit denied the Pension Schemes'
motion.  On January 31, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion
affirming the Arizona District Court's order denying in part
defendants' motion for summary judgment.  On March 16, 2018, First
Solar filed a petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc
with the Ninth Circuit.  On May 7, 2018, the Ninth Circuit denied
defendants' petition.

On August 6, 2018, defendants filed a petition for writ of
certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.  The Court has not yet ruled
on that petition.  Meanwhile, in the Arizona District Court, expert
discovery was completed on February 5, 2019.  The Arizona District
Court vacated the previously scheduled trial date and all other
deadlines until the outcome of the certiorari petition is clear.

First Solar, Inc. provides photovoltaic solar energy solutions in
the United States and internationally. It operates through two
segments, Components and Systems. The company was formerly known as
First Solar Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to First Solar,
Inc. in 2006. First Solar, Inc. was founded in 1999 and is
headquartered in Tempe, Arizona.


FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Rizzo Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Firstsource
Advantage, LLC. The case is styled as Angelo Rizzo individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Firstsource Advantage, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-02616-JFB-AYS (E.D. N.Y., May 3, 2019).

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

Firstsource Advantage, LLC offers collections and recovery
solutions. It provides debt recovery services for credit card
issuers, retail banking and mortgage.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FISHER-PRICE INC: Barton Brings Suit Over Dangerous Infant Sleeper
------------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Barton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FISHER-PRICE, INC. and MATTEL, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-03812 (C.D. Cal., May 2, 2019) seeks
damages and all other relief available under law and equity from
Fisher-Price and its corporate parent, Mattel, including punitive
damages for their appalling and unconscionable misconduct.

The Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper ("Rock 'n Play Sleeper") is
an inclined "sleeper" that Defendants, until April 12, 2019,
marketed as suitable for all night or prolonged sleep.

However, the complaint alleges that the Rock 'n Play Sleeper is
inherently unsafe as a sleeper and unfit for its intended use. Its
use poses a number of serious safety risks that have led to many
documented instances of infant deaths and injuries. By positioning
an infant at a 30 degree incline, the Rock 'n Play Sleeper
significantly increases the risk that the infant's head will slip
into a dangerous position, tilt to constrict the windpipe and/or
cause the infant's face to become pressed against the padded fabric
in the sleeper and block airflow, which the infant may be unable to
correct. This increases the risk of death by asphyxiation. In
addition, because Defendants advise parents to keep babies strapped
in restraints overnight while sleeping on an incline, the Rock 'n
Play Sleeper increases the infant's risk of developing flat head
(plagiocephaly) and twisted neck (torticollis) syndromes,
conditions that often require babies to wear expensive head-molding
helmets and undergo physical therapy.

The Defendants knew about these risks for as long as they sold the
Rock 'n Play Sleeper, asserts the complaint. Among other things,
(1) the American Academy of Pediatrics ("AAP") and major consumer
groups repeatedly issued warnings about the serious dangers of
inclined sleepers; (2) due to these known dangers, regulators in
Canada and Australia did not allow Defendants to sell the Rock 'n
Play Sleeper in their countries as a "sleeper"; (3) Defendants were
sued for at least one infant death in a Rock 'n Play Sleeper while
Defendants continued to market and sell the product; (4) at least
32 babies have died using the Rock 'n Play Sleeper; and (5) upwards
of 700 injuries have been reported due to the use of inclined
sleepers, including the Rock 'n Play Sleeper.

The complaint alleges that had parents like Plaintiff Barton been
aware of the potentially fatal dangers posed by the Rock 'n Play
Sleeper, or the serious risks of injury such as flat head and
twisted neck syndrome, they would not have purchased and/or used
the product. The Defendants' false and misleading marketing of this
dangerous product, and knowing failure to disclose the grave risks
of its use as a sleeper for prolonged or overnight sleep, allowed
Defendants to reap vast profits at the expense of consumers who
erroneously believed they were obtaining a safe place for their
babies to sleep.

Plaintiff purchased a Rock 'n Play Sleeper on Amazon.com for $37.80
(before tax) as an environment for prolonged or overnight sleep for
her twins on or about April 9, 2017.

Fisher-Price manufactures and markets products for the care of
infants and preschool children to consumers throughout the United
States, including in the states of Arizona and California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     RACHELE R. BYRD, ESQ.
     BRITTANY N. DEJONG, ESQ.
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
     FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
     750 B Street, Suite 1820
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: 619/239-4599
     Facsimile: 619/234-4599
     Email: byrd@whafh.com
            dejong@whafh.com


FUNKO INC: Bids to Nix Securities Suit in King County Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to dismiss a consolidated class action suit entitled, In re
Funko, Inc. Securities Litigation in the Superior Court of
Washington in and for King County, remains pending, according to
Funko, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.
Oral arguments on the motions to dismiss were scheduled to be held
on May 3, 2019.

On November 16, 2017, a purported stockholder of the Company filed
a putative class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of Washington
in and for King County against the Company, certain of its officers
and directors, and the underwriters of its IPO, entitled Robert
Lowinger v. Funko, Inc., et al.

In January and March 2018, five additional putative class action
lawsuits were filed in Washington state court, four in the Superior
Court of Washington in and for King County and one in the Superior
Court of Washington in and for Snohomish County.

Two of the King County lawsuits, Surratt v. Funko, Inc. et al.
(filed on January 16, 2018) and Baskin v. Funko, Inc. et al. (filed
on January 30, 2018), were filed against the Company and certain of
its officers and directors.  The other two King County lawsuits,
The Ronald and Maxine Linde Foundation v. Funko, Inc. et al. (filed
on January 18, 2018) and Lovewell v. Funko, Inc. et.  al (filed on
March 27, 2018), were filed against the Company, certain of its
officers and directors, ACON, Fundamental and certain other
defendants.

The Snohomish County lawsuit, Berkelhammer v. Funko, Inc. et al.
(filed on March 13, 2018), was filed against us, certain of the
Company's officers and directors, and ACON.

On May 8, 2018, the Berkelhammer action was voluntarily dismissed,
and on May 15, 2018 a substantially similar action was filed by the
same plaintiff in the Superior Court of Washington in and for King
County.

On April 2, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit Jacobs v. Funko,
Inc. et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington against the Company, certain of its
officers and directors, and certain other defendants.  On May 21,
2018, the Jacobs action was voluntarily dismissed, and on June 12,
2018 a substantially similar action was filed by the same plaintiff
in the Superior Court of Washington in and for King County.

On July 2, 2018, all of the above-referenced suits were ordered
consolidated for all purposes into one action under the title In re
Funko, Inc. Securities Litigation in the Superior Court of
Washington in and for King County.

On August 1, 2018, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint
against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, ACON,
Fundamental, and certain other defendants.  On October 1, 2018, the
Company moved to dismiss that action.  Plaintiffs filed their
opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss on October 31, 2018,
and the Company filed its reply to plaintiffs' opposition on
November 30, 2018.  Oral arguments on the motions to dismiss were
scheduled to be held on May 3, 2019.

Funko, Inc., a pop culture consumer products company, designs,
sources, and distributes licensed pop culture products in the
United States, China, Vietnam, and the United Kingdom. Funko, Inc.
was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in Everett, Washington.


FUNKO INC: Lead Plaintiff in Kanugonda Class Suit Amends Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action lawsuit Kanugonda v. Funko, et al.,
the Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 30, 2019
against the previously named defendants, according to Funko, Inc.'s
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

On June 4, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit Kanugonda v.
Funko, et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington against the Company, certain of its
officers and directors, and certain other defendants.

On January 4, 2019, a lead plaintiff was appointed in that case.

Funko, Inc., a pop culture consumer products company, designs,
sources, and distributes licensed pop culture products in the
United States, China, Vietnam, and the United Kingdom. Funko, Inc.
was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in Everett, Washington.


GENERAL MOTORS: Nardizzi Files Sues Over Defective Wheels
---------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Nardizzi, individually, and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. General Motors LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-03665 (C.D. Cal., April 30, 2019) seeks
redress for violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies
Act, Unfair Competition Law, breach of implied warranty pursuant to
Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, breach of express and implied
warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and for unjust
enrichment.

Nardizzi purchased a new 2018 Chevrolet Corvette in June 2018. By
the time Mr. Nardizzi's vehicle left the dealership and arrived at
a third-party wheel finisher, it already had two bent wheels.
Plaintiff alleges that the wheels warp, bend and crack that can
puncture the tires, causing air leaks and tire blowouts. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GOHEALTH LLC: Certification of 2 Classes Sought in Roby TCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned BARBARA ROBY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GOHEALTH, LLC, a
foreign limited liability company, Case No. 1:19-cv-02756 (N.D.
Ill.), asks the Court to certify that the claims set forth in her
complaint may proceed on behalf of two classes:

   1. Autodialed Calls Class:

      All persons within the United States subscribing to a
      cellular telephone number to which GoHealth, or someone
      acting on GoHealth's behalf, sent a text message for health
      insurance marketing purposes, from November 27, 2014
      through the date the Court rules on Plaintiff's motion for
      class certification, using the same dialing system used to
      contact Plaintiff's phone number; and

   2. Do Not Call List Class:

      All persons within the United States subscribing to a
      cellular telephone number registered on the National Do Not
      Call Registry to which GoHealth, or someone acting on
      GoHealth's behalf, sent at least two text message
      solicitations concerning health insurance during a 12 month
      period, from November 27, 2014 through the date the Court
      rules on Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

Ms. Roby also asks the Court to name her as class representative,
to appoint her lawyers as counsel for the classes, and to allow her
to file a memorandum in support of this Motion after class
discovery.

The Plaintiff brings this class action against GoHealth, LLC, for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          Timothy J. Sostrin, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD.
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 726-1092
          Facsimile: (312) 726-1093
          E-mail: Keith@Keoghlaw.com
                  TSostrin@KeoghLaw.com


GOOGLE INC: Supreme Court Wrestles with Cy Pre Settlement Issue
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fisher, writing for Chief Executive, reports that in oral
arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court last fall, the justices
wrestled with a seemingly absurd question: Should lawyers be able
to earn a fee for negotiating a settlement that pays their clients
nothing?

The case, Frank v. Gaos, represents the latest turn in an argument
that has raged since a little-known committee amended Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 1966 to allow multiple
plaintiffs to join what became known as a class action. The rule
was designed to facilitate civil rights lawsuits where numerous
people suffered the same wrong, such as racial discrimination. But
plaintiff's lawyers have transformed it into a multi-billion dollar
moneymaking machine. Securities class actions yielded $6 billion in
settlements in 2016 and another $1.5 billion in 2017, with
plaintiff's lawyers typically collecting 20 percent or more of each
agreement. (Defendants rarely risk going to trial, given the
potential for enormous damages.)

Congress and the Supreme Court have repeatedly stepped in to
address abuses in the class-action business, but entrepreneurial
plaintiff lawyers always seem a step ahead. Frank v. Gaos, for
example, deals with a mechanism lawyers dreamed up to deal with a
perennial problem with class actions: Very few of their supposed
clients ever bother to fill out the paperwork to claim their
settlement money. Claim rates in consumer class actions rarely
exceed fractions of a percent, with the rest of the money either
going to lawyers or back to the settling company in a wink-wink
arrangement where plaintiff lawyers know the real settlement
negotiations are over how big their fee will be.

To get around this lawyers came up with cy pres, legal Latin
roughly meaning "as good as," under which they give up on
distributing money to their clients and hand it to unrelated
charities instead. There are constitutional objections to
this???how can parties with no connection to a lawsuit win money
from it????but also conflicts of interest. Lawyers tend to direct
cy pres awards to organizations close to their hearts.

Frank v. Gaos challenges an $8.5 million settlement between Google
and 129 million search engine users in which lawyers kept $2.2
million for themselves and directed the rest to six charities,
including Harvard, Stanford and Chicago-Kent College of Law, which
happened to be the alma maters of some of the attorneys negotiating
the deal. One of the grateful recipients, the Stanford Center for
Internet and Society, already had received millions of dollars in
grants from Google, meaning the settlement was a tax-deductible
donation to an organization it would have supported anyway.

All this struck attorney Ted Frank as distasteful, if not downright
illegal. The head of the Center for Class Action Fairness, Frank
intervenes in class action settlements that he believes are abusive
or represent collusion between lawyers hungry for fees and
defendants eager to end litigation.

"If you think class actions are supposed to benefit the class,
these charitable donations have nothing to do with that," Frank
says.

Ah, but they do serve an important purpose: They end any chance of
litigation by the class members, for the modest price of a $2.2
million fee to lawyers who claim to represent them. This conflict
lies at the heart of every class action, and the Supreme Court has
pecked away at it with decisions enforcing contracts shunting
disputes off to arbitration and limiting securities class actions.
But the justices seemed little inclined to end the cy pres game
this session.

In oral arguments, they fumbled toward the easier solution of
dismissing the case on jurisdictional grounds, leaving for another
day the argument over whether it is legal for lawyers to pay
themselves fees for nothing. [GN]


GRAHAM RESTAURANT: Violates NY Spread of Hours Order, Tapia Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Dominguez Tapia, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Graham Restaurant LLC (d/b/a
Sage), Christopher Dunnigan, Vincent Li, Garfield Doe, and Hum Doe,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02589 (E.D. N.Y., May 2, 2019) seeks
unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law ("NYLL"),
and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York
Commissioner of Labor, including applicable liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiff alleges that he worked for Defendants in excess of 40
hours per week, without appropriate overtime and spread of hours
compensation for the hours that he has worked. Moreover, Defendants
failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and
have failed to pay Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked,
either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime
premium.

The Defendants have maintained a policy and practice of requiring
Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per
week without providing the overtime compensation required by
federal and state law and regulations, asserts the complaint.

Plaintiff has been employed by Defendants at Sage from
approximately July 2017 until the present date.

Defendants own, operate, or control a Thai restaurant, located at
299 301 Graham Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11211 under the name
"Sage".[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


HAYNES INVESTMENTS: Appeals Ruling in Gibbs RICO Suit to 4th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Haynes Investments, LLC, L. Stephen Haynes and Sovereign
Business Solutions, LLC, filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Darlene Gibbs, et al. v. Haynes Investments, LLC, et
al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00048-MHL, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia at Richmond.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 24,
2019, Judge Mary Hannah Lauck denied the Defendants' (i) Motion to
Transfer or, in the Alternative, to Stay Proceedings; (ii) Motion
to Compel Arbitration; and (iii) Motion to Dismiss.

The controversy arises out of the Haynes Defendants' involvement in
an allegedly unlawful lending operation involving two Native
American-owned lending companies and multiple alleged
co-conspirators.  The lending operation allegedly offered loans to
the Plaintiffs in amounts ranging from $300 to $3,000, charging
interest rates ranging from 227.92% to 448%.  The Plaintiffs bring
the suit on behalf of themselves and all individuals similarly
situated, alleging that the lending operation violates state and
federal lending laws, including the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

The Plaintiffs allege that the lending operation constitutes what
they refer to as a "rent-a-tribe."  Under this improper business
model, actors establish entities to originate internet-based high
interest loans so as to evade state and federal usury and lending
laws.  A non-tribal entity and a Tribe agree to establish a lending
company in the Tribe's name.

According to Plaintiffs, the Native American Tribe nominally
establishes the lending company in order to extend its tribal
sovereign immunity to the newly-formed business entity.  The tribal
company, however, receives capital from a different, non-tribal
person or company who seeks to use the tribal lending companies in
order to cloak the unlawfully high-interest internet loans with
sovereign immunity.  The non-tribal entity retains the vast
majority of the profits and controls the lending tribal entity,
from major business decisions to day-to-day operations.  In
exchange, the Tribe receives only a small percentage of the
revenue.

The appellate case is captioned as Darlene Gibbs, et al. v. Haynes
Investments, LLC, et al., Case No. 19-1434, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

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

   -- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on June 3, 2019; and

   -- Response Brief is due on July 2, 2019.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees DARLENE GIBBS, STEPHANIE EDWARDS, LULA
WILLIAMS, PATRICK INSCHO and LAWRENCE MWETHUKU, on behalf of
themselves and all individuals similarly situated, are represented
by:

          Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
          Elizabeth W. Hanes, Esq.
          Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com
                  elizabeth@clalegal.com
                  craig@clalegal.com

               - and -

          Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
          Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
          Casey Shannon Nash
          KELLY & CRANDALL PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424-7570
          E-mail: aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com
                  kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com
                  casey@kellyandcrandall.com

               - and -

          James Wilson Speer, Esq.
          VIRGINIA POVERTY LAW CENTER
          919 East Main Street
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 782-9430
          E-mail: jay@vplc.org

Defendants-Appellants HAYNES INVESTMENTS, LLC, L. STEPHEN HAYNES
and SOVEREIGN BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, LLC, are represented by:

          David Neal Anthony, Esq.
          Timothy James St. George, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP
          1001 Haxall Point
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 697-5410
          E-mail: david.anthony@troutman.com
                  tim.stgeorge@troutmansanders.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Peter Boughrum, Esq.
          David Foster Herman, Esq.
          MONTGOMERY, MCCRACKEN, WALKER & RHOADS
          1735 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 772-7228
          E-mail: jboughrum@armstrongteasdale.com
                  dherman@armstrongteasdale.com

               - and -

          Richard L. Scheff, Esq.
          ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP
          2005 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 246-3469
          E-mail: rlscheff@armstrongteasdale.com

Defendants VICTORY PARK CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, VICTORY PARK
MANAGEMENT, LLC, SCOTT ZEMNICK, JEFFREY SCHNEIDER and THOMAS E.
WELCH are represented by:

          Bryan Alan Fratkin, Esq.
          Ashley P. Peterson, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
          800 East Canal Street
          P. O. Box 3916
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 775-4352
          E-mail: bfratkin@mcguirewoods.com
                  apeterson@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          Aaron Harvey Marks, Esq.
          KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES & FRIEDMAN, LLP
          1301 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019-0000
          Telephone: (212) 506-1700
          E-mail: amarks@kasowitz.com


HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP alerts investors
that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed against
Healthcare Services Group, Inc. (Nasdaq:  HCSG) ("Healthcare
Services") on behalf of purchasers of Healthcare Services
securities between April 11, 2017 and March 4, 2019, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

Investors who purchased Healthcare Services securities during the
Class Period may, no later than May 21, 2019, seek to be appointed
as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. For additional
information or to learn how to participate in this litigation
please visit
www.ktmc.com/healthcare-services-securities-class-action

According to the complaint, Healthcare Services engages in the
management, administrative, and operating services to the
housekeeping, laundry, linen, facility maintenance, and dietary
service departments to nursing homes, retirement complexes,
rehabilitation centers, and hospitals in the United States.
Healthcare Services operates through two segments, Housekeeping and
Dietary. The Housekeeping segment engages in the cleaning,
disinfecting, and sanitizing of resident rooms and common areas of
a client's facility, as well as laundering and processing of the
bed linens, uniforms, resident personal clothing, and other
assorted linen items utilized at a client facility. The Dietary
segment is involved in the food purchasing and meal preparation
activities, as well as in the provision of professional dietitian
services, which include the development of menus that meet the
dietary needs of residents.  After years of purported growth and
strong earnings on the part of Healthcare Service, on March 22,
2017, Monocle Accounting Research ("Monocle") published an article
on Seeking Alpha, entitled "Healthcare Services Group: A Decade of
Strategic Rounding."

The Class Period commences on April 11, 2017, when Healthcare
Services reported that revenues for the three months ended March
31, 2017 increased approximately 5% to $404.5 million, and that net
income for the three months ended March 31, 2017 was $22.0 million,
or $0.30 per basic and diluted common share, compared to the three
months ended March 31, 2016 net income of $18.6 million, or $0.26
per basic and diluted common share.

The complaint alleges that, on March 4, 2019, in a Form 8-K filed
with the SEC, Healthcare Services disclosed that it had received a
letter in November 2017 from the SEC regarding an inquiry that the
SEC was conducting into earnings per share ("EPS") calculation
practices and requesting that Healthcare Services voluntarily
provide certain information and documents relating to its EPS
rounding and reporting practices. The March 4, 2019 Form 8-K
further disclosed that Healthcare Services also had received a
subpoena in March 2018 from the SEC in connection with these
matters and that it had been providing information and documents to
the SEC.  Also, on March 4, 2019, Monocle published an article
entitled "'Strategic Rounding' At Healthcare Services Group: A
Subpoena From The SEC And An Internal Investigation," stating that
"Healthcare Services Group's decade of apparent earnings
manipulation through the 'strategic rounding' of its quarterly EPS
has finally bitten the company and its investors."

Following this news, Healthcare Services' stock price fell $4.96
per share, or 13.14%, to close at $32.78 on March 4, 2019.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period: (1)
Theodore "Ted" Wahl, the CEO and President of Healthcare Services,
either knew or was reckless in not knowing that Healthcare Services
had been accused of strategically rounding quarterly EPS and
therefore, investors could not rely upon Healthcare Services' track
record without conducting a thorough investigation into the
allegations; (2) the defendants concealed from investors the fact
that the SEC had written to Healthcare Services in November 2017 to
inquire into its EPS rounding practices; (3) Healthcare Services
concealed from investors the fact that the SEC delivered a subpoena
to Healthcare Services in March 2018 commanding the company to
produce documents to the SEC in connection with how it calculated
EPS; and (4) as a result, the defendants' statements about the
Healthcare Services' business, operations and prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.

Healthcare Services investors who wish to discuss this securities
fraud class action lawsuit and their legal options are encouraged
to contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (James Maro, Jr.,
Esq. or Adrienne Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299-7706 (toll free) or at
info@ktmc.com.

Healthcare Services investors may, no later than May 21, 2019, seek
to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class
through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.  A lead
plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class
members in directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed as a
lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's
claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the
class member will adequately represent the class.  Your ability to
share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or
not to serve as a lead plaintiff.

         Contact:
         James Maro, Jr., Esq.
         Adrienne Bell, Esq.
         Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Telephone: (888) 299-7706 (toll free)
                    (610) 667-7706
         Website: www.ktmc.com
         Email: info@ktmc.com
                abell@ktmc.com
                jmaro@ktmc.com [GN]


HOSPITAL SERVICE: La. App. Reverses Dismissal in V. Leet's Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit, issued an Opinion
reversing the District Court's judgment granting Defendants' Motion
for Summary Judgment in the case captioned VICTORIA LEET,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v.
HOSPITAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 1 OF EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH,
LOUISIANA D/B/A LANE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER; ALEGIS REVENUE
SOLUTIONS, LLC; AND LOUISIANA HEALTH SERVICE & INDEMNITY COMPANY
D/B/A BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF LOUISIANA. No. 2018 CA 1148.
(1st Cir.).

In this appeal involving alleged violations of the Health Care
Consumer Billing and Disclosure Protection Act, the plaintiff
challenges the trial court's judgment that granted the defendant
hospital's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the
plaintiff's claims against it.

Victoria Leet was injured in an automobile accident and received
treatment at Hospital Service District No. 1 of East Baton Rouge
Parish, Louisiana d/b/a Lane Regional Medical Center. At the time
of the accident, Leet was insured under the comprehensive medical
benefit plan of her husband's employer, Louisiana Machinery
Company, LLC.

Following a hearing on the motion, the trial court found that
Leet's claims were moot because Lane Regional had reimbursed her
all amounts that could conceivably be due to her and, thus,
pretermitted ruling on Lane Regional's remaining arguments in
support of its motion. Because Leet was the only identified class
representative, the trial court, by judgment, granted Lane
Regional's motion for summary judgment and dismissed Leet's claims
against it with prejudice.

From this judgment, Leet appeals.

The Balance Billing Act prohibits a health care provider from
collecting or attempting to collect amounts from an insured patient
in excess of the contracted reimbursement rate, a practice referred
to as balance billing.  

An insured has an implied right of action under the Balance Billing
Act grounded in individual restitution where a health care provider
collects or attempts to collect amounts from the insured patient in
excess of the contracted reimbursement rate.
  
On appeal, Leet contends that the trial court erred in granting
Lane Regional's motion for summary judgment because genuine issues
of material fact remain, including issues as to damages and the
right to collect costs and attorney's fees for Lane Regional's
actions in maintaining an action at law in violation of LSA-R.S.
22:1874. Noting that at the time suit was filed, Lane Regional was
retaining funds owed to her that it had collected by balance
billing through the use of a medical lien, Leet argues that a
contracted health care provider cannot balance bill an insured
patient in violation of the Balance Billing Act and then avoid
damages, costs, and attorney's fees by reimbursing the patient the
amount of the overpayment after a lawsuit is filed.  

Contrariwise, Lane Regional contends that general damages are not
permitted under the Balance Billing Act and that Leet is not
entitled to attorney's fees and costs because under the Act, a
prevailing party is only entitled to recover attorney's fees and
costs incurred in defending against an action at law maintained by
the health care provider.  

At the outset, the Court rejects Lane Regional's contention that an
award of general damages is not permitted by the Balance Billing
Act. In Anderson, the Louisiana Supreme Court, in holding that an
insured has an implied right of action, reasoned that nothing in
the Balance Billing Act expressly prohibits such a private right of
action. Anderson, 172 So. 3d at 583. Noting that the legislative
purpose and spirit of the law is the protection of the consumer,
the Court further concluded that the legislative intent supported
the existence of a private right of action to sue under LSA-R.S.
22:1877.4

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the mere fact that a health
care provider finally tenders to the insured (after the filing of
suit) sums collected and retained over the contracted reimbursement
amount does not necessarily render the insured's claim for damages
moot. If there is evidence of other damages caused by the health
care provider's actions in violation of the Balance Billing Act,
there may remain a viable claim for damages.

In the instant case, disputed questions of fact exist as to the
damages Leet suffered as a result of Lane Regional's failure to
return funds belonging to her for a period of months. Leet argues
that Lane Regional not only attempted to collect through an action
at law, it actually collected and improperly retained funds
belonging to her for a period of several months. Leet testified
that Lane Regional's failure to reimburse the overpayment to her
when received resulted in her incurring additional financial
expense. Specifically, she testified that prior to the accident in
question, she had gotten behind on her mortgage payments.

When she became aware that she would be receiving a sum of
approximately $8,000.00 in payment of her medical expenses in
relation to the accident, Leet informed her mortgage company that
she would make a lump sum payment in that amount. However,
according to Leet, when Lane Regional then refunded her only a
fraction of that amount, her mortgage company thought she had been
lying and instituted foreclosure proceedings. Although she was
still living in the same home at the time of her deposition
testimony and the same mortgage company still held the mortgage,
Leet testified that the delay in Lane Regional forwarding her the
full sum to which she was entitled caused her to incur additional
expenses with her mortgage company.

Accordingly, because genuine issues of material fact remain as to
Leet's damages claim under the Balance Billing Act and because her
claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were not placed before
the trial court in Lane Regional's motion for summary judgment, the
trial court's judgment granting Lane Regional's motion for summary
judgment was wrongful and must be reversed.

For these reasons, the April 18, 2018 judgment, granting Lane
Regional's motion for summary judgment and dismissing Leet's claims
against it, is reversed.  

A full-text copy of the La. App.'s February 28, 2019 Opinion is
available at   https://tinyurl.com/yyhpwz2z from Leagle.com.

J. Lee Hoffos, Jr., Donald W. McKnight, and Derrick G. Earles, and
Scott R. Bickford, Lawrence J. Centola, III, and Andrew J.
D'Aquilla, Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant, Victoria Leet,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated.

David R. Kelly -- david.kelly@bswllp.com -- Thomas R. Temple, Jr.
-- thomas.temple@bswllp.com -- Joseph J. Cefalu, III, --
joseph.cefalu@bswllp.com -- Baton Rouge, LA, Counsel for
Defendants/Appellees, Hospital Service District No. 1 of East Baton
Rouge Parish, Louisiana d/b/a Lane Regional Medical Center.

Allison N. Pham, Charles A. O'Brien, Baton Rouge, LA, and Jonathan
M. Herman, Dallas, TX, Counsel for Defendant, Louisiana Health
Service & Indemnity Company d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of
Louisiana.


HYUNDAI: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Theta II Engines
--------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that Hyundai
and Kia fires have caused a class action lawsuit that alleges the
following models are dangerous to drive due to faulty Theta II
engines.

   -- 2011-2019 Hyundai Sonata
   -- 2013-2019 Hyundai Santa Fe
   -- 2013-2019 Hyundai Santa Fe Sport
   -- 2011-2019 Kia Optima
   -- 2012-2019 Kia Sorento
   -- 2012-2019 Kia Soul
   -- 2011-2019 Kia Sportage

The plaintiffs claim Hyundai and Kia have known about the dangers
of the Theta II engines since at least 2015 but wasted time by not
warning customers about those dangers.

The engines are known to have defects that restrict the flow of oil
to the engines, causing the engines to stall, seize, fail and catch
fire. But according to the plaintiffs, owners suffer the same
problems even when the engines are replaced.

In addition, Hyundai and Kia allegedly have given drivers a false
sense of security by making recall repairs on the vehicles even
while knowing the vehicles are still at risk of fires.

The plaintiffs also allege owners are stuck with vehicles that
aren't worth what they should be, allegedly all because the
automakers have failed to fix the defects.

According to the lawsuit, plaintiff Daniel Adams was driving his
2013 Kia Sorento in June 2018 on a highway in Polk County, Florida,
when the Theta II engine stalled and seized. Adams says the Sorento
lost all power as the steering locked, bringing the vehicle to a
coasting stop. The Sorento was towed to a Kia dealer where the
engine was replaced.

Two months later Adams was driving with his wife and infant child
when all the warning lights illuminated and the engine seized just
as the original did two months before.

The Sorento coasted to a stop as smoke rolled from under the hood,
causing onlookers to honk as large flames started shooting from
under the hood. Mrs. Adams rushed to the back seat to remove her
child from the car seat just seconds before the entire vehicle went
up in flames.

The plaintiffs allege a faulty engine was replaced with another
faulty engine that was just as dangerous as the original motor. Mr.
Adams says it appears the recall repairs made the vehicle even more
dangerous and prone to catch fire because the fuel pump was never
replaced.

According to the lawsuit, it was a leaking fuel pump that caused
the gas leak that ignited the fire.

The Hyundai and Kia class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division
- Daniel Adams and Christine Adams, et al., v. Kia Motors America,
Inc., et al.

The plaintiffs are represented by the G Law Group. [GN]


ILUKA RESOURCES: Harbour Litigation Exits Funding Agreement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Litigation Finance Journal reports that Harbour Litigation Funding
has unilaterally exited a funding agreement with a shareholder
class that is pursuing a class action against Australian mining
firm Iluka Resources. [GN]


INDEPENDENT BANK: Discovery Ongoing in BOH Acquisition-Related Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Independent Bank Group, 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 discovery in BOH
Holdings Acquisition related suit has been extended and the Company
now expects that the trial will be delayed until sometime after May
2020.

Independent Bank is a party to a legal proceeding inherited by
Independent Bank in connection with the Company's acquisition of
BOH Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiary, Bank of Houston, or BOH,
that was completed on April 15, 2014. Several entities related to
R. A. Stanford, or the Stanford Entities, including Stanford
International Bank, Ltd., or SIBL, had deposit accounts at BOH.

Certain individuals who had purchased certificates of deposit from
SIBL filed a class action lawsuit against several banks, including
BOH, on November 11, 2009 in the U.S. District Court Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division, in a case styled Peggy Roif
Rotstain, et al. on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. Trustmark National Bank, et al., Civil Action No.
3:09-CV-02384-N-BG. The suit alleges, among other things, that the
plaintiffs were victims of fraud by SIBL and other Stanford
Entities and seeks to recover damages and alleged fraudulent
transfers by the defendant banks.

On May 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting permission
to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint in this case, which
motion was subsequently granted. The Second Amended Class Action
Complaint asserted previously unasserted claims, including aiding
and abetting or participation in a fraudulent scheme based upon the
large amount of deposits that the Stanford Entities held at BOH and
the alleged knowledge of certain BOH officers. The plaintiffs seek
recovery from Independent Bank and other defendants for their
losses.

The case was inactive due to a court-ordered discovery stay issued
March 2, 2015 pending the Court's ruling on plaintiff's motion for
class certification and designation of class representatives and
counsel. On November 7, 2017, the Court issued an order denying the
plaintiff's motion.

In addition, the Court lifted the previously ordered discovery
stay. On January 11, 2018, the Court entered a scheduling order
providing that the case be ready for trial on January 27, 2020.
However, discovery in this case has been extended and the Company
now expects that the trial will be delayed until sometime after May
2020.

Independent Bank SAID, "The Company has experienced an increase in
legal fees associated with the defense of this claim and
anticipates further increases in legal fees as the case proceeds to
trial."


INTEGRATED TECH: Abellaneda Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOSE D. ABELLANEDA and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff, v. INTEGRATED TECH GROUP, LLC Defendant, Case No.
9:19-cv 80590-DMM (S.D. Fla., May 2, 2019) is an action seeking to
recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages, and for
retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked in excess of 40
hours during one or more weeks on or after July 2017 without being
compensated overtime wages pursuant to the FLSA. Therefore,
Defendant willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime hours at the
rate of time and one-half his regular rate for every hour that he
worked in excess of 40, in violation of the FLSA, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff JOSE D. ABELLANEDA was employed by Defendant as a
technician from approximately July 15, 2017, through March 25,
2019, or 88 weeks.

ITG GROUP is a sub-contractor who provides Comcast Communications
Company, with technicians who install, disconnect, or upgrade
Comcast's cable television, internet services, and other security
related services to customers throughout the Broward area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: LIBOR Suits on Antitrust Matters Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (NYSE: ICE) said that complaints
over alleged conspiracy to set the LIBOR benchmark at artificially
low levels remain ongoing, according to the Company's Form 10-Q/A
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

On January 15, 2019 and January 31, 2019, two virtually identical
purported class action complaints were filed by, respectively,
Putnam Bank, a savings bank based in Putnam, Connecticut, and two
municipal pension funds affiliated with the City of Livonia,
Michigan in the Southern District against ICE and several of its
subsidiaries, including ICE Benchmark Administration Limited
("IBA") (the "ICE Defendants"), as well as 18 multinational banks
and various of their respective subsidiaries and affiliates (the
"Panel Bank Defendants").

On March 4, 2019, a virtually identical complaint was filed on
behalf of four retirement and benefit funds affiliated with the
Hawaii Sheet Metal Workers Union.  IBA is the administrator for
various regulated benchmarks, including the ICE LIBOR benchmark
that is calculated daily based upon the submissions from a
reference panel (which includes the Panel Bank Defendants).

The plaintiffs seek to litigate on behalf of a purported class of
all U.S.-based persons or entities who transacted with a Panel Bank
Defendant by receiving a payment on an interest rate indexed to a
LIBOR-benchmarked rate during the period February 1, 2014 to the
present.  The plaintiffs allege that the ICE Defendants and Panel
Bank Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to set the LIBOR benchmark
at artificially low levels, with an alleged purpose and effect of
depressing payments by the Panel Bank Defendants to members of the
purported class.  

The complaints assert claims for violations of the Sherman and
Clayton Antitrust Acts and for unjust enrichment under common law,
and seek unspecified treble damages and other relief.  ICE intends
to vigorously defend these matters.

Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. operates regulated exchanges,
clearing houses, and listings venues for commodity, financial,
fixed income, and equity markets in the United States, the United
Kingdom, European Union, Asia, Israel, and Canada. Intercontinental
Exchange, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Atlanta,
Georgia.


INTERNATIONAL RECOVERY: Taylor Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against International
Recovery Associates, Inc. The case is styled as Rozell Taylor
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. International Recovery Associates, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-02610 (E.D. N.Y., May 3, 2019).

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

International Recovery Associates Inc. is a full-service collection
agency providing services for debt recovery.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


J.G. WENTWORTH: Gill Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Loan Officers
--------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW GILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. J.G. WENTWORTH HOME LENDING LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 9:19-cv-80591-RLR (S.D. Fla., May 2, 2019) is an opt-in
collective action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Loan Officer from
approximately December of 2017 until November of 2018 in Boca
Raton, Florida.

According to the complaint, the Defendant paid Loan Officers an
hourly rate and a commission. If the commission for the pay period
was greater than the hourly rate pay, Plaintiff and the Loan
Officers were not paid the hourly rate. They were solely paid the
commission which essentially resulted in Defendant paying them on a
commission-only basis ("Commission Basis"). The hours worked by
Loan Officers were not accurately tracked or counted towards total
hours worked and no overtime was paid for these hours ("Uncounted
Hours Policy"). Because Defendant did not accurately track and pay
for all hours worked, including overtime hours, Defendant violated
the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff overtime compensation for all
hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.

The Defendant also violated the FLSA by failing to include all
required remuneration into the regular rate of pay to calculate
overtime for any overtime pay it managed to pay Plaintiff and the
Class Members. The payments erroneously excluded from the regular
rate of pay include, without limitation, commissions and
non-discretionary bonus pay ("Additional Pay"). Defendant's failure
to include Additional Pay into Loan Officer's regular rate to
calculate and pay overtime ("Overtime Miscalculation Policy")
violated the FLSA, says the complaint.

J. G. Wentworth Home Lending LLC is a Virginia limited liability
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
     Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, PA.
     1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Direct No: 813-337-7992
     Main No: 813-224-0431
     Facsimile: 813-229-8712
     Email: bhill@wfclaw.com
            twells@wfclaw.com

          - and ???

     Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
     The Law Office of Chris R.
     Miltenberger, PLLC
     1340 N. White Chapel, Suite 100
     Southlake, TX 76092-4322
     Phone: 817-416-5060 (office)
     Fax: 817-416-5062 (fax)
     Email: chris@crmlawpractice.com

          - and ???

     Jack Siegel, Esq.
     SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
     2820 McKinnon, Suite 5009
     Dallas, TX 75201
     Phone: (214) 790-4454
     Email: jack@siegellawgroup.biz

JDBN LLC: Sushi Chef Seeks Proper Wages Under FLSA and NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------
LIN CUI, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. JDBN, LLC d/b/a DOMODOMO, JAE PARK, BRIAN
KIM, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03959
(S.D. N.Y., May 2, 2019) seeks to recover unpaid wages owed to
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL")
and for failure to provide proper wage notices and wage statements
pursuant to NYLL and the supporting regulations.

Despite working approximately over 60 hours per week from 2017
through 2019, Defendants paid Plaintiff a flat amount per week,
asserts the complaint. Upon information and belief, Defendants had
a policy and practice of deducting 40% of the tips of Defendants'
other employees, including but not limited to, the waitresses and
waiters, and informed the waitresses and waiters that those tips
were being distributed to the sushi chefs. Yet, Defendants did not
distribute the tips to the chefs and instead paid the salary of the
chefs with the deductions from the wait staff. Defendants
maintained control over the tips by receiving the tips (in cash or
credit) and distributing the tips with Defendants' waitresses and
waiters' paychecks. At all times herein, Defendants do not
distribute 40% of the tipped pool to the sushi chefs and instead
pay the sushi chefs a regular flat salary, says the complaint.

Plaintiff worked as a sushi chef at Defendants' restaurant on or
about December 2017, until on or about February 2019.

Domodomo is a restaurant located at 138-140 W. Houston Street New
York, New York 10012.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Emre M. Polat, Esq.
     Grace Hyun, Esq.
     POLAT LAW GROUP, PLLC
     45 Broadway, Suite 1420
     New York, NY 10006
     Phone: (212) 480-4500
     Email: emre@polatlawyers.com
            grace@polatlawyers.com


JOE COLE PLUMBING: Hancotte Sues Over Unpaid Travel Time to Miami
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN A. HANCOTTE, and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff, v. JOE COLE PLUMBING, CORP. and JOSEPH L. COLE JR.,
individually Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-61117-XXXX (S.D. Fla.,
May 2, 2019) is an action to recover money damages for unpaid
regular and overtime wages under the laws of the United States,
specifically the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

At the beginning of his employment, or for approximately 8 weeks,
Plaintiff was paid for all his working hours, including preliminary
activities and travel time which constituted overtime hours, at the
correct rate of time and a half his regular rate, or $31.50 an
hour. However, after approximately 8 weeks, Defendants did not pay
Plaintiff for the preliminary activities and the travel time to
Miami anymore. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff 10 hours of
compensable time for approximately 40 weeks. The Defendants also
willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime hours at the rate of
time and one-half his regular rate for every hour that they worked
in excess of 40, in violation of FLSA, asserts the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a non-exempt, full time,
hourly employee from June 1, 2017 to May 4, 2018, or 48 weeks.

JOE COLE PLUMBING is a construction contractor providing plumbing
installation, repairs, maintenance, and related services to
residential and commercial accounts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Angione Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 23, 2019, the claims against them in the lawsuit
titled LYNNE ANGIONE, 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-03150 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").

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 October 16, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the
Superior Court of Los Angeles 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 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 Armstead Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 23, 2019, the claims against them in the lawsuit
captioned RONALD W. ARMSTEAD, an individual and as Special
Administrator of the Estate of ETHEL L. ARMSTEAD 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-03157 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").

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 November 16, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the
Superior Court of Santa Clarita 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 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 Assatourians Talc Suit to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 23, 2019, the claims against them in the matter
entitled CRISTINA ASSATOURIANS, 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-03161 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").

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 November 21, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the
Superior Court of Los Angeles 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 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 Avino Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 23, 2019, the claims against them in the lawsuit
styled ALEJANDRA AVINO, an individual and as Successor in Interest
for MARIA ARTEAGA 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-03165 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").

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 September 19, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the
Superior Court of Los Angeles 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 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 Babb Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 23, 2019, the claims against them in the matter
titled MARJORIE A. BABB, 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-03169 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").

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 November 6, 2017, 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 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 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 Beetem Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 23, 2019, the claims against them in the lawsuit
captioned Tara Beetem, Individually, and as Successor-in-Interest
to the Estate of Sheilia E. Parkinson 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-03162 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").

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 December 27, 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 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 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 Berdue Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 23, 2019, the claims against them in the matter
entitled DARLENE BERDUE 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-03181 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").

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 October 31, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the
Superior Court of Solano 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 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 Frederick Talc Injury Suit to D. Del.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. and
OMJ Pharmaceuticals, Inc., removed on April 23, 2019, the claims
against them in the lawsuit styled JENNIFER FREDERICK v. JOHNSON &
JOHNSON, JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; OMJ
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., f/k/a JOHNSON & JOHNSON BABY PRODUCTS;
IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., f/k/a LUZENAC AMERICA, INC.; RIO TINTO
MINERALS INC., AND RIO TINTO MINERAL SERVICES 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-00726-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").

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'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 and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.,
formerly known as Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., are
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 Jackson 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 lawsuit
styled MELLISSA JACKSON, Individually and as Personal
Representative of the Estate of BETTY L. REINHEIMER v. CYPRUS AMAX
MINERALS CO., etc., et al., Case No. 19-CA-001257, 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-00957-JDW-JSS 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

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

Thiokol Corp. is represented by:

          Jonathan D. Franklin, Esq.
          FRANKLIN LEGAL GROUP, PA
          9155 S Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1710
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 677-8000
          E-mail: Court-Service@FranklinLG.com

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

Defendants Publix Super Markets, Inc., and and Winn-Dixie Stores,
Inc., are represented by:

          Andie 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

Ford Motor Company 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: (786) 268-6420
          E-mail: Clarke.sturge@csklegal.com
                  Daniela.salazar@csklegal.com
                  Henry.salas@csklegal.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Jacobs Talc Injury Suit to D. Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The J&J Defendants removed on the claims against J&J in the lawsuit
titled LAURA JACOBS, Individually and as Personal Representative of
the Estate of SHERRI WRIGHT 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-00719-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 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 Decedent Sherri Wright'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's injuries, including Decedent
Sherri Wright's 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]

Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.,
formerly known as Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., are
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 Kurten Talc Injury Suit to D. Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The J&J Defendants removed on April 22, 2019, the claims against
them in the matter captioned TRUDY KURTEN 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-00718-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 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, 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]

Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.,
formerly known as Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., are
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 Lefton Talc Injury Suit to N.D. Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 22, 2019, the claims against them in the lawsuit
entitled MICHAEL R. LEFTON AND MARLENE LEFTON v. AVON PRODUCTS,
INC., et al., from the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County,
Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00901 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").

Although not named as co-defendants in the matter, the Debtors
supplied talc to J&J and the Plaintiff may have claims against the
Debtors' estates.  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 Plaintiff Michael R.
Lefton'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 and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
are represented by:

          Christopher J. Caryl, Esq.
          Nicole E. Braden Lewis, Esq.
          Sarena M. Holder, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100
          Cleveland, OH 44113-7213
          Telephone: (216) 592-5000
          Facsimile: (216) 592-5009
          E-mail: christopher.caryl@tuckerellis.com
                  nicole.lewis@tuckerellis.com
                  sarena.holder@tuckerellis.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes McGonigle Talc Injury Suit to D. Del.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The J&J Defendants removed on April 22, 2019, the claims against
them in the matter styled JOYCE MCGONIGLE v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON;
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC., f/k/a JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER
COMPANIES, INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., f/k/a LUZENAC AMERICA,
INC.; U.S. BORAX, INC.; RIO TINTO MINERALS, INC.; AND RIO TINTO
MINERAL SERVICES 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-00724-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


KONICA MINOLTA: Noriesta Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned HARRY NORIESTA, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS U.S.A., INC., a New York
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. CIVDS1909908 was removed from the Superior Court of California
for the County of San Bernardino to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on May 3, 2019, and
assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-00839.

The complaint alleges eight causes of action against KMBS for:
Unpaid Overtime; Unpaid Meal Period Premiums; Unpaid Rest Period
Premiums; Unpaid Minimum Wages; Final Wages Not Timely Paid;
Non-Compliant Wage Statements; Unreimbursed Business Expenses; and
Violation of California Business & Professions Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     Loren Gesinsky, Esq.
     SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
     620 Eighth Avenue
     New York, NY 10018
     Phone: (212) 218-5000
     Facsimile: (212) 218-5526
     Email: lgesinsky@seyfarth.com

          - and -

     Eric E. Hill, Esq.
     SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
     560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94105
     Phone: (415) 397-2823
     Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
     Email: ehill@seyfarth.com

          - and -

     Reiko Furuta, Esq.
     SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
     2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 277-7200
     Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
     Email: rfuruta@seyfarth.com

          - and -

     Simon L. Yang, Esq.
     SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
     601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300
     Los Angeles, CA 90017
     Phone: (213) 270-9600
     Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
     Email: syang@seyfarth.com


KUSHCO HOLDINGS: May Sues Over Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------
Joe W. May, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Kushco Holdings, Inc., Nicholas Kovacevich,
Christopher Tedford, Jim Mccormick and Chris Martin, Defendant,
Case No. 19-cv-00798 (C.D. Cal., April 30, 2019), seeks to recover
damages caused by violations of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

KushCo primarily engages in the wholesale distribution of packaging
supplies in the United States, Canada, Europe, and internationally.
KushCo offers poptop bottles, child resistant exit, paper exit,
foil barrier bags, tubes and polystyrene, silicone-lined
polystyrene or glass containers. KushCo also provides vaporizer
cartridges, heating technologies, batteries, and disposable units,
and hydrocarbon gases, including isobutene, n-butane, propane,
ethanol, pre-mixes, custom blends, and other solvents.

The complaint asserts that the Defendants failed to disclose that
KushCo made material accounting errors in connection with its
acquisitions of CMP Wellness, Summit and Hybrid; and that KushCo's
net loss for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2018, was more than
twice as high than previously reported.

On this news, KushCo's stock price fell $0.45 per share, or 7.76%,
to close at $5.35 on April 10, 2019. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90024
      Telephone: (818) 532-6499
      E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

              - and -

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


LASALLE GROUP: Court Conditionally Certifies Wage & Hour Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' Motion for
Conditional Certification of a Collective Action in the case
captioned ARACELIS RUFFOLO and DOMINIQUE BONSEIGNEUR, individually
and on behalf those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LaSALLE
GROUP, INC. and TAMYRA MIRACLE, Individually, Defendants. Case No.
18 C 3305. (N.D. Ill.).

This case concerns allegations of wage theft arising from
Plaintiffs' period of employment with Defendant LaSalle Group, Inc.
(LaSalle). LaSalle is a corporation that owns and operates assisted
living facilities throughout the United States, including several
in this judicial district.

The Plaintiffs bring three counts against the Defendants: (1) a
putative collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b)
against LaSalle for violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
(2) a putative class action pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23 against
LaSalle for violating the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL) and (3)
individual claims by Ruffolo and Bonseigneur against LaSalle and
Miracle for defamation.

LaSalle argues that Plaintiff's Motion should be denied because:
(1) Plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence to show a
common unlawful policy (2) Plaintiffs are not similarly situated to
the putative collective (3) Plaintiffs' putative collective is
over-broad and (4) Plaintiffs' proposed notice form is improper.  

Common Policy or Practice

A successful motion for conditional certification must make a
modest factual showing that Plaintiffs and their putative
collective were victims of a common policy or plan that violated
the law.  

First, LaSalle claims that Plaintiffs merely alleged individual
FLSA violations, rather than an unlawful company-wide policy.

The Court disagrees.

Both Ruffolo and Bonseigneur submitted declarations that allege an
unlawful company-wide policy: automatically deducting 30 minutes
from all its hourly employees' time, regardless of whether or not
the employee actually takes a lunch break. Both Bonseigneur and
Ruffolo said that they were often unable to take a lunch breaks,
and that 30 minutes were still deducted from their pay when they
worked through lunch. Bonseigneur, as a former LaSalle
administrator, was also able to allege specific facts about the
company-wide nature of the allegedly unlawful policy.   Thus,
LaSalle's first argument fails.

Second, LaSalle asserts, correctly, that merely deducting an hourly
worker's time for meal breaks does not violate the FLSA. LaSalle
contends that its automatic lunch deduction policy is lawful
because it provides a mechanism by which hourly employees can
petition to override the deduction if their lunch break is
interrupted.  

However, Plaintiffs do not claim that LaSalle's policy violates the
FLSA merely because it features an automatic deduction. Rather,
Plaintiffs claim that regardless of LaSalle's written policy, in
practice LaSalle was not paying them and other hourly workers for
working through their automatic lunch breaks.  

Accordingly, LaSalle's argument fails.

Third, LaSalle argues that Plaintiffs cannot establish their claims
using unsupported assertions and hearsay. Hearsay is an
out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter
asserted, and it is generally inadmissible. Plaintiffs'
declarations do contain allegations that would be inadmissible if
they were offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.   

Accordingly, LaSalle's hearsay argument is unavailing.

Similarly Situated

LaSalle contends that Plaintiffs cannot establish that any
individuals they seek to represent are similarly situated because
their claims require individualized, fact-intensive inquiries.
LaSalle claims that the particularized inquiry of whether an
employee worked during lunch and whether the employee received a
deduction override is not suitable for collective treatment. To
support this claim, LaSalle cites to another FLSA automatic meal
time deduction case.  

Accordingly, this argument fails.

LaSalle next argues that Plaintiffs are not similarly situated
because neither Bonseigneur nor Ruffolo held job duties similar to
all other hourly employees nationwide. It is true that Bonseigneur
and Ruffolo had different roles with different responsibilities.
Ruffolo's role was largely focused on resident care, as she was
responsible for scheduling and executing activities for the
residents. LaSalle insists that these differences set Plaintiffs
too far apart from other hourly workers to be situated similarly to
them.

However, Plaintiffs do not have to show that the potential
collective] members have identical positions for conditional
certification to be granted; Plaintiffs can be similarly situated
for purposes of the FLSA even though there are distinctions in
their job titles, functions, or pay. Here, both Plaintiffs were
full-time hourly employees of LaSalle. And LaSalle admits that its
hourly workers are all subject to the same automatic lunch
deduction.   

Thus, the Court will treat LaSalle's hourly workers as similarly
situated despite some variation in their job duties.

Scope of Putative Collective

LaSalle argues that the putative collective must be narrowed to
include only employees reporting to Defendant Miracle, who has been
the Executive Director of LaSalle's South Barrington location since
May 2017. LaSalle claims that this narrowing is necessary because
Plaintiffs failed to offer information sufficient to support FLSA
claims at any other location, for any other manager, and at any
time before May 2017.

The Court disagrees.

Plaintiffs allege that the automatic lunch deduction policy applies
to all hourly workers across all locations; LaSalle's own Response
and employee handbook confirm that. And Plaintiffs have alleged
sufficient personal knowledge to support a nationwide scope. By the
Court's count, Bonseigneur has worked at or with at least four
LaSalle facilities in Illinois (St. Charles, South Barrington,
Arlington Heights, and Vernon Hills), and at least one unspecified
Wisconsin facility. Bonseigneur also has personal knowledge of
LaSalle's company-wide policy and practices as a result of her
administrative duties.   

This is sufficient at this stage.

For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs' Motion is granted in
part and denied in part as follows:

   (1) The Court conditionally certifies a collective action by
Plaintiffs and similarly situated members of the collective
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section216(b), defined as:

       All persons employed by LaSalle as hourly wage earning
(i.e., non-salaried) employees for the three years preceding the
issuance of the notice, who were shorted wages based on LaSalle's
lunch deduction policy.

   (2) The Court orders LaSalle to produce to Plaintiffs in a
usable electronic format the names, last known mailing address,
email address, telephone number, and dates of employment of all
putative collective members to be notified.

    (3) The Court denies Plaintiffs' proposed notice form, and
request for authorization to send notice to all potential opt-ins,
without prejudice. Parties shall file either an agreed notice form,
or short briefing (five pages or less) to the Court on the matters
on which they cannot agree.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 28, 2019
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y6p5ap55 from Leagle.com.

Aracelis Ruffolo, Dominique Bonseigneur & Bianca Fairman, on behalf
of themselves and all other plaintiffs similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by David J. Fish , The Fish Law Firm, P.C.,
John C. Kunze, The Fish Law Firm & Kimberly A. Hilton, The Fish Law
Firm, P.C.

LaSalle Group, Inc. & Tamyra Miracle, individually, Defendants,
represented by Michael D. Ray -- michael.ray@ogletree.com --
Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. & Colleen Grace DeRosa --
colleem.derosa@ogletree.com - Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &
Stewart, P.C.


LIBERTY POWER: Faces Katz Class Suit in Colorado
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Liberty Power Corp.,
LLC. The case is styled as Samuel Katz, Alexander Braurman, Lynne
Rhodes, individually, on their own behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Liberty Power Corp., LLC
Delaware limited liability companies, Liberty Power Holdings, LLC
Delaware limited liability companies, Defendant, Mezzi Marketing,
LLC, Third Party Defendant, StarTek USA, Inc. Delaware and Colorado
corporations, Interested Party, Case No. 1:19-mc-00036-WJM-SKC (D.
Colo., May 3, 2019).

The cause of suit is stated as Civil Miscellaneous Case.

Liberty Power Corp, L.L.C. distributes electricity. The Company
offers electricity to residential, large commercial, and business
sectors. Liberty Power serves customers in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Steven Lezell Woodrow, Esq.
     Woodrow & Peluso, LLC
     3900 East Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
     Denver, CO 80210
     Phone: (720) 213-0675
     Fax: (303) 927-0898
     Email: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com


LOUISIANA: La. App. Vacates Class Certification in S. Gross Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit, issued an Opinion
vacating the District Court's judgment granting Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification in the case captioned SARAH GROSS
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE CLASS, v. STATE OF LOUISIANA
THROUGH THE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND KIMBERLY L.
ROBINSON, SECRETARY, LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE. Nos. 2017 CW
0572 And 2017 CA 1137. (1st Cir.).

The Louisiana Department of Revenue (LDR) and Kimberly Robertson,
Secretary of LDR, seek review of the trial court's judgments
certifying a class action.

Plaintiff in this matter, Sarah Gross, contracted with a solar
panel company to purchase and install a solar energy system
(System) at a price of $25,000.00 in March of 2015. According to
Gross, she was incentivized by the solar energy systems tax credit
afforded in LSA-R.S. 47:6030, which was in effect at the time she
installed her System.

Gross, on behalf of a purported class, also made the following
allegations: (1) there were over 1,500 affected taxpayers who
purchased and installed Systems prior to the effective date of the
amendment to LSA-R.S. 47:6030 (2) there were common issues of law
and fact (3) the claims of Gross are typical of the claims of the
purported class (4) she would fairly and adequately represent the
class and (5) that a class action procedure was the superior method
for the fair and efficient adjudication of the claims asserted.

In her motion for class certification, Gross defined the proposed
class as follows:

     All persons who purchased and installed a solar electric
system at a Louisiana residence in compliance with all of the
requirements set forth in La. R.S. 47:6030 prior to June 19, 2015
(the Purchase), the effective date of the Louisiana Legislature's
passage of Act 131 during the 2015 Regular Session amending La.
R.S. 47:6030, who thereby obtained a vested right to a solar energy
system tax credit as a result of said Purchase and who: (a) filed a
tax return, otherwise complied with the tax credit application
requirements set forth in La. R.S. 47:6030, and had any portion of
their Purchase-related tax credit(s) withheld or denied; or (b) who
timely file[d] a tax return after the filing of this petition and
otherwise complied with the tax credit application requirements set
forth in La. R.S. 47:6030, and who have any portion of their
Purchase-related tax credit(s) withheld or denied.

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 591(A) provides that a
class action is a proper procedural device when:

   (1) The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable.

   (2) There are questions of law or fact common to the class.

   (3) The claims or defenses of the representative parties are
typical of the claims or defenses of the class.

   (4) The representative parties will fairly and adequately
protect the interests of the class.

   (5) The class is or may be defined objectively in terms of
ascertainable criteria, such that the court may determine the
constituency of the class for purposes of the conclusiveness of any
judgment that may be rendered in the case.  

The Court notes that the class certified by the trial court
includes individuals who had any portion of their Purchase-related
tax credit(s) withheld or denied. Ms. Gross' claim arises from her
tax credit being withheld, not denied. A plaintiff only has
standing to seek review of the denial of a tax credit if they
appealed the denial to the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA). This court
determined that while putative class members appealed their
respective claims to the BTA within the appropriate time period,
the record was devoid as to whether the other purported class
members appealed to the BTA, making it unclear whether each
purported class member had standing in the district court action.
If a purported class member lacked standing, this court concluded
that the putative plaintiffs cannot represent them in the district
court action. As such, this court ultimately determined that the
requirements under LSA-C.C.P. art. 591 had not been met such that
the trial court manifestly erred in certifying the class.

Ms. Gross clearly cannot represent those individuals whose claims
were denied and who did not seek review with the BTA. The Court
recognizes that the certified class at issue here also included all
individuals whose claims were deferred as well as those individuals
whose claims were denied and who did seek review with the BTA. Ms.
Gross could potentially represent those individuals if the
certification requirements in LSA-C.C.P. art. 591 are met.
Nevertheless, in certifying the class, the trial court included
parties whose claims were both denied, whether they sought review
from the BTA or not, as well as those individuals whose claims were
deferred. In light of Ulrich, however, the class as currently
certified is not proper.

Under LSA-C.C.P. art. 592A(3)(d), the trial court can alter, amend,
or recall its initial ruling on certification and may enlarge,
restrict, or otherwise redefine the constituency of the class or
the issues to be maintained in the class action. Given this court's
ruling in Ulrich and the authority vested in the trial court under
592A(3)(d), the Court vacates the class certification and remand
this matter to the trial court to consider whether certification of
a more limited class is appropriate under LSA-C.C.P. art. 591.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals??? February 28, 2019
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2ap2xuc from
Leagle.com

R. Ray Orrill, Jr., Jeffrey L. Oakes, Alex L. M. Ducros, and G.
Brice Jones, Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee, Sarah Gross,
Individually and on behalf of the Class.

Christopher K. Jones -- cjones@sandsanderson.com -- Nancy B.
Gilbert, Brent J. Cobb, John N. Grinton, Antonio C. Ferachi,
Brandea Averett, Counsel for Defendants/Appellants, State of
Louisiana, through the Louisiana Department of Revenue and Kimberly
Robinson, Secretary for the Louisiana Department of Revenue.


MASTERED LANGUAGES: Translators Seek Proper Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
MOHAMED HWAILI on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. MASTERED LANGUAGES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01623 (S.D. Tex., May 2, 2019) is a
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") case implicating the longstanding
pay policy of Mastered Languages, LLC, which fails to properly
compensate its non-exempt employees for their overtime hours.

The Defendant misclassified Plaintiff and other translators (the
"Class Members") as independent contractors and deprived them of
the overtime of which they are entitled under the FLSA, asserts the
complaint. The Defendant's conduct violates the FLSA because of the
mandate that non-exempt employees, such as Plaintiff and the Class
Members, be paid at one and one half their regular rate of pay for
all hours worked in excess of forty within a single week, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff worked for Defendant from approximately February of 2015
to April of 2019 as a translator and patient coordinator.

Mastered Languages, LLC provides translation and patient liaison
services for largely Arabic speaking patients in the Houston
Medical Center.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq.
     John Neuman, Esq.
     SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
     5612 Chaucer Drive
     Houston, TX 77005
     Phone: (281) 885-8844
     Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
     Email: JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com
            BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com


MCEWEN LAW FIRM: Malpractice Suit Remanded to Circuit Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois issued a Memorandum and Order remanding the case to the
Circuit Court in the case captioned DEBBIE FOSTER, Plaintiff, v.
GREGORY McEWEN, and McEWEN LAW FIRM, LTD., Defendants. Case No.
3:17-CV-521-NJR. (S.D. Ill.).

This legal malpractice lawsuit stems from work performed (or not
performed) by certain plaintiffs' attorneys in the Yaz
multi-district litigation (MDL).  

In the MDL, plaintiffs claimed Yaz manufacturer Bayer Healthcare
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., knew or should have known that Yaz birth
control had serious health risks associated with its use, yet
failed to warn individuals and their health care providers of those
risks.

This case was transferred to the undersigned District Judge on
December 19, 2018. After thoroughly reviewing the matter, the Court
declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Foster's state
law legal malpractice claim.

Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction" over state-law claims if the
court has dismissed all claims over which it has original
jurisdiction. A district court's decision whether to exercise that
jurisdiction after dismissing every claim over which it had
original jurisdiction is purely discretionary. Although the
decision is discretionary, when all federal claims in a suit in
federal court are dismissed before trial, the presumption is that
the court will relinquish federal jurisdiction over any
supplemental state-law claims.

Here, the claims over which there was original jurisdiction have
been dismissed, and all that is left is a single legal malpractice
claim an issue purely of Illinois state law. Thus, the presumption
is that this case would return to state court. And the facts of
this matter support a remand to St. Clair County. Few resources
have been expended by the Court in overseeing this claim or by the
parties involved, as discovery was stayed while Judge Herndon
determined the liability of Lead and Liaison counsel. Furthermore,
a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment, both based
on Illinois law, are still pending, which gives an Illinois court
an opportunity to interpret Illinois law. The Court also notes that
while Judge Herndon may have had a special interest in deciding the
supplemental claims in this case, given his years of experience
overseeing the MDL, the undersigned lacks any connection to the Yaz
litigation or the parties in this matter.

In sum, there simply is no longer any reason for this federal court
to wade into areas of Illinois state law. For these reasons, the
Court concludes that state court is the more appropriate forum for
this case. Accordingly, the Court remands this matter the Circuit
Court of St. Clair County, Illinois, for all further proceedings.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 28, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2x2st4g from Leagle.com.

Jessica Casey, individually, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Melody Edwards, individually, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated & Debbie Foster,
individually, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Kevin B. Rogers --
kevin@kevinrogerslaw.com -- Law Office of Kevin Rogers.

Daniel P. Massey, individually & Daniel Massey Law Firm, P.C.,
Defendants, represented by Alan M. Bernover --
bernover@litchfieldcavo.com -- Litchfield Cavo LLP, Mitchell H.
Frazen -- frazen@litchfieldcavo.com -- Litchfield Cavo LLP & Steven
Brandstedt -- Brandstedt@nullLitchfieldCavo.com -- Litchfield Cavo
LLP.

Gregory McEwen, individually & McEwen Law Firm, Ltd., Defendants,
represented by A. J. Bronsky -- ajbronsky@bjpc.com -- Brown & James
Generally Admitted & Todd A. Lubben -- tlubben@pjpc.com -- Brown &
James.


MDL 2885: Ascanio Suit Consolidated in 3M Earplug Lititigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled Anthony F. Ascanio v. 3M COMPANY, AEARO
HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE, LLC, AEARO, LLC, and AEARO
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Case No. 0:19-cv-00246, was transferred on April
23, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Florida (Pensacola).

The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-00913-MCR-GRJ to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS EARPLUG PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 3:19-md-02885-MCR-GRJ.

The lawsuit arises out of an alleged extensive fraud that 3M
perpetrated on the United States Government and the men and women,
who served in the United States Armed Forces.  From approximately
2003 through 2015, 3M sold to the USAF tens of thousands of
dual-ended Combat Arms Earplugs, version 2 ("Combat Arms Earplugs")
which 3M falsely represented as meeting the military's
specifications, including that they were suitable for use as
hearing protection for military personnel and that they were free
from all defects that impair their serviceability.  All the while,
3M knew the Combat Arms Earplugs were defective and would expose
service members to the extremely dangerous and disabling noise the
Combat Arms Earplugs were supposed to protect against.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street, Suite 4600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-2242
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          Facsimile: (612) 215-6870
          E-mail: fisher@nka.com

               - and -

          George A. Hanson, Esq.
          Abby E. McClellan, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
          E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
                  mcclellan@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          Amy M. Zeman, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          505 14th Street, Suite 1110
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 350-9710
          E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com
                  amz@classlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Mark H. Troutman, Esq.
          Gregory M. Travalio, Esq.
          Shawn K. Judge, Esq.
          ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, LLC
          Two Miranova Place, Suite 700
          Columbus, OH 43215-5098
          Telephone: (614) 221-2121
          Facsimile: (614) 365-9516
          E-mail: mtroutman@isaacwiles.com
                  gtravalio@isaacwiles.com
                  sjudge@isaacwiles.com

Defendant 3M COMPANY is represented by:

          Benjamin W. Hulse, Esq.
          Jerry W. Blackwell, Esq.
          Monica L. Davies, Esq.
          BLACKWELL BURKE PA
          431 S 7th Street, Suite 2500
          Minneapolis, MN 55415
          Telephone: (612) 343-3200
          Facsimile: (612) 343-3205
          E-mail: bhulse@blackwellburke.com
                  blackwell@blackwellburke.com
                  mdavies@blackwellburke.com


MDL 2885: Lyle Suit Consolidated in 3M Earplug Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------
James B. Lyle v. 3M COMPANY, AEARO HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO
INTERMEDIATE, LLC, AEARO, LLC, and AEARO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Case
No. 0:19-cv-00493, was transferred on April 23, 2019, from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola).

The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-00892-MCR-GRJ to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS EARPLUG PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 3:19-md-02885-MCR-GRJ.

The lawsuit arises out of an alleged extensive fraud that 3M
perpetrated on the United States Government and the men and women,
who served in the United States Armed Forces.  From approximately
2003 through 2015, 3M sold to the USAF tens of thousands of
dual-ended Combat Arms Earplugs, version 2 ("Combat Arms Earplugs")
which 3M falsely represented as meeting the military's
specifications, including that they were suitable for use as
hearing protection for military personnel and that they were free
from all defects that impair their serviceability.  All the while,
3M knew the Combat Arms Earplugs were defective and would expose
service members to the extremely dangerous and disabling noise the
Combat Arms Earplugs were supposed to protect against.[BN]

Plaintiff JAMES B. LYLE is represented by:

          Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3229
          Facsimile: (612) 215-6870
          E-mail: fisher@nka.com

               - and -

          George A. Hanson, Esq.
          Abby E. McClellan, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
          E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
                  mcclellan@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          Amy M. Zeman, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          505 14th Street, Suite 1110
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 350-9710
          E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com
                  amz@classlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Mark H. Troutman, Esq.
          Gregory M. Travalio, Esq.
          Shawn K. Judge, Esq.
          ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, LLC
          Two Miranova Place, Suite 700
          Columbus, OH 43215-5098
          Telephone: (614) 221-2121
          Facsimile: (614) 365-9516
          E-mail: mtroutman@isaacwiles.com
                  gtravalio@isaacwiles.com
                  sjudge@isaacwiles.com

Defendant 3M COMPANY is represented by:

          Benjamin W. Hulse, Esq.
          Jerry W. Blackwell, Esq.
          Monica L. Davies, Esq.
          S. Jamal Faleel, Esq.
          BLACKWELL BURKE PA
          431 S 7th St., Suite 2500
          Minneapolis, MN 55415
          Telephone: (612) 343-3200
          Facsimile: (612) 343-3205
          E-mail: bhulse@blackwellburke.com
                  blackwell@blackwellburke.com
                  mdavies@blackwellburke.com
                  jfaleel@blackwellburke.com

Defendants AEARO HOLDING LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE LLC, AEARO LLC and
AEARO TECHNOLOGIES LLC are represented by:

          Faris Rashid, Esq.
          GREENE ESPEL PLLP
          222 S. Ninth Street, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 373-8375
          Facsimile: (612) 373-0929
          E-mail: frashid@greeneespel.com


MENLO THERAPEUTICS: McKay Securities Class Action Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Menlo Therapeutics Inc. is facing a putative securities class
action complaint captioned Hugh McKay v. Menlo Therapeutics, Inc.,
et al., Case No.19-CIV-00574, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

On January 28, 2019, the case was filed in state court in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo,
against the Company, certain of its current executive officers and
its directors, and certain underwriters in the Company's initial
public offering.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 due to allegedly false and misleading
statements in connection with the Company's initial public
offering.  The Company believes that the lawsuits are without merit
and intends to vigorously defend itself.  Accordingly, the Company
cannot reasonably estimate any range of potential future charges,
and the Company has not recorded any accrual for a contingent
liability associated with these legal proceedings.

Menlo Therapeutics Inc., a late-stage biopharmaceutical company,
focuses on the development and commercialization of serlopitant for
the treatment of pruritus associated with dermatologic conditions
in the United States. Menlo Therapeutics Inc. was founded in 2011
and is headquartered in Redwood City, California.


MENLO THERAPEUTICS: Savelstrov Securities Class Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Menlo Therapeutics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019, that the Company is defending against a
putative securities class action complaint captioned Pavel
Savelstrov v. Menlo Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case
No.18-CIV-06049.

The case was filed on November 8, 2018, in state court in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo,
against the Company, certain of its current executive officers and
its directors, and certain underwriters in the Company's initial
public offering.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 due to allegedly false and misleading
statements in connection with the Company's initial public
offering.

The Company believes that the lawsuits are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend itself.  Accordingly, the Company
cannot reasonably estimate any range of potential future charges,
and the Company has not recorded any accrual for a contingent
liability associated with these legal proceedings.

Menlo Therapeutics Inc., a late-stage biopharmaceutical company,
focuses on the development and commercialization of serlopitant for
the treatment of pruritus associated with dermatologic conditions
in the United States. Menlo Therapeutics Inc. was founded in 2011
and is headquartered in Redwood City, California.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Camarda Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Thomas Camarda on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Midland
Credit Management, Inc., John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-01923-NIQA (E.D. Pa., May 3, 2019).

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

Midland Credit Management, Inc., a licensed debt collector, assists
customers in resolving past-due financial obligations through
various education and payment plans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     ROBERT P. COCCO, ESQ.
     LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT P. COCCO PC
     1500 WALNUT ST., STE 900
     PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102
     Phone: (215) 351-0200
     Fax: (215) 922-3874
     Email: rcocco@rcn.com


MOHAMMAD AL-MOJIL: Faces Class Action Over 2008 IPO
---------------------------------------------------
Jack Ball0, writing for ConstructionWeekOnline, reports that Saudi
Arabia's financial regulator has accepted a request to register a
class action lawsuit against members of Saudi Arabia's Dammam-based
contractor Mohammad Al-Mojil Group (MMG), in relation to the
group's 2008 initial public offering (IPO) on the kingdom's bourse,
Tadawul.

According an official statement, the General Secretariat of
Committees Resolution of Securities (GS-CRSD) -- part of the
kingdom's Capital Market Authority (CMA) -- said it had agreed to
class action after "a number of joining requests that share the
same legal bases, merits, and subject matter of the claims [. . .]
reached the specified threshold to issue an approval of the class
action suit".

The decision comes nearly three years after an initial CRSD
decision in June 2016 to impose prison terms on three of MMG's
members, including founder Mohammad Al-Mojil and his son Adel
Al-Mojil.

February 2017 saw CMA name nine defendents, including accountancy
firm Deloitte, for 'illegal profits' and other irregularities
during MMG's IPO in 2008.

According to a report by Arab News at the time, penalties included
a sanction of $432m (SAR1.62bn) against former chairman of MMG's
board, Mohammed bin Hamad Al-Mojil, alondside a five-year prison
term, a separate $80,000 (SAR300,000) fine, and a ban from working
in listed companies for 10 years.

The firm's legal troubles largely began after founder Mohammad
Al-Mojil took the decision to sell a 30% stake in the contractor
through the firm's 2008 IPO.

Then, on 22 July, 2012, it emerged that the firm had incurred
significant losses, and the CMA suspended trading of MMG shares on
Tadawul.

GC-CSRD said anyone that purchased or subscribed to MMG shares
before the firm published its first financial statements on 12,
July, 2008 -- and those that have faced damages by these violations
-- have the right to submit a request to the CRSD to join the class
action suit. [GN]


MONSANTO CO: Accused by Alonzo Suit of Selling Defective Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARY H. ALONZO v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00955 (E.D.
Mo., April 23, 2019), is an action for damages suffered by the
Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's
alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the
design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting,
marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the
herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or 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


MONSANTO CO: Slinkard Files Suit Over Roundup(R) Product
--------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA SLINKARD AND DALE SLINKARD v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No.
4:19-cv-00968 (E.D. Mo., April 23, 2019), accuses Monsanto of
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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Myers Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
Philip Myers, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-01035-SNLJ (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: Puckett Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, STEVEN PUCKETT, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01030 (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: Ruffner Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shirley Ruffner, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-01040-NAB (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: Scott Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
Russell Scott, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-01019 (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

MOTEL 6: Settles Class Action Over Reporting Guests to ICE
----------------------------------------------------------
Hayley Miller, writing for HuffPost, reports that Motel 6 has
agreed to pay $12 million to settle a lawsuit after admitting at
least six of its Washington state locations voluntarily reported
guests to U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement over a two-year
span.

The budget motel chain, which operates in the U.S. and Canada, also
said it would provide training to its employees to ensure they will
no longer share guests' private information without a warrant, the
Washington State Attorney General's Office announced on April 4.

"Motel 6's actions tore families apart and violated the privacy
rights of tens of thousands of Washingtonians," Washington State
Attorney General Bob Ferguson said in a statement. "Any other
business that tries to violate Washingtonians' right to privacy can
expect to hear from my office."

Ferguson filed the lawsuit against Motel 6 in January 2018,
alleging the company carried out "unfair, deceptive and
discriminatory practices" by unlawfully providing personal
identifying information about guests to ICE.

From 2015 to 2017, seven Motel 6 locations in Washington state
shared the personal information of roughly 80,000 guests with ICE,
though the agency did not provide a warrant to obtain such
information, according to Ferguson's office.

These disclosures reportedly led to targeted ICE raids near or on
the Motel 6 properties, resulting in some guests losing their homes
and jobs and being separated from their families.

In one instance, ICE agents detained a man in the parking lot of a
Motel 6 near Seattle, where he was staying one night to wrap
Christmas presents for his children, according to Ferguson's
office. He was reportedly deported days later. Ferguson's office
said he was the sole provider of his household and his wife is now
struggling to support their toddler and four other children.

The $12 million collected from Motel 6 will be used in part to
provide restitution and monetary damages to tens of thousands of
guests whose information was illegally provided to ICE, according
to the settlement agreement.

The Washington State Attorney General's Office, as part of the
agreement, will monitor the company's policies and training
procedures for the next three years.

Motel 6 acknowledged the settlement in a statement to ABC News on
April 7, noting they will "continue to enforce its guest privacy
policy, which prohibits the sharing of guest information except in
cases where a judicially enforceable warrant or subpoena is
present, or local law requires this information."

"The safety and security of our guests, which includes protecting
guest information, is our top priority," a company spokesperson
said in the statement. "We are pleased to be able to reach
resolution in this matter."

Ferguson's office began investigating Motel 6's practices following
The Phoenix New Times' report in September 2017 that found at least
two locations in Arizona were voluntarily providing guests'
information to ICE.

"We send a report every morning to ICE -- all the names of
everybody that comes in," an unidentified front-desk clerk at a
Motel 6 location in Phoenix, Arizona, told the New Times. "Every
morning at about 5 o'clock, we do the audit and we push a button
and it sends it to ICE."

In November 2018, Motel 6 agreed to pay $7.8 million to settle a
class-action lawsuit filed by the Mexican American Legal Defense
and Educational Fund on behalf of eight Latino immigrants who were
detained as a result of Motel 6 employees in Arizona sharing their
information with ICE. [GN]


MYLAN NV: Must Face Narrowed EpiPen Class-Action Suit, Judge Rules
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Dolmetsch and Riley Griffin, writing for Bloomberg, report
that Mylan NV still has to fight a class-action suit over its
EpiPen allergy treatment, though a judge narrowed its scope on
March 29, 2019, throwing out allegations that the company made
misleading statements, didn't disclose its regulatory risks and
fixed prices for some generic drugs.

Claims that the EpiPen rebate scheme violated antitrust rules
remain. The lawsuit "adequately alleges both harm to competition in
the relevant market, and the predominance of anticompetitive
effects," U.S. District Judge J. Paul Oetken ruled. Plaintiffs
claim the rebate program "blocked Sanofi from accessing a
significant portion of the market for epinephrine autoinjectors."

Representatives for Mylan didn't immediately return a call for
comment.

Key Insights:

    * Allowing even a narrowed class action to proceed is bad news
for Mylan, which has faced manufacturing problems, falling sales
and is currently leading a strategic review of its business.
Investors are starting to lose patience after Mylan missed revenue
estimates in seven of the past eight quarters.

    * While the decision narrows the scope of the litigation, Mylan
must still face allegations that it used anticompetitive tactics to
block the introduction of a competitor and artificially inflate the
price of the product.

    * The suit began in 2016, when investors sued over misleading
statements about payments to government health-insurance programs.
Oetken has already trimmed those claims among others in March 2018.
[GN]


MYLAN NV: Shearman & Sterling Discusses Securities Suit Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on
March 29, 2019, Judge J. Paul Oetken of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York partially granted a
motion to dismiss claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder in a putative class action against a
pharmaceutical company and certain of its executives.  In re Mylan
N.V. Securities Litigation, No. 16-cv-7926 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29,
2019).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made misleading
statements regarding, among other things, an alleged rebate scheme
involving the company's EpiPen, and the alleged inflation of prices
for various generic drugs.  After the Court dismissed in part
plaintiffs' first amended complaint as noted in our prior post,
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint that added an executive
as a defendant, new allegations to support scienter for previously
dismissed claims, a new alleged corrective disclosure in support of
loss causation arguments, and additional claims asserting fraud
based on the failure to disclose illegal anticompetitive
misconduct.  The Court held certain of plaintiffs' new allegations
based on anticompetitive behavior were inadequately pleaded but
permitted one claim to go forward, and also held that certain new
allegations of scienter were sufficient.

The newly alleged illegal anticompetitive conduct fell into two
categories:  (i) an alleged anticompetitive rebate scheme in
violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act and (ii) agreements to
fix the prices of three generic drugs in violation of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act.  Slip op. at 9.  While emphasizing that there is
no general duty to disclose corporate mismanagement or uncharged
criminal conduct, the Court considered whether the alleged
omissions were actionable because affirmative statements by
defendants had been rendered misleading by the failure to disclose
the alleged unlawful conduct.  As to the alleged rebate scheme, the
Court held that plaintiffs' allegations that the activities blocked
a competitor from a significant portion of the relevant market and
that the ultimate price of the product rose as a result of the
scheme were sufficient to allege unlawful conduct under the Sherman
Act based on harm to competition and net anticompetitive effects.
Id. at 11-12.

The Court, however, dismissed plaintiffs' claims based on the
alleged failure to disclose illegal price-fixing agreements for
three generic drugs.  Rather than arguing that these agreements
were supported by circumstantial evidence, plaintiffs purported to
base these claims on "direct evidence" of the alleged price-fixing
agreements by citing a phone call between employees of the company
and a competitor where they "reached an agreement ??? to raise
prices" for a specific drug.  Id. at 14.  Plaintiffs also alleged
employees sent emails following this call and kept in "frequent
contact" regarding these drugs during the relevant period.  Id.
The Court held these allegations were insufficiently detailed to
adequately plead that an agreement had been made, as they did not
"identify which employees were involved, where the call took place,
or the contours of the alleged agreements."  Id.

The Court also concluded that loss causation had been adequately
alleged with respect to certain alleged misstatements, rejecting
defendants' argument that because the company's stock price
following those alleged misstatements was lower than at any other
time during the class period, the alleged misstatements were not
actionable under the PSLRA's "90-day bounce-back rule," which
applies when the average stock price is higher following the
corrective disclosure than the price that a plaintiff paid.  Id. at
15.  Plaintiffs countered that class members who held their shares
through the corrective disclosure period could still have suffered
a loss.  The Court determined that plaintiffs' allegations of a
purchase of stock at an "inflated price" and that the stock price
"dropped after the alleged fraud became known" were sufficient at
the pleading stage, and whether specific class members' losses were
proximately caused by a particular misrepresentation could be
addressed at a later stage of litigation.  Id. at 16.  The Court
also rejected defendants' argument that a newly alleged corrective
disclosure -- a press release with new allegations by 47 state
attorneys' general -- was not a corrective disclosure at all
because it did not contain new factual information.  Although
certain information was previously known to the market, the Court
determined that the disclosure also contained new information
regarding the participation of one executive as well as the
findings of an investigation into price fixing (although the
price-fixing allegations were dismissed separately).  Id. at 17.
Thus, these allegations were sufficient to provide "some indication
of the loss and the causal connection that plaintiff has in mind."
Id. at 18.

Finally, the Court denied the motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
allegations against a new individual defendant and found that
certain of these new allegations were sufficient to support an
inference of scienter.  The Court held that allegations of scienter
as to the new defendant were insufficient to support claims
relating to the EpiPen or generic drug price fixing.  Id. at 22.
Indeed, there were no allegations specifically alleging that the
new defendant was informed of the alleged misconduct, and the
allegation that the EpiPen was part of the company's "core
business" was insufficient without more to support a strong
inference of scienter.  Id. at 21-22.  The Court held, however,
that the allegation that the executive was personally involved in a
conversation with the president of a competing pharmaceutical
company, in which an agreement on market allocation for one drug
was reached, was sufficient to support an inference of scienter.
The Court rejected defendants' argument that such allegations must
be disregarded because they were taken from the action brought by
the state attorneys general, holding that "plaintiffs may base
factual allegations on complaints from other proceedings,"
particularly in the case of a "government investigation" and given
that the allegations were claimed to have been "verified by
plaintiffs' counsel."  Id. at 23-24.  The Court therefore found
scienter adequately pleaded as to these allegations regarding the
newly added defendant. [GN]


NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Brushingham Suit to Recover Damages and Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHAWN BRUSHINGHAM, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00566 (W.D. N.Y., May 2, 2019) seeks to recover
monetary damages, liquidated damages, interest and costs, including
reasonable attorney's fees as a result of Defendant's willful
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York
Labor Law ("NYLL").

The complaint alleges that Plaintiff would regularly work over 40
hours in a workweek but were not paid for all hours worked.

Plaintiff worked for Defendant in New York as an hourly-paid
Material Damage Representative ("MDR") from approximately September
20, 1999 to December 2018.

Defendant is one of the largest insurance and financial services
companies in the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NCAA: Hodges Seeks Redress for Student-Athletes' Injuries
---------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL HODGES JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Case
No. 1:19-cv-01598-JPH-TAB (S.D. Ind., April 22, 2019), is brought
to obtain redress for alleged injuries sustained a result of the
Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of
generations of Idaho State 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 ISU.[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


NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS: 2d Cir Flips Tort Claim Dismissal in Johnson
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, issued an Order
affirming in part and vacating in part District Court's dismissal
of their claims against Defendants in the case captioned MICHAEL S.
JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of the class, PATRICIA LONG
CORREA individually and on behalf of the class, DONNA DYMKOWSKI,
individually and on behalf of the class, ANTONIO SAMUEL,
individually and on behalf of the class, ANGELETTE WATERS,
individually and on behalf of the class, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
Defendant-Cross-Claimant-Cross-Defendant-Appellee, LEEDS, MORELLI &
BROWN, P.C., LENARD LEEDS, STEVEN A. MORELLI, JEFFREY K. BROWN,
JAMES VAGNINI, FREDERIC DAVID OSTROVE, BRYAN MAZOLLA, John Doe,
1-10 a fictitious designation for presently unknown Defendants,
SUSAN FITZGERALD, Jane Doe, 1-10 a fictitious designation for
presently unknown Defendants, Defendants-Cross-Claimants-Cross
Defendants. No. 17-3505-cv. (2nd Cir.).

Plaintiffs-Appellants appeal the district court's denial of leave
to file a second amended complaint (SAC), and dismissal of their
claims against Nextel Communications, Inc. (Nextel).

In the proposed SAC, Plaintiffs sought to assert federal RICO and
RICO conspiracy claims and to reassert a New Jersey racketeering
claim on behalf of a proposed global class. The SAC also included
two new plaintiff subclasses: Subclass A, consisting of New Jersey
and Georgia residents asserting claims against Nextel for tortious
interference and conspiracy to breach fiduciary duty and aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty under New Jersey and Georgia law;
and Subclass B, consisting of African-American class members
asserting claims for conspiracy to deprive them of their civil
rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1985(3).  

The district court also held that the SAC's newly asserted claims
under RICO and Section 1985(3) were time-barred, and in the
alternative, that those claims failed as a matter of law.

New Jersey Tort Claims

The named plaintiffs are Michael Johnson, Patricia Long-Correa,
Donna Dymkowski, Antonio Samuel, and Angelette Waters, all of whom,
according to the SAC, are New Jersey residents. Their individual
New Jersey tort claims are subject to a six-year statute of
limitations. The parties disagree as to when the limitations period
for these claims began to run and whether it has since expired.
Plaintiffs assert that the first notice that they had of their
claims was September 2003 when a class notice was sent out in the
Colorado action. Appellants' Br. 29. Because they filed their
complaint in state court on September 27, 2006, by Plaintiffs'
calculation their claims were asserted comfortably within the
statute of limitations.

But the record reveals that Johnson and Samuel, two of the named
plaintiffs, knew of the facts underlying the original complaint
well before 2003. In particular, the record contains a letter that
they sent to Johnnie Cochran's law firm some time in the year 2000,
setting out many of the relevant facts: that Leeds, Morelli & Brown
(LMB) was representing Nextel and Nextel's employees
simultaneously; and that LMB agreed to continue representing Nextel
upon the conclusion of the racial discrimination lawsuit.

While undated, the letter tends to establish that the statute of
limitations has run as to Johnson and Samuel. It is apparent that
they wrote it sometime before September 28, 2000, because Attorney
Cochran responded to them by letter dated September 28. In his
response, he declined to represent them, but urged them to be
attentive to the applicable statutes of limitations. The district
court noted that Johnson and Samuel do not dispute that they were
aware of their stated concerns regarding the adequacy of the legal
representation or that they wrote to the Cochran law firm more than
six years from when they filed suit.

Plaintiffs do not appear to challenge that characterization of the
record on appeal. Johnson's and Samuel's individual claims are thus
time-barred.

Other Class-Wide Claims

Plaintiffs' class-wide RICO claims fail on the merits because they
have not pled the alleged fraudulent scheme with any particularity
and they have failed adequately to plead a RICO enterprise. Since
Plaintiffs' substantive RICO claim is deficient, Plaintiffs' RICO
conspiracy claim also fails.

The proposed claims of the putative Subclasses similarly fail. To
certify putative Subclass A, consisting of both New Jersey and
Georgia residents, the district court would have to find that the
conflict of interest afflicting LMB is non-waivable under both New
Jersey and Georgia law, and that the statute of limitations had not
run on these state law claims by September 2006, when the original
complaint was filed. But the four-year statute of limitations on
the Georgia claims had already run by the time Plaintiffs filed
their complaint: as the district court found, the named plaintiffs
were on notice of their claims at latest by April 2002, when the
Colorado state action was filed. Thus, the putative Georgia
plaintiffs comprising a portion of Subclass A do not have viable
claims.

Similarly, the proposed Subclass B, which would consist of
African-American Nextel employees, is predicated on Plaintiffs'
proposed claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1985(3) for alleged
deprivation of rights to a jury trial, to effective counsel, and to
access to the courts. Those rights, however, are protected only
against infringement by state action, which Plaintiffs have not
alleged. That claim is therefore not viable, as the district court
correctly concluded. And, in any event, the Section 1985(3) claims
are time-barred, since the statute of limitations for such claims
is two years in New Jersey.

Accordingly, neither Subclass A nor B is certifiable.

The judgment is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and the case is
remanded for further proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Second Circuit's February 28, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y4ys77mc from Leagle.com.

KENNETH S. THYNE, ROPER & THYNE, LLC, Totowa, N.J., for
Plaintiffs-Appellants.

LAWRENCE R. SANDAK -- lsandak@proskauer.com -- Joseph C. O'Keefe --
jokeefe@proskauer.com --  PROSKAUER ROSE LLP, Newark, N.J., for
Defendant-Appellee.


NORTHLAND GROUP: Muldowney Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northland Group, Inc.
The case is styled as Matthew Muldowney individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Northland Group,
Inc., Radius Global Solutions, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
5:19-cv-00534-DNH-ATB (N.D. N.Y., May 3, 2019).

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

Northland Group, Inc. provides accounts receivable management and
collection services to national credit grantors, debt buyers, and
student loan lenders and servicers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NRG ENERGY: Still Defends Griffoul Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
The purported class action suit entitled, Griffoul v. NRG
Residential Solar Solutions, remains ongoing, according to NRG
Energy, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

On February 28, 2017, plaintiffs, consisting of New Jersey
residential solar customers, filed the purported class action
lawsuit in New Jersey state court.  Plaintiffs allege violations of
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Action and Truth-in-Consumer
Contracts, Warranty and Notice Act with regard to certain
provisions of their residential solar contracts.  The plaintiffs
seek damages and injunctive relief as to the proper allocation of
the solar renewable energy credits.

On June 6, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to compel
arbitration or dismiss the lawsuit.  Plaintiffs filed their
opposition on June 29, 2017.  On July 14, 2017, the court denied
NRG's motion to compel arbitration or dismiss the case.

On July 25, 2017, NRG filed a motion for reconsideration of the
appeal, which the court denied.  On August 22, 2017, NRG filed a
notice of appeal.  After oral argument on April 24, 2018, the
Appellate Division reversed the lower court on May 4, 2018, and
ordered that the plaintiff must arbitrate their claims against
NRG.

On May 23, 2018, the plaintiff filed a petition for certification
with the Supreme Court of New Jersey seeking to overturn the
Appellate Division ruling.

On January 25, 2019, the Supreme Court denied plaintiff's petition
for certification.

NRG Energy, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
integrated power company in the United States. The company is
involved in the generation of electricity using fossil fuel and
nuclear sources. The company was founded in 1989 and is
headquartered in Princeton, New Jersey.



NUTANIX INC: Wolf Popper Files Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP has filed a securities class action lawsuit in U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California against
Nutanix, Inc. (NASDAQ: NTNX) and two of its senior executives. The
case, No. 5:19-cv-1651, asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder on behalf of investors who purchased Nutanix
common stock during the period March 2, 2018 through February 28,
2019 and were damaged thereby.

Beginning on March 2, 2018, Nutanix and its senior executives made
repeated statements that Nutanix was investing heavily in growth
while maintaining high profit margins. On February 28, 2019,
Nutanix announced its second quarter fiscal 2019 results and
reported third quarter guidance that was below analysts'
expectations. Management acknowledged that "inadequate marketing
spend for pipeline generation and slower than expected sales
hiring" were the reasons for the weak guidance.

As a result of this news, Nutanix's stock price fell on March 1,
2019, by $16.39 per share or 33% on very heavy volume. Nutanix
senior officers, including its Chief Revenue Officer, took
advantage of these false statements by selling Nutanix common stock
at inflated prices.

If you are a member of the proposed Class, and wish to serve as
Lead Plaintiff, you must file a motion with the Court no later than
May 28, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other Class members in directing the litigation. Any
member of the proposed Class may move the Court to serve as Lead
Plaintiff through counsel of their choice. Members may also choose
to do nothing and remain part of the proposed Class.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests please contact:

         Robert C. Finkel, Esq.
         Wolf Popper LLP
         Telephone: (877) 370-7703
         Fax: (877) 370-7704
         Website: www.wolfpopper.com
         Email: rfinkel@wolfpopper.com [GN]


OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Gronich Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Plaintiffs Earl Holtzman and Royce Setzer filed an appeal from
the District Court's memorandum and order dated March 25, 2019, and
judgment dated March 27, 2019, entered in the consolidated
securities class action lawsuit entitled Dror Gronich, et al. v.
Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:17-cv-08983-NRB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (New York City).

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, on Nov. 16, 2017, a
purported securities class action complaint captioned Dror Gronich
v. Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc., C. Taylor Pickett, Robert O.
Stephenson, and Daniel J. Booth was filed against the Company and
certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (the "Court"), Case No.
1:17-cv-08983-NRB.

On November 17, 2017, a second purported securities class action
complaint captioned Steve Klein v. Omega Healthcare Investors,
Inc., C. Taylor Pickett, Robert O. Stephenson, and Daniel J. Booth
was filed against the Company and the same officers in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case
No. 1:17-cv-09024-NRB.

Thereafter, the District Court considered a series of applications
by various shareholders to be named lead plaintiff, consolidated
the two actions and designated Royce Setzer as the lead plaintiff.

Pursuant to a Scheduling Order entered by the District Court, lead
plaintiff Setzer and additional plaintiff Earl Holtzman filed a
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on May 25, 2018 (the
"Securities Class Action").  The Securities Class Action purports
to be a class action brought on behalf of shareholders who acquired
the Company's securities between May 3, 2017 and October 31, 2017.

The Securities Class Action alleges that the Defendants violated
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange
Act"), by making materially false and/or misleading statements, and
by failing to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, including the financial and
operating results of one of the Company's operators, the ability of
such operator to make timely rent payments, and the impairment of
certain of the Company's leases and the uncollectibility of certain
receivables.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: Omega Healthcare
Investors, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 19-1095, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Royce Setzer and Earl Holtzman are
represented by:

          Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          101 Greenwood Avenue
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Telephone: (215) 600-2817
          E-mail: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com

Defendants-Appellees Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc., C. Taylor
Pickett, Robert O. Stephenson and Daniel J. Booth are represented
by:

          Eric Rieder, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
          1290 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10104
          Telephone: (212) 541-2057
          Facsimile: (212) 541-4630
          E-mail: erieder@bryancave.com


PALCO INC: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Says Danna
-----------------------------------------------------
PAULA DANNA and MELISSA HARVILLE, Each individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PALCO, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00320-KGB (E.D. Ark., May 2, 2019) is
an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the
Arkansas Minimum Wage Act ("AMWA"), for unjust enrichment,
declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest and costs, including a reasonable attorney's
fee as a result of Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and other
Independent Choices/AR Choices workers a lawful minimum wage and
also overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per week.

PALCO, Inc. is a domestic, for-profit corporation registered to do
business in the State of Arkansas, providing services to allow
adults with physical disabilities and people who are older to live
independent, community-centric lives while receiving in-home care
in locations throughout Arkansas. Plaintiffs worked for Defendant
as Independent Choices/AR Choices workers and engaged in the work
of in-home and out of home care within the 3 years preceding the
filing of this Complaint.

According to the complaint, the Defendant did not pay Plaintiffs or
similarly-situated employees one and one-half times their regular
rate for all hours worked in excess of forty 40 in a week.
Defendant did not pay Plaintiffs or similarly-situated employees a
minimum wage for all hours worked in each pay-period. It was
Defendant's commonly applied policy to only pay Plaintiffs and
other Independent Choices/AR Choices workers, for some of the hours
in which they billed Defendant's patients. The work that Plaintiffs
and the class members performed all billable to Defendant's clients
and should have been paid; therefore, not all of the work was
compensated. Defendant knew, or showed reckless disregard for
whether, the way it paid Plaintiffs and other Independent
Choices/AR Choices workers violated the FLSA, says the
complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Chris Burks, Esq.
     Brandon M. Haubert, Esq.
     WH LAW,PLLC
     1 Riverfront Pl. - Suite 745
     North Little Rock, AR 72114
     Phone: (501) 891-6000
     Email: chris@whlawoffices.com
            brandon@whlawoffices.com


PEOPLE'S UNITED: Judge Tosses EB-5 Investors' Proposed Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alan J. Keays, writing for VTDIGGER.org, reports that a federal
judge has thrown out a proposed class-action lawsuit brought by a
group of EB-5 investors who claimed that People's United Bank
"aided and abetted" former Jay Peak owner Ariel Quiros in an
alleged scheme to defraud them.

Judge Christina Reiss made her ruling following a hearing that
stretched over several hours on March 29, 2019, in federal court in
Burlington. In tossing out the lawsuit, the judge did allow the
attorneys for the investors 20 days to file an "amended complaint"
in a bid to keep the case alive.

"I think some of these deficiencies can be corrected," the judge
said from the bench.

Throughout the hearing on March 29, Reiss told those attorneys she
had been struggling with the "generalized" nature of the
allegations of the lawsuit.

The judge said she had trouble tying the claims in the filing to
specific investors in the alleged fraud scheme and then determining
what damages, if any, each may have suffered as a result.

The alleged fraud scheme spanned nearly a decade and involved a
total of more than 800 investors over a series of eight development
projects in Vermont's Northeast Kingdom.

"I'm not convinced everybody has the same damages," Reiss told the
attorneys.

James Stricker, Esq. -- jstricker@kasowitz.com -- an attorney
representing People's United Bank, declined comment following the
hearing.

Harley Tropin, Esq. -- hst@kttlaw.com -- a lawyer for the
investors, said after the hearing that he would be filing that
amended complaint as directed by the judge.

"We're going to proceed aggressively to get a result for the
people," he added.

During the hearing, Tropin told the judge he didn't believe the
lawsuit was "scattershot."

Rather, he said, it was an account of investors who put $500,000
investments each into projects, and whose money was later
commingled with funds from other investors in other projects" in a
one, long Ponzi-like scheme.

Stricker during the hearing contended that while the lawsuit named
People's United Bank as a defendant, the real target of the
investors' claims was Quiros, who had not been named as a
defendant.

"Quiros is generally viewed at the baddest of the bad guys here,"
Stricker said in court.

The proposed class-action lawsuit named seven investors as
plaintiffs, accusing People's United Bank of allowing Quiros to use
funds that had been held in escrow accounts for certain resort
development projects to be used to purchase the ski resort.

The lawsuit alleges that the bank "aided and abetted, encouraged,
and rendered substantial assistance" to Quiros, and his
then-business partner, Bill Stenger, Jay Peak's former CEO and
president, in carrying out a "fraudulent scheme."

The lawsuit also named as defendant an attorney who worked for
Quiros, David Gordon, Esq.-- dbg@msk.com-- whom he has since
terminated.

Reiss, in dismissing the lawsuit on Marh 29 against the bank, also
dismissed the claims against Gordon and his firm, MSK of New York
City.

The lawsuit followed other filings that have been brought against
Quiros and Stenger, including those leveled against the Miami
businessman turned Vermont ski mogul in April 2016 by state and
federal regulators.

In the federal case, the U.S. Securities and Exchange accused
Stenger and Quiros of misusing about $200 million in investor funds
raised through the EB-5 visa program.

Of that total, the SEC lawsuit contended, about $50 million was
misappropriated, in part, for Quiros' personal expenses, including
more than $2 million for a luxury condo in New York City.

Stenger secured funds from investors and deposited those EB-5
monies into escrow accounts at People's United Bank, federal
regulators alleged, and then transferred the money to mirror
accounts in Quiros' name at Raymond James.

The proposed class-action lawsuit claimed Quiros used investor
money to buy Jay Peak Resort in 2008, instead of using the money to
build the Jay Peak and Tram Haus hotels as as investors had been
promised.

In a "Ponzi-like" scheme, the lawsuit stated, the developers then
raised money from new sets of investors for other projects to pay
for massive upgrades at the resort, including the construction of
the Jay Peak Hotel and the waterpark.

This pattern continued with seven phases of developments, including
outside of Jay Peak, until Stenger and Quiros ran out of funding.

The money was supposed to be held in separate escrow accounts for
each specific project, but the developers commingled the funds and
used it to pay for other projects, the lawsuit stated.

According to the lawsuit, the action was filed on behalf of a
proposed class of 837 EB-5 investors who put more than $400 million
into the series of projects headed by Quiros and Stenger.

The projects spanned several years and included construction of
hotels at Jay Peak and Burke Mountain, as well as plans for others
that never materialized, such as AnC Bio Vermont, a proposed $110
million biomedical research center in Newport.

Foreign investors in the EB-5 program put up $500,000 in a
qualified project, plus an administrative fee. If that investment
led to the creation of 10 jobs, the investor became eligible for
permanent U.S. residency.

"Quiros could not have executed his complex fraudulent scheme for
almost eight years without People's Bank's knowing and substantial
assistance," the lawsuit stated.

"From the moment of Quiros's involvement with Jay Peak," the filing
added, "People's Bank misdirected and commingled investor funds for
Quiros in clear violation of both its escrow agreements with
investors and the Jay Peak Limited Partnership Agreements, which
Quiros and Stenger provided to People's Bank for each investment
phase."

People's United Bank has disputed the allegations, filing a motion
stating several reasons why the lawsuit should be thrown out.

Those contentions include a ruling from a Florida federal
magistrate judge in a separate, but similar, proposed class-action
lawsuit brought by investors in that state.

According to People's United Bank's motion to dismiss the latest
lawsuit, merely pointing out that bank failed to act on alleged
"red flags" in the fund transfer is not enough.

In the Florida federal case, the bank's motion to dismiss in the
Vermont lawsuit stated, the judge ruled "[r]ed flags do not amount
to actual knowledge and are insufficient to meet the particularly
requirement" of federal standards for civil claims.

Also, according to the bank's motion, the investors have not shown
"nor have they alleged that People's had 'actual knowledge' of any
fraud or breach of fiduciary duty that it supposedly aided and
abetted."

Stricker, representing People's United Bank in court on March 29 in
Burlington, strongly took issue with the "aided and abetted"
assertion.

"We didn't talk with him ??? It didn't happen," he said of Quiros,
described by regulators as the "mastermind" of the alleged Ponzi
scheme.

It was Stenger, Stricker said, "who directed" the fund transfers,
and it was Quiros who improperly used those funds after they were
released.

Tropin, representing the investors, said in court on March 29 that
the claims in the lawsuit all stem from the start of the alleged
Ponzi scheme when Quiros was permitted to use the escrow funds to
purchase Jay Peak.

From then on, Tropin said, "they were using money from Peter to pay
Paul."

The commingling of the money that set off, he added, put all the
investors at risk, from those who had money removed from the
initial escrow accounts to others who thought their funds were
going to one project when in reality they were being used to pay
for shortfalls in earlier ones.

When it came to damages, Tropin estimated the 837 investors had put
a total of about $415 million into the projects headed by Quiros
and Stenger. An earlier $150 million settlement with Raymond James,
a financial institution used by Quiros, would offset those damages,
Tropin added.

Also, Tropin said, Michael Goldberg, the court-appointed receiver
now overseeing the properties, including Jay Peak, that had been
owned by Quiros and surrendered as part of a settlement of his SEC
case, is working to sell the properties to benefit investors.

Even with that $150 million settlement and the sale of the
properties, Tropin said there is still expected to a "shortfall" to
investors of about $200 million.

"That's what this case is about," he told the judge.

Judge Reiss then asked him if he could tell her what cut of those
damages each investor would receive, pointing out that some have
already recouped their initial $500,000 investments, while others
still have a stake in the properties that will hit the market.

"I could," Tropin replied, adding, "I have a feeling I
should."[GN]


PG&E CORP: 100 Complaints Filed over 2018 Camp Fire as of Jan. 28
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PG&E Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019, that as of January 28, 2019, the Company and its
utility subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, are aware of
approximately 100 complaints on behalf of at least 4,200 plaintiffs
related to the 2018 Camp fire, nine of which seek to be certified
as class actions.

On November 8, 2018, a wildfire began near the city of Paradise,
Butte County, California (the "2018 Camp fire"), which is located
in the Utility's service territory.  Cal Fire's Camp Fire Incident
Information Website as of January 4, 2019 (the "Cal Fire website")
indicated that the 2018 Camp fire consumed 153,336 acres.  On the
Cal Fire website, Cal Fire reported 86 fatalities and the
destruction of 13,972 residences, 528 commercial structures and
4,293 other buildings resulting from the 2018 Camp fire.  On
February 7, 2019, the Butte County Sheriff's Office reported that
the number of fatalities resulting from the 2018 Camp fire had been
reduced from 86 to 85.  There have been no subsequent updates of
this information on the Cal Fire website or by the Butte County
Sheriff's Office.

The pending civil litigation against PG&E Corporation and the
Utility related to the 2018 Camp fire, which is currently stayed as
a result of the commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases, includes
claims under multiple theories of liability, including inverse
condemnation, trespass, private nuisance, public nuisance,
negligence, negligence per se, negligent interference with
prospective economic advantage, negligent infliction of emotional
distress, premises liability, violations of the Public Utilities
Code, violations of the Health & Safety Code, malice and false
advertising in violation of the California Business and Professions
Code.

The plaintiffs principally assert that PG&E Corporation's and the
Utility's alleged failure to maintain and repair their distribution
and transmission lines and failure to properly maintain the
vegetation surrounding such lines were the causes of the 2018 Camp
fire.  The plaintiffs seek damages and remedies that include
wrongful death, personal injury, property damage, evacuation costs,
medical expenses, establishment of a class action medical
monitoring fund, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other
damages.

PG&E Corporation's and the Utility's obligations with respect to
such claims are expected to be determined through the Chapter 11
process.

PG&E Corporation, through its subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, engages in the sale and delivery of electricity and
natural gas to residential, commercial, industrial, and
agricultural customers in northern and central California, the
United States.  On January 29, 2019, PG&E Corporation Inc. filed a
voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California.


PG&E CORP: 750 Complaints Filed over 2017 Northern Calif. Wildfires
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PG&E Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019, that as of January 28, 2019, the Company and
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (the Utility) are aware of
approximately 750 complaints on behalf of at least 3,800 plaintiffs
related to the 2017 Northern California wildfires, five of which
seek to be certified as class actions.

Beginning on October 8, 2017, multiple wildfires spread through
Northern California, including Napa, Sonoma, Butte, Humboldt,
Mendocino, Lake, Nevada, and Yuba Counties, as well as in the area
surrounding Yuba City (the "2017 Northern California wildfires").
According to the Cal Fire California Statewide Fire Summary dated
October 30, 2017, at the peak of the 2017 Northern California
wildfires, there were 21 major fires that, in total, burned over
245,000 acres and destroyed an estimated 8,900 structures.  The
2017 Northern California wildfires resulted in 44 fatalities.

During the second quarter of 2018, Cal Fire issued news releases
announcing its determination on the causes of 16 of the 2017
Northern California wildfires (the La Porte, McCourtney, Lobo,
Honey, Redwood, Sulphur, Cherokee, 37, Blue, Norrbom, Adobe,
Partrick, Pythian, Nuns, Pocket and Atlas fires, located in
Mendocino, Lake, Butte, Sonoma, Humboldt, Nevada and Napa
counties).

These cases have been coordinated in the San Francisco County
Superior Court.  As of the Petition Date, the coordinated
litigation was in the early stages of discovery.  A trial with
respect to the Atlas fire was scheduled to begin on September 23,
2019.

The pending civil litigation against PG&E Corporation and the
Utility related to the 2017 Northern California wildfires, includes
claims under multiple theories of liability, including inverse
condemnation, trespass, private nuisance and negligence.  This
litigation, including the trial date with respect to the Atlas
fire, currently is stayed as a result of the commencement of the
Chapter 11 Cases.

The plaintiffs principally assert that PG&E Corporation's and the
Utility's alleged failure to maintain and repair their distribution
and transmission lines and failure to properly maintain the
vegetation surrounding such lines were the causes of the 2017
Northern California wildfires.  The plaintiffs seek damages that
include wrongful death, personal injury, property damage,
evacuation costs, medical expenses, punitive damages, attorneys'
fees and other damages.

PG&E Corporation's and the Utility's obligations with respect to
such claims are expected to be determined through the Chapter 11
process.

PG&E Corporation, through its subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, engages in the sale and delivery of electricity and
natural gas to residential, commercial, industrial, and
agricultural customers in northern and central California, the
United States.  On January 29, 2019, PG&E Corporation Inc. filed a
voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California.


PG&E CORP: Current, Former Execs Face York County Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PG&E Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019, that certain current and former officers and
directors are facing a purported securities class action was filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  Neither PG&E Corporation nor subsidiary Pacific Gas
and Electric Company (the Utility) is named as a defendant.

The class action, entitled York County on behalf of the York County
Retirement Fund, et al. v. Rambo, et al (the "York County Action"),
was filed on February 22, 2019.  The complaint also names as
defendants the underwriters of four public offerings of notes from
2016 to 2018.  

The complaint alleges material misrepresentations and omissions in
connection with the note offerings related to, among other things,
PG&E Corporation's and the Utility's vegetation management and
wildfire safety measures.  The complaint asserts claims under
Section 11 and Section 15 of the federal Securities Act of 1933,
and seeks unspecified monetary relief, attorneys' fees and other
costs, and injunctive relief.

PG&E Corporation, through its subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, engages in the sale and delivery of electricity and
natural gas to residential, commercial, industrial, and
agricultural customers in northern and central California, the
United States.  On January 29, 2019, PG&E Corporation Inc. filed a
voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California.


PG&E CORP: Securities Lawsuit over Camp Fire Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
In a consolidated securities litigation pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, PG&E
Corporation and subsidiary Pacific Gas and Electric Company (the
Utility) filed a complaint on February 15, 2019 in Bankruptcy Court
against the plaintiff seeking preliminary and permanent injunctive
relief to extend the stay to the claims alleged against the
individual officer defendants.

In the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019,
the Company said that in June 2018, two purported securities class
actions were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, naming PG&E Corporation and
certain of its current and former officers as defendants, entitled
David C. Weston v. PG&E Corporation, et al. and Jon Paul Moretti v.
PG&E Corporation, et al., respectively.

The complaints alleged material misrepresentations and omissions
related to, among other things, vegetation management and
transmission line safety in various PG&E Corporation public
disclosures.  The complaints asserted claims under Section 10(b)
and Section 20(a) of the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and sought unspecified
monetary relief, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs.  Both
complaints identified a proposed class period of April 29, 2015 to
June 8, 2018.

On September 10, 2018, the court consolidated both cases and the
litigation is now denominated In re PG&E Corporation Securities
Litigation.  The court also appointed the Public Employees
Retirement Association of New Mexico as lead plaintiff.

The plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on November 9,
2018.  After the plaintiff requested leave to amend their complaint
to add allegations regarding the 2018 Camp fire, the plaintiff
filed a second amended consolidated complaint on December 14,
2018.

Due to the commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases, PG&E Corporation
and the Utility filed a notice on February 1, 2019, reflecting that
the proceedings are automatically stayed pursuant to Section 362(a)
of the Bankruptcy Code.  On February 15, 2019, PG&E Corporation and
the Utility filed a complaint in Bankruptcy Court against the
plaintiff seeking preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to
extend the stay to the claims alleged against the individual
officer defendants.

PG&E Corporation, through its subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, engages in the sale and delivery of electricity and
natural gas to residential, commercial, industrial, and
agricultural customers in northern and central California, the
United States.  On January 29, 2019, PG&E Corporation Inc. filed a
voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Accused by Janow Suit of Violating FDCPA
------------------------------------------------------------
THERESE JANOW and MARK MCLEAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC,
Case No. 1:19-cv-02342 (E.D.N.Y., April 22, 2019), is an action for
statutory damages brought against the Defendant for alleged
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which
prohibits debt collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive, and
unfair practices.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, is a Foreign Limited Liability
Company registered and authorized to do business in New York State.
PRA has its principal place of business located in Norfolk,
Virginia.

PRA is primarily involved and engaged in the business of collecting
debt in New York State.  PRA is engaged in the collection of debts
from consumers using the mail and the telephone.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Javier L. Merino, Esq.
          DANNLAW
          1 Meadowlands Plaza, Suite 200
          East Rutherford, NJ 07073
          Telephone: (201) 355-3440
          Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
          E-mail: jmerino@dannlaw.com

               - and -

          Marc E. Dann, Esq.
          Brian D. Flick, Esq.
          DANNLAW
          P.O. Box 6031040
          Cleveland, OH 44103
          Telephone: (216) 373-0539
          Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
          E-mail: mdann@dannlaw.com
                  bflick@dannlaw.com

               - and -

          Darren Aronow, Esq.
          ARONOW LAW, PC
          20 Crossways Park Drive North, Suite 210
          Woodbury, NY 11797
          Telephone: (516) 762-6701
          Facsimile: (516) 303-0066
          E-mail: darren@dalawpc.com


POST FOODS: Krommenhock Moves to Certify Class With 9 Subclasses
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled DEBBIE KROMMENHOCK and STEPHEN
HADLEY, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and
the general public v. POST FOODS, LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-04958-WHO
(N.D. Cal.), move the Court to certify a Class comprised of nine
Subclasses:

     All persons who, on or after August 29, 2012 (the "Class
     Period"), purchased in California, for household use and not
     for resale or distribution, one or more of the following
     Post cereal varieties:

     * Great Grains Subclass: Raisins, Dates, and Pecans (16 or
       40.5 oz. package); Crunchy Pecan (16 oz.); Cranberry
       Almond Crunch (14 oz.); Blueberry Pomegranate (15.9 oz.);
       Banana Nut Crunch (15.5 oz.); Protein Blend: Honey, Oats,
       and Seeds (14.75 or 13.5 oz.); and Protein Blend: Cinnamon
       Hazelnut (14.75 or 13.5 oz.);

     * Honey Bunches of Oats Subclass: Honey Roasted (14.5, 18,
       23, 24.5, 27, 28, 36, or 48 oz.); Almonds (14.5, 18, 23,
       24.5, 27, 28, 36, or 48 oz.); Raisin Medley (17 oz.);
       Pecan Bunches (14.5 oz.); Cinnamon Bunches (14.5 or 18
       oz.); Vanilla Bunches (18 oz.) Apple & Cinnamon Bunches
       (14.5 oz.); Real Strawberries (13, 16.5, or 20 oz.); Fruit
       Blends: Banana Blueberry (14.5 or 18 oz.); Fruit Blends:
       Peach Raspberry (14.5 or 18 oz.); Tropical Blends: Mango
       Coconut (14.5 or 18 oz.); Greek Honey Crunch (12.5 or 15.5
       oz.); and Greek Mixed Berry (12.5 or 15.5 oz.);

     * Honey Bunches of Oats Whole Grain Subclass: Vanilla
       Bunches (18 oz.); Honey Crunch (18 oz);

     * Honey Bunches of Oats Granola Subclass: Honey Roasted (11
       or 20 oz.); Cinnamon (11 oz.); Raspberry (11 oz.);

     * Raisin Bran Subclass: Raisin Bran (20 or 25 oz.);

     * Bran Flakes Subclass: Bran Flakes (16 oz.);

     * Alpha-Bits Subclass: Alpha-Bits (11.5 or 12 oz.);

     * Honeycomb Subclass: Honeycomb (12.5, 16, 33, or 35 oz.);
       and

     * Waffle Crisp Subclass: Waffle Crisp (11.5 oz.).

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them Class
Representatives, and to appoint their counsel Class Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on October 9, 2019, at 2:00 p.m.,
to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
          Trevor M. Flynn, Esq.
          Melanie Persinger, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC
          Hillcrest Professional Building
          3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 692-3840
          Facsimile: (619) 362-9555
          E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
                  trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
                  melanie@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com


PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP: Age Discrimination Suit Certified
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal judge
in San Francisco has certified a collective action of job
applicants older than 40 years old, who claim global accounting
firm PricewaterhouseCoopers systematically weeded out older workers
from consideration for entry-level positions in the United States.

U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar of the Northern District of
California granted plaintiffs' motion for conditional collective
action certification to pursue their federal age-discrimination
claims on April 4, although his ruling remains temporarily under
seal.

Jahan Sagafi -- jsagafi@outtengolden.com -- of Outten & Golden, who
represents plaintiffs in the case, said, "We're certainly pleased
with the decision and we look forward to moving ahead in the
litigation."

Sagafi, however, declined to comment further, given that the
judge's order remains under seal.

PwC's lawyer, Emily Nicklin -- emily.nicklin@kirkland.com -- of
Kirkland & Ellis, forwarded a request for comment to a PwC
spokesperson who declined to comment, citing the sealed decision.

Plaintiffs filed suit in 2016 claiming that the accounting firm's
workforce skews young, due to on-campus recruitment efforts and its
use of recruiting tool only accessible to applicants with a college
affiliation. A plaintiffs expert in the case has calculated younger
candidates are more than 500 percent more likely to be hired by PwC
than people over 40. PwC, meanwhile, has maintained that its hiring
is purely merit-based and that, as a sought-after employer, it
hires fewer than 5 percent of applicants.

In July 2018 Tigar denied an earlier collective action bid by the
plaintiffs finding that their collective definition included
applicants who weren't qualified for the positions they were
seeking as well as those who were. However, in that decision, the
judge wrote that the plaintiffs had "adequately shown a uniform
decision, policy or plan on the basis of PwC's centralized and
uniform hiring policies, and the substantial evidence of age
disparities in hiring." [GN]


QUINCY BIOSCIENCE: Spath Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled ELAINE SPATH, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. QUINCY BIOSCIENCE
HOLDING COMPANY, INC., a corporation; QUINCY BIOSCIENCE, LLC, a
limited liability Company; PREVAGEN, INC., a corporation d/b/a
SUGAR RIVER SUPPLEMENTS; and QUINCY BIOSCIENCE MANUFACTURING, LLC,
a limited liability company, Case No. 2:18-cv-12416, was
transferred on April 22, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-03521-UA to the proceeding.

The case arises out of the Defendants' alleged deceptive, unfair,
and false merchandising practices and breaches of warranties
regarding the marketing, advertisement and sale of Prevagen, a
purported brain health supplement made with the protein
apoaequorin.  The Defendants have uniformly represented that the
Product is "clinically tested" to "improve memory" and "support
healthy brain function, sharper mind, and clearer thinking" and
that Prevagen is "clinically tested" to "improve memory within 90
days."[BN]

Plaintiff Elaine Spath, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Michael I. Birnberg, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL BIRNBERG
          One Tower Center Boulevard, 18th Floor
          East Brunswick, NJ 08816
          Telephone: (732) 851-1795
          Facsimile: (973) 939-8532
          E-mail: miblawyer@gmail.com

               - and -

          Scott A. Kamber, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW LLC
          201 Milwaukee Street, Suite 200
          Denver, CO 80206
          Telephone: (646) 964-9600
          Facsimile: (212) 202-6364
          E-mail: skamber@kamberlaw.com

               - and -

          Naomi B. Spector, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW LLP
          9404 Genesee Avenue, Suite 340
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (310) 400-1053
          Facsimile: (858) 800-4277
          E-mail: nspector@kamberlaw.com

Defendants Quincy Bioscience Holding Company, Inc.; Quincy
Bioscience, LLC; Prevagen, Inc., doing business as: Sugar River
Supplements; and Quincy Bioscience Manufacturing, LLC, are
represented by:

          Glenn T. Graham, Esq.
          KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP
          One Jefferson Road, 2nd Floor
          Parsippany, NJ 07054
          Telephone: (973) 503-5917
          Facsimile: (973) 503-5950
          E-mail: ggraham@kelleydrye.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Esq.
          KELLEY DRYE & WARREN, LLP
          101 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10178
          Telephone: (212) 808-7800
          Facsimile: (212) 808-7897
          E-mail: JJacobson@kelleydrye.com


RADIUS GLOBAL: Highley Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RADIUS GLOBAL
SOLUTIONS LLC. The case is styled as MARCIA HIGHLEY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RADIUS
GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LLC formerly known as: NORTHLAND GROUP LLC,
CAVALRY SPV 1 LLC, John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-12086 (D. N.J., May 3, 2019).

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

Radius Global Solutions LLC provides accounts receivable and
customer relations management solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Yaakov Saks, Esq.
     Stein Saks, PLLC
     285 Passaic Street
     Hackensack, NJ 07601
     Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext 101
     Fax: (201) 282-6501
     Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


RODAN & FIELDS: Court Narrows Claims in Lash Boost Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting in part and denying in part
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned BARBARA LEWIS,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. RODAN & FIELDS, LLC, Defendant. Case No.
18-cv-02248-PJH. (N.D. Cal.).

Nine plaintiffs bring this consolidated putative class action
alleging that Rodan failed to disclose that its Enhancement Lash
Boost eye serum (Lash Boost), which Rodan advertised as a cosmetic
designed to make eye lashes longer and more beautiful, had harmful
side effects linked to an ingredient in the product. Specifically,
defendant allegedly failed to disclose the side effects associated
with isopropyl closprostenate (ICP), a type of synthetic
prostaglandin analog, a class of drugs used to manage glaucoma.

The Plaintiffs allege that defendant's failure to include warnings
about the serious side effects associated with ICP was a material
omission that rendered the product's packaging misleading.

False Advertising Claims

All of the plaintiffs' false advertising and common law causes of
action assert the same omissions-based theory of liability: The
product's packaging fraudulently induced plaintiffs to purchase the
product by omitting warnings about the serious side effects
associated with ICP and/or prostaglandin analogs.

To satisfy Rule 9(b), a pleading must identify the who, what, when,
where, and how of the misconduct charged, as well as what is false
or misleading about the purportedly fraudulent statement, and why
it is false.

Despite the defendants' numerous arguments to the contrary, the
court finds that plaintiffs have adequately alleged an
omission-based false advertising claim under the relevant state
statutes and state common laws. First, plaintiffs have plausibly
alleged that the purported omitted fact that the product can cause
serious side effects that are associated with ICP and other
prostaglandin analogs -- is true. Second, the court finds (and the
Consolidated Complaint alleges) that that omitted fact is material
because a reasonable consumer would have acted differently had he
or she been aware that the product allegedly caused more serious
side effects than the packaging warned of.

Third, while a closer issue, given the materiality of the omission
and the other allegations in the Consolidated Complaint, the court
finds that the Consolidated Complaint contains sufficient
allegations to infer that had Rodan reasonably and adequately
disclosed the serious side effects associated with the product's
ingredients, plaintiffs would have been aware of the disclosure and
acted differently. That is, plaintiffs have adequately pled
reliance.

Fourth, the court finds that plaintiffs have adequately alleged an
injury because they allege that they would not have bought the
product if the material had not been omitted. In addition, contrary
to defendant's assertion, plaintiffs allege that they did not
receive the benefit of the bargain.  

Lastly, for those claims that require it, the court finds that
plaintiffs have adequately alleged that defendants were aware of or
had [] reason to know of" the allegedly omitted information.

In sum, the court finds that plaintiffs have plausibly alleged an
omission-based false advertising claim premised on defendant's
failure to disclose the potential side effects associated with the
product by virtue of it containing ICP. Though the above discussion
focuses on California's false advertising laws and though the court
recognizes that Florida, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts and
Washington's false advertising statutes and common laws are subtly
different, the court finds that plaintiffs' allegations also
plausibly state claims under those laws.  

Defendant's motion with respect to causes of action one through
nineteen is denied.

RICO

The court however finds that plaintiff's RICO claim must be
dismissed because plaintiff has failed to adequately allege the
existence of an enterprise.

The RICO statute sets out four elements: a defendant must
participate in (1) the conduct of (2) an enterprise that affects
interstate commerce (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering
activity or collection of unlawful debt.  In addition, the conduct
must be (5) the proximate cause of harm to the victim.

To show the existence of an enterprise under the second element,
plaintiffs must plead that the enterprise has (A) a common purpose
(B) a structure or organization and (C) longevity necessary to
accomplish the purpose.

Here, plaintiffs allege that the enterprise consists of the
defendant and its independent contractors or consultants, who sell
the product to consumers. The death knell of the claim, however, is
that the Consolidated Complaint affirmatively alleges that the
consultants unwittingly perpetuated the omissions, unknowingly . .
. failed to disclose the ICP-related side effects to consumers and
were un-witting co-conspirators in the enterprise. And nothing in
the complaint suggests that the consultants and Rodan's
relationship was anything other than an ordinary business
relationship.  

Because plaintiffs have not adequately alleged the existence of an
enterprise, the court dismisses plaintiffs' RICO claim with
prejudice.

Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied with
respect to causes of action one through nineteen and granted with
respect to cause of action twenty.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 28, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y5ffyvxe from Leagle.com.

Barbara Lewis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Greg Lewis --
jlewis@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Benjamin
Blystad Gould  -- bgould@kellerrohrback.com, Keller Rohrback LLP,
Erika Murphy Keech -- ekeech@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback,
L.L.P., pro hac vice, Juli E. Farris -- jfarris@kellerrohrback.com
-- Keller Rohrbach L.L.P. & Michael Dean Woerner --
mwoerner@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback, LLP, pro hac vice.

Akemi Buckingham, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Elaina Hufnagel, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated & Teresa Gattuso, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Jeffrey Greg Lewis, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Benjamin Blystad Gould,
Keller Rohrback LLP, Erika Murphy Keech, Keller Rohrback, L.L.P.,
Juli E. Farris, Keller Rohrbach L.L.P. & Michael Dean Woerner,
Keller Rohrback, LLP.

Rodan & Fields, LLC, Defendant, represented by Stephanie Anne
Sheridan, Esq.-  ssheridan@steptoe.com -- Steptoe & Johnson LLP.


RP ONSITE: Faces Kelly et al. Suit over Background Checks
---------------------------------------------------------
A consumer class action has been filed against RP Onsite, LLC for
violations of Sec. 1681g(a) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The
case is captioned KEVIN JOSEPH KELLY and KARRIEM BEY, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
REALPAGE, INC., d/b/a On-Site and RP ONSITE, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 2:19-cv-01706-JP (E.D. Pa., April 19, 2019). Plaintiffs assert
that the Defendant failed to provide complete and accurate
disclosures of all information Defendants maintain about consumers
to those consumers upon request.

RealPage, Inc. is a consumer reporting agency that regularly
conducts business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in its own
name and as "On-Site." The company maintains a principal place of
business at 4000 International Parkway, Carrolton, Texas. RP
Onsite, LLC is a consumer reporting agency that regularly conducts
business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

RP Onsite, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Defendant RealPage,
Inc., and was created after RealPage, Inc. acquired On-Site
Manager, LLC in September 2017. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     James A. Francis
     John Soumilas
     Lauren KW Brennan
     FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
     1600 Market Street, 25th Floor
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Telephone: (215) 735-8600
     Facsimile: (215) 980-8000
     E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
             jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
             lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com


SADER POWER: Court Awards $1.5MM Counsel Fee in Torregano Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana issued an Order and Reasons granting Plaintiffs' Motion
for Award of Attorneys' Fees Expenses, and Costs in the case
captioned TWYLA TORREGANO, CLEMENT TORREGANO, JR., AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. SADER POWER, LLC, ET AL, SECTION: "S" (3).
Civil Action No. 14-293. (E.D. La.).

The class representatives asserted claims for violations of the
Consumer Leasing Act, breach of contract, and other claims arising
from defendants' installation of the solar panel arrays, the terms
of the maintenance agreements, and representations made to them by
defendants. GP denied the allegations, but agreed to a class
settlement with the class defined as: All persons who entered into
a Solar Power Maintenance Agreement with Griswold, and all current
owners of property in Louisiana upon which Solar Panel Arrays owned
by Griswold are installed.

In keeping with the law of this circuit and at the request of
counsel, the court will use the percentage method, as well as apply
the factors set forth in Johnson v. Ga. Highway Exp., Inc., 488
F.2d 714, 718 (5th Cir. 1974), to ensure that the fee awarded is
reasonable.

The fee requested in this case represents 6-12% of the value of the
total recovery for plaintiffs. Because awards in this circuit in
the range of 33% are commonplace, this amount appears to be
reasonable on its face.

The Johnson factors are: (1) the time and labor required (2) the
novelty and difficulty of the legal issues (3) the skill required
to perform the legal service properly (4) the preclusion of other
employment by the attorney as a result of taking the case (5) the
customary fee (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent (7) time
limitations imposed by the client or other circumstances (8) the
monetary amount involved and the results obtained; (9) the
experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys (10) whether
the case is undesirable (11) the nature and duration of the
professional relationship with the client and (12) awards in
similar cases.  

With respect to the time and labor required, the novelty and
difficulty of the legal issues, and the skill required to perform
the legal service properly, this matter took over four years,
involved multiple depositions, briefing for the arbitration, and a
mediation. As well, the novelty and difficulty of the questions
involved and the skill required to achieve a favorable result are
supported by the record.

As for preclusion of other employment by the attorney as a result
of taking the case, class counsel has represented that their
efforts in the management of this class action substantially
infringed upon, and at times curtailed, the opportunity to accept
other employment. It also reduced the time available for their
regular practices and participate in other litigation. As well,
counsel has represented that matters involved this case often
required immediate attention and completion within a very short
period of time.

The customary contingency fee for personal injury cases, which are
much more straightforward than this class action, is typically in
the neighborhood of 33% (and possibly higher). Likewise, percentage
awards of 50% have been approved in some class actions. Assuming a
conservative value of $5000.00 per solar array system, the value of
the settlement would be approximately $12,500,000, and the fee
award in the instant case works out to 12% at a maximum.

As discussed above, class counsel negotiated a settlement valued at
$12,500,000 to $25,000,000. As part of the settlement agreement,
all of the 2000+ class members now own their solar panel arrays
free and clear, at a value of approximately $5000-$10,000 each. As
well, the class members are relieved of paying service and
maintenance fees going forward which amount to several million
dollars, and relieved of paying approximately $1,881,000 which was
due and owing as of the time of the settlement. The court finds
that the success of the attorneys, as supported by the record,
reflects the ability of the attorneys.

As for the undesirability of the case, in addition to the risks
inherent in a class action, this case presented unusual issues.
There also was a valid arbitration clause to overcome, so class
counsel assumed significant risks taking this case.

For all of the foregoing reasons, the court finds that the Johnson
factors support an award of attorneys' fees in the range of 6-12%.
Accordingly,Plaintiffs' Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees
Expenses, and Costs is GRANTED, and class counsel is awarded
$1,492,500.00 in attorneys' fees.

A full-text copy of the District Court???s February 28, 2019 Order
and Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxcbxhsd  from
Leagle.com

Twyla Torregano, and all others similarly situated & Clement
Torregano, Jr., and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Lawrence J. Centola, III, Martzell & Bickford, Jason
Zachary Landry, Martzell & Bickford, Joshua L. Rubenstein,
Scheuermann & Jones, Lawrence Blake Jones, Scheuermann & Jones, &
Neil Franz Nazareth, Martzell & Bickford.

Sader Power, LLC & Sader Power Enterprises, LLC, Defendants,
represented by James Monroe White, III, James M. White, III, LLC.

Griswold Power, LLC, Defendant, represented by Anthony Rollo --
arollo@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC, Adam C. McNeil
-- amcneil@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC, Eric J.
Simonson -- esimonson@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC &
Mark R. Deethardt -- mdeethardt@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey
Stafford, PLLC


SAN DIEGO, CA: Verdun Files Civil Rights Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the city of San
Diego. The case is styled as Andre Verdun, Anoush Golkar on behalf
of themselves and a class of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. City of San Diego, San Diego Police Department, Does
1-150, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00839-AJB-WVG (S.D.
Cal., May 3, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

San Diego is a city on the Pacific coast of California known for
its beaches, parks and warm climate. Immense Balboa Park is the
site of the renowned San Diego Zoo, as well as numerous art
galleries, artist studios, museums and gardens.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ramin Rezaie Hariri, Esq.
     Hariri Law Group
     c/o 401 West A Street, Suite 1100
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 363-2889
     Fax: (619) 810-0791
     Email: ramin@haririlaw.com


SELECTIVE SERVICE: Appeals Decision in National Coalition Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Lawrence G. Romo and Selective Service System filed an
appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled National
Coalition for Men, et al. v. Selective Service System, et al., Case
No. 4:16-CV-3362, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Houston.

The nature of suit is stated as other civil rights.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was transferred to the District Court.

Selective Service System is an independent agency of the United
States government that maintains information on those potentially
subject to military conscription.

The appellate case is captioned as National Coalition for Men, et
al. v. Selective Service System, et al., Case No. 19-20272, in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees NATIONAL COALITION FOR MEN and JAMES
LESMEISTER, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Marc Etienne Angelucci, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MARC E. ANGLEUCCI
          410 N. Maryland Avenue
          Glendale, CA 91206
          Telephone: (626) 319-3081
          Facsimile: (626) 236-4127
          E-mail: marc.angelucci@yahoo.com

Defendants-Appellants SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM and LAWRENCE G.
ROMO, as Director of Selective Service System, are represented by:

          Michael J. Gerardi, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20530-0000
          Telephone: (202) 305-0531
          E-mail: J.Gerardi@usdoj.gov


SENTINEL OFFENDER: Judge Set to Rule on Settlement on May 24
------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy Hodson, writing for The Augusta Chronicle, reports that a
class-action suit against private probation company Sentinel
Offender Services may soon be over.

It's taken nearly seven years and at least one trip to the Georgia
Supreme Court, but one of the original lawsuits, a class-action
suit, against private probation company Sentinel Offender Services
might soon be over.

Sentinel was once the largest provider of probation services in the
state's misdemeanor and ordinance courts until, as Sentinel put it,
a barrage of lawsuits were filed against the company in 2012. The
lawsuits in Georgia accused private probation companies of using
the threat of jail to increase its payments, even from probationers
who had no ability to pay.

The lawsuits, which led the way for a nationwide challenge to the
use of for-profit private companies performing a judicial function
and a change in Georgia law, were filed beginning in 2012 in
Richmond and Columbia counties. One of those suits was the
class-action lawsuit in Columbia County contending that everyone
who had paid Sentinel probation fees should get a refund because
Sentinel never had a legal contract with the county. Sentinel had
been in Columbia County Superior Court for 12 years.

In a 2014 Georgia Supreme Court ruling, the court agreed with
plaintiffs' attorneys Jack Long, John Bell Jr., Thomas Tucker and
John R.B. Long that Sentinel had no right to collect supervision
fees from people sentenced for misdemeanor offenses in Columbia
County Superior Court because there was no contract.

There are about 2,800 people in the class-action lawsuit, Long
said. He anticipates each should get back about 50 percent of the
fees paid to Sentinel. Those that could be included in the class
are people who paid Sentinel fees in Columbia County from November
2008 until Sentinel dropped the court in December 2012. The pot of
money is about $621,000 for the class members. Judge Daniel Craig
is to decide whether the settlement agreement is acceptable May
24.

"Unfortunately (the fees) never should have been taken in the first
place," said Long, who filed a baker's dozen civil lawsuits against
Sentinel.

He remains a vocal critic of the outsourcing of a judicial duty --
supervision of probationers. Long still has one lawsuit on appeal
that he hopes will be a vehicle for the U.S. Supreme Court to
outlaw the practice. He sees a correlation between for-profit
probation companies and practices that have already met their legal
demise -- police officers paid by arrest, judges paid based on the
fees collected in their courts, and jailers paid when by prisoner.

Private probation companies began setting up shop in Georgia in
2001 when the state pushed off probation services for misdemeanor
offenses, including nearly all traffic offenses, and code or
ordinance violations to the local governments. The local
governments can create their own probation departments or contract
with private firms. The private firms don't charge local
governments for their services. Their profits come from probation
fees.

In 2016, Richmond County State Court's then chief judge, Richard
Slaby, led the way for the creation of an in-house probation
department. In 2017, the new chief judge, David D. Watkins, began
the dismantlement of the department. The city is now in the process
of returning to the private, for-profit probation services. [GN]


SOLANTIC CORPORATION: Wood Atter Files Suit in Florida
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SOLANTIC CORPORATION
D/B/A CARESPOT EXPRESS HEALTHCARE. The case is styled as Wood,
Atter & Wolf, P.A. On Behalf Of All Other Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. SOLANTIC CORPORATION D/B/A CARESPOT EXPRESS
HEALTHCARE, Defendant, Case No. 16-2019-CA-003349-XXXX-MA (Circuit
Ct. Fla., Duval Cty., May 3, 2019).

The Case Type is stated as "Circuit Civil".

CareSpot Express Healthcare LLC provides walk-in healthcare and
scheduled medical services at locations across the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Warwick Brian William, Esq.
     Brian W. Warwick PO Box 1870
     Lady Lake, FL321581870


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Garay Wage & Hour Suit Remanded to State Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting Defendant???s Motion to Remand
in the case captioned MARCO GARAY, Plaintiff, v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES
CO., Defendant. Case No. 18-cv-07538-PJH. (N.D. Cal.)

This is a putative wage and hour class action originally filed in
Alameda County Superior Court. Defendant employed plaintiff as a
non-exempt, hourly employee. Plaintiff alleges that Southwest
violated various California labor laws by (i) failing to provide
meal and rest periods, (first and second causes of action), (ii)
failing to pay all wages and overtime due, (third cause of action),
(iii) failing to provide plaintiff with accurate wage statements,
(fourth cause of action), and (iv) failing to pay all final wages
due upon termination of employment (waiting time penalties), (fifth
cause of action).

The Defendant removed this action to federal court asserting that
federal jurisdiction existed under the Class Action Fairness Act
(CAFA). CAFA gives federal courts jurisdiction over certain class
actions, defined in Section 1332(d)(1), if the class has more than
100 members, the parties are minimally diverse, and the amount in
controversy exceeds $5 million.

Fatal to defendant's contention, however, is the fact that
defendant's proposed 100% violation rate is essentially speculative
because it is unsupported by any evidence or allegation in the
complaint. And speculation does not meet defendant's burden to show
CAFA's amount-in-controversy requirement has been met.

A defendant's notice of removal need include only a plausible
allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the
jurisdictional threshold. But if, after removal, the plaintiff
contests the defendant's allegations regarding the amount in
controversy, both parties submit proof and the court must decide by
a preponderance of the evidence that the amount-in-controversy
requirement is met.  To determine the amount in controversy, courts
first look to the complaint. If no damages are stated, or the
defendant believes the claimed damages are understated, the
defendant seeking removal bears the burden of showing the aggregate
amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. When the defendant's
assertion of the amount in controversy is challenged by plaintiffs
in a motion to remand. CAFA's requirements are to be tested by
consideration of real evidence and the reality of what is at stake
in the litigation, using reasonable assumptions underlying the
defendant's theory of damages exposure.

The only evidence defendant submitted a declaration from Michelle
Inlow who is employed by Southwest as a Senior Manager Engagement &
Administration does not support any particular violation rate or
amount in controversy. The declaration provides evidence only about
the total number of putative class members, the average wage per
hour, the general shift length and schedule, the average number of
overtime hours worked per week, the number of wage statements per
year, and the number of employees who separated employment from
Southwest during the relevant time period. That evidence does
nothing to show how frequently the alleged violations occurred.
  
The Defendant also fails to show that the complaint alleges
universal violations with respect to the wage statement and waiting
time claims. First, defendant's argument with respect to these
claims largely depends on defendant establishing a 100% violation
rate with respect to the overtime and rest period claims. For the
reasons discussed above, defendant has not done so. Second,
defendant provides no support for its argument that because the
complaint alleges Southwest acted intentionally, the violation rate
must be 100%. Third, as was the case with defendant's overtime
argument, the waiting time and wage statement related-allegations
that defendant points to establish, at best, that Southwest did not
always comply with California's wage statement and waiting time
laws; not, as defendant must show, that Southwest nevercomplied
with those laws.

The court finds that defendant has not met its burden of showing by
a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy
exceeds $5 million. Accordingly, the court grants plaintiff's
motion and remands the action to Alameda County Superior Court.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 28, 2019 Order is
available at  https://tinyurl.com/y2fmd9tn from Leagle.com.

Marco Garay, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh --
shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group & William Matthew Pao --
william@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group.

Southwest Airlines Co., Defendant, represented by Richard Howard
Rahm -- rrahm@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, Angela Joy Rafoth
-- arafoth@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Charles Robert
Harrington -- rharrington@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C.


SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT: Navarrete Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Antonio Navarrete, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Sprint/United
Management Company, Sprint Corporation and Does 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 30-2019-01047754, (Cal. Super., January 29,
2019) was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on April 30, 2019 under Case No.
19-cv-00794.

Navarrete seeks unpaid overtime wages and interest thereon, redress
for failure to authorize or permit required meal periods, statutory
penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements,
reimbursements for business-related expenses and failure to
maintain time-keeping records, injunctive relief and other
equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees, and costs and
interest under the California Labor Code, Unfair Competition Law
and applicable Industrial Wage Orders.

Navarrete was employed by the Defendants in approximately June 2016
as a Billing Assistant Store Manager until his separation in August
2018, working at several Sprint store locations in various cities
in California, including Downey, Santa Fe Springs and Huntington
Park.

Defendants operate as a telecommunications company that provides
wireless and internet services to customers across the United
States. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James R. Hawkins, Esq.
      Gregory Mauro, Esq.
      Michael Calvo, Esq.
      JAMES HAWKINS APLC
      9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
      Irvine, CA 92618
      Telephone: (949) 387-7200
      Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
      Email: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
             Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com

Sprint/United is represented by:

      Emily T. Patajo, Esq.
      LITTLER MENDELSON PC
      2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Tel: (310) 772-7280
      Fax: (310) 553-5583
      Email: epatajo@littler.com


SUNTRUST BANKS: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action in Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., on April 9 disclosed that it has filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia on behalf of holders of SunTrust
Banks, Inc. ("SunTrust") (NYSE: STI) common stock in connection
with the proposed acquisition of SunTrust by BB&T Corporation
("BB&T") announced on February 7, 2019 (the "Complaint").  The
Complaint, which alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 against SunTrust, its Board of Directors (the "Board"), and
BB&T, is captioned Parshall v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., Case No.
1:19-cv-01277 (N.D. Ga.).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's
counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at Rigrodsky & Long,
P.A., 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220, Wilmington, DE 19801, by
telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl-legal.com, or at
http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/

On February 7, 2019, SunTrust entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") with BB&T.  Pursuant to the terms
of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of SunTrust will receive
1.295 shares of BB&T common stock for each share of SunTrust they
own (the "Proposed Transaction").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction, defendants
issued materially incomplete disclosures in a registration
statement (the "Registration Statement") filed with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission.  The Complaint alleges
that the Registration Statement omits material information with
respect to, among other things, the analyses performed by
SunTrust's financial advisor.  The Complaint seeks injunctive and
equitable relief and damages on behalf of holders of SunTrust
common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than June 10, 2019.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

With offices in Delaware, New York, and California, Rigrodsky &
Long, P.A., -- http://www.rigrodskylong.com-- has recovered
hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of investors and achieved
substantial corporate governance reforms in numerous cases
nationwide, including federal securities fraud actions, shareholder
class actions, and shareholder derivative actions. [GN]


T.L. CANNON: Court Awards $1.5MM Counsel Fee in M. Roach Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of New
York, Syracuse Division, issued an Order granting Plaintiffs'
Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement in the
case captioned MATTHEW ROACH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. T.L. CANNON
CORP. et al., Defendants. ASHLEY HICKS et al., Plaintiffs, v. T.L.
CANNON CORP. et al., Defendants. Lead Case Civil Action No.
3:10-cv-591 (TJM/DEP), Member Case Civil Action No. 18-cv-01177.
(N.D.N.Y.).

The Settlement Agreement, and the Settlement contained therein, is
fully, finally, and unconditionally approved in all respects, and
the parties are hereby directed to implement its terms. The Court
finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate in all
respects. The Court finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable,
and adequate as to each Class Member. The Court finds that
extensive investigation, research, and litigation was conducted
such that counsel for all parties are able to evaluate the
respective risks of further litigation, including the additional
costs, uncertainty, and delay associated with further prosecution
of the Actions.

The Court also finds that the settlement is the result of good
faith, extensive, arms' length negotiations between experienced
counsel with the assistance of several independent and
knowledgeable mediators.

The Court confirms as final its finding that Named Plaintiffs
Matthew Roach, Melissa Longo, Garrett Titchen, Christina Apple,
Ashley Hicks, and Kristen Raymond are adequate class
representatives for the settlement classes and confirms as final
its appointment of them as the class representatives of the
settlement classes.

The Court confirms as final that J. Nelson Thomas and Michael J.
Lingle of the firm Thomas & Solomon, 693 East Avenue, Rochester,
New York and Frank S. Gattuso from Gattuso & Ciotoli, PLLC. The
White House, 7030 East Genesee Street, Fayetteville, New York, are
adequate to serve as Class Counsel for the settlement classes.

The Settlement and the Settlement Agreement are binding in all
respects on the Named Plaintiffs and all Class Members who did not
timely submit a valid and effective Opt-Out Statement pursuant to
the provisions of the Settlement Agreement.

The Court finds that the administrative costs in the amount of
$69,889.00 are reasonable and approves payment to the Claims
Administrator of such administrative costs from the Qualified
Settlement fund as specified in the Settlement Agreement following
the Final Effective Date of the Settlement Agreement.

The Court has reviewed the releases set forth in Section IX of the
Settlement Agreement and  
In accordance with Section VII of the Settlement Agreement, Class
Counsel is hereby awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of
$1,500.000.00 and costs in the amount of $156,766.44 to be paid
from the Qualified Settlement Fund as specified in the Settlement
Agreement following the Final Effective Date of the Settlement
Agreement. Such an award is reasonable in light of the effort
expended and the risk undertaken by Class Counsel and the results
of such efforts.

In accordance with Section VIII of the Settlement Agreement, Named
Plaintiffs Matthew Roach, Melissa Longo, Garrett Titchen, Christina
Apple, Ashley Hicks, and Kristen Raymond are hereby awarded
enhancement service payment in the amount of $10,000 each to be
paid from the qualified settlement fund as specified in the
Settlement Agreement following the Final Effective Date of the
Settlement Agreement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 28, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2xdpjly from Leagle.com.

Matthew Roach, Melissa Longo & Garrett Titchen, Plaintiffs,
represented by Annette M. Gifford, Thomas, Solomon Law Firm, Frank
S. Gattuso, Gattuso & Ciotoli, PLLC, J. Nelson Thomas, Thomas,
Solomon Law Firm, Jessica L. Lukasiewicz, Thomas, Solomon Law Firm
& Michael J. Lingle, Thomas, Solomon Law Firm.

Christina Apple, Plaintiff, represented by Frank S. Gattuso,
Gattuso & Ciotoli, PLLC, Annette M. Gifford, Thomas, Solomon Law
Firm, J. Nelson Thomas, Thomas, Solomon Law Firm & Jessica L.
Lukasiewicz, Thomas, Solomon Law Firm.

T.L. Cannon Corp., doing business as, Applebees Defendant,
represented by Jessica F. Pizzutelli -- jpizzutelli@littler.com --
Littler, Mendelson Law Firm & Craig R. Benson --
cbenson@littler.com -- Littler, Mendelson Law Firm.

T. L. Cannon Management Corp., TLC West, LLC, TLC Central, LLC, TLC
Utica, LLC, TLC East, LLC, TLC North, LLC, David A. Stein,
individually and as Owner and Chairman of T.L. Cannon Corp. and as
Director and Chairman of T.L. Cannon Management Corp., Matthew J.
Fairbairn, individually and as Owner and President of T. L. Cannon
Corp. and as Director and Chief Executive Officer of T.L. Cannon
Management Corp. & John A. Perry, individually and as
Vice-President and Director of Operations of T.L. Cannon Corp. and
as President of T.L. Cannon Management Corp., Defendants,
represented by Jessica F. Pizzutelli, Littler, Mendelson Law Firm &
Craig R. Benson, Littler, Mendelson Law Firm.


TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Hart Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premiums
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dana Hart, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00319-JM (E.D. Ark., May 2, 2019) is an
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act ("AMWA"), for unjust enrichment, declaratory
judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment
interest and costs, including a reasonable attorney's fee as a
result of Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and other similarly
situated female employees a lawful minimum wage and also overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiff and other representatives regularly worked in excess of
40 hours per week but Defendant did not pay them any overtime
premium, says the complaint.

Plaintiff worked for Defendant as representative and senior
representative within the three years preceding the filing of this
Complaint.

Defendant is a for-profit, foreign business corporation, and is a
research and development-driven pharmaceutical company that
operates throughout the United States, and across the globe.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Chris Burks, Esq.
     Brandon M. Haubert, Esq.
     WH LAW,PLLC
     1 Riverfront Pl. - Suite 745
     North Little Rock, AR 72114
     Phone: (501) 891-6000
     Email: chris@whlawoffices.com
            brandon@whlawoffices.com


TEAM GOLIATH: Does not Pay Delivery Drivers Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Fox, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Team Goliath, Inc., Christian Reisch, and Jason
Dascher, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00195-JMH (E.D. Ky., May 2,
2019) seeks appropriate monetary and equitable relief based on
Defendants' willful failure to compensate Plaintiff and
similarly-situated individuals with minimum wages and overtime
wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and
Kentucky wage and hour law.

The Defendants repeatedly and willfully violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Kentucky wage and hour law by failing to
adequately reimburse delivery drivers for their delivery-related
expenses, thereby failing to pay delivery drivers the legally
mandated minimum wage wages for all hours worked, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff worked at a Team Goliath Domino's store in Lexington,
Kentucky from October 2018 to April 2019.

Defendants operate approximately 13 Domino's Pizza franchises in
Kentucky (the "Team Goliath Domino's" stores or restaurants).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert L. Abell, Esq.
     Robert Abell Law
     120 N. Upper St.
     Lexington, KY 40507
     Phone: 859-254-7076
     Fax: 859-281-6541
     Email: robert@robertabelllaw.com

          - and ???

     Andrew Biller, Esq.
     Andrew Kimble, Esq.
     Philip Krzeski, Esq.
     Biller & Kimble, LLC
     3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
     Phone: 513-715-8711
     Fax: 614-340-4620
     Email: abiller@billerkimble.com
            akimble@billerkimble.com
            pkrzeski@billerkimble.com


TELUS COMMS: Business Customers' Claims to Go to Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------------
Ranjan K. Agarwal, Esq. -- agarwalr@bennettjones.com -- Michael
Eizenga, Esq. -- eizengam@bennettjones.com -- Charlotte Harman,
Esq. -- harmanc@bennettjones.com -- and Andrew Little, Esq. --
littlea@bennettjones.com -- of Bennett Jones LLP, in an article for
JDSupra, report that business customers that agreed to arbitrate
disputes cannot "piggyback" their claims onto a consumer class
action in court, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled.

The court's 5-4 decision in TELUS Communications Inc. v Wellman,
released on April 4, 2019, means that claims based on
business-to-business agreements will go to mediation and then
arbitration, while consumers' claims will continue as a class
proceeding in the Ontario courts.

Mr. Wellman commenced a class proceeding on behalf of TELUS
customers alleging that the company overcharged customers by
rounding up calls to the next minute from 2002 to 2010 without
disclosing the practice. The proposed class consisted of
approximately two million mobile phone subscribers, 30% of which
were business customers. The other 70% were consumers who purchased
plans for personal use.

TELUS's service agreements contained a dispute resolution clause
that required mediation and arbitration for consumers and
businesses alike. While consumers cannot be forced to arbitrate
their claims due to an exception made under Ontario's Consumer
Protection Act, those protections do not extend to business
interests. TELUS therefore sought to enforce the agreement to
arbitrate under the business-to-business contracts and requested a
stay of the business customers' claims under s. 7(1) of the Ontario
Arbitration Act, 1991. Wellman argued that a different provision,
s. 7(5) of that Act, gave the Ontario court the discretion to keep
the claims all together.

Justice Moldaver concluded for a majority of the court that s. 7(5)
of the Arbitration Act did not apply and the business claims must
therefore be stayed and sent to arbitration. Justices Abella and
Karakatsanis, writing for the minority, would have allowed the
Ontario court to exercise its discretion to join all claims
together under s. 7(5) to ensure the overriding concern of access
to justice for all customers, particularly given that TELUS'
agreements were contracts of adhesion.

This decision offers several instructive takeaways for businesses
that use or enter into standard form agreements that include
arbitration clauses, as well as for in-house counsel, class action
lawyers and arbitration lawyers:

   -- courts should and will generally give effect to arbitration
clauses in commercial agreements, even if the contracts are
"contracts of adhesion", or standard form. Section 7(1) of the
Arbitration Act mandates a stay of proceedings for
business-to-business agreements where a valid arbitration clause
exists, even in the context of a class proceeding.

   -- while the Consumer Protection Act provides an exception which
will allow consumer claims to proceed in court by way of a class
action even where their agreements include an arbitration clause,
claims of business customers who enter into the same agreements
will nevertheless be sent to alternative dispute resolution.

  -- s. 7(5) of the Arbitration Act is not a standalone provision.
It provides for a partial stay of court proceedings only where an
arbitration agreement applies selectively to some of the matters in
the agreement in respect of which the proceeding was commenced, and
where it is reasonable to separate other matters in the agreement
which are not subject to the arbitration clause.

   -- where the wording and intent behind a statute does not
explicitly engage specific policy considerations???however
valid???courts may not intervene on the basis of those values to
achieve a desired outcome. If a statute fails to provide adequate
safeguards to combat issues of unequal bargaining power, that is a
task for the legislature to address and remedy. [GN]


TWIN DONUT: Cortes Sorza Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARIANA CORTES SORZA, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TWIN DONUT, INC. (D/B/A TWIN
DONUT), MY DONUT & FOOD INC. (D/B/A TWIN DONUT), GEORGE PSATHAS,
RAJESH PATEL, PETER DOE, and EDITH DOE, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-03949 (S.D. N.Y., May 2, 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 ("NYLL"),
including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and costs.

The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring
Plaintiff Cortes and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours
per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime
compensation required by federal and state law and regulations,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff Cortes was employed by Defendants at Twin Donut from
approximately August 6, 2017 until February 18, 2018.

Franchisee Defendant owns, operates or controls a donut shop
located at 3 West Fordham Road, Bronx, New York 10468 operating
under the trade name "Twin Donut".[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


UMPQUA BANK: $97.5MM Attorney's Fees in Connolly Settlement Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Motion
for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case captioned
SARAH CONNOLLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. UMPQUA BANK, Defendant. Case No.
2:15-cv-00517-TSZ. (W.D. Wash.).

The Revised Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims (Settlement
Agreement) is approved. The terms and definitions contained in the
Settlement Agreement, except as modified by the Court, are
incorporated by reference into this Order and Judgment.

Among the persons excluded from the Class are the following
individuals who have opted out of the settlement of this matter:
Veronica N. Andreas, Olena A. Bably, Anthony Lynn Bailey, William
Ray Brobst, Lynette W. Chen-Wagner, Justin Tyler Curry, and Lynae
Marin Williams.  

The parties are directed to perform their obligations under the
Settlement Agreement.

All claims and causes of action asserted in this litigation are
dismissed with prejudice and without costs to any party, except as
specifically provided in the Settlement Agreement and this Order
and Judgment. This dismissal is binding on all members of the
Class, provided, however, that the individuals who are excluded
from the Class and/or have opted out of this settlement are not
bound by this dismissal.

Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees in the amount of $97,500 and
costs in the amount of $6,000, docket no. 102, is granted. The
Court finds that Class Counsel's requested award of attorneys' fees
and costs is fair and reasonable, and directs the Settlement
Administrator to disburse these amounts from the Settlement Fund to
Class Counsel as provided in the Settlement Agreement.

Plaintiff's request for an incentive award of $2,500, is granted.
The Court finds that the requested incentive award is fair and
reasonable, and directs the Settlement Administrator to disburse
this amount from the Settlement Fund to plaintiff as provided in
the Settlement Agreement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 28, 2019 Order is
available at  https://tinyurl.com/y2mwj3cn from Leagle.com.

Sarah Connolly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Beth E. Terrell --
bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC, E.
Michelle Drake -- emdrake@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C., pro
hac vice, Elizabeth Ryan -- eryan@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY &
GLASSER LLP, pro hac vice, Nicholas F. Ortiz, LAW OFFICE OF
NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, PC, pro hac vice, Jennifer Rust Murray --
jmurray@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC &
Michael L. Murphy -- mmurphy@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey & Glasser,
LLP.

Umpqua Bank, Defendant, represented by James E. Howard --
jimhoward@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE & Lauren Ashley Dorsett
-- laurendorsett@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE.


UNITED STATES: Seeks Review of Hardy Suit Ruling
------------------------------------------------
The United States of America, Defendant, filed an appeal from a
Court ruling in the lawsuit titled Hardy, et al. v. US, Case No.
1:14-cv-00388-MMS, in the United States Court of Federal Claims.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, on May 6,
2014, William C. Hardy, for himself and as representative of a
class of similarly situated individuals, filed a complaint alleging
a Fifth Amendment taking.  The Plaintiffs are 112 individuals, who
collectively own 173 parcels of land adjacent to a railroad
corridor in Newton County, Georgia.  The land is situated between
milepost E 65.80, at the point of the railroad line crossing Route
229 in Newborn, Georgia and milepost E 80.70, near the intersection
of Washington Street, SW, and Turner Lake Road, SW, in Covington,
Georgia, a distance of 14.9 miles.

The Plaintiffs have amended their complaint twice.  In the second
amended complaint, Mr. Hardy and the other 111 plaintiffs continue
to assert, as their sole claim for relief, a Fifth Amendment
taking.  They assert that until 2013, Defendant, the United States,
held easements for railroad purposes that crossed their land.
According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendant then authorized the
conversion of the railroad rights-of-way to recreational trails
pursuant to the National Trail Systems Act (Trails Act), conduct
that resulted in a taking that violated the Just Compensation
Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The appellate case is captioned as Hardy, et al. v. US, Case No.
19-1793, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

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

   -- Docketing Statement is due on May 23, 2019; and

   -- Appellant/Petitioner's brief is due on June 24, 2019.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees WILLIAM C. HARDY, BERTIE ANN HARDY, DOROTHY
SCHAEFFER and EMMA TRIMBLE, For Themselves and As Representatives
of a Class of Similarly Situated Persons, are represented by:

          Elizabeth McCulley, Esq.
          Stewart Wald & McCulley, LLC
          2100 Central
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 303-1500
          E-mail: mcculley@swm.legal

Defendant-Appellant UNITED STATES is represented by:

          Amarveer Singh Brar, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          PO Box 7611
          Washington, DC 20044
          Telephone: (202) 305-0479
          E-mail: amarveer.brar@usdoj.gov


UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: Gray Sues Over Biometric Data Retention
--------------------------------------------------------------
GAIL GRAY, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO MEDICAL CENTER,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2019CH05545 (Ill. Circuit Ct., Cook Cty.,
May 2, 2019) seeks an Order: (1) declaring that Defendant's conduct
violates BIPA; (2) requiring Defendant to cease unlawful
activities; and (3) awarding statutory damages to Plaintiff and the
proposed Class.

The Defendant's employees are required to have their hand prints
scanned by a biometric device in order to gain authorized access to
stored materials. For example, Defendant uses medication dispensing
systems that require workers to scan a hand print before gaining
access to stored materials. In 2015, a data breach at the United
States Office of Personnel Management exposed the personal
identification information, including biometric data, of over 21.5
million federal employees, contractors, and job applicants.

Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like
these, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act
("BIPA"), specifically to regulate the collection and storage of
Illinois citizens' biometrics, such as hand prints. Despite this
law, Defendant disregards its employees' statutorily protected
privacy rights and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses their
biometric data in violation of BIPA, asserts teh complaint.

Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals are aggrieved
because they were not: (1) informed in writing of the purpose and
length of time for which their hand prints were being collected,
stored, disseminated and used; (2) provided a publicly available
retention schedule or guidelines for permanent destruction of the
biometric data; and (3) provided (nor did Defendant execute) a
written release, as required by BIPA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Gail Gray is a natural person and a citizen of the State
of Illinois.

The University of Chicago Medical Center Inc., at all relevant
times, was a duly registered corporation doing business within the
state of Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
     James B. Zouras, Esq.
     Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq.
     STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
     100 North Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Phone: 312.233.1550
     Fax: 312.233.1560
     Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
            jzouras@stephanzouras.com
            cmitchell@stephanzouras.com


VIEGA LLC: Al's Discount Suit Transferred to M.D. Pa.
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled AL'S DISCOUNT PLUMBING LLC,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
VIEGA LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-00384, was transferred on April 23,
2019, from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania.

The Pennsylvania District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-00685-CCC to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings the action for injunctive relief under the
Sherman Act and Clayton Act, as well as damages pursuant to state
antitrust law allowing indirect-purchaser remedy.  The lawsuit is
an antitrust action directed at Viega's alleged anticompetitive
conduct in the markets for copper press fittings and carbon steel
press fittings.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Fred T. Isquith, Esq.
          Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
          Veronica M. Bosco, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
          E-mail: isquith@whafh.com
                  burt@whafh.com
                  bosco@whafh.com


VIEGA LLC: Plumber's Shop Suit Transferred to M.D. Pa.
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled THE PLUMBER'S SHOP AND ASSOCIATES,
LLC, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
VIEGA LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-01983, 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 Middle District of
Pennsylvania (Harrisburg).

The Pennsylvania District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-00681-CCC to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is an antitrust action directed at Viega's alleged
anticompetitive conduct in the markets for copper press fittings
and carbon steel press fittings.  Viega has, for several years, and
continues to, possess monopoly power in the market for carbon steel
press fittings, which are press fittings used for black iron pipe.
Viega's carbon steel press fittings were the first to market and,
until July 2017, the only carbon steel press fittings approved in
the United States.  Viega controls at least 95% of the carbon steel
press fittings market.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frederick Taylor Isquith, Sr., Esq.
          Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
          Veronica M. Bosco, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 545-4653
          E-mail: isquith@whafh.com
                  burt@whafh.com
                  bosco@whafh.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Sean Logan McGrane, Esq.
          SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
          4900 Key Tower, 127 Public Square
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 479-8538
          Facsimile: (216) 479-8780
          E-mail: sean.mcgrane@squirepb.com


VMSB LLC: Bonilla Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ANTONIO BONILLA, and all others similarly situated Plaintiff,
v. VMSB, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-21746-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 2, 2019) seeks to recover
monetary damages, liquidated damages, interests, costs and
attorney's fees for willful violations of overtime wages and
retaliation under the laws of the United States, and the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA").

The complaint asserts that the Plaintiff was not paid overtime
wages when he worked more than 40 hours per week. Accordingly,
Plaintiff claims the halftime rate for each hour worked over 40
hours weekly.

Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a dishwasher from on or
about March 9, 2019 through April 2, 2019.

VMSB is an active Floridian business entity incorporated on
September 18, 2013.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Isaac Mamane, Esq.
     Mamane Law LLC
     10800 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 350A
     Miami, FL 33161
     Phone (305) 773 - 6661
     Email: mamane@gmail.com

          - and -

     Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
     Daniel T. Feld, P.A.
     2847 Hollywood Blvd.
     Hollywood, FL 33020
     Phone: (954) 361-8383
     Email: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Bernstein Litowitz Requests $12MM in Legal Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP has
requested $12 million in attorney fees in California federal court
for securing a $48 million settlement for a class of Volkswagen AG
investors. [GN]


WALMART INC: Morris Files  Mislabeling Suit Over Shake Product
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kaylan Morris, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Walmart Inc., Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-00650, (N.D. Ala., April 30, 2019), seeks damages and
equitable relief resulting from unjust enrichment, breach of
express and implied warranty and for violation of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act and the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Walmart sells "Parent's Choice Pediatric Shake" in its Alabama
stores. It claims that it is "naturally flavored" with "balanced
nutrition," contains "no synthetic color, flavor or sweeteners."
Morris disputes this claim saying that it contains the synthetic
sweetener, maltodextrin. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      W. Lewis Garrison, Jr., Esq.
      Taylor C. Bartlett, Esq.
      HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
      2224 First Avenue North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Tel: (205) 326-3336
      Fax: (205) 326-3332
      Email: lewis@hgdlawfirm.com
             taylor@hgdlawfirm.com

             - and -

      J. Stuart McAtee, Esq.
      ALEXANDER SHUNNARAH PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEYS
      3626 Clairmont Avenue S
      Birmingham, AL 35222
      Tel: (205) 983-8116
      Fax: (205) 983-8416
      Email: smcatee@asilpc.com

             - and -

      Taylor A. Pruett, Esq.
      SCHREIBER LAW FIRM, P.C.
      2129 First Avenue North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Phone: (205) 871-9140
      Email: taylor@schreiber.law


WALMART: $160MM Settlement Obtains Final Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------
Tom McParland, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal judge in
Arkansas on April 9 gave her final approval to a $160 million
settlement in a securities class action stemming from the alleged
bribery scheme involving Walmart's Mexican subsidiary.

The agreement, approved by U.S. Judge Susan O. Hickey of the
Western District of Arkansas, brought an end to long-running
litigation from Walmart investors who said they were affected by a
sharp drop in the retail giant's stock after The New York Times
reported in 2012 that the company had tried to cover up $24 million
in bribes that executives from Walmart de Mexico had paid to
high-ranking Mexican officials in order to speed up store
openings.

Walmart, which did not admit any wrongdoing, didn't respond on
April 9 to a call seeking comment on the settlement. Under the
agreement, Walmart was required to pay the cost of administering
the settlement, as well legal fees and expenses.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, which represented the lead plaintiff
in the case, meanwhile touted the ruling as a "extraordinary
result" after a series of other suits over the alleged bribery
scheme had failed.

Last year, the Delaware Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of
lawsuits by a dozen pension funds accusing Walmart's directors of
failing to investigate reports of bribery, after Hickey
extinguished similar derivative claims in Arkansas, where Walmart
is headquartered. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
also affirmed a New York court's ruling that investor claims were
barred by the five-year statute of limitation under the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

According to proxy advisory firm Institutional Shareholder
Services, the settlement was Walmart's first ever in a securities
class action case and the largest of its kind to be approved in
Arkansas federal court, a spokesman for Robbins Geller said on
April 9.

"They took on one of the most powerful companies in the world in
its own backyard and obtained a financial recovery that far exceeds
any other class action recovery against Walmart," Robbins Geller
said, crediting the leadership of its client, the City of Pontiac
General Employees' Retirement System, and its chairman, Walter
Moore.

According to court documents, executives at Walmart de Mexico, or
Walmex, began paying bribes to government officials in 2003 through
intermediaries to obtain land use permits, reductions in
environmental impact fees and other allowances.

Walmart conducted an internal investigation in 2006 and concluded
there was no evidence of a bribery scheme.

But six years later, The New York Times published reports detailing
the alleged scheme in which government officials received $24
million and an effort by Walmart executives to halt and cover up
the internal investigation.

Following publication of the article, Congress announced the launch
of a federal probe into the bribery allegations.

In the Arkansas class action, the City of Pontiac General
Employees' Retirement System said that Walmart's stock plunged
nearly 5 percent on news of the Time's reporting, leading to
"billions of dollars" in lost shareholder value. The stock price
continued to decline in the following days, amounting to its
largest one- and two-day drops since the stock markets had bottomed
out over three years earlier, the complaint said.

Walmart said last year, after the settlement was initially
announced, that it had years before implemented a global ethics and
compliance program. [GN]


WATCH GANG: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Watch Gang LLC. The
case is styled as Brian Fischler Individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Watch Gang LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02644 (E.D. N.Y., May 5, 2019).

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

Watch Gang is a watch membership service that offers its members an
amazing watchworth up to $500 each month.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
     Lipsky Lowe LLP
     630 Third Avenue
     Fifth Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 392-4772
     Fax: (212) 444-1030
     Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


WELCH FOODS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Misleading Labels
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marian Johns, writing for Legal News Line, reports that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Welch Foods, alleging the
food producer's fruit snacks have deceptive and misleading labels
regarding the nutritional value of their products.

According to the lawsuit filed March 18 in U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, Charles Jones alleges the
defendant's fruit snacks have several misleading claims on the
product's labels including "with fiber," "real fruit," and "good
source."  

The "with fiber" representation leads consumers to believe the
fruit snacks contain the "dietarily significant or a good source of
fiber" which the nutrition facts on the label show to be false,
according to the lawsuit.  

The "real fruit" labeling also would lead consumers to believe the
fiber in the product comes from fruit, which contains fiber,
however the nutrition label shows the product contains "chicory
root" fiber, the lawsuit states.

The plaintiff says the alleged mislabeling violates New York
General Business Law and consumer protection statutes in all 50
states and constitutes negligent misrepresentation, breach of
express warranty and implied warranty of merchantability as well as
fraud.

The lawsuit seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief,
monetary damages and punitive damages. [GN]


WESTCONNEX: Dentons Explores Options for Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Litigation Finance Journal reports that Dentons, the world's
largest law firm, is exploring options for a class action against
Australian transport system WestConnex. Construction on the
33-kilometer underground motorway has been blamed for severe damage
to nearby residents' homes. [GN]


WESTERN EXPRESS: Class of Truckers Certified in Elmy FLSA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William L. Campbell, Jr., grants the Plaintiff's Motion to
Conditionally Certify a Fair Labor Standards Act Collective Action
and Authorize Notice to be Issued to the Class in the lawsuit
entitled JOHN ELMY, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated persons v. WESTERN EXPRESS, INC., et al., Case
No. 3:17-cv-01199 (M.D. Tenn.).

The collective sought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, comprised
of "all truckers who lease a truck from Defendant Horizons to drive
for Defendant Western during the three years preceding the filing
of the initial complaint and up through the date of final judgment
herein and subject to any equitable tolling for any applicable
portion of the limited time period."

The Plaintiff's Motion for Approval of the Notice and Consent Form
will be taken under advisement, pending a meeting of the parties to
attempt to agree upon such Notice and Consent Form, according to
the Court's memorandum and order.

In light of its ruling, the Court orders the parties to meet and
confer regarding a notice to the potential class members.  The
parties shall attempt to reach an agreement as to content and
method of sending the proposed notice and shall file an agreed upon
notice for approval with the Court by May 30, 2019.

If the parties cannot agree to a notice and method of sending the
notice to prospective party plaintiffs, they shall file competing
notice proposals by May 30, 2019.  In the meantime, Plaintiff's
request to approve the notice and consent forms will be taken under
advisement, the Court says.[CC]


YOUNG LIVING: Faces Rico Class Action in Texas
----------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal RICO class action
claims that Young Living Essential Oils, Young Living Foundation,
and their directors run "a cult-like organization falsely peddling
the ever-elusive promise of financial success and an alternative
lifestyle."

A copy of the Complaint is available at:

         https://is.gd/g91yUS


ZHEJIANG HUAHAI: Faces Martinez Product Liability Suit in N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ZHEJIANG HUAHAI
PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD, et al. The case is styled as ANTHONY
MARTINEZ, JEFF SOMER, TANYA DODSON, CELESTINE DARING, ROBERT
FIELDS, EVA CORNELL, BILL VANHOOSE, DEBORAH ANDERSON, MIKE RIVES,
DEITRICH BROADNAX, CONNIE HOWARD on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZHEJIANG HUAHAI
PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD, PRINSTON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. doing
business as: SOLCO HEALTHCARE US, LLC, HUAHAI US, INC., HETERO
LABS, LTD., HETERO USA, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-12143-RBK-JS (D. N.J., May 3, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal
Injury Product Liability.

Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. provides formulations,
active pharmaceutical ingredients, and intermediates in China and
internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     STEVEN C. BABIN, JR., Esq.
     BABIN LAW LLC
     1320 DUBLIN ROAD, SUITE 100
     COLUMBUS, OH 43215
     Phone: (614) 384-7035
     Email: steven.babin@babinlaws.com


[*] BakerHostetler Attorney Discusses Absent Class Members Issue
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rand L. McClellan, Esq. -- rmcclellan@bakerlaw.com -- of
BakerHostetler, in an article for Mondaq, reports that are absent
members of an uncertified class or Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
collective action "parties" and thus "represented" by plaintiff's
counsel? If so, is defense counsel prohibited from speaking with
absent class members? At first glance, the answer would appear to
be no, for two reasons. First, "a nonnamed class member is [not] a
party to the class-action litigation before the class is
certified." Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, 568 U.S. 588, 593
(2013). And "[u]nder the FLSA, employees become parties to a
collective action only by filing written consent" with the court
after receiving court-approved notice. Genesis HealthCare Corp. v.
Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66, 75 (2013). Second, district courts cannot
restrict parties or counsel in an alleged class action from
communicating with putative class members unless the speech
restriction is "justified," generally because of abuse or other
misconduct. See Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89, 101, 104
(1981).

A federal magistrate judge, however, ruled defense counsel violated
Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2, which prevents
attorneys from communicating with represented persons about the
subject matter of the representation, by speaking with and
obtaining declarations from defendants' employees, who were
potential members of the uncertified class and collective action.
Weller v. Dollar General Corp., No. 17-2292 (E.D. Pa.). The
magistrate judge did not find that defense counsel acted in bad
faith. As a sanction, however, the magistrate judge allowed
plaintiff's counsel to depose the interviewed employees and ordered
the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs and expenses for the
depositions.

In holding defense counsel violated Rule 4.2, the magistrate
judge's memorandum relied on two concepts. First, the memorandum
stated that under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1701, which
defines a "class action" under Pennsylvania law, absent members of
an uncertified class are parties to the action. Second, the
plaintiff's case "feature[d] a potential Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class
for state law claims." In other words, the memorandum supplanted
federal procedural law with a state procedural law, for an action
that would or would not be certified under federal law.
Traditionally, however, federal courts must apply federal
procedural rules and principles even when deciding state law
claims. Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938).

While the magistrate judge's memorandum is notable and is being
challenged, it raises at least two issues. The first is that
communications with absent class members should be well-planned. As
noted above, the magistrate judge did not find bad faith, most
likely because of the safeguards the defendant took in conducting
the interviews. For example, the interviews were preceded by a
written disclosure (that was read aloud to the employees)
explaining the lawsuit, and the employees initialed each paragraph
of the disclosure to confirm their understanding. In addition,
defense attorneys stated that they represented the defendant (not
the employee), that plaintiff sought to represent them, the purpose
of the interviews, that participation was optional, that no
employment action would arise from participating (or not) and that
the interviews could end whenever the employee chose. The second
issue is whether defense counsel, out of an abundance of caution,
should consider first obtaining leave before communicating with
absent class members. While absent class or collective action
members in federal court are not "represented," and Bernard warns
that restricting such communications may violate the First
Amendment, communications can be restricted if "justified." Thus,
defense counsel should consider whether the court, given the facts
or circumstances of the case, may find that some control or
limitation in communications is warranted. What is clear, however,
is that communications with absent class members should be
well-planned, documented, not misleading or coercive, and conducted
with an eye toward a challenge by opposing counsel. [GN]


[REDACTED]


                            *********

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 ***