CAR_Public/190515.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, May 15, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 97

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Grubb Sues Over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
ADCS CLINICS: Bittlingmeyer Hits Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
AMERICAN ACCESS: Leon, Mitchell Sue over Breach of Insurance Deal
AMERICAN HONDA: Court Approves Amended Pretrial Events in Aberin
ARS NATIONAL SERVICES: Diaz Disputes Vague Collection Letter

ASSET RECOVERY: Rogers Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Ohio
AT&T MOBILITY: Squire Patton Attorney Discusses TCPA Rulings
BANK OF AMERICA: Mendoza Suit Removed to N.D. California
BECTON DICKINSON: Olson Suit Removed to S.D. California
BETTER INC: Gonzales Suit Alleges FLSA Violation

CLIENT SERVICES: Spira Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
COLDWELL BANKER: Grossberg Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing
CONSUMERS ENERGY: Gas Index Price Reporting Suit Still Ongoing
CORAL SPRINGS: Bittlingmeyer Hits Unsolicited SMS Ad Blasts
CORE RECOVERIES: Joseph Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York

CORELOGIC INC: Still Defends Feliciano Class Action in New York
DASSAULT FALCON: Donnell Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
DLP INC: Honeywell Files ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
DRAS PARTNERS: Shortchanges Drivers' Reimbursements, Says Suit
EQT CORP: May 17 Deadline to Opt Out of Kay Company Settlement

FIFTH THIRD: Court Affirms Protective Order in Henrickson Suit
FISHER-PRICE INC: Faces Mulvey Suit over Unsafe Baby Sleeper
FORD MOTOR: Cook Files Product Liability Class Action
GENPACT SERVICES: Spira Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
H GRANADOS COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Salerno Labor Suit in California

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hal Scott Trust Files Shareholders Rights Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Altringer Talc Suit to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Ambriz Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Anfinson Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Jonas Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Jones Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Sipple Talc Injury Suit to Del. Dist. Ct
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Starr Talc Injury Suit to Del. Dist. Ct.
JONES DAY: Responds to $200MM Gender Bias Class Action
JPAY INC: Settlement in Salim Suit Has Preliminary Approval

KOLON: Patients May File Class Action Over Invossa Mislabeling
LOGITECH INC: Dennis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MAGIC AUTO: 5th Circuit Appeal Filed in Leal FLSA Class Suit
MARK OBENSTINE: Appeals Decision in Estakhrian Suit to 9th Cir.
MASTERPIECE CATERERS: Flores Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

MDL 2323: McCorvey Gets 7% & Lorentz Gets 15% of Attys' Fees Award
MDL 2741: Brode Suit Consolidated in Roundup Liability Litigation
MDL 2741: Heisch Suit Consolidated in Roundup Liability Litigation
MDL 2741: Nolan Suit Consolidated in Roundup Liability Litigation
MDL 2741: Oldham Suit Consolidated in Roundup Liability Litigation

MDL 2741: Page Suit Consolidated in Roundup(R) Liability Litigation
MDL 2804: YMC Board May Join National Opioid Litigation
MIDLAND CREDIT: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in "Adkins" to 4th Cir.
MIDLAND FUNDING: Oliphant Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
MONSANTO CO: Brunner Sues Over Injuries From Roundup(R) Exposure

MONSANTO CO: Cocheran Sues Over Injuries From Roundup(R) Product
MONSANTO CO: Crump Seeks Damages From Roundup-related Injuries
MONSANTO CO: Delesline Files Suit Over Roundup-Related Injuries
MONSANTO CO: Oneal Seeks Damages for Roundup(R)-related Injuries
MONSANTO CO: Rice Seeks Damages for Roundup(R)-related Injuries

MONSANTO CO: Stoker Sues Over Injuries From Roundup(R) Exposure
MONSANTO CO: Sued by Burns Over Injuries From Roundup(R) Exposure
MONSANTO CO: Sutton Sues for Roundup(R)-Related Injuries
MONSANTO CO: Tubbesing Suit Alleges Roundup(R)-Related Injuries
MONSANTO CO: Walsh Sues Over Injuries From Roundup(R) Exposure

MONSANTO CO: Wauters Sues Over Defective Roundup(R) Product
MONSANTO CO: Whitaker Seeks Damages Over Dangerous Roundup(R)
MONSANTO COMPANY: Clays Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Culps Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Georges Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Seitz Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Shuler Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Somerses Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Young Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
NANO: Seeks Dismissal of Cryptocurrency Class Action

NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION: Sued Over Denied Breaks, Spread-of-Hours Pay
NEVADA: State High Court Denies Mandamus in Shepard Suit
NZONE GUIDANCE: Seeks 5th Cir. Review of Hiser FLSA Suit Ruling
OSCAR BLANDI: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
OZARK CAPITAL: Ford Files Consumer Credit Suit in E.D. Arkansas

PARMERS RESORT: Honeywell Files ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Sgarlata Set on July 11
PETROPLEX PIPE: Seeks 5th Circuit Review of Hobbs Suit Ruling
PLATRONICS INC: Dennis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PODESZWA'S HELPING HANDS: Caregiver Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

POWER PLANT: Bartenders File Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
PPDAI GROUP: Faces 2 Consolidated Class Suits over IPO
RCR TOMLINSON: Fate of Disclosure Class Action Uncertain
REAL ESTATE SALES: Faces Greenberg Suit in S.D. Florida
REAL TIME: Tucker Files FDCPA Suit in Vermont

RP ON-SITE: Faces Miller Suit over Inaccurate Consumer Report
SCE&G: Clears Misinformation on "$1,000 Refund"
SCOSCHE INDUSTRIES: Dennis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SEI INVESTMENTS: Mediation Ongoing in Stevens Class Suit
SEI INVESTMENTS: Suits over SPTC Services Underway

SETERUS INC: Williams Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Alabama
SMITH ROUCHON: Brown Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Alabama
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Retirement Fund Suit Has New Caption
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Still Defends Cambell, Neal & Mott TCPA Suits
TRI-COUNTRY INSURANCE: Builders Mutual Files Suit in S. Carolina

UNITED AIRLINES: Seeks 7th Cir. Review of Ruling in Johnson Suit
VITAL RECOVERY: Nourollah Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
WADDELL & REED: 401(k) Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
WELLNESS SOLUTIONS GERIATRICS: Krawczyk Seeks Overtime, Minimum Pay
YAHOO INC: Strikes Revised $117.5MM Data Breach Settlement


                            *********

3M COMPANY: Grubb Sues Over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
----------------------------------------------------------
BROOKE GRUBB, Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY, AEARO HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO
INTERMEDIATE, LLC AEARO, LLC and AEARO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00935-MCR-EMT (N.D. Fla., April 22,
2019) seeks damages from 3M and its subsidiary entities for their
injuries caused by the use of 3M's defective Combat Arms Earplugs
during their military service.

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. 3M knew
that its earplugs were defective, but manipulated laboratory
testing results and falsely represented to the military as meeting
the military's specifications, including representations by 3M that
their Combat Arms Earplugs offered maximum hearing protection for
military personnel and that they were free from all defects that
could have impaired their serviceability.

As of the filing of this action, 3M has still failed to issue a
recall for the defective Combat Arms Earplugs, opting instead to
simply discontinue selling the earplugs, leading members of the
U.S. military to continue to use the defective ear plugs, believing
they were safe, only to suffer further injury, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a natural person who resides in Tennessee.

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.[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
     Phone: (615) 859-1996
     Fax: (615) 859-1921
     Email: mwgaines01@gmail.com
            bowden_law@bellsouth.net



ADCS CLINICS: Bittlingmeyer Hits Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carly Bittlingmeyer, individually and on behalf of a class of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ADCS Clinics, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-61110 (S.D. Fla., May 1, 2019), seeks
statutory damages and injunctive relief for violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant owns and operates over 150 dermatology practices.
Bittlingmeyer claims to have received multiple pre-recorded
telemarketing calls to her cellular phone by use of an automatic
telephone dialing system without her permission. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
      110 SE 6th Street
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 907-1136
      Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
      Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com


AMERICAN ACCESS: Leon, Mitchell Sue over Breach of Insurance Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against American Access
Casualty Company (AACC) for alleged breach of insurance contract.
The case is captioned SAMANTHA LEON and HILLIARY MITCHELL, JR.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, AMERICAN ACCESS CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
2019CH05077 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., April 19, 2019).

Plaintiffs Samantha Leon and Hilliary Mitchell were a customer of
AACC, which issued them insurance policies for private passenger
auto physical damage including comprehensive and collision
coverage. However, when Plaintiffs suffered a total loss of their
respective vehicles, Defendant failed to pay the full amount to
which Plaintiffs were entitled under their respective automobile
policy. Allegedly, Defendant systematically underpays its insureds
-- including Plaintiffs and the other Class members -- who have
suffered the total loss of their vehicles, by failing to pay the
costs of sales tax and mandatory transfer fees, despite being
contractually obligated to pay such costs.

AACC is and was a corporation incorporated in Illinois,
headquartered at 2211 Butterfield Road, Suite 200, Downers Grove,
Illinois. The insurance company offers non-standard auto insurance
policies. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
     Daniel E. Ferri, Esq.
     DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
     Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Telephone: (312) 214-7900
     E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
             dferri@dicellolevitt.com

             - and -

     Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
     Jacob Phillips, Esq.
     NORMAND LAW, PLLC
     62 West Colonial Street, Suite 209
     Orlando, FL 32814
     Telephone: (407) 603-6031
     E-mail: ed@ednormand.com
             jacob@ednormand.com

             - and -

     Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
     EDELSBERG LAW, PA
     2875 NE 191 ST St #703
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Telephone: (305) 975-3320
     E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com


AMERICAN HONDA: Court Approves Amended Pretrial Events in Aberin
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order approving the Amended Schedule of
Pretrial Events in the case captioned LINDSAY and JEFF ABERIN (a
married couple), DON AWTREY, CHARLES BURGESS, JOHN KELLY, YUN-FEI
LOU, JOY MATZA, and MELISSA YEUNG, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR
COMPANY, INC., Defendant. No. 3:16-cv-04384-JST. (N.D. Cal.).

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 28, 2019 Order is
available at  https://tinyurl.com/yxczgu5w from Leagle.com.

Yun-Fei Lou, Lindsey Aberin, Don Awtrey, John Kelly & Melissa
Yeung, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Shana E. Scarlett -- shanas@hbsslaw.com
-- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,  Christopher A. Seeger --
cseeger@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel
R. Leathers -- cseeger@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac
vice, David Brian Fernandes -- dfernandes@baronbudd.com -- Baron &
Budd, P.C., James E. Cecchi , Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody &
Agnello, P.C., James C. Shah -- jshah@sfmslaw.com -- Shepherd
Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella Byrne
Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., Mark Philip Pifko --
mpifko@baronbudd.com -- Baron & Budd, P.C., Roland K. Tellis --
rtellis@baronbudd.com -- Baron Budd, P.C., Scott Alan George --
sgeorge@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen
A. Weiss -- sweiss@seegerweiss.com -Seeger Weiss LLP & Steve W.
Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro
hac vice.

American Honda Motor Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Livia
M. Kiser -
lkiser@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP & Michael Brian Shortnacy
-- mshortnacy@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP.


ARS NATIONAL SERVICES: Diaz Disputes Vague Collection Letter
------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Diaz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. ARS National Services, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-03890, (S.D. N.Y., May 1, 2019), seeks damages and remedies
pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

On January 10, 2018, Diaz received a letter in an attempt to
collect a past due debt to Citibank that failed to state whether
the payment must be sent by the consumer, or received by the
Defendant, by the stated deadline. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
      BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
      100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Tel: (516) 203-7600
      Fax: (516) 706-5055
      Email: ConsumerRights@BarshaySanders.com


ASSET RECOVERY: Rogers Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Ohio
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asset Recovery
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Catherine Rogers,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, Velocity Investments,
LLC, and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00345-TSB
(S.D. Ohio, May 8, 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 that is committed to establishing unmatched
standards of performance. They offer a full range of solutions that
includes credit cards, student loans, consumer loan, automotive and
retail.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Amichai Eitan Zukowsky, Esq.
     23811 Chagrin Blvd., Ste. 160
     Beachwood, OH 44122
     Phone: (216) 800-5529
     Fax: (216) 514-4987
     Email: ami@zukowskylaw.com


AT&T MOBILITY: Squire Patton Attorney Discusses TCPA Rulings
------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas P. Zalany, Esq. -- nicholas.zalany@squirepb.com -- of
Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports
that as the Czar wrote recently, the FCC's disastrous solicited fax
rule has finally been withdrawn. But that has not prevented the
coils of fruitless TCPA class actions seeking to enforce the now
unenforceable provision from snaking their way through the court
system.

Perhaps the most incorrigible would-be class representative in
these cases is Gorss Motels, Inc. Having already lost two
certification bids in this context -- see Gorss Motels, Inc. v.
AT&T Mobility LLC, CIVIL NO. 3:17cv403, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24726
(D. Conn. Feb. 14, 2019); Gorss Motels, Inc. v. The Eric Ryan Corp.
et al, 3:17-cv-00126-DJS (D. Conn. Mar. 28, 2019) -- it just
couldn't help but try for the trifecta. Predictably, it did not go
well.

In Gorss Motels, Inc. v. Otis Elevator Co., CIVIL NO. 3:16-CV-1781,
2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58515 (D. Conn. April 4, 2019) the court
rejected Plaintiff's latest certification bid for much the same
reasons that the two previous courts had -- there is no way to
identify members of the class that consented to receive the
solicited fax.

As with the dozens of other cases of this type, the case had
originally been filed as a putative class action at a time when the
FCC's solicited fax rule was still viable. This meant that the
Defendant was per se liable for a TCPA violation if the fax did not
contain specific opt out language -- and the faxes here allegedly
did not -- so consent was not an issue. But as soon as Bais Yakkov
was handed down, that all changed. Now only unsolicited faxes had
to maintain the opt-out language. So whether or not a fax was
solicited became the critical issue in these cases. That issue, of
course, is one requiring individualized proof. So no certification.


Apparently not realizing that the FCC's solicited fax rule had been
formally withdrawn, the Plaintiff argued that the court should not
follow Bais Yakkov and should continue to apply the withdrawn rule.
My goodness. What a bad argument.  Judge Dooley tolerated the
argument, however, and discussed the binding effect of Bais Yaakov
in light of King v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 894 F.3d 473, 476 n.3
(2d Cir. 2018), which confirmed FCC TCPA rulings are still entitled
to deference under the Hobbs Act. (We'll see if that changes
soon.)

Bottom line -- the solicited fax rule is dead, and bids to certify
TCPA classes relying on a missing opt-out language theory are now
likely to meet with (repeated) failure. [GN]


BANK OF AMERICA: Mendoza Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned MIGUEL MENDOZA, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA
CORPORATION, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
C19-00575 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of Contra Costa to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
May 8, 2019, and assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02491.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to: (1) provide legally
compliant meal and rest breaks to Plaintiff and the putative class
members ("PCMs") he seeks to represent; (2) track and identify
which employee meal periods were late, missed, or short; (3)
maintain records of whether the missed, late, or short meal periods
were due to business pressure or were voluntary; (4) pay Plaintiff
and the PCMs "on duty" or on-the-premises meal or rest breaks; and
(5) pay Plaintiff and the PCMs premium wages when required by
law.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     Matthew C. Kane, Esq.
     Ashley R. Li, Esq.
     MCGUIREWOODS LLP
     1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501
     Phone: 310.315.8200
     Facsimile: 310.315.8210
     Email: mkane@mcguirewoods.com
            ali@mcguirewoods.com

          - and -

     Sylvia J. Kim, Esq.
     Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1300
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Phone: 415.844.9944
     Facsimile: 415.844.9922
     Email skim@mcguirewoods.com


BECTON DICKINSON: Olson Suit Removed to S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned PHIL OLSON, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated; Plaintiff, v.
BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY, a New Jersey corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive Defendant, Case No.
37-2019-00017985-CU-OE-CTL was removed from the San Diego County
Superior Court to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on May 8, 2019, and assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-00865-H-BGS.

Plaintiff's Complaint asserts: (1) Unpaid Overtime; (2) Unpaid Meal
Period Premiums; (3) Unpaid Rest Period Premiums; (4) Unpaid
Minimum Wages; (5) Final Wages Not Timely Paid; (6) Non-Compliant
Wage Statements; (7)  Unreimbursed Business Expenses; and (8)
Violation of California Business & Professions Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     Spencer C. Skeen, Esq.
     Tim L. Johnson, Esq.
     Jesse C. Ferrantella, Esq.
     OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
     4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990
     San Diego, CA 92122
     Phone: 858-652-3100
     Facsimile: 858-652-3101
     Email: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com
            tim.johnson@ogletree.com
            jesse.ferrantella@ogletree.com


BETTER INC: Gonzales Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------
Jose R. Gonzales, Jose O. Abreu, and all others similarly situated
v. A Better, Inc. and William Fusco, Case No. 0:19-cv-60721 (S.D.
Fla., March 20, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs seek to recover money damages for unpaid regular and
overtime wages under FLSA.

The Plaintiffs are residents of Dade County and were employed by
the Defendants as plumbers.

The Defendant is a construction contractor providing plumbing
installation, repairs, maintenance, and related services to
commercial accounts in the construction industry. Its main place of
business is at 4061 N Federal Highway, Pompano Beach Florida
33004.

The Defendant Fusco is the owner/partner and/or manager of A Better
Inc.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


CLIENT SERVICES: Spira Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services, Inc.
The case is styled as Yehuda Spira individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Client Services, Inc.,
John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 7:19-cv-04181 (S.D. N.Y., May
8, 2019).

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

Client Services, Inc. operates as a customer relationship
management company that offers a suite of accounts receivable
management, business processing outsourcing (BPO), and healthcare
solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
     Stein Saks PLLC
     285 Passaic st
     Hackensack, NJ 07601
     Phone: (347) 668-9326
     Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com



COLDWELL BANKER: Grossberg Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Grossberg, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Coldwell Banker Residential Real Estate LLC
dba Coldwell Banker Residential Real Estate, Case No. 1:19-cv-21064
(S.D. Fla., March 20, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendant has violated the TCPA by engaging in unsolicited
telemarketing directed towards prospective customers with no regard
for consumers' privacy rights, asserts the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida and has
received the subject text message.

The Defendant provides real estate brokerage services which
includes the buying and selling of residential real estate.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Eisenband, Esq.
      EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
      515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Tel: (954) 533-4092
      E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com


CONSUMERS ENERGY: Gas Index Price Reporting Suit Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers Energy 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 itself in class action suits related to gas index price
reporting.

CMS Energy, along with CMS MST, CMS Field Services, Cantera Natural
Gas, Inc., and Cantera Gas Company, were named as defendants in
four class action lawsuits and one individual lawsuit arising as a
result of alleged inaccurate natural gas price reporting to
publications that report trade information. Allegations include
price‑fixing conspiracies, restraint of trade, and artificial
inflation of natural gas retail prices in Kansas, Missouri, and
Wisconsin.

In 2016, CMS Energy entities reached a settlement with the
plaintiffs in the Kansas and Missouri class action cases for an
amount that was not material to CMS Energy. In 2017, the federal
district court approved the settlement. Plaintiffs are making
claims for the following: treble damages, full consideration
damages, exemplary damages, costs, interest, and/or attorneys’
fees.

After removal to federal court, all of the cases were transferred
to a single federal district court pursuant to the multidistrict
litigation process. In 2010 and 2011, all claims against CMS Energy
defendants were dismissed by the district court based on FERC
preemption.
In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed
the district court decision. The appellate court found that FERC
preemption does not apply under the facts of these cases. The
appellate court affirmed the district court’s denial of leave to
amend to add federal antitrust claims. The matter was appealed to
the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 2015 upheld the Ninth Circuit’s
decision. The cases were remanded back to the federal district
court.
In 2016, the federal district court granted the defendants’
motion for summary judgment in the individual lawsuit filed in
Kansas based on a release in a prior settlement involving similar
allegations; the order of summary judgment was subsequently
appealed. In March 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit reversed the lower court’s ruling and remanded the case
back to the federal district court.

In 2017, the federal district court denied plaintiffs’ motion for
class certification in the two pending class action cases in
Wisconsin. The plaintiffs appealed that decision to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and in August 2018, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the matter back to
the federal district court for further consideration.
In January 2019, the judge in the multidistrict litigation granted
motions filed by plaintiffs for Suggestion of Remand of the actions
back to the respective transferor courts in Wisconsin and Kansas
for further handling. In the Kansas action, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered the remand and the case is being
transferred. In the Wisconsin actions, oppositions to the remand
have been filed and the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
will likely consider the request in May 2019.

These cases involve complex facts, a large number of similarly
situated defendants with different factual positions, and multiple
jurisdictions. Presently, any estimate of liability would be highly
speculative; the amount of CMS Energy’s reasonably possible loss
would be based on widely varying models previously untested in this
context. If the outcome after appeals is unfavorable, these cases
could negatively affect CMS Energy’s liquidity, financial
condition, and results of operations.

Consumers Energy Company operates as an electric and gas utility in
Michigan. The company operates Electric Utility and Gas Utility
segments. The Electric Utility segment generates, purchases,
transmits, distributes, and sells electricity. The company was
founded in 1886 and is based in Jackson, Michigan. Consumers Energy
Company is a subsidiary of CMS Energy Corporation.


CORAL SPRINGS: Bittlingmeyer Hits Unsolicited SMS Ad Blasts
-----------------------------------------------------------
Carly Bittlingmeyer, individually and on behalf of a class of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Coral Springs Family
Dentistry at Americare PA., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-61112 (S.D.
Fla., May 1, 2019), seeks statutory damages and injunctive relief
for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant owns and operates multiple dental practices in Florida.
Bittlingmeyer claims to have received multiple SMS ads to her
cellular phone by use of an automatic telephone dialing system
without her permission. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
      110 SE 6th Street
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 907-1136
      Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
      Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com


CORE RECOVERIES: Joseph Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Core Recoveries, LLC.
The case is styled as Judeline S. Joseph individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Leisa Korn, Matt
Korn, Core Recoveries, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02669
(E.D. N.Y., May 6, 2019).

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

Leisa Korn is the president at Core Recoveries, LLC.

Core Recoveries, LLC was founded in 2011. The company's line of
business includes collection and adjustment services on claims and
other insurance related issues.[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



CORELOGIC INC: Still Defends Feliciano Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
CoreLogic, 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 CoreLogic Rental
Property Solutions, LLC (RPS) continues to defend a class action
suit by Claudinne Feliciano in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

In July 2017, CoreLogic SafeRent, LLC (n/k/a CoreLogic Rental
Property Solutions, LLC ("RPS") was named as a defendant in
Claudinne Feliciano, et. al., v. CoreLogic SafeRent, LLC, a
putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The named plaintiff alleges that RPS prepared a background
screening report about her that contained a record of a New York
Housing Court action without noting that the action had previously
been dismissed. On this basis, she seeks damages under the Fair
Credit Reporting Act and the New York Fair Credit Reporting Act on
behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated consumers with
respect to reports issued during the period of July 2015 to the
present.

CoreLogic said, "We have denied the claims and intend to defend the
case vigorously."

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

CoreLogic, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides property
information, insight, analytics, and data-enabled solutions in
North America, Western Europe, and the Asia Pacific. The company
operates in two segments, Property Intelligence & Risk Management
Solutions (PIRM) and Underwriting & Workflow Solutions (UWS). The
company was formerly known as The First American Corporation and
changed its name to CoreLogic, Inc. in June 2010. CoreLogic, Inc.
was incorporated in 1894 and is headquartered in Irvine,
California.


DASSAULT FALCON: Donnell Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Brian Donnell, Individually and on Behalf of All Those Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. Dassault Falcon Jet Corp, Defendants, Case
No. 4:19-cv-00283-JM (E.D. Ark., April 22, 2019) is an action
brought by Plaintiff individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, against Defendants for violations of the
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, ("FLSA"), and
the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, ("AMWA").

Despite working more than forty hours per week on a regular basis,
Plaintiff and other Team Leaders were only paid their regular rate
for any hours worked over forty, and not the proper overtime
premium, asserts the complaint. The Defendant did not pay Plaintiff
and other Team Leaders an overtime premium of one and-one-half
times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over forty per
week, the complaint adds.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as hourly paid Team Leader.

Dassault Falcon Jet Corp. is a foreign for-profit corporation
registered to do business in the State of Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DLP INC: Honeywell Files ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against D L P, INC. The case
is styled as Cheri Honeywell, Lanie Quarterman, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. D L P, INC.
a Florida corporation, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-10071-JLK (S.D.
Fla., May 8, 2019).

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

DLP Inc. is a General Contracting firm specializing in commercial
and retail projects.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
     Jessica L.Kerr, P.A. dba The Advocacy Group
     200 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 504
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: (954) 282-1858
     Fax: (844) 786-3694
     Email: service@advocacypa.com


DRAS PARTNERS: Shortchanges Drivers' Reimbursements, Says Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Burton and Phaelann Mackey, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DRAS Partners, LLC
and DRAS Partners 2, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-02949, (N.D.
Ill., May 1, 2019), seeks to recover minimum wages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs of this action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendants operate a chain of approximately 12 Papa John's
franchise stores in northern Illinois, including stores located in
Cook and Lake Counties. Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as
delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to deliver pizzas
and other food items to customers. They claim that the vehicle
reimbursement rates are too low and they end up having a net loss
thus eating up a portion of their pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark Potashnick, Esq.
      WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
      11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
      St. Louis, MO 63141
      Telephone: (314) 997-9150 ext. 2
      Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
      Email: markp@wp-attorneys.com

              - and -

      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
      Sarah J. Arendt, Esq.
      WERMAN SALAS P.C.
      77 West Washington, Suite 1402
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 419-1008
      Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com
             msalas@flsalaw.com
             sarendt@flsalaw.com


EQT CORP: May 17 Deadline to Opt Out of Kay Company Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
EQT Corporation 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 deadline for class
members to opt out of the settlement in the class action suit
entitled, Kay Company, LLC, et al. v. EQT Production Company, et
al., is May 17, 2019.

Kay Company, LLC, et al. v. EQT Production Company, et al., United
States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia.
On January 16, 2013, several royalty owners who had entered into
leases with EQT Production Company, a subsidiary of the Company,
filed a gas royalty class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of
Doddridge County, West Virginia.

The suit alleged that EQT Production Company and a number of
related companies, including the Company, EQT Energy, LLC, EQT
Investments Holdings, LLC, EQM (the Company's former midstream
affiliate) and Equitrans Gathering Holdings, LLC (formerly known as
EQT Gathering Holdings, LLC, and a former subsidiary of the
Company), failed to pay royalties on the fair value of the gas
produced from the leases and took improper post-production
deductions from the royalties paid.

The plaintiffs sought more than $100 million (according to expert
reports) in compensatory damages, punitive damages, and other
relief. On May 31, 2013, the defendants removed the lawsuit to
federal court.

On September 6, 2017, the district court granted the plaintiffs'
motion to certify the class and granted the plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment, finding that EQT Production Company and its
marketing affiliate EQT Energy, LLC are alter egos of one another.
The defendants sought immediate appeal of the class certification.
On November 30, 2017, the Court of Appeals declined the request for
an immediate review.

On February 13, 2019, the Company announced that it and the other
defendants reached a tentative settlement agreement with the class
representatives. Pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement
agreement, the Company agreed to pay $53.5 million into a
settlement fund that will be established to disburse payments to
class participants, and stop taking future post production
deductions on leases that are determined by the Court to not permit
deductions.

The Company and the class representatives also agreed that future
royalty payments will be based on a clearly defined index pricing
methodology. The tentative settlement agreement is subject to Court
approval and achieving a threshold minimum percentage of
participation by the class members. Each class member will have the
opportunity to opt out of the settlement.

The Court preliminarily approved the settlement on February 13,
2019. The deadline for class members to opt out of the settlement
is May 17, 2019. The final approval hearing is scheduled for July
11, 2019.

EQT said, "If ultimately approved, the settlement will resolve the
royalty claims for the class period, which spans from 2009 through
2017."

EQT Corporation operates as a natural gas production company in the
United States. It produces natural gas, natural gas liquids (NGLs),
and crude oil. The company was founded in 1925 and is headquartered
in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


FIFTH THIRD: Court Affirms Protective Order in Henrickson Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
affirmed the November 28, 2018 Order of United States Magistrate
Judge Tony N. Leung, which denied Fifth Third's motion for a
protective order in the case captioned Kelley L. Hendrickson,
Plaintiff, v. Fifth Third Bank and 11th Hour Recovery, Inc.,
Defendants. Case No. 18-cv-0086 (WMW/TNL). (D. Minn.).

Plaintiff Kelley L. Hendrickson asserts multiple claims against
Defendants founded on the allegation that Fifth Third failed to
send her a Cobb notice before repossessing her vehicle. Hendrickson
moved to amend her complaint to include class action allegations on
August 1, 2018.

Fifth Third moved for a protective order, seeking to limit
discovery sought by Hendrickson as to Fifth Third's internal
policies and procedures.  

The magistrate judge issued an order granting Hendrickson's motion
to amend her complaint and denying Fifth Third's motion for a
protective order.

Relevant to this appeal, the magistrate judge concluded that Fifth
Third's internal policies and procedures are relevant and
reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

A magistrate judge's ruling is clearly erroneous when, although
there is evidence to support the ruling, after examining the entire
record, the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed. A magistrate judge's
ruling is contrary to law when it either fails to apply or
misapplies pertinent statutes, case law or rules of procedure.  

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 provides that parties may obtain
discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to
any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the
case.

The magistrate judge determined that the discovery Hendrickson
seeks regarding Fifth Third's internal policies and procedures is
relevant to Hendrickson's Cobb-notice claims. Ultimately, a
magistrate judge has broad discretion to supervise discovery. The
record indicates that the magistrate judge exercised his discretion
in a sound manner, and Fifth Third has presented no persuasive
facts or legal authority to the contrary.1 The magistrate judge's
Order is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.
Accordingly, the Court affirms the magistrate judge's November 28,
2018 Order denying Fifth Third's motion for a protective order.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 28, 2019 Order is
available at   https://tinyurl.com/y2rzm7bz from Leagle.com.

Kelley L. Hendrickson, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Adam R. Strauss,
Tarshish Cody, PLC, Andrew C. Walker, Curtis Walker Attorney at
Law, Bennett Hartz & Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Consumer Justice Center
P.A.

Fifth Third Bank, Defendant, represented by C.J. Schoenwetter --
cj.schoenwetter@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Bowman & Brooke LLP, David
J. Carrier -- david.carrier@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Bowman and
Brooke LLP & Patrick T. Lewis -- plewis@bakerlaw.com -- Baker &
Hostetler LLP, pro hac vice.

11th Hour Recovery, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael G.
Phillips, Phillips Law, PLLC.


FISHER-PRICE INC: Faces Mulvey Suit over Unsafe Baby Sleeper
------------------------------------------------------------
A consumer class action complaint has been filed against
Fisher-Price, Inc. and Mattel, Inc. for the false and misleading
marketing of Rock 'n Play Sleeper. The case is captioned CASSANDRA
MULVEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FISHER-PRICE, INC. and MATTEL, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00518 (W.D.N.Y., April 19, 2019).

The lawsuit explains 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. Ignoring documented safety concerns, Defendants marketed
and sold the Rock 'n Play Sleeper in the United States as an infant
sleeper that is suitable for all night and prolonged sleep.
Accordingly, Plaintiff Cassandra Mulvey seeks redress for the
Defendants' violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, New York
General Business Law, breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, negligence and unjust enrichment.

Fisher-Price, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in East Aurora, Erie County, New York. Defendant
Fisher-Price manufactures and markets products for the care of
infants and preschool children to consumers throughout the United
States, including in the State of New York. Defendant Fisher-Price
is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Defendant Mattel, Inc. Mattel, Inc.
is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in
El Segundo, California. Defendant Mattel is the world’s second
largest toy maker and is the corporate parent of Fisher-Price.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Terrence M. Connors, Esq.
     Caitlin M. Higgins, Esq.
     Katherine G. Howard, Esq.
     CONNORS LLP
     1000 Liberty Building
     Buffalo, NY 14202
     Telephone: (716) 852-5533
     E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com
             cmh@connorsllp.com
             kgh@connorsllp.com

             - and -
     
     Demet Basar, Esq.
     Daniel Tepper, Esq.
     Kate Mcguire, Esq.
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
     270 Madison Avenue
     New York, NY 10016
     Telephone: (212) 545-4600
     E-mail: basar@whafh.com
             tepper@whafh.com
             mcguire@whafh.com

            - and -

     Elbert F. Nasis, Esq.
     FORCHELLI DEEGAN TERRANA A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
     333 Earle Ovington Blvd., Suite 1010
     Uniondale, NY 11553
     Telephone: 516-248-1700
     E-mail: ENasis@ForchelliLaw.com


FORD MOTOR: Cook Files Product Liability Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ford Motor Company.
The case is styled as William Don Cook individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ford Motor Company,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00335-ECM-GMB (M.D. Ala., May 8,
2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Prop. Damage Product Liability
under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Ford Motor Company, incorporated on July 9, 1919, is a global
automotive and mobility company. The Company's business includes
designing, manufacturing, marketing, and servicing a line of
Fordcars, trucks, and sport utility vehicles (SUVs), as well as
Lincoln luxury vehicles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Henry Clay Barnett, III, Esq.
     Leslie Leeann Pescia, Esq.
     Wilson Daniel Miles, III, Esq.
     Beasley Allen Crow Methvin Portis & Miles
     P O Box 4160
     Montgomery, AL 36103
     Phone: (334) 269-2343
     Fax: (334) 954-7555
     Email: Clay.Barnett@BeasleyAllen.com
            leslie.pescia@beasleyallen.com
            dee.miles@beasleyallen.com



GENPACT SERVICES: Spira Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Genpact Services LLC.
The case is styled as Yehuda Spira individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Genpact Services LLC,
John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 7:19-cv-04180 (S.D. N.Y., May
8, 2019).

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

Genpact is a global professional services firm delivering digital
transformation by putting digital and data to work to create
competitive advantage.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
     Stein Saks PLLC
     285 Passaic st
     Hackensack, NJ 07601
     Phone: (347) 668-9326
     Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com


H GRANADOS COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Salerno Labor Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
H Granados Communizations, Inc. for alleged unfair competition
practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code
and for its failure to provide the required rest and meal periods
in violation of the California Labor Code and the applicable
Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Order. The case is
captioned MICHAEL SALERNO, an individual, on behalf of himself, and
on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. H
GRANADOS COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1
through 50, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV13627 (Cal.
Super., Cty. of Los Angeles, April 19, 2019). Plaintiff Michael
Salerno also alleges that the Defendants failed to pay wages due in
violation of the California Labor Code.

H Granados Communications, Inc. is a telecommunications customer
service fulfillment company specializing in residential &
commercial installation for high speed data, telephone, digital
cable television, in-home networking and installation of
underground service drops from tap to customer ground black. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq.
     JCL LAW FIRM, APC
     3990 Old Town Avenue, Suite C204
     San Diego, CA 92110
     Telephone: (619) 599-8292
     Facsimile: (619) 599-8291
     E-mail: jlapuyade@jcl-lawfirm.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hal Scott Trust Files Shareholders Rights Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Antilla, writing for The Intercept, reports that over two
years, some senior officials at the Securities and Exchange
Commission have indicated that they would be open to corporations
foisting mandatory arbitration on their shareholders, and now a
team of pro-corporate players are ready to put them to the test.
Two lawyers have joined with a high-profile Harvard professor on a
pivotal case that could strip away shareholders' rights to sue
public companies. The Harvard professor, Hal S. Scott, runs a Wall
Street advocacy group supporting deregulation. The lawyers both
made their names busting labor unions; one of them, Jonathan
Mitchell, is a current Trump nominee, and social media posts link
the other, Wally Zimolong, to discriminatory views.

A trust run by Scott, an emeritus professor at Harvard Law School,
sued Johnson & Johnson in a New Jersey federal court in March,
seeking to force the company to allow shareholders to vote on a
proposal that would take away their right to sue the company in
court. Johnson & Johnson, relying on a determination by the SEC
that such a measure would risk violating New Jersey state laws,
declined to present the proposal to shareholders in advance of its
April 25 annual meeting. On March 26, the trust sought a court
injunction to force the company to include the proposal. On April
8, U.S. District Court Judge Michael A. Shipp denied the injunction
but allowed the litigation to proceed.

A Perverse Lawsuit
The Doris Behr 2012 Irrevocable Trust lawsuit is in some sense
perverse: a shareholder is seeking to restrict shareholder rights.
But Scott has long decried class-action shareholder lawsuits as a
boondoggle for lawyers and a burden on shareholders who bear the
costs of defending and settling the suits. As president of the
Committee on Capital Markets Regulation, he was an early proponent
of rescinding shareholders' rights to sue, suggesting in 2006 that
shareholders be allowed to decide whether the companies they invest
in should force arbitration. The Committee, according to a 2010
nonprofit filing, has been funded by such Wall Street titans as
Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Fidelity Investments, Deloitte,
Pricewaterhouse Coopers, and hedge fund billionaire Kenneth
Griffin. In an op-ed in February, Scott said that most shareholder
class actions "have no merit, damage shareholder interests, and
tarnish the attractiveness of our public capital markets."

Scott, who did not respond to an email query, has taken strong,
sometimes curious, positions against other forms of corporate
accountability. In a 2015 op-ed, he disparaged the idea of forcing
companies to admit wrongdoing when they settle a regulatory case.
What does an admission of guilt accomplish "other than again
imposing additional penalties, by perhaps damaging the reputation
of a firm?" he asked.

What Scott has in common with attorneys Zimolong and Mitchell,
according to F. Paul Bland, executive director at the watchdog
organization Public Justice, is "an enormous zeal for the
overdog."

Zimolong is a career union-basher who brags on his website that the
American Federation of Teachers once called him "a destructive
force," slyly adding, "I cannot thank the AFT enough for that
comment it has been great for marketing." His bio on the website of
the Republican National Lawyers Association describes him as "a
movement conservative and a perpetual thorn in the side of the
progressive movement."

A Pattern of Offensive Comments
Posts from Zimolong's Twitter account, obtained by The Intercept
and Type Investigations, show that some of his opinions have been
inflammatory.

Before he switched his Twitter account to private, Zimolong posted
at least two dozen extreme comments about labor, immigration, Black
Lives Matter, and other social issues. In 2016 and 2017, Zimolong
called Black Lives Matter a "hate group" and the AFT "a racist
organization." He described gender pay inequity and transgender
bathroom access as "fake problems that liberals make up." He railed
against those who employ "illegals" and responded to a news item
about a Latino soccer coach impregnating a 14-year-old player by
questioning his immigration status. He gloated over the deportation
of a Dreamer and a photo of an antifa protester being attacked by a
police dog. He said of the National Labor Relations Board, "When is
@realDonaldTrump going to dismantle this whacko leftist agency."

Offensive tweets had caused problems for Zimolong in the past; in
2017, No Penn Union, an organization fighting graduate student
unionization at the University of Pennsylvania, severed ties with
Zimolong after some of his tweets were made public, saying, "We
were unaware of his personal views . . . . and his views do not
represent us."

"Like many people, I regret how what I said on twitter is
perceived," Zimolong said by email. He pointed out that he has
represented a gay bar franchise, a mosque, and a black church in
Philadelphia and emphasized that he is only local counsel in the
Doris Behr case and doesn't play "a substantive role." He said that
he does not consider Black Lives Matter a hate group and that
people should be free to use the bathroom that makes them most
comfortable.

Anti-Union and Anti-Shareholder
Mitchell, dubbed a "mastermind of anti-union" campaigns by the New
York Times, has been nominated by President Donald Trump to chair
the Administrative Conference of the United States, an independent
agency that recommends improvements to administrative procedures.
He was a volunteer on Trump's transition team and a Supreme Court
clerk for Antonin Scalia.

In two cases filed in collaboration with another free
market-oriented nonprofit, the Freedom Foundation, Mitchell
represented government workers in Washington state who sought a
refund on the agency fees they had to pay even though they had
opted out of being in a union. Federal judges have dismissed both
claims, but plaintiffs in one case have said they will appeal.

Mitchell also represents the U.S. Pastor Council, which sued the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and other government
officials seeking an exemption from EEOC rules that govern spousal
benefits for same-sex partners. The 1,000 members of the council
"believe that the Bible is the word of God," the complaint says,
adding that "the Bible repeatedly and explicitly condemns
homosexual behavior."

In January, Mitchell filed an amended complaint against Harvard Law
Review, Harvard College officials, and Education Secretary Betsy
DeVos in an ongoing case that accuses the Law Review of illegal
race and sex discrimination because it gives "preferences to
articles written by women or racial minorities." The suit also
faults Harvard for giving preference to women and people of color
in faculty hiring decisions. Mitchell did not respond to an email
query.

Mitchell is working with Zimolong in another case in which they
represent a plaintiff seeking class status on behalf of employees
who claim that they should be reimbursed for dues they were
required to pay to a union as a condition of employment.

Now, the two are collaborating to push mandatory arbitration of
shareholder grievances.

The shareholder arbitration issue first came to a head in 2012,
when the Carlyle Group included a mandatory arbitration requirement
in its initial public offering documents, sparking opposition from
shareholder advocates. The SEC pressured Carlyle to drop the
requirement, saying that it couldn't conclude that the policy was
consistent with "the public interest and protection of investors."

In the wake of the Johnson & Johnson controversy, several SEC
commissioners have spoken out on the issue. Citing the case in a
speech in March, Commissioner Hester Peirce said that class-action
shareholder lawsuits can depress shareholder value in what is often
"meritless litigation." In February, SEC Chair Jay Clayton issued a
statement on the ongoing Johnson & Johnson litigation, saying a
court -- not the SEC -- would be the appropriate venue to decide
the outcome. But he described the broad issue of shareholder
arbitration as "unsettled and complex" and said it would take a
"measured and deliberative" effort by the SEC to come to a policy
decision on the matter.

Bland argues that a win by proponents of mandatory shareholder
arbitration would wipe out the ability of small investors to fight
back against fraud. Big players like Vanguard or Fidelity could
afford to bring individual cases in closed-door arbitration when
the next WorldCom-scale fraud comes along, he said. But he added
that no lawyer will represent the lone retail investor who's lost
$5,000 as the result of a corporate fraud: "Retail investors saving
for retirement will lose all their rights if securities
class-actions are wiped away." [GN]


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Altringer 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 lawsuit
captioned REBECCA ALTRINGER, 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, 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-03152 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 2, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the
Superior Court of Los Angeles, 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 Ambriz 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 ALIZA AMBRIZ, an individual v. IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC.,
a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in the
State of California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation
doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES,
INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; 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-03171 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 July 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Superior Court
of San Bernardino 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 Anfinson 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
styled CAROL ANFINSON, TRACEY TRAHAN, CHRISTINE CARFAGNO, LSUZSANNA
PINTER, VIVIANNA ANGULO, ELIZABETH BRACAMONTE, DENISE TORRES,
GWENDOLYN BERAKSA, MARY ROWE, KRISTY TAYEBI, MARIAN FORSTER, LUZ
ROMAN 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-03176 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 June 15, 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 Jonas 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
styled ROSA JONAS, individually and as next of kin to LISA LANGLEY,
deceased 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-03170 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 2, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the
Superior Court of San Bernardino 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 Jones 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
styled Jones v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No. JCCP 4872, 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-03160 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was commenced on February 16, 2018, as JEANETTE JONES,
an individual v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing
business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey
corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA,
INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business
in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. 18CV323587, in the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Santa Clara.

Ms. Jones alleges that she purchased the Defendants' products and
used said products on a daily basis in and around her perineal
regions.  She also used the products to dust other parts of her
body including her face, under arms and chest in proximity to their
breathing zone.  She further used the products when diapering her
children and on their bed sheets and for other household purposes.
The Plaintiff's parents and others further used the products when
diapering her.  Defendants' products include Shower to Shower body
powder and Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder.

Ms. Jones seeks recovery for damages as a result of ovarian cancer,
which was directly and proximately caused by the unreasonably
dangerous and defective nature of talcum powder, the main
ingredient of the Defendants' products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lee Cirsch, Esq.
          Michael Akselrud, Esq.
          THE LANIER LAW FIRM, PC
          10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 400
          Telephone:  (310) 277-5100
          Facsimile: (310) 277-5103
          E-mail: lee.cirsch@lanierlawfirm.com
                  michael.akselrud@lanierlawfirm.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Sipple Talc Injury Suit to Del. Dist. Ct
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 23, 2019, the claims against them in the lawsuit
titled ALICE SIPPLE v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER COMPANIES INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. f/k/a LUZENAC
AMERICA, INC.; U.S. BORAX, INC.; RIO TINTO MINERAL SERVICES, INC.;
AND VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS NORTH AMERICA, LLC, 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-00727-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 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 Starr Talc Injury Suit to Del. Dist. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 23, 2019, the claims against them in the matter
captioned CYNTHIA STARR, Individually and as Power of Attorney for
IZETTA STARR 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-00728-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 Decedent Izetta Starr
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 the wrongful
death of Decedent Izetta Starr.

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


JONES DAY: Responds to $200MM Gender Bias Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Dan Packel, writing for The American Lawyer, reports that after
initially keeping silent, Jones Day has responded publicly to a
$200 million proposed gender bias class action brought by six
associates, vowing to fight the claims and touting its commitment
to women's inclusion and advancement.

In a statement posted on the firm's website, Jones Day said it
provided women flexibility in their path to partnership and
highlighted the leadership roles women play in the firm. The
majority of its women partners are mothers who took family leave
and often worked flexible schedules, the statement said.

"Jones Day is proud of its success in promoting a diverse group of
outstanding lawyers," the firm said. "The success of Jones Day's
women lawyers has been supported by our inclusive culture that
rewards talent, teamwork, integrity, and mutual commitment to our
clients and the firm."

In a complaint filed April 3 in federal court in Washington, D.C.,
six female former Jones Day associates alleged widespread gender
discrimination, claiming the firm's  "black box" compensation
model, leadership structure and culture serve to systematically
deny women equal pay and opportunity for advancement.

They are being represented by Sanford Heisler Sharp, which has sued
a number of other large law firms over gender discrimination and
which also filed a separate gender bias suit against Jones Day last
year on behalf of former partner Wendy Moore.

The new plaintiffs -- two who worked in the firm's Irvine,
California, office and four who are proceeding anonymously --
provided a vivid account of how compensation and partnership
decisions were allegedly tilted against them and other women at the
firm, while female associates also allegedly endured regular
incidents of harassment and humiliation.

Jones Day did not directly address their allegations of a
"fraternity culture" at the firm, instead electing to refute
charges in the complaint that women, and working mothers in
particular, were systematically denied opportunities to advance.

The firm noted that more than half of the U.S. lawyers promoted to
the partnership in January 2019 were women (18 of 35), asserting
that almost three-quarters of them had taken or were on family
leave at the time of promotion. The previous year, 42 percent of
U.S. lawyers made partner were women, and approximately 71 percent
of them had taken leave.

Jones Day's 240 women partners comprise just over 26 percent of the
partnership, based on a count of 919 partners in 2018 provided by
the firm. That figure is slightly above the  23.36 percent
industrywide figure for 2018 calculated by the National Association
for Legal Placement. Jones Day ranked 77th in the National Law
Journal's Women's Scorecard last year, based on 2017 demographics.

In its statement, the firm also addressed the composition of its
leadership ranks, emphasizing that 17 of its offices and
regions—including its largest region—are led by women partners,
almost all of whom have children, it said. The firm also said that
five women, all of whom took family leave, sit on its 17-member
partnership committee, which advises on partner admissions and
compensation.

One of the chief points in the lawsuit is that managing partner
Stephen Brogan has sole authority to make compensation and
partnership decisions in the firm.

Jones Day's rebuttal said that 40 percent of the members of its
advisory committee are women, and almost all are mothers. It also
stated that women serve as the relationship partner for hundreds of
clients, including two of the firm's five largest clients.

The firm also said that its largest practice group, business and
tort litigation, is co-chaired by a woman, litigator Stephanie
Parker, and that the leader of its issues and appeals practice,
Beth Heifetz, became the practice leader while working part-time
after returning from a multiyear family leave.

"These statistics belie the recent claims of six former associates
(four unnamed) that women -- and, in particular, women who take
family leave -- cannot succeed at Jones Day. The claims of pay
discrimination -- made only 'on information and belief,' without
any factual support -- are equally without merit," the firm said,
adding that it intends to litigate the case in court, not in the
media.

The firm had not yet indicated who would be representing it in any
court filings, and a spokesman did not immediately respond to a
request for comment on April 9. [GN]


JPAY INC: Settlement in Salim Suit Has Preliminary Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, OUMER SALIM, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, v. JPAY, INC, Civil Action No. 4:18-cv-00730 (E.D. Tex.),
Judge Amos L. Mazzant of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas, Sherman Division, granted Salim's Unopposed
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and
Certification of Settlement Class against JPay.

Salim brought the class action against JPay on Oct. 12, 2018.  In
the Class Action Complaint, the Plaintiff asserts, inter alia,
claims for breach of express warranty; violation of the New York
Deceptive Trade Practices Law; breach of contract, including the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing; unjust enrichment;
unconscionability; and entitlement to injunctive relief.

According to the Complaint, JPay provides video conferencing
services to prisons throughout the country.  Family and friends who
would otherwise be unable to visit an incarcerated person can use
the service offered through JPay to have a "Video Visitation."
JPay charges for these Video Visitation sessions in thirty minute
increments.  However, the Plaintiff has alleged that complaints
from around the country indicate families and friends of inmates
contend that video sessions do not last the entire 30-minute
session.

The Plaintiff brings the action on behalf of himself and all
natural persons who, after Dec. 1, 2009, paid a fee to JPay for a
30-minute Video Visitation session and allegedly received less than
a 30-minute session, for any reason, to recover for JPay's failure
to deliver the service as promised and paid for.

The Court has not yet certified a class.  Through negotiations of
the counsel, however, the Parties have come to a settlement
agreement that they believe adequately compensates the class.  The
Parties have agreed to resolve the claims asserted in the Complaint
in their entirety and the Parties have reached a tentative
settlement.

Came on for consideration the report of the U.S. Magistrate Judge
in the action, the matter having been referred to the Magistrate
Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636.  On March 25, 2019, the
report of the Magistrate Judge was entered, containing proposed
findings of fact and recommendations that Salim's Motion for
Preliminary Approval against the Defendant, be granted.

Having received the Report of the U.S. Magistrate Judge, and no
objections thereto having been timely filed, Judge Mazzant is of
the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate
Judge are correct and adopts the Magistrate Judge's report as the
findings and conclusions of the Court.

He granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval.

For settlement purposes only, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(3) and (e), the Judge provisionally certified the
class.  The "Claimant Class" or "Class Member" is defined as all
natural persons who paid a fee to JPay for a 30-minute Video
Visitation session and allegedly received less than a 30-minute
session for any reason.  The "Settlement Period" will be defined as
the period from, and including, Dec. 1, 2009, through the date the
Court grantes preliminary approval of the Settlement.

The Judge provisionally designated and appointed (i) Plaintiff
Salim as the Settlement Class Representative; and (ii) Bruce
Steckler, Steckler Gresham & Cochran, PLLC, as the  Settlement
Class Counsel.

The Final Approval Hearing will be held on Nov. 18, 2019, at 9:00
a.m.

The Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement,
Service Award Request, and Fee Request will be filed with the Court
at least 21 days prior to the deadline for submission of objections
specified in the Notice.  By no later than 10 days prior to the
Final Approval Hearing, the Parties will file responses, if any, to
any objections, and any replies in support of final approval of the
Settlement and/or the Service Award Request and Fee Request.

The proposed Notice Program set forth in the Settlement Agreement,
and the Notice Form, Opt-Out Form, Claim Form attached to the
Settlement Agreement as Exhibits A, B, and C, satisfy the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B) and
(e)(1) and are approved.

Within 35 business days from the date of the Report, JPay and the
Class Counsel will initiate the Notice Program, which will be
completed in the manner set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

Within 20 business days after the filing of the motion for
preliminary approval, JPay and the Class Counsel will have served
or have caused to be served a notice of the proposed Settlement on
appropriate officials in accordance with the requirements under the
Class Action Fairness Act.

Any Settlement Class Member who wishes to be excluded from the
Settlement Class must mail a written notification of the intent to
exclude himself or herself from the Settlement Class to the address
provided in the Notice, postmarked no later than 30 days after the
Notice Deadline.  JPay and the Class Counsel will compile copies of
all completed opt-out notifications, and a final list of all who
have timely and validly excluded themselves from the Settlement
Class, which the Settlement Class Counsel may move to file under
seal with the Court no later than 10 days prior to the Final
Approval Hearing.

The Settlement Class Representative and JPay have created a process
for receiving, processing, and issuing payments to Settlement Class
Members who submit a timely, valid claim form.  JPay will have 25
business days from the receipt of each timely-submitted and sworn
to Claim Form to send a deficiency notice to the Class Members for
any irregularities in the completed Claim Form, if applicable.  

The judge preliminarily approved the plan for remuneration
described in the Settlement Agreement and directs that JPay and the
Class Counsel effectuate the distribution of settlement
consideration according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement,
should the Settlement be finally approved.  JPay will retain the
right, in the exercise of its sole discretion, to nullify the
Settlement within 30 days of expiration of the Opt-Out Deadline
Date, if 10% or more of the Class Members opt out of the
settlement.

The preliminarily approved Settlement will be administered
according to its terms pending the Final Approval Hearing.

The Deadlines arising under the Settlement Agreement and this Order
include but are not limited to:

     a. Notice Deadline: 35 business days after Preliminary
Approval

     b. Motion for Final Approval: 21 days before Opt-Out Deadline

     c. Opt-Out and Objection Deadlines: 30 days after Notice is
sent

     d. Replies in Support of Final Approval, Service Awards and
Fee Requests: 10 days before Final Approval Hearing

     e. Claims Deadline: 30 days after Notice Deadline

A full-text copy of the Court's April 16, 2019 Order is available
at https://bit.ly/2V67zWq from Leagle.com.

Oumer Salim, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Laura Kirstine Rogers, Steckler Gresham
Cochran LLP, R. Dean Gresham -- dean@stecklerlaw.com -- Steckler
Gresham Cochran LLP & Bruce William Steckler --
bruce@stecklerlaw.com -- Steckler Gresham Cochran LLP.

JPay, Inc, Defendant, represented by Christopher John Schwegmann --
cjs@lynnllp.com -- Lynn Pinker Cox & Hurst LLP & Devin Freedman --
vfreedman@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP.


KOLON: Patients May File Class Action Over Invossa Mislabeling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeong Sae-im, writing for Korea Biomedical Review, reports that
Korean patients, who received Invossa-K injection for degenerative
arthritis treatment, are increasingly becoming jittery over the
mislabeled cell ingredients of the drug, recently revealed as
cancerous GP2-293 cells.

Kolon Life Science on April 9 confirmed that the cancerous cell
lines used for clinical trials of Invossa in the U.S. were found to
be identical to those made and distributed in the local market.
Some of the patients treated with Invossa are seeking response
measures such as discussing with a law firm filing a class-action
lawsuit or sharing side effect cases.

A total of 3,548 patients have received Invossa injections for 11
years from clinical trials to prescriptions. Most of them are
seniors, unaware of the mislabeling.

However, some are enraged that the cells injected into their body
were different from those described for approval and that the cells
were abnormal and cancerous.

Some others are seeking to file a class-action lawsuit via an
online platform, "Angry People," supported by law firm Oh Kims.

Eom Tae-seob, a lawyer at Oh Kims who is pursuing the lawsuit, said
it was illegal to distribute a drug containing unauthorized cells
and inject it to patients. "The company must compensate for
patients' mental damages and drug expenses," he argued.

Eom noted that whether the Ministry of Food and Drug Administration
would impose an administrative punishment on Kolon or whether the
company could prove Invossa's safety was irrelevant to the nature
of the incident.

"The point is that the cells found to be mislabeled were not those
written in the report submitted for drug approval," he emphasized.

Eom met several patients to discuss filing a civil lawsuit or
pressing criminal charges against Kolon for the violation of the
Pharmaceutical Affairs Act.

Another online community, "A group for Invossa victims," is
collecting Invossa injection cases to identify the scope of damage.
Over 30 members of the community are sharing their examples of side
effects.

Ahn Jae-han, a lawyer at Hanyang who opened the community, said the
victims were searching for the right way to respond to the issue
because all of the data related to Invossa was biased towards
Kolon.

He was cautious about filing a lawsuit.

"Korea has not adopted the U.S. class action lawsuit system, so we
need to be careful. It is not too late to gather evidence after
fully observing the ministry's decision on punishment and further
development of the issue," Ahn said. "I made the online community
for the victims to help them get the full compensation."

Observers said not only the result of the ministry's investigation
and punishment decision but how Kolon will respond to the patients
will affect the patient's response measures.
[GN]


LOGITECH INC: Dennis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Logitech, Inc. The
case is styled as Derrick U Dennis on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Logitech, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-04052 (S.D. N.Y., May 6, 2019).

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

Logitech Inc. designs and manufactures personal peripherals for the
needs of personal computer and laptop users.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
     Shalom Law, PLLC
     124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
     Kew Gardens, NY 11374
     Phone: (516) 807-1748
     Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com


MAGIC AUTO: 5th Circuit Appeal Filed in Leal FLSA Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Sergio Leal filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Sergio Leal v. Magic Auto Touch Up, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:16-CV-662, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks double damages and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act, to be proven at the time of trial for all
overtime wages still owing from Plaintiff's entire employment
period with the Defendants or as much as allowed by the FLSA along
with court costs, interest, and any other relief that the Court
finds reasonable under the circumstances.

The appellate case is captioned as Sergio Leal v. Magic Auto Touch
Up, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10467, in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant SERGIO LEAL, and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), is represented by:

          Robert Lee Manteuffel, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.C.
          6310 Lyndon B. Johnson Freeway
          Dallas, TX 75240
          Telephone: (972) 233-2264
          Facsimile: (972) 386-7610
          E-mail: rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net

Defendants-Appellees MAGIC TOUCH UP, INCORPORATED, CHARLES R.
WHITE, JR., and JAMES B. WHITE are represented by:

          Bryan Cyril Collins
          CLOUSE DUNN, L.L.P.
          1201 Elm Street
          Renaissance Tower
          Dallas, TX 75270-2140
          Telephone: (214) 239-2762
          E-mail: Collins@RoggeDunnGroup.com


MARK OBENSTINE: Appeals Decision in Estakhrian Suit to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Mark Richard Obenstine filed an appeal from a Court
ruling in the lawsuit styled James Estakhrian, et al. v. Mark
Obenstine, et al., Case No. 2:11-cv-03480-FMO-CW, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.

The appellate case is titled as James Estakhrian, et al. v. Mark
Obenstine, et al., Case No. 19-55459, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, Mark Richard Obenstine
previously filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit.
That appellate case is entitled James Estakhrian, et al. v. Mark
Obenstine, Case No. 17-80026.

The Hon. Fernando M. Olguin previously certified a class with
respect to the Plaintiffs' claims for professional malpractice and
breach of fiduciary duty consisting of "all individuals who were
class members in, i.e. did not opt out of, Daniel Watt, et al. v.
Nevada Property 1, LLC, et al., Nevada District Court, Case No.
A582541, excluding Sanjay Varma."

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by May 23, 2019;

   -- Transcript is due on June 24, 2019;

   -- Appellant Mark Richard Obenstine's opening brief is due on
      August 1, 2019;

   -- Appellees James Estakhrian and Abdi Naziri's answering
      brief is due on September 3, 2019; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellees JAMES ESTAKHRIAN and ABDI NAZIRI, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Nance F. Becker, Esq.
          Mark A. Chavez, Esq.
          CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP
          42 Miller Avenue
          Mill Valley, CA 94941
          Telephone: (415) 381-5599
          Facsimile: (415) 381-5572
          E-mail: Nance@chavezgertler.com
                  mark@chavezgertler.com

               - and -

          Raymond Charles Fay, Esq.
          FAY LAW GROUP PLLC
          1250 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 700
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 263-4604
          E-mail: rfay@faylawdc.com

               - and -

          Steven A. Skalet, Esq.
          MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC
          1250 Connectictut Avenue, NW, Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 855-5100
          E-mail: sskalet@findjustice.com

Defendant-Appellant MARK RICHARD OBENSTINE is represented by:

          Evan Williams, Esq.
          19069 Van Buren Blvd., Suite 114-230
          Riverside, CA 92508
          Telephone: (951) 888-2095
          E-mail: evan@ewilliamslegal.com


MASTERPIECE CATERERS: Flores Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
ANA MARIA FLORES (a.k.a. "ANA MARIA PANTOJA"), on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MASTERPIECE CATERERS
CORP., d/b/a CAFE 55, INDIA HOUSE INC. d/b/a INDIA HOUSE and GJIETO
NICAJ and KEVIN A. MATTNER, individually, Defendants, Case No
1:19-cv-04059 (S.D. N.Y., May 6, 2019) is a class action brought on
behalf of Plaintiff and all similarly situated kitchen employees
and caterers seeking spread of hours and overtime compensation
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor
Law ("NYLL").

The Defendants have intentionally, willfully, and repeatedly failed
to pay employees, including Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs, the appropriate premium overtime wages for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per workweek, says the complaint.

Flores began working for Defendants in February 2019 as a food
preparer in the kitchen until her unlawful discharge in May 2019.

Defendant Cafe 55 is a domestic limited liability company in the
restaurant industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
     New York, NY


MDL 2323: McCorvey Gets 7% & Lorentz Gets 15% of Attys' Fees Award
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS' CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. Kevin Turner and Shawn Wooden, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. National
Football League and NFL Properties, LLC, successor-in-interest to
NFL Properties, Inc., Defendants. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO McCorvey
Law, LLC v. Dexter Carter Attorney Lien Dispute (Doc. No. 7213),
Case No. 2:12-md-02323-AB, MDL No. 2323 (E.D. Pa.), Magistrate
Judge David R. Strawbridge of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania awarded the 22% of the Monetary
Award for attorneys' fees to be allocated such that McCorvey Law,
LLC gets 7% and The Lorentz Law Firm, P.A. gets 15%.

Presently before the Court in the National Football League Player's
Concussion Injury Litigation is the assertion of an Attorney Lien
by McCorvey, where the firm seeks attorney's fees and costs from
the Award granted to Settlement Class Member ("SCM") Dexter Carter
in the litigation that became the class action, In re: National
Football League Players' Concussion Injury Litigation, No.
12-md-2323 (E.D. Pa.).

McCorvey seeks payment of attorney's fees of 22% of the Award
issued to Carter, his former client.  On April 5, 2018 the District
Court determined that presumptively no Individually Retained
Plaintiff's Attorneys ("IRPAs") should receive more than 22% of a
Monetary Award in fees.  Carter, now represented by Lorentz,
challenges the Lien.  Carter contends that McCorvey is not entitled
to any portion of Carter's award, instead asserting that McCorvey
should receive Quantum Meruit for his early efforts.

McCorvey entered into a CFA with Carter on June 25, 2012.  Under
the terms of the agreement, Carter agreed to pay The Law Office of
Darriel C. McCorvey, LLC 33 1/3% of any sum recovered as the legal
fee.  Carter would not however, owe a legal fee or reimbursement of
costs if the firm made no recovery on his behalf. The agreement,
however, did not address the question of the fees and costs in the
event of termination before resolution.

McCorvey included Carter in a multi-player class action complaint,
Simpson, et al. v. National Football League, et al., filed on July
12, 2012 in the Eastern District of Louisiana.  That suit was
transferred to the district on Aug. 8, 2012.  McCorvey also filed a
Short Form Complaint against the NFL on behalf of Carter on Aug. 8,
2012.

Around mid-January 2016, and without notifying McCorvey, Carter
retained attorney Timothy Howard of Howard & Associates Attorney at
Law, P.A. to handle this claim.  Carter entered into a CFA with
Howard on Jan.y 19, 2016.  Under the terms of the contingency,
Carter agreed to "pay the Attorney 20% of all gross monies
recovered on the Client's behalf in relation to the IN RE NATIONAL
FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS' CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION Final
Settlement Agreement."  McCorvey was never informed by Carter that
he had retained other counsel and only learned of Howard's
representation from the Claims Administrator ("CA") when attempting
to register Carter in the Settlement Program on Feb. 15, 2017.
Shortly after learning of Carter's new representation, McCorvey
withdrew his appearance and on Feb. 27, 2017 filed a Notice of Lien
in the Court with his petition to establish an attorney's lien.

On Aug. 7, 2017, while still represented by Howard, who had
registered him in the claims portal, Carter contacted Lorentz
seeking his representation.  Carter retained Lorentz as to his NFL
concussion claim on Aug. 23, 2017 and entered into a CFA for the
third time.  Under the terms of that agreement, Lorentz was to be
compensated with "15% from any settlement grid award."  In early
February 2018, Lorentz filed Carter's claim form with the CA.  One
month later, Carter received notice of a monetary award claim
determination in the amount of $810,000.

On Feb. 13, 2018, the CA issued a Notice of Lien to Carter and
McCorvey, which noted McCorvey's lien claim of 33 1/3% of any
Monetary Award.  Lorentz, on Carter's behalf, responded and advised
the CA that he intended to dispute the Lien consistent with Lien
Rules 8(d) and submitted a response to McCorvey which satisfied
Lien Rule 10.  Lorentz also filed on the MDL docket on May 17, 2018
a Statement of Attorney Fees and Expenses.

In light of McCorvey's notice of lien, Lorentz's statement, and the
contingency fee agreements of both McCorvey and Lorentz, the CA
withheld funds for payment of attorney's fees in an amount equal to
22% of Carter's Award, which reflects the presumptive cap on
attorney's fees imposed by the Court's April 5, 2016 Opinion and
Order.  Of that withholding, a portion reflecting 5% of Carter's
Award was subsequently deposited into the Attorney's Fees Qualified
Settlement Fund ("AFQSF") pursuant to the Court's June 27, 2018
Order Regarding Withholding for Common Benefit Fund.  Those funds
may be distributed at a later date upon further order(s) of Judge
Brody.  This leaves the Court to determine the appropriate
distribution for attorney's fees currently available for
disbursement (representing 17% of Carter's Award) and the
distribution of those funds that are currently held in the AFQSF
(representing 5% of Carter's Award), if those funds, or a portion
thereof, are refunded by the Court at a future date.

Pursuant to a briefing schedule issued by the Court and in
accordance with the Lien Rules, both McCorvey and Lorentz submitted
Statements of Dispute concerning McCorvey's lien on Dec. 13, 2018
and Dec. 17, 2018 respectively.  On Jan. 10, 2019, McCorvey and
Lorentz both submitted responses to each other's Statements of
Dispute.  Pursuant to Lien Rule 17, the Record of Dispute was then
transferred to the Court.  The parties consented on Jan. 10, 2019
to having the Magistrate Judge exercise final judgement authority
over the matter.  The Court held a hearing on Feb. 28, 2019 at
which an attorney from each firm was heard, as well as Lorentz's
attorney, Mr. Ron Cohen.

Magistrate Judge Strawbridge concludes that McCorvey's IRPA
contribution to Carter's Award is insufficient to support an
attorney fee of 22% as he seeks.  The relative contribution of the
Class Counsel compared to that of McCorvey was substantial in the
individual litigation, where McCorvey was terminated before the CA
began accepting claim submissions.  The work performed by Lorentz
in preparing and submitting the claim also provided a more
significant contribution in bringing the litigation to a successful
close for Carter.

He concludes that a fair resolution of the dispute is to award 22%
of the Monetary Award for attorneys' fees to be allocated such that
McCorvey gets 7% and Lorentz gets 15%.  These amounts must be
reduced by the Common Benefit fee deduction currently applicable to
all Awards.  Accordingly, McCorvey will receive at this time 5.4%
of the Monetary Award, and Lorentz will receive 11.6% of the
Monetary Award.

The Magistrate allocated whatever portion of the 5% holdback that
is later released by the District court for payment to IRPA
attorneys by the same ratio as we used to apportion the
currently-payable fee, i.e., McCorvey would receive 32% of the
holdback funds and Lorentz would receive 68% of it.  He also
approved payment to Lorentz of $6,250 in costs and $350 to
McCorvey.

An appropriate order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 16, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://bit.ly/2WqHH99 from Leagle.com.

PERRY GOLKIN, Special Master, pro se.

WENDELL E. PRITCHETT, Special Master, pro se.

JO-ANN M. VERRIER, Special Master, pro se.

CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR, Adminstrator, represented by ORRAN L. BROWN
-- OBrown@browngreer.com -- BROWNGREER PLC.

ARIZONA CARDINALS FOOTBALL CLUB LLC, Movant, represented by
ALEXANDRA M. WALSH -- awalsh@wilkinsonwalsh.com -- PAUL WEISS
RIFKIND WHARTON & GARRISON, LLP, BETH A. WILKINSON, PAUL WEISS
RIFKIND WHARTON & GARRISON LLP, BRAD S. KARP, PAUL WEISS RIFKIND
WHARTON & GARRISON LLP, BRUCE BIRENBOIM, PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND,
WHARTON & GARRISON, LLP & CASEY O. HOUSLEY -- c.housley@swrsllp.com
-- SANDERS AND WARREN LLP.

JOHN LORENTZ, Movant, represented by MICHAEL H. MOIRANO --
mmoirano@mgklaw.com -- MOIRANO GORMAN KENNY LLC & RON A. COHEN.

THE LOCKS LAW FIRM, Movant, represented by DAVID D. LANGFITT --
dlangfitt@lockslaw.com -- LOCKS LAW FIRM, GENE LOCKS --
glocks@lockslaw.com -- LOCKS LAW FIRM PLLC, MICHAEL B. LEH --
mleh@lockslaw.com -- LOCKS LAW FIRM & TOBIAS BARRINGTON WOLFF,
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW SCHOOL.


MDL 2741: Brode Suit Consolidated in Roundup Liability Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled RAYMOND BRODE AND DEBORAH BRODE v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00651, was transferred on April 23, 2019,
from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(San Francisco).

The California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02196-VC to the proceeding.

As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup(R),
Plaintiff Raymond Brode developed Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma in 2016,
according to the complaint.  Plaintiff Deborah Brode has a claim
for loss of consortium related to the injuries of her husband.  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.

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

The lawsuits in the litigation arise from the Plaintiffs' alleged
Roundup(R)-related injuries.  The Plaintiffs seek damages for the
injuries they allegedly suffered as a direct and proximate result
of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient
glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MDL 2741: Heisch Suit Consolidated in Roundup Liability Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled BRENT A. HEISCH AND TRICIA HEISCH v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00517, was transferred on April 23, 2019,
from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(San Francisco).

The California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02194-VC to the proceeding.

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

The lawsuits in the litigation arise from the Plaintiffs' alleged
Roundup(R)-related injuries.  The Plaintiffs seek damages for the
injuries they allegedly suffered as a direct and proximate result
of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient
glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MDL 2741: Nolan Suit Consolidated in Roundup Liability Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled BETTY J. NOLAN v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No.
4:19-cv-00650, was transferred on April 23, 2019, from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco).

The California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02195-VC to the proceeding.

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

The lawsuits in the litigation arise from the Plaintiffs' alleged
Roundup(R)-related injuries.  The Plaintiffs seek damages for the
injuries they allegedly suffered as a direct and proximate result
of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient
glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MDL 2741: Oldham Suit Consolidated in Roundup Liability Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled LORETTA J. OLDHAM AND LARRY OLDHAM v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00675, was transferred on April 24, 2019,
from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(San Francisco).

The California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02219-VC to the proceeding.

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

The lawsuits in the litigation arise from the Plaintiffs' alleged
Roundup(R)-related injuries.  The Plaintiffs seek damages for the
injuries they allegedly suffered as a direct and proximate result
of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient
glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MDL 2741: Page Suit Consolidated in Roundup(R) Liability Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned MAXINE F. PAGE AND DONALD PAGE v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00652, was transferred on April 23, 2019,
from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(San Francisco).

The California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02197-VC to the proceeding.

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

The lawsuits in the litigation arise from the Plaintiffs' alleged
Roundup(R)-related injuries.  The Plaintiffs seek damages for the
injuries they allegedly suffered as a direct and proximate result
of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient
glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MDL 2804: YMC Board May Join National Opioid Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
Jim Muchlinski, writing for Independent, reports that the Yellow
Medicine County Board will consider becoming part of nationwide
litigation against manufacturers of opioid drug products.

At the April 9 county board meeting, County Attorney Keith Helgeson
outlined the nationwide status of class action lawsuits by local
government units for taxpayer costs incurred from increased opioid
addiction. Potential cost issues include human services, chemical
health treatment, emergency response, unemployment expenses and
housing subsidies.

"There's a trend toward class action," Helgeson said. "So far it's
happened mostly in large cities and urban counties. The firm that
inquired represents Duluth and Rochester."

He said it's possible to enter into the legal process without
incurring any costs. Firms that organize large class action
lawsuits usually get a percentage of settlements plus legal costs.
One of the clauses can stipulate that there will be no cost to
participants if legal costs exceed damages that are collected.

The scope of legal claims extends beyond the basic health impacts
of opioid products. Issues also include marketing practices and
fraudulent claims.

He advised the board that costs to the county would be restricted
to "in kind" labor performed by staff in order to furnish
information useful to class action attorneys.

"I wouldn't expect much of a cost," Helgeson said. "The biggest
question is whether or not we could collect a significant amount of
money. Even it's only a small amount, a little is still more than
nothing."

After a short discussion, the board voted to table the measure for
two weeks to allow commissioners to collect information about
opioid health issues.

"I want to do some research," said Commissioner Gary Johnson. "It's
worth considering. I know it's costing us money, and it's likely to
get worse."

The board also voted on April 9 to approve a low price quote for
asbestos inspection at the former Clarkfield public school.

The county's share of the cost totals $4,886. The Clarkfield City
Council will consider matching the total. An inspection can then
take place, and would provide information needed for abatement
planning.

Asbestos must be removed prior to a demolition of the school since
airborne particles would become a health hazard.

Along with the need for council approval, The April 9 board action
is contingent upon a willingness of Apex Envirocare Ltd. of Madison
Lake as the low vendor to agree to a hold harmless clause.

This would place responsibility for any incomplete removal on the
contractor rather than the city, county or the Yellow Medicine East
School District.

Clarkfield City Administrator Amanda Luepke said the eventual scope
of the demolition will depend on a cost comparison of two options
for the newer gymnasium.

One possibility is to keep the gym area and use it for a public
purpose such as a community center. If bid costs indicate that a
complete demolition is more economical than a partial demolition
plus conversion expenses, the city could opt for a fully cleared
space.

"We want to see all of the costs," Luepke said. "There would be
some value to having the gym area, but it's also important to make
the best investment for city taxpayers."

The former school is located in an area equal to two centrally
located city blocks. It was Clarkfield's K-12 school campus until
1990, and then served as a Yellow Medicine East building until
2008. [GN]


MIDLAND CREDIT: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in "Adkins" to 4th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Midland Credit Management, Inc., filed an appeal from a
Court ruling in the lawsuit titled STEPHANIE ADKINS and DOUGLAS
SHORT v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 5:17-cv-04107,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia at Beckley.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 7, 2019, the Hon.
Judge Irene J. Berger entered an order certifying a class of:

    "all persons with West Virginia addresses to whom Midland
     sent a debt collection letter on or after July 4, 2017
     seeking to collect debt that Midland's records indicated had
     passed its statute of limitations, which letter failed to
     provide the following disclosure: 'The law limits how long
     you can be sued on a debt. Because of the age of your debt,
     [Midland] cannot sue you for it.'"

The Plaintiffs allege that MCM mailed collection letters seeking to
collect a debt which was beyond the statute of limitations for
filing a legal action for collection without including disclosures
required by the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act
(WVCCPA).

The appellate case is captioned as Midland Credit Management Inc.
v. Stephanie Adkins, et al., Case No. 19-204, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents STEPHANIE ADKINS and DOUGLAS SHORT, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Steven R. Broadwater, Jr., Esq.
          Christopher B. Frost, Esq.
          HAMILTON, BURGESS, YOUNG & POLLARD, PLLC
          P. O. Box 959
          Fayetteville, WV 25840-0000
          Telephone: (304) 574-2727
          E-mail: sbroadwater@hamiltonburgess.com
                  cfrost@hamiltonburgess.com

               - and -

          Patricia Mulvoy Kipnis, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          923 Haddonfield Road
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
          Telephone: (856) 324-8219
          E-mail: pkipnis@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
          209 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301-0000
          Telephone: (304) 345-6555
          E-mail: jmarshall@baileyglasser.com

Defendant-Petitioner MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED is
represented by:

          Megan Burns, Esq.
          Jason E. Manning, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP
          222 Central Park Avenue
          Virginia Beach, VA 23462-0000
          Telephone: (757) 687-7778
          E-mail: megan.burns@troutman.com
                  jason.manning@troutman.com

               - and -

          Ashley W. French, Esq.
          KAY CASTO & CHANEY PLLC
          P. O. Box 2031
          Charleston, WV 25327-2031
          Telephone: (304) 345-8900
          E-mail: a.french@kaycasto.com


MIDLAND FUNDING: Oliphant Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned CARL OLIPHANT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND FUNDING LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1922-CC00679 was removed from the Circuit Court
of the City of St. Louis, Missouri to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on May 8, 2019, and
assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-01204.

In the State Court Action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher E. Robert, Esq.
     David T. Butsch, Esq.
     Butsch Roberts & Associates LLC
     231 S. Bemiston Ave., Suite 260
     Clayton, MO 63105

The Defendants are represented by:

     Joshua C. Dickinson, Esq.
     SPENCER FANE LLP
     13520 California Street, Suite 290
     Omaha, NE 68154
     Phone: (402) 965-8600
     Facsimile: (402) 965-8601
     Email: jdickinson@spencerfane.com

          - and -

     Patrick T. McLaughlin, Esq.
     1 North Brentwood Blvd., Suite 1000
     St. Louis, MO 63105
     Phone: (314) 863-7733 (telephone)
     Facsimile: (314) 862-4656
     Email: pmclaughlin@spencerfane.com


MONSANTO CO: Brunner Sues Over Injuries From Roundup(R) Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS BRUNNER v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00954 (E.D.
Mo., April 23, 2019), is brought for alleged personal injuries
sustained by exposure to Roundup(R) containing the active
ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow
amine.

As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup(R),
the Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma in 2013, the
Plaintiff alleges.  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: Cocheran Sues Over Injuries From Roundup(R) Product
----------------------------------------------------------------
LAVELLE COCHERAN AND WILEY COCHERAN v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No.
4:19-cv-00966-NAB (E.D. Mo., April 23, 2019), is an action for
damages suffered by the Plaintiffs 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 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 CO: Crump Seeks Damages From Roundup-related Injuries
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALLAN CRUMP and PATRICIA CRUMP v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No.
4:19-cv-00962 (E.D. Mo., April 23, 2019), seeks to recover damages
for personal injuries allegedly sustained from exposure to
Roundup(R) containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine.

As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup(R),
Plaintiff Allan Crump developed Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma in 2016,
according to the complaint.  The Plaintiffs assert 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 CO: Delesline Files Suit Over Roundup-Related Injuries
---------------------------------------------------------------
EDMUND L. DELESLINE v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00963
(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: Oneal Seeks Damages for Roundup(R)-related Injuries
----------------------------------------------------------------
DOROTHA S. ONEAL v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00959 (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: Rice Seeks Damages for Roundup(R)-related Injuries
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHON RICE v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00958 (E.D. Mo.,
April 23, 2019), seeks to recover damages in the form of medical
expenses, out of pocket expenses, lost earnings and other costs
relating to injuries 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: Stoker Sues Over Injuries From Roundup(R) Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLOTTE C. STOKER AND SHAWN STOKER v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No.
4:19-cv-00967-HEA (E.D. Mo., April 23, 2019), is brought for
alleged personal injuries Charlotte sustained over her exposure to
Roundup (R) containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine.

As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup(R),
Plaintiff Charlotte C. Stoker developed Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma in
2015, according to the complaint.  Plaintiff Shawn Stoker has a
claim for loss of consortium related to the injuries of his wife.

The Plaintiffs allege 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 CO: Sued by Burns Over Injuries From Roundup(R) Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES L. BURNS AND ROSE BURNS v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No.
4:19-cv-00956 (E.D. Mo., April 23, 2019), is brought for alleged
personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup(R) containing
the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated
tallow amine

As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup(R),
Plaintiff Charles L. Burns developed Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma in
2011, the Plaintiffs contend.  Plaintiff Rose Burns has a claim for
loss of consortium related to the injuries of her husband.  

The Plaintiffs allege 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 CO: Sutton Sues for Roundup(R)-Related Injuries
--------------------------------------------------------
ALLEN C. SUTTON AND MASAYO SUTTON v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No.
4:19-cv-00964 (E.D. Mo., April 23, 2019), is an action for damages
suffered by the Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs contend 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 CO: Tubbesing Suit Alleges Roundup(R)-Related Injuries
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN TUBBESING AND SARA TUBBESING v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No.
4:19-cv-00965-JMB (E.D. Mo., April 23, 2019), arises from 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 Plaintiffs allege Roundup-related injuries, and 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 CO: Walsh Sues Over Injuries From Roundup(R) Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS F. WALSH AND KAREN WALSH v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No.
4:19-cv-00961 (E.D. Mo., April 23, 2019), is brought for personal
injuries sustained over exposure to Roundup(R) containing the
active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated
tallow amine.

The Plaintiffs assert that as a direct and proximate result of
being exposed to Roundup(R), Plaintiff Thomas F. Walsh developed
Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma in 2015.  Plaintiff Karen Walsh has a claim
for loss of consortium related to the injuries of her husband.

The Walshes contend 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 CO: Wauters Sues Over Defective Roundup(R) Product
-----------------------------------------------------------
GERALD J. WAUTERS v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00957 (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: Whitaker Seeks Damages Over Dangerous Roundup(R)
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES WHITAKER AND GAYLE WHITAKER v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No.
4:19-cv-00960 (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 Whitakers 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: Clays Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH E. CLAY and LOUIS CLAY JR., the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01042 (E.D. Mo., April 29,
2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Culps Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------
SEAN R. CULP and ASHLEY CULP, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY,
the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01044 (E.D. Mo., April 29, 2019),
seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, as a direct
and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful
conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture,
testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Georges Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM E. GEORGE and ROBYN S. MALONEY-GEORGE, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01047 (E.D. Mo.,
April 29, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the
Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's
negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing,
advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide
Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Seitz Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Seitz, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case
No. 4:19-cv-01023 (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: Shuler Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Helen Shuler, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01020 (E.D. Mo., April 29, 2019),
Shuler 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: Somerses Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, DAVID SOMERS and BONNIE SOMERS, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01028 (E.D. Mo.,
April 29, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the
Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's
negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing,
advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide
Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Young Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD YOUNG, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-01029 (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

NANO: Seeks Dismissal of Cryptocurrency Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Guillermo Jimenez, writing for Decrypt, reports that a rising tide
lifts all boats, and the rising prices in crypto seems to be doing
just that -- even lifting Nano, a boat once thought sunk.

Previously known as "RaiBlocks" and traded as XRB, Nano has gone
through an intensive rebranding. Now listed as simply NANO on most
exchanges, the coin is threatening a comeback, up more than 17
percent in the last 24 hours and approaching nearly $2 per coin for
the first time since October 2018 -- when the first class-action
lawsuit against Nano was dismissed.

For more than a year, the team behind Nano -- an altcoin formerly
ranked in the top 20 of all cryptocurrencies and worth $30 per coin
-- has faced the possibility of a $170 million lawsuit, which if
upheld in court, would be the largest award in the short but highly
litigious history of crypto.

The latest class-action suit, filed earlier this year, is now the
second attempt by Nano investors to seek a court-ordered "rescue
fork" of Nano's blockchain, which plaintiffs believe could be used
to restore the $170 million worth of XRB that was lost in the
February 2018 "hack" of Italian crypto exchange BitGrail.

The lawsuit, however, could ultimately come down to the same
question that continues to torment the hundreds of crypto startups
that raised money in ICOs or similar token sales: Is this coin a
security, or not?

Attorneys for Nano who are seeking to dismiss the lawsuit, filed a
39-page memorandum in a U.S. district court laying out the case for
why XRB isn't a security—and why Nano can't be held liable for
losses incurred by XRB purchasers.

Fat chance, says David Silver, the securities fraud and investment
loss attorney who represents the plaintiffs in the Nano suit. "Our
complaint against them is rock solid," he says. Representatives for
Nano did not immediately respond to Decrypt's request for comment.

Nano is still down by nearly 95 percent from its all-time
high—its precipitous decline preceded by the BitGrail "hack" that
saw more than 15 million XRB (worth approximately $170 million at
the time) disappear from the exchange without a trace. The
legitimacy of the alleged hack was immediately brought into
question by those affected, including Nano developers themselves.

And that's when the problems began.

The Trials of Nano
Following the mysterious disappearance of XRB from BitGrail, a Nano
investor, Alex Brola, filed a class-action lawsuit in April 2018
alleging, among other things, a conspiracy between Nano's core team
and BitGrail's CEO and founder Francesco "The Bomber" Firano to
"scheme and lure investors into purchasing XRB and storing those
assets at BitGrail."

Brola's lawsuit, filed in New York, was withdrawn last October
after reaching a confidential settlement agreement with Nano, says
Silver. The lawsuit was dismissed by the court following the
withdrawal, and an attorney for Nano reportedly told legal journal
Law360 that "the plaintiff withdrew the complaint because the case
lacked merit." But Nano's troubles didn't end there.

Silver filed a second class-action lawsuit in January, this time in
a California court and on behalf of James Fabian, adding BitGrail
and Firano as defendants along with Nano and its core team,
including CEO and founder Colin LeMahieu.

The new lawsuit mirrors the initial complaint and alleges that Nano
offered and sold "unregistered securities" and that Nano and
BitGrail worked in tandem to defraud investors, and provides
additional evidence of the purported "civil conspiracy."

The lawsuit claims Nano "directed the investing public to purchase
XRB through BitGrail by providing specific investment instructions
and assurances that the cryptocurrency exchange was secure and
could be trusted to safeguard investment assets." The complaint
cites various social media posts from Nano to make its case,
including tweets from former Nano core team member Zack Shapiro
which intimated he spoke to BitGrail's CEO "every day" and
reassured purchasers that XRB "funds are safe on BitGrail."

Prior to the supposed hack, XRB accounted for more than 80 percent
of BitGrail's trading volume, according to the lawsuit.

Both BitGrail's Firano and the Nano executives named in the lawsuit
deny there was any collusion—with each side casting blame on the
other for the missing XRB.

Nano publicly challenged Firano's story of a hack and suggested
BitGrail's own mismanagement of customer funds led to the XRB's
disappearance. Firano fired back by claiming LeMahieu had "direct
access" to BitGrail's database and servers and that the "Nano team
was relentless in directing users to the BitGrail exchange" despite
warning them of "major issues" with both Nano's protocol and the
exchange, according to the complaint.

Either way, Silver says the matter should be resolved by compelling
Nano to create a "rescue fork"—essentially forcing the company to
write off its original coin, fork its code, and create a new
cryptocurrency in a way that would repay everyone who lost money in
the alleged hack.

Otherwise, Nano developers are the ones who ultimately profit from
the "hack," he says.

Is Nano a security?
While the lawsuit makes various state and common law claims against
Nano, including the allegations of fraud and civil conspiracy, it
largely hinges on the federal claim that Nano violated U.S.
securities laws and that investors are therefore owed "rescissory,
compensatory, punitive and injunctive relief."

XRB is not registered as a security with the SEC, nor did Nano file
for an exemption. In its motion to dismiss, however, Nano insists
none of that matters. Nano claims XRB is a decentralized
cryptocurrency, like Bitcoin, which the SEC has said it doesn't
consider a security.

"Nano Coins are a cryptocurrency distributed for free and their
value is derived from their utility as a currency, rather than from
the success of any business operated by their developers," reads
the memorandum filed with the court.

"Nano claims to be like bitcoin," says Silver, "except the creators
of Nano wanted to get rich and famous."

While XRB was initially distributed for free via a captcha-based
faucet distribution system—a process similar to an airdrop --
Silver says this doesn't mean it gets past the Howey Test or
federal securities laws. "Giving it away for free does not mean
it's not a security," he says, adding that the latest SEC guidance
with respect to the sale and distribution of digital assets
reiterates this fact.

The lawsuit claims Nano wields "absolute control over essentially
every aspect of XRB and its value" and used the faucet system
during its original distribution to manipulate its price on
exchanges -- turning the Nano faucet on or off to affect "sell
pressure."

To this day, Nano developers hold most of the XRB, Silver claims.

"Crypto law is being made on a daily basis in litigation, but I'm
personally a believer that the law hasn't changed since the 1930s,"
he says, adding that the SEC and recent court cases support his
view. "In most cases, securities laws apply. Period."

Silver says he plans to file an opposition to Nano's motion to
dismiss within 30 days but doesn't expect a resolution from the
court until winter.

Just another day in crypto, as Silver likes to say. [GN]


NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION: Sued Over Denied Breaks, Spread-of-Hours Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Clementina Hernandez, on behalf of herself and similarly situated
individuals, Petitioner, v. National Distribution Alliance LLC,
Gordon's Corner Corp, Joanna Newman and Roy Newman, Respondents
Case No. 154496/2019, (N.Y. Sup., May 1, 2019), seeks compensation
for the extra hour at the minimum wage rate for each shift lasting
more than ten hours and the two 15-minute breaks as mandated by New
York labor law.

Hernandez worked for National Distribution Alliance as a newspaper
scanner. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lawrence Spasojevich, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF JAMES F. SULLIVAN PC
     52 Duane St., 7th Floor
     New York, NY 11702
     Tel. (212) 374-0009
     Fax: (212) 374-9931
     Email: ls@jfslaw.net


NEVADA: State High Court Denies Mandamus in Shepard Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Nevada issued an Order denying the Petition
for a Writ of Prohibition or Mandamus in the case captioned SHAC,
LLC, Petitioner, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE
OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE LINDA
MARIE BELL, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and LILY SHEPARD; JANE DOE
DANCER I; JANE DOE DANCER IV; AND JANE DOE DANCER V, INDIVIDUALLY
ON BEHALF OF SIMILARLY SITUATED, Real Parties in Interest. No.
75888. (Nev.)

This matter comes before the court on an original petition for a
writ of prohibition or mandamus arising out of a class-action
complaint asserting constitutional and other minimum-wage-based
claims. Having reviewed the petition and its supporting documents,
the state Supreme Court is not persuaded that our extraordinary and
discretionary intervention is appropriate.  To discuss aggregation
without considering the 2019 amendments to NRCP 23 -- which the
district court did not consider and the parties do not discuss —
seems more likely to complicate than clarify the law.   At the same
time, the status of Jane Doe Dancer I and the components of her and
the other class representatives' claims are unclear.

Accordingly, and without opining on the merits of the arguments
presented, the Court orders the petition denied.

A full-text copy of the state Supreme Court's February 28, 2019
Order is available at  https://tinyurl.com/y5mwfr6u from
Leagle.com.


NZONE GUIDANCE: Seeks 5th Cir. Review of Hiser FLSA Suit Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant NZone Guidance, L.L.C., filed an appeal from a Court
ruling in the lawsuit styled Stephen Hiser, et al. v. NZone
Guidance, L.L.C., Case No. 1:18-CV-1056, in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Texas, Austin.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
seek conditional certification of these Fair Labor Standards Act
classes:

   * MWD Class:

     "all MWD Operators employed by, or working on behalf of,
      Nzone while classified as independent contractors and paid
      a day rate at time during the last three years"; and

   * Directional Driller Class:

     "all Directional Drillers employed by, or working on behalf
      of, NZone while classified as independent contractors and
      paid a day rate at any time during the last three years."

According to the complaint, NZone never paid the Plaintiffs
overtime compensations, despite these workers regularly working
well in excess of 40 hours each week. The Plaintiffs also never
received any guaranteed
compensation for the days or weeks they did not work.

The appellate case is captioned as Stephen Hiser, et al. v. NZone
Guidance, L.L.C., Case No. 19-50353, in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees STEPHEN HISER, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, and DANA ACE, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Richard J. Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
          8 Greenway Plaza
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

               - and -

          Andrew Wells Dunlap, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
          11 Greenway Plaza
          Houston, TX 77046-0000
          Telephone: (713) 325-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 325-3300
          E-mail: adunlap@mybackwages.com

Defendant-Appellant NZONE GUIDANCE, L.L.C., is represented by:

          Raven Applebaum, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          112 E. Pecan Street
          Weston Centre
          San Antonio, TX 78205
          Telephone: (210) 277-3626
          E-mail: raven.applebaum@ogletreedeakins.com


OSCAR BLANDI: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oscar Blandi Salon,
Inc. The case is styled as Kareem Nisbett Individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Oscar
Blandi Salon, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04057 (S.D. N.Y.,
May 6, 2019).

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

Oscar Blandi Salon, Inc. is a hair dresser in New York.[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


OZARK CAPITAL: Ford Files Consumer Credit Suit in E.D. Arkansas
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ozark Capital
Corporation. The case is styled as Annette Jackson Ford
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Ozark Capital Corporation, Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-00334-DPM (E.D. Ark., May 8, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit under the
Communications Act.

Ozark Capital Corp. provides debt collection services. The company
is based in Little Rock, Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brandon M. Haubert, Esq.
     Christopher Wesley Burks, Esq.
     Wilson & Haubert, PLLC
     1 Riverfront Place, Suite 745
     North Little Rock, AR 72114
     Phone: (501) 372-1212
     Email: brandon@whlawoffices.com
            chburks@gmail.com


PARMERS RESORT: Honeywell Files ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PARMERS RESORT, INC.
The case is styled as Cheri Honeywell, Lanie Quarterman,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. PARMERS RESORT, INC. a Florida corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-10070 (S.D. Fla., May 8, 2019).

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

Parmer's Resort is a resort offering a unique collection of rooms,
suites and cottages.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
     Jessica L.Kerr, P.A. dba The Advocacy Group
     200 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 504
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: (954) 282-1858
     Fax: (844) 786-3694
     Email: service@advocacypa.com


PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Sgarlata Set on July 11
------------------------------------------------------------------
PayPal Holdings, 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 a hearing on the motion
to dismiss filed in Sgarlata v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., et al., is
scheduled for July 11, 2019.

In November 2017, the company announced that it had suspended the
operations of TIO Networks ("TIO") as part of an ongoing
investigation of security vulnerabilities of the TIO platform. On
December 1, 2017, the company announced that it had identified
evidence of unauthorized access to TIO's network, including
locations that stored personal information of some of TIO's
customers and customers of TIO billers and the potential compromise
of personally identifiable information for approximately 1.6
million customers.

The company have received a number of governmental inquiries,
including from state attorneys general, and the company may be
subject to additional governmental inquiries and investigations in
the future.

In addition, on December 6, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit
captioned Sgarlata v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:17-cv-06956-EMC was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (the "Court") against the Company,
its Chief Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer and Hamed
Shahbazi, the former chief executive officer of TIO (the
"Defendants") alleging violations of federal securities laws.

The initial complaint alleged that Defendants made false or
misleading statements or failed to disclose that TIO's data
security program was inadequate to safeguard the personally
identifiable information of its users, those vulnerabilities
threatened continued operation of TIO's platform, the Company's
revenues derived from TIO services were thus unsustainable, and
consequently, the Company overstated the benefits of the TIO
acquisition, and, as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

The plaintiff who initiated the lawsuit sought to represent a class
of shareholders who acquired shares of the Company's common stock
between February 14, 2017 through December 1, 2017 and sought
damages and attorneys' fees, among other relief. On March 16, 2018,
the Court appointed two new plaintiffs, not the original plaintiff
who filed the case, as interim co-lead plaintiffs in the case and
appointed two law firms as interim co-lead counsel.

On June 13, 2018, the interim co-lead plaintiffs filed a -first
amended complaint, which named TIO Networks ULC, TIO Networks USA,
Inc., and John Kunze (the Company's Vice President, Global Consumer
Products and Xoom) as additional defendants. The first amended
complaint was purportedly brought on behalf of all persons other
than the Defendants who acquired the Company's securities between
November 10, 2017 and December 1, 2017.

The amended complaint alleged that the Company's and TIO's November
10, 2017 announcement of the suspension of TIO's operations was
false and misleading because the announcement only disclosed
security vulnerabilities on TIO's platform, rather than an actual
security breach that Defendants were allegedly aware of at the time
of the announcement.

Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the first amended
complaint on July 13, 2018 and the Court granted the motions,
without prejudice on December 13, 2018.

Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on January 14, 2019.
The second amended complaint alleges substantially the same theory
of liability as the first amended complaint, but no longer names
Hamed Shabazi as a defendant. The remaining Defendants filed their
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on March 15, 2019,
and a hearing is scheduled for July 11, 2019.

PayPal Holdings said, "We may be subject to additional litigation
relating to TIO's data security platform or the suspension of TIO's
operations in the future."

PayPal Holdings, Inc. operates as a technology platform and digital
payments company that enables digital and mobile payments on behalf
of consumers and merchants worldwide. PayPal Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1998 and is headquartered in San Jose, California.


PETROPLEX PIPE: Seeks 5th Circuit Review of Hobbs Suit Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Petroplex Pipe and Construction, Incorporated, filed an
appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit styled Joseph Hobbs, et
al. v. Petroplex Pipe and Construction, Incorporated, Case No.
7:17-CV-30, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Texas, Midland Odessa.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks unpaid wages for overtime compensation due, liquidated
damages, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and expenses of this
action and such other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Petroplex is a supplier of oilfield services to the oil and natural
gas industry. It provides various oil field services products,
technology and systems to the oil and gas industry in the West
Texas area. Plaintiffs worked for Petroplex as welders.  They claim
to be misclassified as independent contractor, thus, denied the
basic benefits of employment.

The appellate case is captioned as Joseph Hobbs, et al. v.
Petroplex Pipe and Construction, Incorporated, Case No. 19-50350,
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees JOSEPH HOBBS, Individually And On Behalf Of
All Others Similarly Situated, and DRAKE FEENEY, Individually And
On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, are represented by:

          Christopher Richard Miltenberger, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC
          1340 N. White Chapel Boulevard
          Southlake, TX 76092
          Telephone: (817) 416-5060
          Facsimile: (817) 416-5062
          E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com

Defendant-Appellant PETROPLEX PIPE AND CONSTRUCTION, INCORPORATED,
is represented by:

          Dustin Alan Paschal, Esq.
          SIMON PASCHAL, P.L.L.C.
          13601 Preston Road
          Dallas, TX 75240
          Telephone: (972) 893-9340
          E-mail: dustin@simonpaschal.com


PLATRONICS INC: Dennis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Plantronics, Inc. The
case is styled as Derrick U Dennis on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Plantronics, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04049 (S.D. N.Y., May 6, 2019).

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

Plantronics, Inc. is a public American electronics company
producing audio communications equipment for business and
consumers. Its products support unified communications, mobile use,
gaming and music.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
     Shalom Law, PLLC
     124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
     Kew Gardens, NY 11374
     Phone: (516) 807-1748
     Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com



PODESZWA'S HELPING HANDS: Caregiver Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
DEBORA HOUSER, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. PODESZWA'S HELPING HANDS, INC. d/b/a AARON'S
HOME CARE and DENISE PODESZWA, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-02073-MLB (N.D. Ga., May 7, 2019) is a collective action on
behalf of all current or former "Live-in Caregivers," "Live-in
CNAs," "Live-in PCAs," and other similarly situated persons,
employed by Defendants who opt into the Collective Action.

The Plaintiff asserts that they are entitled to (i) unpaid overtime
wages from Defendants for time they worked in excess of 40 hours
per workweek; (ii) liquidated damages; (iii) interest; and (iv)
attorneys' fees and costs.

In violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and
as a regular and routine practice, the Defendants paid Plaintiff
and other similarly situated persons a flat per-day rate, without
any overtime pay, although they worked well in excess of 40 hours
per workweek, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Houser was employed by Defendants from approximately 2015
to March 2019 as a Live-in Caregiver.

Defendants provide live-in healthcare services to individuals who
need living assistance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Justin M. Scott, Esq.
     SCOTT EMPLOYMENT LAW, P.C.
     246 Sycamore Street, Suite 150
     Decatur, GA 30030
     Phone: 678.780.4880
     Facsimile: 478.575.2590
     Email: jscott@scottemploymentlaw.com


POWER PLANT: Bartenders File Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
On March 27, 2019, The Law Offices of Peter T. Nicholl  firm filed
a Complaint (Case No. 1:19-cv-00904-ADC) in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland (Northern Division) against the
entertainment district Power Plant Live!, owned and operated by the
Cordish Company ("Defendant"). The Complaint was filed on behalf of
bartenders ("Plaintiffs") who are or were employed at the
restaurants and bars at Power Plant Live!, which includes Luckie's
Tavern, Leinie Lodge & Beer Garden, Mosaic Nightclub & Lounge and
PBR Baltimore. The Complaint alleges that Defendant's bartenders
were not paid the wages they rightfully earned by denying them the
tips they should have received. This was the result of Defendant
giving away these tips to its "guest" bartenders, who were not even
employees of Defendant. Defendant gave away Plaintiffs' tips by
paying its guest bartender cash "under the table." As a result, the
Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs and Defendant's other regular
bartenders were denied minimum and overtime wages.

The Complaint also alleges that as a result of Defendant's unlawful
practices, Plaintiffs suffered additional harm. The tips that were
given to Defendant's guest bartenders were fraudulently logged on
Plaintiffs' paystubs. Even though Defendant knew that Plaintiffs
did not actually receive this money, Defendant continued to
over-report the wages it paid to Plaintiffs on their W-2s, in
violation of the Internal Revenue Code ("IRC"). This caused
Plaintiffs to pay more than they should have in taxes. They were
also denied certain state-sponsored benefits due to their income
being reported to be higher than what it actually was. Based on
these violations, our firm seeks to recover monetary damages and
other statutorily-permitted relief for Plaintiffs and all other
bartenders who experienced similar harms.

Plaintiffs' attorney Benjamin L. Davis, III of the Law Offices of
Peter T. Nicholl explains, "employers paying cash under the table
to non-employees is not acceptable, especially when the actual
employees of the company earned this money to begin with."

Additional information regarding how bartenders who work or worked
for Power Plant Live! can join this case can be found here or by
calling the Law Offices of Peter T. Nicholl at 410-244-7005. The
case is entitled Marketti, et al. v. The Cordish Companies, Inc.

The Law Offices of Peter T. Nicholl is recognized as a leader in
the field of wage and hour litigation. The firm has successfully
handled numerous class and collective action lawsuits in the
Baltimore-Washington region. The firm is committed to vigorously
representing employees whose rights have been violated. [GN]


PPDAI GROUP: Faces 2 Consolidated Class Suits over IPO
------------------------------------------------------
PPDAI Group Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 25, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to
defend itself from two consolidated class action suits related to
its initial public offering in November 2017.

Starting in September 2018, the company and certain of its current
and former officers and directors, the underwriters of the
company's initial public offering (IPO) in November 2017, and its
agent for the service of process in the U.S. have been named as
defendants in putative securities class actions captioned Yizhong
Huang v. PPDAI Group Inc., et al., Case No. 654482/2018 (New York
County of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, filed on
September 10, 2018) (the "Huang Case"); Ravindra Vora v. PPDAI
Group Inc., et al., Case No. 654777/2018 (New York County of the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, filed on September 27,
2018) (the "Vora Case"); Lai v. PPDAI Group Inc., et al. Case No.
1:2018-cv-06716 (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, filed on November 26, 2018) (the "Lai Case"); and Goyal
v. PPDAI Group Inc., et al. Case No. 2:2019-cv-00168 (U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, filed on January 9,
2019) (the "Goyal Case").

These actions allege that defendants made misstatements and
omissions in connection with the company's initial public offering
in November 2017 in violation of the Securities Act of 1933. The
Lai Case also advances claims under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. On October 16, 2018, the Supreme Court of the State of New
York consolidated the two state court lawsuits (the Huang Case and
the Vora Case) under the caption In re PPDAI Group Securities
Litigation, No. 654482/2018 (the "New York State Action").

On December 17, 2018, the plaintiffs in the New York State Action
filed a consolidated amended complaint. On February 5, 2018,
certain of the defendants filed a motion to stay all further
proceedings in the New York State Court Action, which motion
remains pending before the Court.

On February 21, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York consolidated the two federal court lawsuits
(the Lai Case and the Goyal Case) under the caption In re PPDAI
Group Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 18-cv-6716-FB-JO (the
"Federal Court Action"), appointed lead plaintiffs of the Federal
Court Action, and approved a scheduling stipulation for the filing
of the plaintiffs' amended complaint and the defendants’
responsive pleadings.

On April 22, 2019, plaintiffs in the Federal Court Action filed a
second amended complaint against the Company, certain of its
current and former officers and directors, and the underwriters of
our company's initial public offering in November 2017. Both the
New York State Action and the Federal Court Action otherwise remain
in their preliminary stages.

PPDAI Group Inc., an investment holding company, operates an online
consumer finance marketplace through its platform in the People's
Republic of China. It provides services to match borrowers with
investors and facilitate loan transactions on its marketplace
through the lifecycle of loans. The company offers standard, handy
cash, consumption, and other loan products; and investment services
to investors and institutional funding partners. As of December 31,
2018, it had approximately 88.9 million cumulative registered
users. The company was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in
Shanghai, the People's Republic of China.


RCR TOMLINSON: Fate of Disclosure Class Action Uncertain
--------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Williamson, writing for Stockhead, reports that the class
action against RCR Tomlinson could be dead in the water unless it
gets leave from the court to proceed.

The action, filed by litigation firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan in November last year, alleged that RCR breached
continuous disclosure laws as its senior management either was
aware or should have been aware of its problems linked to solar
farm projects before pulling away the veil at the end of August.

It wanted to know where the $100m raised in August went.

Quinn Emanuel partner Damian Scattini told Stockhead they were due
in the Supreme Court of New South Wales on April 12 to report
"where things are at".

"It shows we were on the money when we made allegations of
misleading and deceptive conduct and not informing the market," he
said.

But unless they are allowed to apply for leave to proceed, the
class action will go nowhere. This is because there are legal
protections against lawsuits while a company is in liquidation in
order to prevent distressed companies from being hit with expensive
lawsuits when the liquidators are trying to realise any remaining
value in the assets.

If a company trades while insolvent, the directors could be
personally responsible for any debts incurred when the company
itself is unable to pay those debts, "because one of the
fundamental duties of a director of any company is to ensure that
the company does not trade while it is insolvent" according to
ASIC.

RCR went into voluntary administration in November last year after
the weight of cost blowouts at its solar projects became too heavy
for the troubled company to carry any longer.

It came two days after a class action was launched by shareholders
angry about a "catastrophic decline in their share value".

Liquidators were appointed on March 26 after the administrators'
initial findings suggested RCR was trading insolvent for a month
before calling them in. This means meaning RCR's board directors
could be personally liable for debts incurred.

On April 9, the liquidators said they didn't believe there would to
be enough cash left after the fire sales to pay all of the
company's creditors, and definitely not enough to pay out
shareholders.

Mr Scattini said the latest news was nothing he hadn't expected.
[GN]


REAL ESTATE SALES: Faces Greenberg Suit in S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Real Estate Sales,
LLC. The case is styled as Charles Greenberg individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Real Estate
Sales, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company, Defendants, Case
No. 0:19-cv-61173 (S.D. Fla., May 8, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.

Real Estate Sales, LLC is one of the most trusted real estate
mentoring companies in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
     14 NE 1st Ave STE 1205
     Miami, FL 33131
     Phone: (404) 797-9696
     Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com


REAL TIME: Tucker Files FDCPA Suit in Vermont
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Real Time
Resolutions, Inc. The case is styled as Toby Tucker, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Real
Time Resolutions, Inc., PYOD, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
5:19-cv-00073-gwc (D. Vt., May 7, 2019).

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

Real Time Resolutions, Inc. is a full-service loan servicing and
recovery company specializing in mortgage, auto, student, credit
card, and other consumer loans.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Andrew B. Delaney , Esq.
     Martin & Associates, PC
     100 North Main Street, Suite 2
     P.O. Box 607
     Barre, VT 05641-0607
     Phone: (802) 479-0568
     Fax: (802) 479-5414
     Email: andrew@martinassociateslaw.com



RP ON-SITE: Faces Miller Suit over Inaccurate Consumer Report
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against RP On-Site, LLC and
RealPage, Inc. for alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act (FCRA). The case is captioned BRIAN MILLER, an individual, on
behalf of himself and all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
RP On-Site, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company with its
principal place of business in California, RealPage, Inc., a
Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in Texas,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-02114-SVK (N.D. Cal., April
19, 2019).

Plaintiff Brian Miller alleges that Defendants have routinely
failed to exclude adverse information that predates their consumer
reports by seven years, and further compound the harm by
inaccurately reporting arrests as felony convictions, or reporting
convictions that have been expunged, to landlords. Defendants'
practices harm consumers seeking residential leases by prejudicing
their prospective landlords with inaccurate, adverse information,
leading to losses of housing opportunities, as well as a loss of
reputation.

RealPage, Inc. regularly conducts business in the state of
California, and keeps and maintains a regional headquarters in San
Francisco, California. RP On-Site, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary
of RealPage. RP On-Site, LLC and RealPage, Inc. provide tenant
screening services to landlords throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SCE&G: Clears Misinformation on "$1,000 Refund"
-----------------------------------------------
WCIV reports that SCE&G is clearing up what it calls misinformation
about a "$1,000 refund" being offered on social media, texts and
phone calls.

We are aware that some misinformation is being shared with SCE&G
customers via social media, texts and/or phone calls, falsely
suggesting that there is a '$1,000 refund' available to be claimed
by SCE&G customers, and that customers must call a phone number
(877-432-3808) to 'claim' the refund," states SCE&G. "The
information being provided in these communications is misleading
and incorrect."

When Dominion Energy in early 2018 proposed a merger with SCE&G's
parent company, SCANA, the company's initial plan for bringing bill
relief to SCE&G electric customers included the idea of a one-time,
upfront cash payment of about $1,000 on average to SCE&G
residential electric customers, SCE&G states.

"That option ultimately was eliminated in favor of a more
significant, long-term decrease to customer bills," the company
states.

According to the company, some of the social media, texts and/or
phone calls provide a phone number for customers to call. The phone
number listed is for the court-approved Class Action Administrator.
Calls, texts or social media messages that customers may have
received regarding the settlement are not authorized or approved by
the court.

"Calling this phone number lets customers hear an automated message
regarding details of a settlement reached in a class action lawsuit
concerning construction of two nuclear units for which SCE&G
customers paid costs through their electric bills. Current and
former customers have been provided notice of the settlement
through court-approved means. Class members can call 877-432-3808
or visit the website www.scegratepayersettlement.com to receive
additional authorized information regarding the settlement,"
according to SCE&G.

Customers are cautioned not to provide personal information to
anyone in response to such messages or calls. [GN]


SCOSCHE INDUSTRIES: Dennis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Scosche Industries,
Inc. The case is styled as Derrick U Dennis on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Scosche Industries,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04054 (S.D. N.Y., May 6, 2019).

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

Scosche Industries, Inc. provides car audio installation hardware
and portable electronics accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
     Shalom Law, PLLC
     124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
     Kew Gardens, NY 11374
     Phone: (516) 807-1748
     Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com


SEI INVESTMENTS: Mediation Ongoing in Stevens Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
SEI Investments 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 mediation is ongoing in
the class action suit initiated by Gordon Stevens.

On September 28, 2018, a class action complaint was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania by Gordon Stevens, individually and as the
representative of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the
SEI Capital Accumulation Plan (the "Plan") naming the Company and
its affiliated and/or related entities SEI Investments Management
Corporation, SEI Capital Accumulation Plan Design Committee, SEI
Capital Accumulation Plan Investment Committee, SEI Capital
Accumulation Plan Administration Committee, and John Does 1-30 as
defendants (the "Stevens Complaint").

The Stevens Compliant seeks unspecified damages for defendants'
breach of fiduciary duties under ERISA with respect to selecting
and monitoring the Plan's investment options and by retaining
affiliated investment products in the Plan.

All parties to the matter have agreed to participate in non-binding
mediation with the goal of resolving the matter in an efficient and
satisfactory manner, while avoiding protracted litigation costs.
The court granted a motion to stay the litigation pending the
outcome of mediation, which is scheduled for May 7, 2019, in
Atlanta, Georgia.

SEI Investments said, "While the outcome of this litigation remains
uncertain, the defendants believe that they have valid defenses to
plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend the allegations contained
in the Stevens Complaint vigorously. Because of uncertainty in the
make-up of the purported class named in the Stevens Complaint, the
specific theories of liability that may survive a motion for
summary judgment or other dispositive motion, the lack of
specificity or discovery regarding damages, causation, mitigation
and other aspects that may ultimately bear upon loss, the Company
is not reasonably able to provide an estimate of loss, if any, with
respect to the matters set forth in the Stevens Complaint."

SEI Investments Company is a publicly owned asset management
holding company. Through its subsidiaries, the firm provides wealth
management, retirement and investment solutions, asset management,
asset administration, investment processing outsourcing solutions,
financial services, and investment advisory services to its
clients. SEI Investments Company was founded in 1968 and is based
in Oaks, Pennsylvania.


SEI INVESTMENTS: Suits over SPTC Services Underway
--------------------------------------------------
SEI Investments 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 SEI has been named in
seven lawsuits filed in Louisiana courts; four of the cases also
name SEI Private Trust Company (SPTC) as a defendant. The
underlying allegations in all actions relate to the purported role
of SPTC in providing back-office services to Stanford Trust
Company.

The complaints allege that SEI and SPTC participated in some manner
in the sale of "certificates of deposit" issued by Stanford
International Bank so as to be a "seller" of the certificates of
deposit for purposes of primary liability under the Louisiana
Securities Law or so as to be secondarily liable under that statute
for sales of certificates of deposit made by Stanford Trust
Company.

Two of the actions also include claims for violations of the
Louisiana Racketeering Act and possibly conspiracy, and a third
also asserts claims of negligence, breach of contract, breach of
fiduciary duty, violations of the uniform fiduciaries law,
negligent misrepresentation, detrimental reliance, violations of
the Louisiana Racketeering Act, and conspiracy.

The procedural status of the seven cases varies. The Lillie case,
filed originally in the 19th Judicial District Court for the Parish
of East Baton Rouge, was brought as a class action and is
procedurally the most advanced of the cases.

SEI and SPTC filed exceptions, which the Court granted in part,
dismissing claims under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act
and permitting the claims under the Louisiana Securities Law to go
forward. On March 11, 2013, newly-added insurance carrier
defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Louisiana. On August 7, 2013, the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the matter to the
Northern District of Texas where MDL 2099, In re: Stanford Entities
Securities Litigation ("the Stanford MDL"), is pending.

On September 22, 2015, the District Court on the motion of SEI and
SPTC dismissed plaintiffs' claims for primary liability under
Section 714(A) of the Louisiana Securities Law, but declined to
dismiss plaintiffs' claims for secondary liability under Section
714(B) of the Louisiana Securities Law based on the allegations
pled by plaintiffs.

On November 4, 2015, the District Court granted SEI and SPTC's
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims under Section 712(D) of the
Louisiana Securities Law. Consequently, the only claims of
plaintiffs remaining in Lillie are plaintiffs' claims for secondary
liability against SEI and SPTC under Section 714(B) of the
Louisiana Securities Law.

On May 2, 2016, the District Court certified the class as being
"all persons for whom Stanford Trust Company purchased or renewed
Stanford Investment Bank Limited certificates of deposit in
Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and February 13, 2009". Notice of
the pendency of the class action was mailed to potential class
members on October 4, 2016.

On December 1, 2016, a group of plaintiffs who opted out of the
Lillie class filed a complaint against SEI and SPTC in the United
States District Court in the Middle District of Louisiana ("Ahders
Complaint"), alleging claims essentially the same as those in
Lillie.

In January 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred the Ahders proceeding to the Northern District of Texas
and the Stanford MDL. During February 2017, SEI filed its response
to the Ahders Complaint, and in March 2017 the District Court for
the Northern District of Texas approved the stipulated dismissal of
all claims in this Complaint predicated on Section 712(D) or
Section 714(A) of the Louisiana Securities Law. In both cases, as a
result of the proceedings in the Northern District of Texas, only
the plaintiffs' secondary liability claims under Section 714(B) of
the Louisiana Securities Law remain.

Limited discovery and motions practice have occurred, including SEI
and SPTC's filing of a dispositive summary judgment motion in the
Lillie proceeding. On January 31, 2019, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation remanded the Lillie and Ahders proceedings
to the Middle District of Louisiana. No material activity has taken
place since remand.

Another case, filed in the 23rd Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Ascension, also was removed to federal court and
transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to
the Northern District of Texas and the Stanford MDL. The schedule
for responding to that Complaint has not yet been established.

Two additional cases remain in the Parish of East Baton Rouge.
Plaintiffs filed petitions in 2010 and have granted SEI and SPTC
indefinite extensions to respond. No material activity has taken
place since.

In two additional cases, filed in East Baton Rouge and brought by
the same counsel who filed the Lillie action, virtually all of the
litigation to date has involved motions practice and appellate
litigation regarding the existence of federal subject matter
jurisdiction under the federal Securities Litigation Uniform
Standards Act (SLUSA).

The matters were removed to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas and consolidated. The court then
dismissed the action under SLUSA. The Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit reversed that order, and the Supreme Court of the
United States affirmed the Court of Appeals judgment on February
26, 2014. The matters were remanded to state court and no material
activity has taken place since that date.

SEI Investments said, "While the outcome of this litigation remains
uncertain, SEI and SPTC believe that they have valid defenses to
plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously.
Because of uncertainty in the make-up of the Lillie class, the
specific theories of liability that may survive a motion for
summary judgment or other dispositive motion, the relative lack of
discovery regarding damages, causation, mitigation and other
aspects that may ultimately bear upon loss, the Company is not
reasonably able to provide an estimate of loss, if any, with
respect to the foregoing lawsuits.

SEI Investments Company is a publicly owned asset management
holding company. Through its subsidiaries, the firm provides wealth
management, retirement and investment solutions, asset management,
asset administration, investment processing outsourcing solutions,
financial services, and investment advisory services to its
clients. SEI Investments Company was founded in 1968 and is based
in Oaks, Pennsylvania.


SETERUS INC: Williams Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Alabama
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Seterus Inc. The case
is styled as Patricia Williams on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Seterus Inc., Nationstar Mortgage
LLC as successor in interest to Seterus Inc, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00693-ACA (N.D. Ala., May 7, 2019).

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

Seterus, Inc. operates as a loan servicing company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     K Edward Sexton, II, Esq.
     GENTLE TURNER SEXTON & HARBISON
     501 Riverchase Parkway East, Suite 100
     Hoover, AL 35244
     Phone: (205) 716-3000
     Fax: (205) 716-3010
     Email: esexton@gtandslaw.com



SMITH ROUCHON: Brown Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Alabama
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Smith Rouchon &
Associates Inc. The case is styled as Colin Brown individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
Smith Rouchon & Associates Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-00705-JEO (N.D. Ala., May 8, 2019).

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

Smith, Rouchon & Associates, Inc. SRA is a third-party debt
collection agency based in Alabama.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Curtis Hussey, Esq.
     HUSSEY LAW FIRM LLC
     82 Plantation Pointe Drive, #288
     Fairhope, AL 36532
     Phone: (251) 928-1423
     Fax: (866) 317-2674
     Email: gulfcoastadr@gmail.com


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Retirement Fund Suit Has New Caption
---------------------------------------------------------
Synchrony Financial 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 case entitled,
Retail Wholesale Department Store Union Local 338 Retirement Fund
v. Synchrony Financial, et al. has been amended and has been
captioned as Stichting Depositary APG Developed Markets Equity Pool
and Stichting Depositary APG Fixed Income Credit Pool v. Synchrony
Financial et al.

On November 2, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit, Retail
Wholesale Department Store Union Local 338 Retirement Fund v.
Synchrony Financial, et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut, naming as defendants the Company
and two of its officers.

The lawsuit asserts violations of the Exchange Act for allegedly
making materially misleading statements and/or omitting material
information concerning the Company's underwriting practices and
private-label card business, and was filed on behalf of a putative
class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
common stock between October 21, 2016 and November 1, 2018.

The complaint seeks an award of unspecified compensatory damages,
costs and expenses. On February 5, 2019, the court appointed
Stichting Depositary APG Developed Markets Equity Pool as lead
plaintiff for the putative class.

On April 5, 2019, an amended complaint was filed, asserting a new
claim for violations of the Securities Act in connection with
statements in the offering materials for the Company's December 1,
2017 note offering. The Securities Act claims are filed on behalf
of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Company bonds in or
traceable to the December 1, 2017 note offering between December 1,
2017 and November 1, 2018.

The amended complaint names as additional defendants two additional
Company officers, the Company’s board of directors, and the
underwriters of the December 1, 2017 note offering.

The amended complaint is captioned Stichting Depositary APG
Developed Markets Equity Pool and Stichting Depositary APG Fixed
Income Credit Pool v. Synchrony Financial et al.

Synchrony Financial operates as a consumer financial services
company in the United States. Synchrony Financial was incorporated
in 2003 and is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Still Defends Cambell, Neal & Mott TCPA Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Synchrony Financial 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 Bank or the Company
is, or has been, defending a number of putative class actions
alleging claims under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") as a result of phone calls made by the Bank. The
complaints generally have alleged that the Bank or the Company
placed calls to consumers by an automated telephone dialing system
or using a pre-recorded message or automated voice without their
consent and seek up to $1,500 for each violation, without
specifying an aggregate amount.

Campbell et al. v. Synchrony Bank was filed on January 25, 2017 in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. The
original complaint named only J.C. Penney Company, Inc. and J.C.
Penney Corporation, Inc. as the defendants but was amended on April
7, 2017 to replace those defendants with the Bank.

Neal et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Synchrony Bank, for which
the Bank is indemnifying Wal-Mart, was filed on January 17, 2017 in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.
The original complaint named only Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. as a
defendant but was amended on March 30, 2017 to add Synchrony Bank
as an additional defendant.

Mott et al. v. Synchrony Bank was filed on February 2, 2018 in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

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

Synchrony Financial operates as a consumer financial services
company in the United States. Synchrony Financial was incorporated
in 2003 and is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.


TRI-COUNTRY INSURANCE: Builders Mutual Files Suit in S. Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tri-County Roofing
Inc. The case is styled as Builders Mutual Insurance Company,
Plaintiff v. Tri-County Roofing Inc., Palmetto Pointe at Peas
Island Condominium Property Owners Association Inc., Jack Love,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01312-MBS (D. S.C., May 6, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance.

Tri County Roofing has been providing Roof Replacement services
from Myrtle Beach to Savannah.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John Lucius McCants, Esq.
     Rogers Lewis Jackson Mann and Quinn LLC
     1901 Main Street, Suite 1200
     Columbia, SC 29201
     Phone: (803) 256-1268
     Fax: (803) 252-3653
     Email: jmccants@rogerslewis.com



UNITED AIRLINES: Seeks 7th Cir. Review of Ruling in Johnson Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants United Airlines, Inc., and United Continental Holdings,
Inc., filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled
David Johnson v. UAL, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-08858, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 23, 2019, an
Illinois federal judge on March 18 sent a previously dismissed
putative privacy class action from United Airlines Inc. employees
back to state court.

David Johnson, on behalf of himself and similarly situated
individuals, filed this action alleging a violation of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq., against
Defendants United Airlines, Inc. and United Continental Holdings,
Inc.  The District Court considered dueling Motions for Relief from
Judgment by Johnson and United.  The District Court granted Mr.
Johnson's motion and denied United's motion.

Mr. Johnson seeks relief from the Court's Order granting United's
Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the Order is void because the
Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and was precluded from
rendering judgment.

The appellate case is captioned as David Johnson v. UAL, et al.,
Case No. 19-1785, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit.

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

   -- Appellee's brief was due May 13, 2019;

   -- Appellants' reply brief, if any, is due by May 20, 2019;

   -- No extensions of time will be granted; and

   -- Oral argument in this matter will be set during the week of
      May 28-31 and will be set by separate court order.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee DAVID JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals, is represented by:

          Paul T. Geske, Esq.
          Jad Sheikali, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893-7002
          Facsimile: (312) 275-7895
          E-mail: pgeske@mcgpc.com
                  jsheikali@mcgpc.com

Defendants-Appellants UNITED AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware
corporation, and UNITED CONTINENTAL HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware
corporation, are represented by:

          Thomas E. Ahlering, Esq.
          Ada W. Dolph, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          233 S. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606-6448
          Telephone: (312) 460-5922
          Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
          E-mail: tahlering@seyfarth.com
                  adolph@seyfarth.com


VITAL RECOVERY: Nourollah Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vital Recovery
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Yosef Nourollah, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Vital
Recovery Services, LLC, and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-03965 (C.D. Cal., May 7, 2019).

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

Vital Recovery Services, LLC is a fully licensed, national,
third-party collection agency performing bad debt recovery and skip
tracing services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz, Esq.
     Jonathan Stieglitz Law Offices
     11845 West Olympic Boulevard Suite 800
     Los Angeles, CA 90064
     Phone: (323) 979-2063
     Fax: (323) 488-6748
     Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com


WADDELL & REED: 401(k) Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jackly Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Waddell &
Reed Financial Inc. received final court approval of its $4.9
million deal with employees who claimed the company filled its
401(k) plan with expensive and poorly performing funds that paid
fees to the company.

The class action settlement is slated to benefit 4,487 participants
in Waddell & Reed's 401(k) plan, court papers indicate. [GN]


WELLNESS SOLUTIONS GERIATRICS: Krawczyk Seeks Overtime, Minimum Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
Wellness Solutions Geriatrics, PLLC, Laura S. Reaves, Steven L.
Scesa, and John W. Cain, II for alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The case is captioned WHITNEY KRAWCZYK,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. WELLNESS SOLUTIONS GERIATRICS, PLLC, LAURA S. REAVES, STEVEN L.
SCESA, and JOHN W. CAIN, II, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00323
(M.D. Tenn., April 19, 2019).

Plaintiff Whitney Krawczyk alleges that the Defendants have
violated the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the FLSA by
failing to pay her and all other employees at least $7.25 per hour
for hours up to 40 in a workweek and at least $10.88 per hour for
hours over 40 in a workweek. Plaintiff also seeks to recover for
herself and similarly situated employees unpaid compensation owed
pursuant to employment contracts to perform work for Defendants as
a result of Defendants' breach of those contracts. In the
alternative to this class breach of contract claim, Plaintiff seeks
to recover for herself and all similarly situated employees all
amounts by which Defendants have been unjustly enriched by
accepting their uncompensated labor.

Wellness Solutions Geriatrics, PLLC is a Tennessee professional
limited liability company with its headquarters at 73 White Bridge
Road, #103-243, Nashville, Tennessee. This company provides
psychiatric and medical services to residents of long term care
facilities, assisted living facilities, in-patient hospitals, and
independent living homes. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     David W. Garrison, Esq.
     Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
     BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
     Philips Plaza
     414 Union Street, Suite 900
     Nashville, TN 37219
     Telephone: (615) 244-2202
     Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
     E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
             jfrank@barrettjohnston.com

             - and -

     Charles Herman, Esq.
     CHARLES HERMAN LAW
     7 E Congress Street, Suite 611A
     Savannah, GA 31401
     Telephone: (912) 244-3999
     Facsimile: (912) 257-7301
     E-mail: charles@charleshermanlaw.com


YAHOO INC: Strikes Revised $117.5MM Data Breach Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that Yahoo has
struck a revised $117.5 million settlement with millions of people
whose email addresses and other personal information were stolen in
the largest data breach in history.

The proposed class-action settlement made public on April 9 was
designed to address criticisms of U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in
San Jose, California. She rejected an earlier version of the accord
on Jan. 28, and her approval is still required.

Koh said the original settlement was not "fundamentally fair,
adequate and reasonable" because it had no overall dollar value and
did not say how much victims might expect to recover. She also said
the legal fees appeared to be too high.

Yahoo, now part of New York-based Verizon Communications Inc, had
been accused of being slow to disclose three data breaches
affecting about 3 billion accounts from 2013 to 2016.

The new settlement includes at least $55 million for victims'
out-of-pocket expenses and other costs, $24 million for two years
of credit monitoring, up to $30 million for legal fees, and up to
$8.5 million for other expenses.

It covers as many as 194 million people in the United States and
Israel with roughly 896 million accounts.

John Yanchunis, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, in a court filing
called the $117.5 million the "biggest common fund ever obtained in
a data breach case." He did not immediately respond to requests for
additional comment.

Separately, Verizon agreed to spend $306 million between 2019 and
2022 on information security, five times what Yahoo spent from 2013
to 2016. It also pledged to quadruple Yahoo's staffing in that
area.

"The settlement demonstrates our strong commitment to security,"
Verizon said in a statement.

Yahoo agreed in July 2016 to sell its internet business to Verizon
for $4.83 billion. Only later did it reveal the scope of the
breaches, prompting a price cut to $4.48 billion. Verizon wrote off
much of Yahoo's value in December.

U.S. prosecutors charged two Russian intelligence agents and two
hackers in connection with one of the breaches in 2017. One hacker
later pleaded guilty.

The case is In re: Yahoo Inc Customer Data Security Breach
Litigation, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California,
No. 16-md-02752. [GN]



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***