CAR_Public/190520.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, May 20, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 100

                            Headlines

24 HOUR FITNESS: Faces Schick Suit over Autodialled Calls
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE: Shaulov Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
ADP LLC: Pederson Suit Asserts FCRA Breach
ALLSTATE PROPERTY: Under-Values Total Losses of Insureds, Says Suit
AMERICAN LIMOUSINE: Thompson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

AMERICAN RENAL: Safirstein Metcalf Files Securities Fraud Suit
ARCADIA RECOVERY: Wieder Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
ARKANSAS TOTAL: Care Coordinators Class Certified in Hatch Suit
ASPIRATION PARTNERS: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
AT AND T MOBILITY: Ayala's Class Cert. Bid Denied; May Amend Suit

AT&T INC: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
AUTOLIV INC: Insurer's Antitrust Lawsuit Ongoing
AVIS BUDGET: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Venerus Suit to 11th Cir
AWESOME OFFICE: Fischler Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
BEAN BOX: Fischler Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act

BOB MOORE AUTO: Brown Files Class Suit under FDCPA
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Faces Securities Suit over Transvaginal Mesh
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Resolves 41,000 Mesh-Related Suits
BUREAUS INVESTMENT: Ostreicher Files Class Suit Under FDCPA
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Herington Asserts Breach of Contract

CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Ostreicher Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
CAREER GROUP: Olsen Alleges Violation Under Disabilities Act
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Park Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
CELGENE CORP: Class Cert. Bid in Thalomid & Revlimid Cases Pending
CELLULAR SALES: Wins Bid to Decertify FLSA Class in Holick Suit

CF MEDICAL: Marquez Files Class Action Asserting FDCPA Breach
CITIBANK NA: Court Refuses to Certify Class in Revitch Suit
CKS FINANCIAL: Weinberg Disputes Collection Letter Validity
CLEANER WORLD: Mesidor Claims Unpaid Overtime Wages
CLOUD INTERMEDIATE: English Suit Dismissed With Prejudice

CN TRANSPORTATION: Rogers Sues over Biometric Privacy Issues
COFFEE MEETS BAGEL: Denied Overtime, Breaks, Paystubs, says Bustos
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: $21.1MM in Obligation to be Paid in 2019
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Paul Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
COOLSPA LLC: Olsen Sues over Website's Limited Accessibility

CREDIT CONTROL: Friedman Files FDCPA Class Action in New York
DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Paul Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
DYNACAST LLC: Colon Sues over Illegally Collected Biometric Data
ENEL AMERICAS: Artisanal Fishermen Suit v. Unit Still Under Review
ENEL AMERICAS: Suit over Refund of Tariff Cost Charges Underway

FALCON TRANSPORT: Hlebovy Seeks 60 Days' Worth of Pay and Benefits
FIRST ACCEPTANCE: Refused Payments to Insureds, McGowan Suit Says
FORD MOTOR: Hubert Files Product Liability Suit in Illinois
GB COLLECTS: Camarda Files Class Suit Under FDCPA
GEICO INDEMNITY: Wingo Files Class Suit for Breach of Contract

GOODWILL INDUSTRIES: Sims Seeks OT, Minimum Pay for Store Cashiers
GOOGLE INC: Butler Snow Discusses Article III Standing Rulings
H&R ACCOUNTS: Kornegay Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina
HARISHIVJI INC: Delivery Worker Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages
HEALTHIQ RE: Violates Calif. Wage and Hour Laws, Merida Suit Says

HFF INC: Sabatini Files Suit Over JLL Merger Deal
HUNTINGTON NATIONAL: Throndson Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls
INFUSION MANAGEMENT: Viverette Hits Biometrics Data Sharing
JAMAlCA BEAIUNGS: Griffith Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Akingboye Talc Suit Removed to C.D. California

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bakman Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Barrette Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bauer Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bautista Talc Suit Removed to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bernal Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Bafalon Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Balasow Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
JUUL LABS: Reid Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
KIA MOTORS: Jens Files Suit Over Defective GDI Engine
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Stonehocker Sues Over Unpaid Wages

LEHIGH VALLEY: Payne Moves to Certify Female Workers Class
LITHIA MOTORS: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Mendoza TILA Suit
LIVE WELL FINANCIAL: Williams Sues Over WARN Act Violation
M LEONARD: Inman Asserts Breach of FDCPA in California
MASTERCARD INC: GBP14BB Interchange Fees Class Action Revived

MASTERCARD INC: Skadden Arps Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
MENDOTA INSURANCE: Harrell Files Class Suit Over Insurance Dispute
MIDLAND CREDIT: Gonzales Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
NATIONAL ENTERTAINMENT: Bid to Certify Club Dancers Class Filed
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Court Tosses Class Cert. Bid in Daniel Suit

NCAA: Proebstle Seeks Damages for Student-Athlete's Injuries
NEPTUNO RESTAURANTS: Denied Toribio Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
NEW YORK HEALTH: Doncouse Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NORTHWEST PALLET: Grandberry Files Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
POKEMON COMPANY: Website not Blind-friendly, Claims Dennis

RADIUS GLOBAL: Faces Shapiro Suit over Unsolicited Phone Calls
RAPID PARTS: Denied OT Pay, Wage Notices, Paystubs, Lopez Says
SAN JOSE RESTAURANT: Pontones Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
SOLIDCORE HOLDINGS: Andrews Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
SYNTER RESOURCE: Englander Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York

TRINET GROUP: No Appeal in Welgus Class Suit
TWITTER INC: May 23 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Olukayode Seeks OT Pay for Consultants
US PAPER MILLS: Shortchanges Workers Wages, Winter Suit Says
V. G. MIRROR: Does not Pay Overtime Wages, Ordenano Suit Says

VALVE CORP: G.G. Appeals W.D. Washington Ruling to Ninth Circuit
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Illegally Shared Geo-data, Morrison Says
VIVI BUBBLE: Bunting Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
WELLCARE HEALTH: Nasisi Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
WEST MEMPHIS FENCE: Class Cert. Denied; Renewed Bid Due July 29

WETSCH ABBOTT: Johnson Appeals Order and Judgment to 8th Circuit
WILL COUNTY, IL: Dunn Moves to Certify Class and Four Subclasses
ZF FRIEDRICHSHAFEN: Santos Sues Over Defective Airbags
ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Plotkin Files Class Suit in New York
[*] Harvard Law Students Fight Mandatory Arbitration Agreements

[*] New Class Action Procedural Rules Under Paycheck Fairness Act
[*] Next Wave of Class Actions to Come from Massive Data Breaches
[*] Number of Class Actions v. Foreign Companies Up 39% in 2018

                            *********

24 HOUR FITNESS: Faces Schick Suit over Autodialled Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against 24 Hour Fitness
USA, Inc. and Zoom Media Group, Inc. for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The case is captioned DEBORAH
SCHICK, Plaintiff, v. 24 HOUR FITNESS USA, INC. and ZOOM MEDIA
GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-02193-KAW (N.D. Cal.,
April 23, 2019). Plaintiff Deborah Schick, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, alleges that Defendants 24
Hour Fitness USA, Inc.  and Zoom Media Group, Inc. violated TCPA by
using an automatic telephone dialing system to place non-emergency
telemarketing calls to her cellular phone without prior, express,
written consent.

24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws
of California with its principal place of business at 12647 Alcosta
Blvd., Suite 500, San Ramon, California. 24 Hour Fitness operates
over 400 fitness clubs in 13 different states. 24 Hour Fitness
contracts with Zoom Media to place telemarketing calls to
businesses that may want to purchase advertising space at 24 Hour
Fitness clubs. Zoom Media Group, Inc., is a Canadian corporation
with its principal place of business at 999 de Maisonneuve West,
Suite 1000, Montreal Quebec, Canada. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Steven M. Tindall, Esq.
     GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
     505 14th Street, Suite 1110
     Oakland, CA 94612-1406
     Telephone: (510) 350-9700
     Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
     Email: smt@classlawgroup.com
         
            - and -

     Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
     Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
     Adrienne D. McEntee, Esq.
     TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
     936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
     Seattle, WA 98103
     Telephone: (206) 816-6603
     Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
     Email: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
            jmurray@terrellmarshall.com
            amcentee@terrellmarshall.com


ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE: Shaulov Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Accounts Receivable
Technologies Inc. The case is styled as Alexander Shaulov
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Accounts Receivable Technologies Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-02735 (E.D. N.Y., May 9, 2019).

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

Accounts Receivable Technologies (ART) is a debt collection agency
located in Piscataway, New Jersey.[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


ADP LLC: Pederson Suit Asserts FCRA Breach
------------------------------------------
Benjamin Pederson, individually and on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ADP, LLC, a California Limited
Liability Company, ADP Payroll Services, Inc., Automatic Data
Processing, Inc. and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 19-cv-00827 (C.D. Cal., May 2, 2019), seeks all damages
and injunctive relief for violation of the federal Fair Credit
Reporting Act, the California Investigative Consumer Reporting
Agencies Act and California Civil Code.

ADP provides consumer reporting, investigation and background
checks, as well as payroll services throughout the country.
Pederson claims that they collected consumer reports without
providing and/or obtaining a lawful and compliant disclosure
required by law. Pederson applied for employment in the County of
San Bernardino and discovered that were able to secure background
disclosure forms. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael D. Singer, Esq.
      J. Jason Hill, Esq.
      Kristina De La Rosa, Esq.
      COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
      605 C Street, Suite 200
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 595-3001
      Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
      Email: msinger@ckslaw.com
             jhill@ckslaw.com
             kdelarosa@ckslaw.com

             - and -

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


ALLSTATE PROPERTY: Under-Values Total Losses of Insureds, Says Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID A. WALKER, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ALLSTATE PROPERTY & CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY and CCC INFORMATION SERVICES, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00701-RDP (N.D. Ala., May 8, 2019) is an Alabama
class action arising from Defendants' systemic and intentionally
wrongful under-valuation of total losses involving the vehicles of
Allstate first party insureds.

According to the complaint, Allstate is not fair and honest in
providing valuations to Allstate insureds whose vehicles have been
involved in an accident and are determined to be a total loss.
Through its auto insurance policy contracts, Allstate has agreed to
provide, inter alia, collision coverage for losses resulting from
damage to insureds' vehicles. When the costs of repairs exceed a
specified percentage of the vehicle's value, Allstate declares the
vehicle a total loss and must fairly adjust that total loss claim
by properly valuing the insured vehicle.

Allstate has contracted with CCC to receive Market Valuation
Reports ("CCC Reports") to determine the "Base Vehicle Value" of a
total loss vehicle and the "Adjusted Value" after any "Condition
Adjustment" and applicable deductible. Through this agreement with
CCC, Allstate and CCC have engaged in a scheme to artificially
deflate the value of total loss claims with the specific intent to
pay first party insureds less than the actual pre-loss value of
total loss vehicles by making improper downward "Condition
Adjustment." Plaintiff and the putative Class are Allstate
automobile insurance policy holders whose vehicles Allstate
determined to be a total loss, and who have been subject to
Allstate and CCC's scheme to artificially deflate the value of
their total loss claims by making such improper downward "Condition
Adjustments".

When it entered into the Policies at issue in this case with
Plaintiff and Class Members, Allstate was aware, but failed to
disclose to Plaintiff and the Class, that CCC's Reports would
wrongfully undervalue total loss vehicles and that Allstate would
intentionally underpay total loss claims based on the CCC Reports.
Through this scheme, Allstate and CCC have engaged in unlawful
conduct in violation of Alabama law, and their respective
contractual obligations and have thereby uniformly damaged Allstate
insureds in Alabama in a readily ascertainable dollar amount, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff David A. Walker was the owner of a 2008 Subaru Impreza
Sedan (the "Vehicle"). Allstate issued its Automobile Policy No.
0455477893 (the "Policy") to Plaintiff which insured the Vehicle.
That Policy was in effect in May 2017.

Allstate issued automobile liability insurance Policies, including
coverage for property damage and first-party total loss
claims.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan H. Waller, Esq.
     WALLER LAW OFFICE, PC
     2001 Park Place, Suite 900
     Birmingham, AL 35203
     Phone: (205) 313-7330
     Email: jwaller@waller-law.com

          - and -

     Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
     John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
     201 N. Franklin St., 7th Floor
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Phone: (813) 223-5505
     Facsimile: (813) 222-2434
     Email: jcohen@forthepeople.com
            jyanchunis@forthepeople.com


AMERICAN LIMOUSINE: Thompson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
ERNEST THOMPSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN LIMOUSINE GROUP, LLC d/b/a ADDISON
LEE, Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-04133 (S.D. N.Y., May 8, 2019) is
an action for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"),
New York's Wage and Hour Laws ("NYLL"), and New Jersey's Wage and
Hour Laws ("NJWHL").

More specifically, Plaintiff asserts that he and members of the
Class, as non-exempt employees, are entitled to recover all unpaid
wages for off the-clock work; overtime compensation for hours in
excess of 40 in the workweek; and for liquidated damages, costs and
reasonable attorney's fees.

Plaintiff and members of the Class were not paid overtime
compensation by Defendant for all hours worked each week, in excess
of 40 hours, and has willfully and intentionally committed
widespread violations of the NJWHL, NYLL and FLSA, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a full time, uniformed
chauffeur from November 1, 2017 to April 8, 2019.

Addison Lee Group is a London-based private hire chauffeured taxi
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Steven Bennett Blau, Esq.
     Shelly A. Leonard, Esq.
     BLAU, LEONARD LAW GROUP, LLC
     23 Green Street, Suite 303
     Huntington, NY 11743
     Phone: (631) 458-1010
     Email: sblau@blauleonardlaw.com
            sleonard@blauleonardlaw.com


AMERICAN RENAL: Safirstein Metcalf Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Safirstein Metcalf LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed on behalf of purchasers of the securities of American
Renal Associates Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: ARA) between August 10, 2016
and March 27, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you purchased American Renal securities during the Class Period
and would like more information about the shareholder class action,
please contact Safirstein Metcalf LLP at 1-800-221-0015, or email
info@SafirsteinMetcalf.com.

If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than May 28, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

According to the lawsuit, defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:  (1) American
Renal's financial statements for fiscal years 2014, 2015, 2016 and
2017 contained in its Annual Reports for the years ended December
31, 2016 and 2017, and its condensed consolidated financial
statements in quarterly reports from 2016 through 2018 were false
and could not be relied upon; (2) American Renal had material
weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting; and
(3) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

Contact:

         Peter Safirstein, Esq.
         Safirstein Metcalf LLP
         The Empire State Building
         350 Fifth Avenue
         59th Floor
         New York, NY 10118
         Telephone: 1-800-221-0015
         Email: info@SafirsteinMetcalf.com
                psafirstein@safirsteinmetcalf.com [GN]


ARCADIA RECOVERY: Wieder Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arcadia Recovery
Bureau, LLC. The case is styled as Asher Wieder individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Arcadia
Recovery Bureau, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02731 (E.D. N.Y.,
May 9, 2019).

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

Arcadia Recovery Bureau, LLC provides accounts receivable
management solutions to organizations for bridging the gap between
services rendered and payments received.[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


ARKANSAS TOTAL: Care Coordinators Class Certified in Hatch Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. James M. Moody, Jr., granted in part and denied in part
the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification, for
Disclosure of Contact Information and to Send Notices in the
lawsuit titled TAQUILLA HATCH, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. ARKANSAS TOTAL CARE, INC., CENTENE
CORPORATION and CENTENE MANAGEMET COMPANY, LLC, Case No.
4:18-cv-00580-JM (E.D. Ark.).

The Court finds that conditional certification is proper under the
Fair Labor Standards Act for purposes of notice and discovery, and
accordingly, certifies the class requested by the Plaintiff:

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

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

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

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

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



ASPIRATION PARTNERS: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aspiration Partners,
Inc. The case is styled as Pedro Martinez individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. Aspiration Partners, Inc., Aspiration Financial, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02739 (E.D. N.Y., May 9, 2019).

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

Aspiration Partners, LLC is a principal investment firm and is
based in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dan Shaked, Esq.
     Shaked Law Group P.C.
     44 Court Street, Suite 1217
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (917) 373-9128
     Fax: (718) 504-7555
     Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


AT AND T MOBILITY: Ayala's Class Cert. Bid Denied; May Amend Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Stephen V. Wilson issued an order in the lawsuit captioned
Natasha Ayala v. AT and T Mobility Services, LLC, et al., Case No.
2:18-cv-08809-SVW-MRW (C.D. Cal.):

   -- granting the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file second
      amended complaint; and

   -- denying motion for class certification.

Judge Wilson opines that amendment is warranted under the liberal
pleading standards of Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, and the Plaintiff's proposed amendments and new causes
of action are not clearly futile.  The Plaintiff is ordered to file
the Second Amended Complaint within seven days of this Order, and
the Defendant's answer shall be due 21 days after the Plaintiff
files the Second Amended Complaint.

The Plaintiff's motion for class certification was filed on the
same date as the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend, but the
Court finds it procedurally improper to allow the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification to continue as filed in light of the
Plaintiff's amendment to the operative complaint.  Therefore, the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied as moot.

The parties are given 30 days from the date of this Order to
conduct any necessary discovery as to the new allegations in
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, for purposes of a renewed
motion for class certification.  Following discovery, the Plaintiff
may file a properly-noticed motion for class certification on or
before June 3, 2019.[CC]


AT&T INC: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against AT&T Inc.
(NYSE: T) for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who acquired the Company's shares pursuant to its
Registration Statement issued in connection with AT&T's acquisition
of Time Warner in June 2018, or purchased the Company's shares
between October 22, 2016 and October 24, 2018, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before May 31,
2019.  

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall, or Sherin Mahdavian,
of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los
Angeles, CA 90067, at 424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of
charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at
www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. AT&T increased prices for DirecTV Now
service while discontinuing promotional discount offers for the
service at the same time. This resulted in existing customers
leaving the service when their discount expired, and new customers
avoiding the service altogether based on high prices. Based on
these facts, the Company's public statements were false and
materially misleading. When the market learned the truth about
AT&T, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

Contact:

         Brian Schall, Esq.
         Sherin Mahdavian, Esq.
         The Schall Law Firm
         1880 Century Park East, Suite 404
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone:  
           Office: 310-301-3335
           Cell:   424-303-1964
         Website: www.schallfirm.com
         Email: info@schallfirm.com
                brian@schallfirm.com.
                sherin@schallfirm.com [GN]


AUTOLIV INC: Insurer's Antitrust Lawsuit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------
Autoliv, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend an antitrust lawsuit initiated by an insurer (and its
affiliated entities) that opted out of the end-payor class
settlement.

The Company is subject to civil litigation alleging
anti-competitive conduct in the U.S. and Canada. The Company,
several of its subsidiaries, and its competitors were named as
defendants in a total of nineteen purported antitrust class action
lawsuits filed between June 2012 and June 2015. Fifteen of these
lawsuits were filed in the U.S. and were consolidated in the
Automobile Parts Antitrust Litigation, a Multi-District Litigation
(MDL) proceeding in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan.

Plaintiffs in the U.S. cases sought to represent four purported
classes: direct purchasers, auto dealers, end-payors, and truck and
equipment dealers, who purchased occupant safety systems or
components directly from a defendant, indirectly through purchases
or leases of new vehicles containing such systems, or through
purchases of replacement parts.

In May 2014, the Company, without admitting any liability, entered
into separate settlement agreements with  the direct purchasers,
auto dealers, and end-payors, which were granted final approval by
the MDL court in 2015 and 2016.   

In April 2016, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with
the truck and equipment dealers' class, which was granted final
approval by the MDL court in 2016.

The class settlements do not resolve any claims of settlement class
members who opt-out of the settlements or the unasserted claims of
any purchasers of occupant safety systems who are not otherwise
included in a settlement class, such as states and municipalities.
Several individuals and one insurer (and its affiliated entities)
opted-out of the end-payor class settlement, including the
Company's settlement.

In September 2016, the insurer (and its affiliated entities) that
opted out of the end-payor class settlement filed an antitrust
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan.

The defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint on various grounds
was granted in part and denied in part in August 2018. Since this
decision, various amended pleadings and motions have been made by
the parties.

Autoliv said, "To date, no decision has been rendered by the Court.
The Company cannot predict or estimate the duration or ultimate
outcome of this matter."

Autoliv, Inc., through its subsidiaries, develops, manufactures,
and supplies automotive safety systems to the automotive industry.
Autoliv, Inc. was founded in 1953 and is headquartered in
Stockholm, Sweden.


AVIS BUDGET: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Venerus Suit to 11th Cir
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants filed an appeal from a Court ruling issued in the
lawsuit entitled HEATHER VENERUS v. AVIS BUDGET CAR RENTAL, LLC and
BUDGET RENT-A-CAR SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 6:13-cv-00921-CEM-GJK, in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 15, 2019, the
Hon. Carlos E. Mendoza issued an order in the lawsuit denying the
Defendants' Dispositive Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Article III
Standing and Defendants' Motion for Relief from Final Judgment, and
granting the Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Class Certification and
Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for
Taxation of Costs.

The Court redefined the Class as follows:

     All individuals who (1) rented an Avis or Budget vehicle in
     the State of Florida after June 12, 2008, pursuant to a
     prepaid voucher, and (2) whose Rental Receipt contained the
     notation "SLI .00/Day Accepted" or "ALI .00/Day Accepted.

     Excluded from the Class are all such renters who have been
     involved in accidents and who have outstanding claims for
     liability or uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage, as
     well as all such renters whose liability or
     uninsured/underinsured motorist claims have been paid by
     Defendants.

The appellate case is captioned as Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC, et
al. v. Heather Venerus, Case No. 19-90003, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent HEATHER VENERUS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Christopher J. Lynch, Esq.
          HUNTER WILLIAMS & LYNCH, PA
          2977 McFarlane Rd., Suite 301
          Miami, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 443-6200
          E-mail: Clynch@hunterlynchlaw.com

               - and -

          Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
          Jacob Lawrence Phillips, Esq.
          NORMAND, PLLC
          62 W Colonial Dr., Suite 209
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 603-6031
          E-mail: Ed@EdNormand.com
                  Jacob@ednormand.com

Defendants-Petitioners AVIS BUDGET CAR RENTAL, LLC, and BUDGET
RENT-A-CAR SYSTEM, INC., are represented by:

          Philip Glatzer, Esq.
          MARLOW CONNELL ABRAMS ADLER NEWMAN & LEWIS
          4000 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Suite 570
          Coral Gables, FL 33146
          Telephone: (305) 446-0500
          E-mail: pglatzer@marlowconnell.com

               - and -

          Irene Oria, Esq.
          Robert T. Wright, Jr., Esq.
          FISHERBROYLES, LLP
          199 E Flagler St.
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (786) 536-2838
          E-mail: irene.oria@fisherbroyles.com
                  robert.wright@fisherbroyles.com

               - and -

          Brian C. Frontino, Esq.
          Cristina Boullon Rodriguez, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN, LLP
          200 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3100
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 358-9900
          E-mail: Bfrontino@stroock.com
                  cbrodriguez@stroock.com


AWESOME OFFICE: Fischler Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
--------------------------------------------------
Awesome Office Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Brian
Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Awesome Office Inc. doing business as:
Snacknation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02636  (E.D. N.Y., May 3,
2019).

Awesome Office, Inc., doing business as SnackNation, provides snack
delivery services. The company curates and delivers consumer
packaged goods to the customers. The company was incorporated in
2014 and is based in Culver City, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   630 Third Avenue
   Fifth Floor
   New York, NY 10017
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


BEAN BOX: Fischler Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------
Bean Box, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Brian
Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Bean Box, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-02635 (E.D. N.Y., May 3, 2019).

Bean Box is a coffee subscription service that highlights Seattle's
best coffee roasters.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   630 Third Avenue
   Fifth Floor
   New York, NY 10017
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: doug@lipskylowe.com




BOB MOORE AUTO: Brown Files Class Suit under FDCPA
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bob Moore Auto Group
LLC. The case is styled as Leslie Brown, on behalf of all other
putative plaintiffs, similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bob Moore
Auto Group LLC, BMAG Luxury 1 LLC, a Domestic Limited Liability
Company, Jozef Daren Dabrowski, Tony G Grissom Tony G Grissom,
Acting in his official capacity as an agent of Bob Moore Auto
Group, L.L.C. and BMAG Luxury 1, L.L.C., John Doe Towing Services,
John Doe Tow Truck Driver #1 and John Doe Tow Truck Driver #2,
Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00409-R (W.D. Okla, May 3, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Bob Moore Auto Group, LLC operates as an automotive dealer in
Greater Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Edmond, Norman, and Moore, Oklahoma.
It offers new and used cars, trucks, and SUVs; parts and
accessories, as well as services; and finance options. Bob Moore
Auto Group, LLC was founded in 1950 and is based in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Faces Securities Suit over Transvaginal Mesh
---------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company faces a
class action suit in the the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York related to the company's false and/or
misleading statements and failure to disclose facts related to
transvaginal surgical mesh products.

On April 24, 2019, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against Boston
Scientific Corporation, Michael F. Mahoney, its Chief Executive
Officer, and Daniel J. Brennan, its Chief Financial Officer.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws based
on false and/or misleading statements and failure to disclose facts
related to the Company's transvaginal surgical mesh products.

Boston Scientific said, "We have reviewed the allegations and
believe the suit is without merit. We will defend vigorously."

Boston Scientific Corporation develops, manufactures, and markets
medical devices for use in various interventional medical
specialties worldwide. It operates through three segments: MedSurg,
Rhythm and Neuro, and Cardiovascular. The company was founded in
1979 and is headquartered in Marlborough, Massachusetts.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Resolves 41,000 Mesh-Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that, of the
approximately 51,000 cases and claims related to transvaginal
surgical mesh products, approximately 41,000 have met the
conditions of settlement and are final.

Boston Scientific said, "As of April 23, 2019, approximately 53,000
product liability cases or claims related to transvaginal surgical
mesh products designed to treat stress urinary incontinence and
pelvic organ prolapse have been asserted against us."

On April 16, 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
ordered that all manufacturers of surgical mesh products indicated
for the transvaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse stop selling
and distributing their products in the United States immediately,
stemming from the FDA's 2016 reclassification of these devices to
class III (high risk) devices, and as a result, the Company ceased
global sales and distribution of surgical mesh products indicated
for transvaginal pelvic organ prolapse.

The pending cases are in various federal and state courts in the
U.S. and include eight putative class actions.

There were also fewer than 25 cases in Canada, inclusive of one
certified and three putative class actions and fewer than 25 claims
in the United Kingdom.

Generally, the plaintiffs allege personal injury associated with
use of our transvaginal surgical mesh products. The plaintiffs
assert design and manufacturing claims, failure to warn, breach of
warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer protection laws and
loss of consortium claims. Over 3,100 of the cases have been
specially assigned to one judge in state court in Massachusetts.

On February 7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation (MDL) established MDL-2326 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia and transferred the
federal court transvaginal surgical mesh cases to MDL-2326 for
coordinated pretrial proceedings.

During the fourth quarter of 2013, the company received written
discovery requests from certain state attorneys general offices
regarding our transvaginal surgical mesh products. We have
responded to those requests.

Boston Scientific said, "As of April 23, 2019, we have entered into
master settlement agreements in principle or are in the final
stages of entering one with certain plaintiffs' counsel to resolve
an aggregate of approximately 51,000 cases and claims. These master
settlement agreements provide that the settlement and distribution
of settlement funds to participating claimants are conditional
upon, among other things, achieving minimum required claimant
participation thresholds. Of the approximately 51,000 cases and
claims, approximately 41,000 have met the conditions of the
settlement and are final. All settlement agreements were entered
into solely by way of compromise and without any admission or
concession by us of any liability or wrongdoing."

Boston Scientific Corporation develops, manufactures, and markets
medical devices for use in various interventional medical
specialties worldwide. It operates through three segments: MedSurg,
Rhythm and Neuro, and Cardiovascular. The company was founded in
1979 and is headquartered in Marlborough, Massachusetts.


BUREAUS INVESTMENT: Ostreicher Files Class Suit Under FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bureaus Investment
Group Portfolio No 15 LLC. The case is styled as Baruch Ostreicher,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Bureaus Investment Group Portfolio No 15 LLC,
Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants,
Case No. 7:19-cv-03938 (S.D. N.Y., May 2, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Bureaus Investment Group LLC is a debt collector located in
Evanston, Illinois. .[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Herington Asserts Breach of Contract
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA HERINGTON, for herself individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, operating as CALIFORNIA STATE
UNIVERSITY, FRESNO, and DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 19CECG01465
(Cal. Super. Ct., Fresno Cty., April 30, 2019) is a class action
complaint against Defendants for breach of contract.

The complaint asserts that California State University, Fresno
failed to provide to the tuition-paying class members the services
and accredited training programs it advertised as its Psychiatric
Mental Health Nurse Practitioner ("PMHNP") program, despite
receiving their tuition. Ms. Herington seeks to obtain redress for
all persons injured as a result of Defendant's failure to provide
the promised accredited training.

Fresno State operates the PMHNP program out of its School of
Nursing. The program is a one-year post-master's program designed
to "prepare primary care nurse practitioners to provide a full
range of psychiatric services to patients throughout the life
cycle." Fresno State advertised the program as a "formally
constructed program that meets the requirements for national
certification by the American Nurse Credentialing Center as an
Adult Psychiatric and Mental Health or Family Psychiatric and
Mental Health Nurse Practitioner." Further, Fresno State's
published materials and orientation seminars all touted the fact
that the program meets the requirements for national certification
by the American Nurse Credentialing Center (ANCC). Based on these
representations, Fresno State entered into standardized contracts
with dozens of nursing students hoping to receive their certificate
of completion from the program and become accredited, nationally
certified psychiatric nurse practitioners. Each student paid
Defendant tuition in excess of several thousand dollars. The terms
of the standardized contract established the price students were
required to pay for their classes, and established the nature and
quality of the classes and the academic credits they would receive
by enrolling.

However, the complaint alleges that Fresno State's PMHNP program is
not only currently unaccredited, but it has never had accreditation
from the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education (CCNE), and
graduates cannot become certified by the ANCC. Despite taking
thousands of dollars of tuition from each of its students and
promising them an accredited training program which they could use
to get national certification, Fresno State instead provided a
substandard curriculum which was not accredited, the graduates of
which were not even legally able to take required certification
exams. Even worse, as the ANCC seemingly failed to confirm the
accreditation status of Fresno State as it has administered the
certification exams for the past four years, students of the
program who successfully passed the boards have had their results
nullified after the fact, once the ANCC became aware of Fresno
State's lack of accreditation. Shockingly, Fresno State continued
to recruit more students into its program even after it knew about
its lack of accreditation. It also made oral statements through its
professors to current students that the issue would be resolved and
that "accreditation was not needed for their program." By failing
to provide courses that were properly accredited by the CCNE,
Defendant breached its contracts with the students of its PMHNP
program, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Andrea Herrington is a registered nurse and family nurse
practitioner, and a former student of the Fresno State PMHNP
program.

Board of Trustees of the California State University is the State
of California acting in its higher education capacity. California
State University, Fresno is one of several universities that is
governed by the Board of Trustees of the California State
University.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roberto G. Ripamonti, Esq.
     Alec Segarich, Esq.
     LOHR RIPAMONTI & SEGARICH LLP
     140 Geary Street, 4F
     San Francisco, CA 94108
     Phone: (415) 294-0448
     Facsimile: (415) 354-3275
     Email: roberto.ripamonti@lrllp.com
            alec.segarich@lrllp.com


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Ostreicher Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital Management
Services, LP. The case is styled as Bella Ostreicher individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Capital Management Services, LP, John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case
No. 7:19-cv-04217 (S.D. N.Y., May 9, 2019).

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

Capital Management Services L.P., a collections agency, providing
delinquent receivables resolutions.[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



CAREER GROUP: Olsen Alleges Violation Under Disabilities Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Career Group, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Career Group, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-02642 (E.D. N.Y., May 3, 2019).

Career Group, Inc., doing business as Career Group Companies,
provides human capital staffing and recruiting services. It offers
placement services for full time, temporary, and freelance
positions. The company provides staffing services for
administrative staff. It caters to advertising, architecture,
medical and healthcare, non-profit, design, cosmetics,
entertainment, fashion, finance, investment banking, retail,
technology, and venture capital industries. Career Group, Inc. was
founded in 1981 and is based in Los Angeles, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   630 Third Avenue
   New York, NY 10017
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: chris@lipskylowe.com




CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Park Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cavalry Portfolio
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Nancy Park individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cavalry
Portfolio Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02726 (E.D.
N.Y., May 9, 2019).

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

Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC provides financial resolution
services. Its services cover various areas, such as collection
account and debt control.[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


CELGENE CORP: Class Cert. Bid in Thalomid & Revlimid Cases Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Celgene 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 motion for class
certification in the antitrust lawsuits related to the sales of
Thalomid(R) and Revlimid(R) is still pending.

On November 7, 2014, the International Union of Bricklayers and
Allied Craft Workers Local 1 Health Fund (IUB) filed a putative
class action lawsuit against the company in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey alleging that the company violated
various antitrust, consumer protection, and unfair competition laws
by (a) allegedly securing an exclusive supply contract with Seratec
S.A.R.L. so that Barr Laboratories allegedly could not secure its
own supply of thalidomide active pharmaceutical ingredient, (b)
allegedly refusing to sell samples of our THALOMID(R) and
REVLIMID(R) brand drugs to various generic manufacturers for the
alleged purpose of bioequivalence testing necessary for ANDAs to be
submitted to the FDA for approval to market generic versions of
these products, and (c) allegedly bringing unjustified patent
infringement lawsuits in order to allegedly delay approval for
proposed generic versions of THALOMID(R) and REVLIMID(R).

IUB, on behalf of itself and a putative class of third-party
payers, is seeking injunctive relief and damages.

In February 2015, the company filed a motion to dismiss IUB's
complaint, and upon the filing of a similar putative class action
making similar allegations by the City of Providence (Providence),
the parties agreed that the decision in the motion to dismiss IUB's
complaint would apply to the identical claims in Providence’s
complaint. In October 2015, the court denied our motion to dismiss
on all grounds.

The company filed its answers to the IUB and Providence complaints
in January 2016. On June 14, 2017, a new complaint was filed by the
same counsel representing the plaintiffs in the IUB case, making
similar allegations and adding three new plaintiffs –
International Union of Operating Engineers Stationary Engineers
Local 39 Health and Welfare Trust Fund (Local 39), The Detectives'
Endowment Association, Inc. (DEA) and David Mitchell.

Plaintiffs added allegations that the company's settlements of
patent infringement lawsuits against certain generic manufacturers
have had anticompetitive effects. Counsel identified the new
complaint as related to the IUB and Providence cases and, on August
1, 2017, filed a consolidated amended complaint on behalf of IUB,
Providence, Local 39, DEA, and Mitchell. On September 28, 2017, the
same counsel filed another complaint, which it identified as
related to the consolidated case, and which made similar
allegations on behalf of an additional asserted class
representative, New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund (NEC).


The NEC action has been consolidated with the original action
involving IUB, Providence, DEA, Local 39, and Mitchell into a
master action for all purposes.

On October 2, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion for certification
of two damages classes under the laws of thirteen states and the
District of Columbia and a nationwide injunction class. On February
26, 2018, the company filed its opposition to the plaintiffs'
motion and a motion for judgment on the pleadings dismissing all
state law claims where the plaintiffs no longer seek to represent a
class.

The plaintiffs filed their opposition to the company's motion for
judgment on the pleadings on April 2, 2018, and the company filed
its reply on April 13, 2018. The plaintiffs filed their reply in
support of their class certification motion on May 18, 2018. Fact
discovery in these cases closed on May 17, 2018 and expert
discovery closed on December 11, 2018.

On October 30, 2018, the Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification and Celgene’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
On December 14, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a new motion for class
certification. The company's opposition to Plaintiff's new motion
for class certification was filed on January 25, 2019 and the
plaintiffs' reply in support of their new motion for class
certification was filed on February 15, 2019. No trial date has
been set.

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

Celgene Corporation, a biopharmaceutical company, discovers,
develops, and commercializes therapies for the treatment of cancer
and inflammatory diseases worldwide. Celgene Corporation was
founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Summit, New Jersey.


CELLULAR SALES: Wins Bid to Decertify FLSA Class in Holick Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Norman A. Mordue issued a memorandum-decision and order in
the lawsuit captioned JAN P. HOLICK, JR., STEVEN MOFFITT, JUSTIN
MOFFITT, GURWINDER SINGH, JASON MACK, WILLIAM BURRELL, and TIMOTHY
M. PRATT, Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. CELLULAR SALES OF NEW YORK, LLC, and CELLULAR
SALES OF KNOXVILLE, INC., Case No. 1:12-cv-00584-NAM-DJS
(N.D.N.Y.):

   -- granting the Defendants' Motion to Decertify Plaintiffs'
      Conditionally Certified FLSA Collective Action;

   -- denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
      under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

   -- ruling that the action shall proceed on behalf of the named
      Plaintiffs only;

   -- dismissing without prejudice the claims of the Opt-In
      Plaintiffs;

   -- ordering the Clerk to provide a copy of this
      Memorandum-Decision and Order to the parties in accordance
      with the Local Rules of the Northern District of New York.

The named Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, bring this action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York State Labor Law against the Defendants
asserting claims for alleged violations of minimum wage and
overtime requirements.

After careful review of the record and consideration of the
parties' arguments, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have
failed to demonstrate that they are similarly situated to the
degree necessary to maintain an FLSA collective action, or to
certify a Rule 23 class action.  The Court finds that the
Plaintiffs' disparate and highly individualized experiences with
the Defendants are not conducive to the production of
representative evidence required to proceed collectively.

The Plaintiffs' inability to present common proof demonstrating the
nature of their employment relationship with the Defendants
frustrates the possibility of collective resolution and militates
against considerations of fairness and procedure, Judge Mordue
opines.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ronald G. Dunn, Esq.
          Daniel A. Jacobs, Esq.
          Christopher M. Silva, Esq.
          GLEASON, DUNN, WALSH & O'SHEA
          40 Beaver Street
          Albany, NY 12207
          Telephone: (518) 432-7511
          Facsimile: (518) 432-5221
          E-mail: rdunn@gdwo.net
                  djacobs@gdwo.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ryan O. Cantrell, Esq.
          Charles L. Carbo, III, Esq.
          Julie R. Offerman, Esq.
          CHAMBERLAIN, HRDLICKA LAW FIRM
          1200 Smith Street, Suite 1400
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 658-2536
          Facsimile: (713) 658-2553
          E-mail: ryan.cantrell@chamberlainlaw.com
                  larry.carbo@chamberlainlaw.com
                  julie.offerman@chamberlainlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph M. Dougherty, Esq.
          Benjamin M. Wilkinson, Esq.
          David T. Luntz, Esq.
          HINMAN, STRAUB LAW FIRM
          121 State Street
          Albany, NY 12207
          Telephone: (518) 436-0751
          E-mail: jdougherty@hinmanstraub.com
                  bwilkinson@hinmanstraub.com
                  dluntz@hinmanstraub.com


CF MEDICAL: Marquez Files Class Action Asserting FDCPA Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CF Medical LLC. The
case is styled as Veronica Marquez aka Veronica Martinez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. CF Medical LLC, Assetcare LLC and John Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00751 (D. Nev., May 2, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

CF Medical LLC is a full service medical billing company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Robert M Tzall, Esq.
   Law Offices of Robert M. Tzall
   1481 Warm Springs Rd, Suite 135
   Henderson, NV 89014
   Tel: (702) 666-0233
   Email: robert@tzalllegal.com


CITIBANK NA: Court Refuses to Certify Class in Revitch Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William Alsup denies the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification in the lawsuit titled JEREMIAH REVITCH, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. CITIBANK, N.A., Case
No. 3:17-cv-06907-WHA (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Jeremiah Revitch filed this putative class action in
December 2017, alleging that Citibank, N.A., called him multiple
times on his cell phone using an autodialer despite him not being a
Citibank customer.  The Plaintiff continued to receive these calls
even after he told Citibank that it had reached a wrong number.
Based on these allegations, the Plaintiff asserted two claims for
negligent and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The proposed amended class is defined as:

     Jeremiah Revitch and all persons in the United States (1)
     whose cellular telephone is identified in Defendant's
     Contact Utilities Database; (2) who between March 17, 2014,
     through August 21, 2018; (3) were called on their cellular
     telephone by Defendant or its agent/s using its Aspect
     Unified dialer; and (4) where such person was not listed in
     Defendant's records as the intended recipient of the calls.

Individualized issues of consent will predominate at trial, making
class certification impractical in this case, Judge Alsup
concludes.  Judge Alsup adds that the Plaintiff has failed to meet
his burden of demonstrating that certification of a FRCP 23(b)(3)
class would be appropriate.

The case will proceed to trial as scheduled as an individual case,
according to the order.[CC]


CKS FINANCIAL: Weinberg Disputes Collection Letter Validity
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alexander J. Weinberg, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CKS Financial, LLC and John and
Jane Does Numbers 1 Through 25, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-02666
(E.D. N.Y., May 6, 2019), seeks actual and statutory damages,
costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

On January 17, 2017, CKS attempted to collect from Weinberg an
allegedly defaulted financial obligation with a past-due balance.
Said letter failed to provide information regarding how to dispute
the validity of the Debt and request validation as required by law,
asserts the complaint. [BN]

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


CLEANER WORLD: Mesidor Claims Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Guerline Mesidor, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff, v. A Cleaner World Dry Cleaners, Inc., A Cleaner World,
Inc. and Ross Lipton, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-21759, (S.D. Fla.,
May 2, 2019) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, as well
as an additional amount as liquidated damages, costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate a dry cleaning service where Mesidor worked as
an attendant. He claims to have worked approximately an average of
60-67 hours per week without being paid overtime compensation.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
      SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
      20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 503-5131
      Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
      Email: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


CLOUD INTERMEDIATE: English Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware granted a motion to
dismiss the class action captioned ARON ENGLISH and RICHARD PEPPE,
Individually and on Behalf of All Similarly Situated Individuals,
Plaintiffs, v. CHARLES K. NARANG, PAUL A. DILLAHAY, JAMES P. ALLEN,
PAUL V. LOMBARDI, CINDY E. MORAN, AUSTIN J. YERKS, DANIEL R. YOUNG,
CLOUD INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, LLC, CLOUD MERGER SUB, INC., and
H.I.G. CAPITAL, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2018-0221-AGB. The
complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

In January 2016, the board of directors of NCI, Inc.--a Delaware
corporation headquartered in Virginia that provides enterprise
solutions and services to United States "defense, intelligence,
health and civilian government agencies"--engaged two financial
advisors to solicit interest in a sale of the company. In July
2017, after a sale process that lasted 18 months and resulted in at
least five other firms expressing interest in acquiring NCI, the
company entered into a merger agreement to sell the company for $20
per share in cash to affiliates of H.I.G. Capital, LLC. The
transaction was structured as a tender offer followed by a merger.
Charles Narang, NCI's founder who held about 34% of NCI's shares
and about 83.5% of the company's voting power, tendered his shares
for the same per-share consideration that every other stockholder
received in the transaction.

In March 2018, over seven months after the transaction closed, two
former stockholders--Plaintiffs Aron English and Richard Peppe--of
NCI filed this action asserting claims against NCI's directors for
breach of fiduciary duty and against H.I.G. and its affiliates for
aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty. Defendants moved to
dismiss these claims under Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim for relief. Their lead argument is that
the complaint must be dismissed under Corwin v. KKR Financial
Holding LLC because a majority (approximately 73.6%) of NCI's
disinterested stockholders tendered their shares in an uncoerced
and fully-informed tender offer, subjecting the transaction to
business judgment review.

Plaintiffs advance two reasons why they believe Corwin should not
apply. First, they contend that the transaction should be subjected
to entire fairness review on the theory that Narang orchestrated a
sale of the company for less than fair value to address a personal
need for liquidity prompted by his retirement as the company's CEO
in 2015 at seventy-three years of age. Second, they contend that
the other stockholders who tendered their shares were not fully
informed when they did so because the recommendation statement for
the transaction was misleading and omitted material information.

For these reasons, the court concludes that neither of Plaintiffs'
theories against applying Corwin holds water based on the facts
plead in the complaint and the court's precedents. Thus, the
transaction is subject to business judgment review and Plaintiffs'
claims must be dismissed for failure to state a claim for relief,
rules the Court.[BN]

CN TRANSPORTATION: Rogers Sues over Biometric Privacy Issues
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against CN Transportation
Limited for its violations of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act. The case is captioned RICHARD ROGERS, individually and
on behalf of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. CN
TRANSPORTATION LIMITED, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No.
2019-CH-05129 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., April 22, 2019).

Through his role as a truck driver, Plaintiff Richard Rogers was
required to visit various rail yards, including those owned and
operated by CN, to pick up and drop off various loads. At such
facilities, Rogers was required to scan his biometric identifiers
and/or biometric information, into the biometric system. Using the
biometric system, CN collected, captured, stored, and otherwise
obtained biometric identifiers and associated biometric information
from Rogers and other truck drivers to allow and track them access
to its facilities. However, CN failed to provide any written
disclosures describing the purpose and duration of such use. It
also failed to make publicly available any retention or destruction
policies and to obtain informed written consent from Rogers and
other similarly situated individuals prior to the biometric data
collection and prior to dissemination of their biometrics to any of
its technology vendors.

CN is a Delaware company that conducts, and is licensed by the
Illinois Secretary of State to conduct, business in Illinois. CN is
headquartered in Montreal, Canada and conducts business throughout
Cook County. CN is one of the largest freight railroad networks and
railroad operators in North America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David L. Gerbie, Esq.
     Jad Sheikali, Esq.
     MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
     55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th FL
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Telephone: (312) 893-7002
     E-mail: dgerbie@mcgpc.com
             jheikali@gmail.com


COFFEE MEETS BAGEL: Denied Overtime, Breaks, Paystubs, says Bustos
------------------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa Bustos and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Coffee Meets Bagel, Inc., Arum Kang, Dawoon Kang and Does 1-60
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CGC-19 -575734 (Cal. Super., May 6,
2019), seeks unpaid overtime wages and interest thereon, redress
for failure to authorize or permit required meal periods, statutory
penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting
time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to
timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment,
reimbursement of business-related expenses, failure to maintain
time-keeping records, injunctive relief and other equitable relief,
reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest under California
Labor Code and applicable Industrial Wage Orders.

Coffee Meets Bagel operates an online dating service where Bustos
worked in customer support. She claims to be misclassified as an
independent contractor, and thus denied the basic benefits of an
employee. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      CARLOS JATO, Esq.
      819 Eddy Street
      San Francisco, CA 94109
      Tel: (415) 771-6174
      Fax: (415) 474-3748
      E-mail: cgjato@jato-law.com

              - and -

      Daniel Berko, Esq.
      819 Eddy Street
      San Francisco, CA 94109
      Tel: (415) 771-6174
      Fax: (415) 474.3748
      E-mail: daniel@berkolaw.com


CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: $21.1MM in Obligation to be Paid in 2019
---------------------------------------------------------------
Continental Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company's remaining
loss accrual related to a class action lawsuit over royalty
interest claims totals $21.1 million at March 31, 2019,
representing additional settlement obligations expected to be
satisfied in the third quarter of 2019.

In November 2010, a putative class action was filed in the District
Court of Blaine County, Oklahoma by Billy J. Strack and Daniela A.
Renner as trustees of certain named trusts and on behalf of other
similarly situated parties against the Company.  The Petition, as
amended, alleged the Company improperly deducted post-production
costs from royalties paid to plaintiffs and other royalty interest
owners from crude oil and natural gas wells located in Oklahoma.
The plaintiffs alleged a number of claims, including breach of
contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and
other claims and sought recovery of compensatory damages, interest,
punitive damages and attorney fees on behalf of the proposed class.


The Company denied all allegations and denied that the case was
properly brought as a class action. Due to the uncertainty of and
burdens of litigation, in February 2018 the Company reached a
settlement in connection with this matter, which was subsequently
approved by the District Court of Garfield County, Oklahoma in June
2018.

Under the settlement, the Company initially expected to make
payments and incur costs associated with the settlement of
approximately $59.6 million and accrued a loss for such amount at
December 31, 2017.

In the third quarter of 2018, the Company made payments totaling
$45.8 million to satisfy the majority of its obligations under the
settlement.

The Company's remaining loss accrual for this matter totals $21.1
million at March 31, 2019, representing additional settlement
obligations expected to be satisfied in the third quarter of 2019.


Continental said, "The accrual for this matter is included in
"Accrued liabilities and other" on the condensed consolidated
balance sheets."

Continental Resources, Inc. explores for, develops, and produces
crude oil and natural gas properties primarily in the north, south,
and east regions of the United States. The company sells its crude
oil and natural gas production to energy marketing companies, crude
oil refining companies, and natural gas gathering and processing
companies. Continental Resources, Inc. was founded in 1967 and is
based in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Paul Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent
Outsourcing, Inc. The case is styled as Alberto Paul individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02737
(E.D. N.Y., May 9, 2019).

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

Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. is a debt collection agency.[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


COOLSPA LLC: Olsen Sues over Website's Limited Accessibility
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Coolspa, LLC for
its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website, www.coolspa.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by blind or visually-impaired people. The case
is captioned THOMAS J. OLSEN, Individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COOLSPA, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03590-VSB (S.D.N.Y., April 23, 2019).

Plaintiff Thomas J. Olsen alleges that Coolspa, LLC has violated
the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human
Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Accordingly,
Plaintiff Olsen seeks a permanent injunction to cause Defendant to
change its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

Coolspa, LLC is a domestic limited liability company organized
under New York law, and is authorized to do business in the state
of New York. Headquartered at 905 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York,
Coolspa offers non-invasive face and body treatments. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
     Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
     LIPSKY LOWE LLP
     630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
     New York, NY 10017-6705
     Telephone: (212) 392-4772
     E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com
             chris@lipskylowe.com


CREDIT CONTROL: Friedman Files FDCPA Class Action in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control, LLC,
DBA Credit Control & Collections LLC. The case is styled as
Yitzchok Friedman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Credit Control, LLC, DBA Credit
Control & Collections LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
7:19-cv-03947 (S.D. N.Y., May 2, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Credit Control, LLC, DBA Credit Control & Collections LLC is a
financial consultant in Hazelwood, Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Paul Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diversified
Consultants Inc. The case is styled as Carrell Paul, Maria J.
Beltrez individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Diversified Consultants Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-02741 (E.D. N.Y., May 9, 2019).

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

Diversified Consultants, Inc. is a business specializing in
Accounts Receivable Management functions, with extensive experience
in providing multi-channel customer support solutions spanning the
entire customer lifecycle.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
     David M. Barshay, 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
            dbarshay@barshaysanders.com


DYNACAST LLC: Colon Sues over Illegally Collected Biometric Data
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Dynacast, LLC. for
violations of the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). The
case is captioned TAMARA COLON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DYNACAST, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2019CH05204 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., April 23, 2019).
Throughout Plaintiff Tamara Colon's employment, Dynacast
implemented the use of a biometric scanner. She was required to
have her fingerprint and/or handprint collected and/or captured so
that Dynacast could store it and use it as an authentication method
for timekeeping purposes. However, Dynacast failed to maintain or
publicize information about its biometric practices or policies, in
violation of the BIPA. The company also failed to provide Plaintiff
with written notice of the fact that it was collecting biometric
information prior to collection. In addition, Dynacast did not
obtain prior written consent from Plaintiff before it collected,
stored, or used those individuals' biometric information.

Dynacast, LLC is a global manufacturer of precision, engineered
metal components. The company operates 22 manufacturing facilities
in 16 countries, providing robust solutions to many industries
including automotive, consumer electronics, and healthcare by
utilizing its proprietary die cast technologies. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
     Madeline K. Engel, Esq.
     Caffarelli & Associates Ltd.
     224 S. Michigan Ave., Ste. 300
     Chicago, IL 60604
     Telephone: (312) 763-6880


ENEL AMERICAS: Artisanal Fishermen Suit v. Unit Still Under Review
------------------------------------------------------------------
Enel Americas S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the class action suit
initiated by Artisanal fishermen against Emgesa S.A. E.S.P.
(Emgesa), is still reviewed by the Huila Administrative Court.

A class action lawsuit filed against Emgesa, the Colombian Ministry
of Environment and Development and the Colombian Ministry of Mines
and Energy, Comepez S.A. and other fishing companies, is currently
under review by the Huila Administrative Court.

Artisanal fishermen are seeking the protection of collective rights
and a healthy environment, public health, food security and safety
and  the prevention of technically foreseeable disasters.
Furthermore, the plaintiffs are seeking the issuance of an order
compelling the entities to immediately take the necessary
corrective and preventive measures to put an end to the imminent
danger of massive fish mortality in the Betania reservoir fish
farming projects, relating to the filling of the reservoir and the
operation of the El Quimbo hydroelectric project.

This lawsuit does not have a judicial monetary amount because of
its nature as an action regarding the protection of collective
rights. Therefore, no provision has been made. The matter has been
pending decision since June 18, 2018.

During the evidentiary stage, the environmental authorities ANLA
and CAM jointly presented a report in which they stated that the
company had complied with the obligations imposed by the
Administrative Court within its precautionary measures.

Enel Americas said, "Although the value of this lawsuit is
indeterminate, it is being reported as it generates a risk for the
power plant's operation and because the precautionary measure
prevented the filling of the El Quimbo reservoir at the time, a
measure that was modified but has not yet been entirely lifted
although the power plant is in operation today."

Enel Americas S.A., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
electricity utility company in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and
Peru. The company generates, transmits, and distributes electricity
using hydroelectric and thermal energy sources. The company was
formerly known as Enersis Americas S.A. and changed its name to
Enel Americas S.A. in December 2016. Enel Americas S.A. was founded
in 1889 and is headquartered in Santiago, Chile. Enel Americas S.A.
is a subsidiary of Enel S.p.A.


ENEL AMERICAS: Suit over Refund of Tariff Cost Charges Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Enel Americas S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that Codensa S.A. ESP,
continues to defend a class action suit related to the refund of
excessive tariff cost charges.

In a class-action lawsuit filed by several residential complexes,
including Centro Medico de la Sabana, against Codensa S.A. ESP, the
plaintiffs are demanding the refund of an alleged tariff cost
excess that they were charged.

The lawsuit is based on the concept of a tariff benefit to which
the plaintiff argue they are entitled as Voltage Level One users
and as infrastructure owners -as established in Resolution No. 082
of 2002, modified by Resolution No. 097 of 2008.

Codensa responded to the complaint by rejecting it in its entirety.
A conciliation hearing was held between the parties, without
success. An evidence order was issued on May 15, 2018 and the
joinder of new plaintiffs was denied.

The proceedings are in the evidentiary stage, and the estimated
value of this lawsuit is approximately CP$337,000 million
(ThUS$103,772).

Enel Americas said, "This class action is being heard by the First
Administrative Court of the Bogotá Capital District."

Enel Americas S.A., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
electricity utility company in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and
Peru. The company generates, transmits, and distributes electricity
using hydroelectric and thermal energy sources. The company was
formerly known as Enersis Americas S.A. and changed its name to
Enel Americas S.A. in December 2016. Enel Americas S.A. was founded
in 1889 and is headquartered in Santiago, Chile. Enel Americas S.A.
is a subsidiary of Enel S.p.A.


FALCON TRANSPORT: Hlebovy Seeks 60 Days' Worth of Pay and Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------
David Hlebovy and Tawni Grove-Caban, Plaintiffs, v. FALCON
TRANSPORT CO., COUNTERPOINT CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, G. D. LEASING OF
INDIANA, INC.,  CHRIS BROUSSARD, and NICK SCHRADER, Defendants,
Case No. 4:19-cv-01018 (N.D. Ohio, May 6, 2019) is a proposed class
action on behalf of Plaintiffs and for similarly situated former
employees who worked for the Defendants, who were terminated
without cause under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act ("WARN Act").

On April 27, 2019, Defendants ordered the termination of
approximately 400 employees from Defendants' other Falcon
Facilities as part of a mass layoff and/or plant closing as defined
by the WARN Act. Defendants failed to give employees 60 days
advance written notice required by the WARN Act, says the
complaint.

Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant and worked at Falcon's
Youngstown Facility until their termination without cause on or
about April 27, 2019. Plaintiff seeks to recover 60 days of unpaid
wages and benefits.

Falcon Transport Co. is incorporated under the laws of Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James M. Kelley, III, Esq.
     Kimberly C. Young, Esq.
     Gary Cowan, Esq.
     ELK & ELK CO. LTD.
     6105 Parkland Blvd, Suite 200
     Mayfield Heights, OH 44124
     Phone: 440-442-6677
     Fax: 440-442-7944
     Email: jkelley@elkandelk.com
            ekilbane@elkandelk.com

          - and -

     Robert J. Dubyak, Esq.
     Christina C. Spallina, Esq.
     DUBYAK NELSON, LLC
     6105 Parkland Blvd, Suite 230
     Mayfield Heights, OH 44124
     Phone: 216-364-0500
     Fax: 216-364-0505
     Email: rdubyak@dubyaknelson.com
            cspallina@dubyaknelson.com


FIRST ACCEPTANCE: Refused Payments to Insureds, McGowan Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Derrick McGowan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FIRST ACCEPTANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., a
Texas Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-01101 (M.D. Fla.,
May 8, 2019) is a lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff, individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated insureds, who
suffered damages due to Defendant's practice of refusing to pay
full ACV payments to first-party total loss insureds on physical
damage policies containing comprehensive and collision coverages.
Specifically, as a matter of policy, Defendant fails to include
state and local title transfer, vehicle registration fees, and
sales taxes (FTLP) in its calculation of ACV when paying full total
loss payment to its insureds.

The ACV of a vehicle equates to the full cost to replace the
vehicle and such cost includes any mandatory regulatory taxes,
costs and fees (Full Total Loss Payments or "FTLP") required to
replace the vehicle. One of the coverages Defendant offers is
comprehensive and collision coverage. Upon information and belief,
Defendant systematically underpaid not just Plaintiff but thousands
of other putative class members ("Class Members") amounts Defendant
owed its insureds for ACV losses for total loss vehicles insured
with comprehensive and collision coverage, says the complaint.

Plaintiff owned a 2015 Nissan Sentra, VIN #3N1AB7AP3FY366779 (the
"Insured Vehicle").

Defendant is a private passenger auto insurance carrier operating
in Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
     SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
     14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205
     Miami, FL 33132
     Phone (305) 479-2299
     Facsimile (786) 623-0915
     Email: efilings@shamisgentile.com

          - and -

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


FORD MOTOR: Hubert Files Product Liability Suit in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ford Motor Company.
The case is styled as Ryan Hubert individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ford Motor Company,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02125-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill., May 9,
2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Product Liability.

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:

     Adam J Levitt, Esq.
     DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY LLC
     11th Floor
     10 North Dearborn Street
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 214-7900
     Email: alevitt@dlcfirm.com

          - and -

     Joel E Brown, Esq.
     416 Main St, Suite 1300
     Peoria, IL 61602
     Phone: (309) 673-4357
     Fax: (309) 673-6119
     Email: jebrownlaw@sbcglobal.net


GB COLLECTS: Camarda Files Class Suit Under FDCPA
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GB Collects, LLC. The
case is styled as Thomas Camarda, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GB Collects, LLC and John
Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01924-NIQA (E.D. Penn., May
3, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

GB Collects, LLC provides business process outsourcing (BPO)
solutions. The company offers BPO solutions in the functional areas
of third party collections, training seminars, litigation
management, customized collection letter programs, and first party
collections. Its outsourcing portfolio includes accounts receivable
management, customer management services, and back office
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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




GEICO INDEMNITY: Wingo Files Class Suit for Breach of Contract
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GEICO Indemnity
Company. The case is styled as Sharon Wingo, on behalf of herself
and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GEICO Indemnity
Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00144-MR-DSC (W.D. N.C., May
2, 2019).

The lawsuit asserts Breach of Contract.

GEICO Indemnity Company operates as a property and casualty
insurer. GEICO Indemnity Company was formerly known as Criterion
Insurance Company Ltd. and changed its name to GEICO Indemnity
Company in June 1986. The company was incorporated in 1961 and is
based in Chevy Chase, Maryland. GEICO Indemnity Company operates as
a subsidiary of GEICO Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David M. Wilkerson, Esq.
   The Van Winkle Law Firm
   P.O. Box 7376
   Asheville, NC 28802-7376
   Tel: (828) 258-2991
   Fax: (828) 257-2767
   Email: dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com



GOODWILL INDUSTRIES: Sims Seeks OT, Minimum Pay for Store Cashiers
------------------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
Goodwill Industries of Arkansas, Inc. for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. The case is
captioned ERIELLE SIMS, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF ARKANSAS,
INC, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00289-SWW (E.D. Ark., April 23,
2019).  Erielle Sims seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees, as a result of Goodwill's failure to
pay her and other hourly-paid store employees a minimum wage for
all hours worked and proper overtime compensation for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per week.

Goodwill owns retail thrift stores, having its principal place of
business in Little Rock, Arkansas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Chris W. Burks, Esq.
     Brandon M. Haubert, Esq.
     WH LAW,PLLC
     1 Riverfront Pl. - Suite 745
     North Little Rock, AR 72114
     Telephone: (501) 891-6000
     E-mail: chris@whlawoffices.com
             brandon@whlawoffices.com


GOOGLE INC: Butler Snow Discusses Article III Standing Rulings
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Baltz, Esq. -- kevin.baltz@butlersnow.com -- of Butler Snow
LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that in 2016, the United
States Supreme Court issued a landmark opinion addressing Article
III standing under the U.S. Constitution.  See Spokeo v. Robins,
––– U.S. ––––, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 194 L.Ed.2d 635
(2016).  The "standing to sue doctrine," as it is commonly called,
is derived from Article III of the Constitution's limitation of the
judicial power of federal courts to "actual cases or
controversies." Id.  "The doctrine limits the category of litigants
empowered to maintain a lawsuit in federal court to seek redress
for a legal wrong." Id. "[T]he ‘irreducible constitutional
minimum' of standing consists of three elements.  The plaintiff
must have (1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly
traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that
is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision." Id.
Ultimately, in Spokeo, the Supreme Court held that "Article III
standing requires a concrete injury even in the context of a
statutory violation."  Id. at 1549.

Recently, federal courts -- including the Supreme Court -- have
relied on Spokeo as they scrutinize a plaintiff's standing to sue
under Article III.  For instance, on March 8, 2019, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit addressed Article III
standing in the context of an alleged violation of the Fair and
Accurate Credit Transactions Act ("FACTA"), 15 U.S.C. Sec.
1681c(g).  See Kamal v. J. Crew Grp., Inc., 918 F.3d 102 (3d Cir.
2019). In Kamal, the plaintiff filed a class action complaint
alleging that the defendant, J. Crew, willfully violated FACTA by
including on his receipts the first six digits of his credit card
number. The plaintiff sought statutory and punitive damages as well
as attorneys' fees.  The plaintiff did not allege that anyone had
seen the receipts, that his identity was stolen or that his credit
card number was misappropriated.  Instead, he alleged that he was
improperly subjected to the risk of such future harms.

In the face of a motion to dismiss for lack of Article III
standing, the plaintiff alleged two "concrete" harms:  (1) that the
printing of the information itself constituted a statutory
violation resulting in concrete harm and (2) that the statutory
violation subjected the plaintiff to an "increased risk of identity
theft."  Id.  Significantly, the Kamal Court found that the
plaintiff "pleaded an injury which no doubt involves a technical
violation of FACTA's ban on printing more than the last five digits
of a consumer's credit card number."  Id.  Nonetheless, the Kamal
Court -- relying on Spokeo -- held that the plaintiff had failed to
allege that the harm from the technical violation was "sufficiently
concrete to create an Article III case in controversy."  Id.
Importantly, the Kamal Court noted that an alleged increased risk
of identity theft, which is based on a "highly speculative chain of
future events," is insufficient to satisfy the requirements of
concreteness.  Id.  Accordingly, the Kamal Court affirmed the trial
court's dismissal for lack of Article III standing.

On March 20, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a new opinion
addressing the holding of Spokeo.  See Frank v. Gaos, No. 17-961,
2019 WL 1264582 (U.S. Mar. 20, 2019). In Frank, the plaintiff
brought putative class action against Google asserting claims under
the Stored Communications Act ("SCA"), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2701 et seq.,
and state law alleging that Google violated his privacy by
disclosing his internet search terms to owners of third-party
websites. Google moved to dismiss for lack of standing.  Google's
first motion was granted, but the plaintiff amended the complaint
to bolster his standing claim.  The second motion was granted in
part (dismissing state law claims) and denied in part (allowing
plaintiff's SCA claims to survive).  In allowing the SCA claims to
proceed, the trial court relied on Ninth Circuit precedent which
held that a plaintiff had standing to pursue a statutory violation.
Id.

Thereafter, Google negotiated a class-wide settlement.  The trial
court granted preliminary certification of the class and
preliminary approval of the settlement.  Subsequently, the
Solicitor General filed an amicus curiae brief urging the Supreme
Court to vacate and remand the case for the lower courts to address
the Article III standing issues.  Noting that a federal "court is
powerless to approve a proposed class settlement if it lacks
jurisdiction over the dispute, the Supreme Court agreed with the
Solicitor General and remanded the matter to the lower courts to
address the plaintiffs' standing in light of Spokeo.

Consequently, utilizing Spokeo, federal courts are requiring
plaintiffs to show more than a simple statutory violation in order
to have standing to pursue a claim.  Instead, plaintiffs must
allege a concrete and particularized injury arising from the
statutory violation.  And that's not always easy to do. [GN]


H&R ACCOUNTS: Kornegay Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against H & R Accounts, Inc.
The case is styled as Lashunda R. Kornegay individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. H & R
Accounts, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00222 (W.D. N.C., May
9, 2019).

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

H & R Accounts, Inc. provides financial services. The Company
offers collection of debts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Arthur H. Piervincenti, Esq.
     Arthur H. Piervincenti, P.A.
     631-200B Brawley School Road, Box 225
     Mooresville, NC 28117
     Phone: (704) 997-9529
     Fax: (704) 230-0413
     Email: arthur@lawahp.com


HARISHIVJI INC: Delivery Worker Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
CESAR RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. HARISHIVJI INC. (D/B/A ASHOKA), GAURI
SHANKAR, and ANTHONY DOE , Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04172 (S.D.
N.Y., May 8, 2019) seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for
violations of the N.Y. Labor Law (the "NYLL"), and the "spread of
hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of
Labor (the "Spread of Hours Wage Order"), including applicable
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

According to the complaint, the Defendants employed the policy and
practice of disguising Plaintiff Ramirez's actual duties in payroll
records by designating him as a delivery worker instead of as a
non-tipped employee. This allowed Defendants to avoid paying
Plaintiff Ramirez at the minimum wage rate and enabled them to pay
him at the tip-credit rate (which they still failed to do). The
Defendants also unlawfully appropriated Plaintiff Ramirez's and
other tipped employees' tips and made unlawful deductions from
Plaintiff Ramirez's and other tipped employees' wages.

In addition, the Defendants maintained a policy and practice of
requiring Plaintiff Ramirez and other employees to work in excess
of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and
overtime compensation required by federal and state law and
regulations, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Ramirez was employed by Defendants as a delivery worker.

Defendants own, operate, or control an Indian restaurant, located
at 1718 2nd Ave, New York, NY 10128 under the name "Ashoka".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HEALTHIQ RE: Violates Calif. Wage and Hour Laws, Merida Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FERNANDO MERIDA, as an individual, on behalf of himself, and all
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HEALTHIQ RE, INC., a
Delaware company authorized to do business in the state of
California, HI.Q, INC. WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS
HEALTH IQ, a Delaware company authorized to do business in the
state of California, and DOES 1 to 10 inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 37-2019-00022227-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty.,
April 30, 2019) is a representative action brought by Plaintiff on
behalf of himself and all other current or former employees of
Defendants asserting that during the relevant time period,
Defendants consistently violated California wage and hour laws.

During his employment, Plaintiff worked at HealthIQ's San Diego
office and was to receive a base salary plus commissions. Plaintiff
was also required to perform work on behalf of HealthIQ from his
residence.

However, HealthIQ failed to appropriately compensate Plaintiff and
other Sales Employees for all time worked and failed to pay premium
wages to Sales Employees for non-compliant meal and/or rest
periods. HealthIQ also failed to timely pay all wages owed to
Plaintiff and other former Sales Employees who separated from their
employment with HealthIQ during the statutory period, and failed to
timely pay the appropriate waiting time penalties to all such
former Sales Employees, including Plaintiff, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Fernando Merida was employed by Defendant as an account
manager from approximately August 2017 to August 2018.

HEALTHIQ RE, INC., is a Delaware corporation authorized to do
business, and actually doing business, in the state of
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     R. Craig Clark, Esq.
     Monique R. Rodriguez, Esq.
     Paige D. Chretien, Esq.
     CLARK LAW GROUP
     205 West Date Street
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 239-1321
     Facsimile: (888) 273-4554
     Email: cclark@clarklawyers.com
            mrodriguez@clarklawyers.com
            pchretien@clarklawyers.com

          - and -

     Walter Haines, Esq.
     UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
     5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201
     Huntington Beach, CA 92649
     Phone: (562) 256-1047
     Facsimile: (562) 256-4554


HFF INC: Sabatini Files Suit Over JLL Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------
ERIC SABATINI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. HFF, INC., MARK D. GIBSON, DEBORAH H.
MCANENY, SUSAN P. MCGALLA, GEORGE L. MILES, JR., MORGAN K. O'BRIEN,
LENORE M. SULLIVAN, JOE B. THORNTON, JR., STEVEN E. WHEELER, JONES
LANG LASALLE INCORPORATED, JLL CM, INC., and JLL CMG, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00867-UNA (D. Del., May 8, 2019) is an
action stemming from a proposed transaction announced on March 19,
2019, pursuant to which HFF, Inc. will be acquired by Jones Lang
LaSalle Incorporated ("Parent"), JLL CM, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), and
JLL CMG, LLC ("Merger LLC," and collectively with Merger Sub and
Parent, "JLL").

On March 18, 2019, HFF's Board of Directors (the "Board" or
"Individual Defendants") caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with JLL.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, HFF's stockholders
will receive $24.63 in cash and 0.1505 shares of Parent for each
share of HFF common stock they own. On April 29, 2019, defendants
filed a registration statement (the "Registration Statement") with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") in
connection with the Proposed Transaction.

The complaint asserts that the Registration Statement omits
material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction,
which renders the Registration Statement false and misleading.

Plaintiff is the owner of HFF common stock.

HFF operates out of twenty-six offices and is one of the leading
and largest full-service commercial real estate financial
intermediaries, providing commercial real estate and capital
markets services to both the consumers and providers of capital in
the commercial real estate sector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brian D. Long, Esq.
     Gina M. Serra, Esq.
     RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
     300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Phone: (302) 295-5310
     Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
     Email: bdl@rl-legal.com
            gms@rl-legal.com

          - and -

     Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
     RM LAW, P.C.
     1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
     Berwyn, PA 19312
     Phone: (484) 324-6800
     Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
     Email: rm@maniskas.com



HUNTINGTON NATIONAL: Throndson Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Throndson, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Huntington National Bank, Defendant, Case
No. 19-cv-00339 (S.D. Ohio, May 6, 2019), seeks injunctive relief,
statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable
remedies for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Huntington Bank provides banking services to consumers and
corporate clients, which includes financing and loan-related
services. Throndson claims that Huntington placed two prerecorded
debt collection calls to his cellular phone number despite the fact
that he has never been a Huntington Bank client and has never
otherwise consented to Huntington Bank calling him. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian T. Giles, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN T. GILES LLC
      1470 Apple Hill Rd.
      Cincinnati, OH 45230
      Telephone: (513) 379-2715
      Email: Brian@GilesFirm.com

             - and -

      Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
      KAUFMAN P.A.
      400 NW 26TH Street
      Miami, FL 33127
      Tel: (305) 469-5881
      Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com

             - and -

      Stefan Coleman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
      201 s. Biscayne Blvd., 28th floor
      Miami, FL 33131
      Tel: (877) 333-9427
      Fax: (888) 498.8946
      Email: law@stefancoleman.com


INFUSION MANAGEMENT: Viverette Hits Biometrics Data Sharing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Laticia Viverette and Ronald Gorny, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Infusion Management
Group, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2019CH05660 (Ill. Cir., May 6,
2019), seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to cease all
unlawful activity related to the capture, collection, storage and
use of biometrics, plus statutory damages together with costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees for violation of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act.

Infusion Management Group, Inc. does business as "The Signature
Room at the 95th," where Plaintiffs were required to "clock-in" and
"clock-out" using a timeclock that scanned fingerprints. They
allege that Infusion improperly disclosed employees' fingerprint
data to a third-party company without informed consent. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Katrina Carroll, Esq.
      LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
      211 West Wacker Drive, Suite 500
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: 312.750.1265
      Email: kcarroll@litedepalma.com
             - and -

      Tiffany M. Yiatras, Esq.
      CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGAL, LLC
      308 Hutchinson Road
      Ellisville, MO 63011
      Tele: (314) 541-0317
      Email: tiffany@consumerprotectionlegal.com


JAMAlCA BEAIUNGS: Griffith Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
RHONDA GRIFFITH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. JAMAlCA BEAIUNGS CO. INC., Defendant, Case
No. 708071/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., May 8, 2019) is an
action on behalf of Plaintiff and all other similarly situated
hourly employees ("Hourly Employees") employed by Defendant for
Defendants' violations of the New York Labor Law ("NYLL").

Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours during the week and was not
paid for all of the overtime worked. Specifically, Plaintiff worked
about 43 hours and 15 minutes that same week and was paid for 40
hours. Thus, during that same week, Plaintiff was not paid for 3
hours 15 minutes of overtime. The Defendant also failed to provide
accurate wage statements to Plaintiff and the similarly situated
Hourly Employees, says he complaint.

Plaintiff Rhonda Griffith was employed by Defendant from January 2,
2018, to on or about April 5, 2019.

Defendant employed Plaintiff at its offices located at 1700 Jericho
Turnpike, New Hyde Park, New York 11040.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Louis Ginsberg, Esq.
     THE LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
     1613 Northern Boulevard
     Roslyn, NY 11576
     Phone: (516) 625-0105 X. 18


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Akingboye Talc Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled RACHEL R. AKINGBOYE, individually, and as
successor-in-interest on behalf of the ESTATE OF SHARLINE JONES v.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC., f/k/a JOHNSON
& JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; and IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC.
f/k/a LUZENAC AMERICA, INC., was removed on April 24, 2019, 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-03229 to the
proceeding.

The State Court Talc Claims against J&J center on allegations that
exposure to the Debtors' talc caused the Plaintiff's injuries,
specifically, ovarian and/or fallopian tube cancer.  J&J disputes
these allegations.

On May 30, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Superior
Court of Santa Clara County, which generally alleges that the
Debtors' talc, through the habitual use of J&J cosmetic talcum
powder products, caused the Plaintiff's personal injury and/or
wrongful death.

The 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").

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").

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: Bakman Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 24, 2019, the matter entitled DEBBIE BAKMAN, 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, 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-03252 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on November 6, 2017, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Santa Clara, and was
assigned Case No. 17CV318664.

The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff developed ovarian cancer,
and suffered effects and sequelae therefrom, as a direct and
proximate result of the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature
of talcum powder, the main ingredient of the Defendants' products,
which include Shower to Shower body powder and Johnson & Johnson's
Baby Powder.  The complaint accuses the Defendants of wrongful and
negligent conduct in the research, development, testing,
manufacture, production, promotion, distribution, marketing, and
sale of the products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
          ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC.
          19 Corporate Plaza Drive
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 720-1288
          E-mail: mrobinson@robinsonfirm.com

Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.
are represented by:

          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: caroline.toole@tuckerellis.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Barrette Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 24, 2019, the case captioned ROGER BARRETTE,
individually and as next of kin to DIANE BARRETTE, 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-03288 to the
proceeding.

The State Court Talc Claims against J&J center on allegations that
exposure to the Debtors' talc caused the Plaintiff's injuries,
specifically, ovarian and/or fallopian tube cancer.  J&J disputes
these allegations.

On October 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Superior
Court of Orange 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 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").

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").

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: Bauer Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled KATHY A. BAUER and ERIC BAUER v. JOHNSON &
JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. f/k/a JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. f/k/a LUZENAC
AMERICA, INC., was removed on April 24, 2019, 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-03292 to the
proceeding.

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 February 5, 2019, the Bauers filed a Complaint in the Superior
Court of Santa Clara County, which generally alleges that the
Debtors' talc, through the habitual use of J&J cosmetic talcum
powder products, caused them personal injury and/or wrongful
death.

The 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").

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").

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: Bautista Talc Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 24, 2019, the lawsuit styled HOMER BAUTISTA, an
Individual, as Successor in Interest for ARLENE BAUTISTA, deceased,
and as Administrator of the Estate of ARLENE BAUTISTA 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. 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-03296 to the
proceeding.

The matter was commenced on April 6, 2018, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of San Diego and was
assigned Case No. 37-2018-000171600-CU-PL-CTL.

According to the complaint, in October 2011, the Plaintiff's
Decedent was diagnosed with ovarian cancer and received medical
treatment for ovarian cancer.  The Plaintiff's Decedent developed
ovarian cancer, and suffered effects and sequelae therefrom, as a
direct and proximate result of the unreasonably dangerous and
defective nature of talcum powder, the main ingredient of the
Defendants' products, which include Shower to Shower body powder
and Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
          ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC.
          19 Corporate Plaza Drive
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 720-1288
          Facsimile: (949) 720-1292
          E-mail: mrobinson@robinsonfirm.com

               - and -

          Michelle Parfitt, Esq.
          Patrick Lyons, Esq.
          ASHCRAFT & GEREL, LLP
          4900 Seminary Road, Suite 650
          Alexandria, VA 22311
          Telephone: (703) 931-5500
          Facsimile: (703) 820-1656
          E-mail: mparfitt@ashcraftlaw.com
                  plyons@ashcraftlaw.com

Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.
are represented by:

          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: caroline.toole@tuckerellis.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bernal Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 24, 2019, the matter titled CATHY BERNAL, an
Individual, as Successor in Interest for ESTHER BERNAL, deceased 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. 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-03244 to the
proceeding.

The matter was filed on July 25, 2018, in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Santa Clara, and was assigned
Case No. 18CV332276.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's Decedent was injured
and suffered harm as a result of purchasing and using Johnson &
Johnson's products, including Shower to Shower body powder and Baby
Powder.  The Plaintiff's Decedent developed ovarian cancer, and
suffered effects and sequelae therefrom, as a direct and proximate
result of the alleged unreasonably dangerous and defective nature
of talcum powder, the main ingredient of the products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
          ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC.
          19 Corporate Plaza Drive
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 7204288
          Facsimile: (949) 720-1292
          E-mail: mrobinson@robinsonfirm.com

               - and -

          Michelle Parfitt, Esq.
          Patrick Lyons, Esq.
          ASHCRAFT & GEREL, LLP
          4900 Seminary Road, Suite 650
          Alexandria, VA 22311
          Telephone: (703) 931-5500
          Facsimile: (703) 820-1656
          E-mail: mparfitt@ashcraftlaw.com
                  plyons@ashcraftlaw.com

Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.
are represented by:

          Nicholas Vaughan Janizeh, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          515 South Flower Street 42nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430-3400
          Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
          E-mail: nicholas.janizeh@tuckerellis.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Bafalon Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 24, 2019, the lawsuit titled Margaret Bafalon, 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. 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-03239 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was commenced on March 12, 2018, in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Sonoma, was assigned
Case No. SCV 262126.

The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff developed ovarian cancer,
and suffered effects and sequelae therefrom, as a direct and
proximate result of the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature
of talcum powder, the main ingredient of the Defendants' products,
which include Johnson & Johnson's Shower to Shower body powder and
Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder.  The complaint accuses the
Defendants of wrongful and negligent conduct in the research,
development, testing, manufacture, production, promotion,
distribution, marketing, and sale of the products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
          ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC.
          19 Corporate Plaza Drive
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 720-1288
          Facsimile: (949) 720-1292
          E-mail: mrobinson@robinsonfirm.com

Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.
are represented by:

          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: caroline.toole@tuckerellis.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Balasow Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 24, 2019, the lawsuit styled EMMA V. BALASOW v.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON &
JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; and IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC.
F/K/A LUZENAC AMERICA, INC., 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-03266 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on April 27, 2018, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Santa Clara, and was
assigned Case No. 18CV327342.

The matter is a products liability action against the Defendants
because the Plaintiff has allegedly suffered from the severe
effects of Ovarian Cancer caused by Johnson & Johnson's baby powder
and Shower-to-Shower consumer products, which were manufactured,
mined, and/or marketed by the Defendants.  The Plaintiff contends
that the Defendants' products each contain talc powder, which
caused her to develop Ovarian Cancer after she used the products in
her perineal area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Curtis G. Hoke, Esq.
          THE MILLER FIRM, LLC
          108 Railroad Ave.
          Orange, VA 22960
          Telephone: (540) 672-4224
          Facsimile: (540) 672-3055
          E-mail: choke@millerfirmllc.com

Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.
are represented by:

          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: caroline.toole@tuckerellis.com


JUUL LABS: Reid Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------
VALENTIN REID, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. JUUL LABS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-04162 (S.D. N.Y., May 8, 2019) is a civil rights action
against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain,
and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"), asserts the complaint.

Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.

Defendant is an electronic cigarette manufacturer and retailer that
owns and operates the website www.juul.com, offering features which
should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and
which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the
United States, including New York State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dov Mittelman, Esq.
     STEIN SAKS, PLLC
     285 Passaic Street
     Hackensack, NJ 07601
     Phone: (201) 282-6500
     Fax: (201) 282-6501
     Email: Mittelmandov@yahoo.com


KIA MOTORS: Jens Files Suit Over Defective GDI Engine
-----------------------------------------------------
Corey Jens, and Sandra Kennedy, Plaintiffs, v. KIA MOTORS AMERICA,
INC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No.
19STCV15692 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 6, 2019) is an
action seeking to redress KMA's violations of California and
Illinois' consumer fraud statutes, and also seeks recovery for
Defendant's breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty,
breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and common law
fraud.

KMA was engaged in the design, development, manufacture,
distribution, marketing, selling, leasing, warranting, servicing,
and repair of automobiles.  Plaintiffs purchased a 2013 Kia Optima
vehicle identification number 5XXGR4A65DG152830, (hereafter
"Subject Vehicle"), which was manufactured and or distributed by
Defendant on or about December 19, 2012.

Plaintiffs received an express written warranty, including, a
5-year/60,000 mile express bumper to bumper warranty, a
10-year/100,000 mile powertrain warranty which, inter alia, covers
the engine and transmission.  The warranty provided, in relevant
part, that in the event a defect developed with the Subject Vehicle
during the warranty period, Plaintiffs could deliver the Vehicle
for repair services to Defendant's representative and the Subject
Vehicle would be repaired.

During the warranty period, the Subject Vehicle contained or
developed defects. Said defects substantially impair the use,
value, or safety of the Subject Vehicle. When the KIA Vehicles are
in operation, engine oil is used to lubricate the piston, cylinder
wall, connecting rod bearings and other rotating and moving
components as the piston moves up and down through the four-stroke
sequence. Engine oil is necessary to reduce wear on moving parts
throughout the engine, improve sealing, and cool the engine by
carrying away heat from the moving parts. Upon information and
belief, the connecting rod bearings in the 2.0 and 2.4L GDI Engines
undergo a prolonged failure as metal debris circulates throughout
the engine via the engine oil. Over time, and as a result of these
contaminates in the oiling system, the connecting rod bearings
begin to fracture.

Plaintiffs allege that prior to acquiring the Vehicle, Defendant
was well aware and knew that the 2.0L GDI engine installed on the
Vehicle was defective but failed to disclose this fact to
Plaintiffs at the time of sale and thereafter. The Defendant knew
or should have known about the Engine Defect even before marketing
vehicles equipped with 2.0 or 2.4L GDI engines. Because of their
longstanding involvement in the design and manufacture of internal
combustion engines, Defendant was aware of feasible means and
technology to design and manufacture 2.0 or 2.4L GDI engines
without the substantial propensity to suffer a lubrication failure.
The Defendant was under a continuous duty to disclose to Plaintiffs
the true character, quality, and nature of the Kia Vehicles
suffering from the Engine Defect, and the inevitable repairs,
costs, time, and monetary damage resulting from the Engine Defect,
says the complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Tionna Dolin, Esq.
     Strategic Legal Practices
     A Professional Corporation
     1840 Century Park East, Suite 430
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 929-4900
     Facsimile: (310) 943-3838
     Email: tdolin@slpattorney.com


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Stonehocker Sues Over Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Stonehocker, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Kindred Healthcare Operating, LLC, and Does
1-10, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-02494-DMR (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., May 8, 2019)  is an action on behalf of Plaintiff
and others similarly situated Class Members or Skilled Clinicians
("SCs") who worked at Kindred's Skilled Nursing Facilities
("SNFs"), arising from Kindred's strict and impracticable minimum
Patient Care Ratio ("minimum PCR") productivity standard and
attendant systemic failure to pay Class Members for overtime hours
worked and to pay wages when due.

SCs who worked at Kindred's SNFs were typically required to see
seven to twelve patients during their eight-hour shifts. With
respect to each "regular" patient visit, SCs provided skilled
direct patient care, and also performed a minimum of approximately
10-20 minutes per patient of unskilled ancillary work. SCs
frequently spent substantially more than 25% of their shift on
unskilled work when they saw patients for initial evaluations,
reassessments, and discharge.

SCs did not typically report all overtime hours worked to managers,
because Kindred sought to limit or eliminate overtime hours worked
and managers reprimanded SCs for working overtime hours. On the
infrequent occasions on which Class Members did not report overtime
hours worked, Kindred management would oftentimes simply change
Class Member's time records so that the records showed fewer
overtime hours worked than were actually worked, or no overtime
hours worked at all, says the complaint.

Plaintiff worked for Kindred as an occupational therapist from
October 31, 2006 until October 10, 2016.

Kindred is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal
place of business in Louisville, Kentucky.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew D. Carlson, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF MATTHER D. CARLSON
     50 Fountain Plaza, Suite 1400, #206
     Buffalo, NY 14202
     Phone: (716) 242-1234
     Email: mdcarlson@mdcarlsonlaw.com


LEHIGH VALLEY: Payne Moves to Certify Female Workers Class
----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled KIMBERLY D. PAYNE, individually
and on behalf of a collective of others similarly-situated v.
LEHIGH VALLEY RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., Case No. 5:19-cv-00028-JLS
(E.D. Pa.), seeks to conditionally certify a class under the Fair
Labor Standards Act:

     All female employees who are or have been employed by
     Defendant Lehigh Valley Restaurant Group, Inc. as salaried
     Front of House Managers from January 4, 2016 until the
     present.

In addition, Ms. Payne asks that the Court cause notice to issue to
all members of the collective.  To effectuate notice to the
collective, she asks that the Court order LVRG to provide her
counsel a computer readable file (e.g., an Excel spreadsheet) with
the name, mailing address, dates of employment, restaurant(s)
location, Social Security Number, and employee ID number for each
such worker, and to conspicuously post the notice in restaurant
break rooms.

Ms. Payne also asks that the Court order that the requested
information be provided by LVRG to her counsel within 14 days after
the Court's Order granting conditional collective action
certification.  She moves for a period of 90 days during which
putative collective members may post-mark their consent forms, with
the 90 days to commence when the notice is mailed to the putative
collective members.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry A. Weisberg, Esq.
          Derrek W. Cummings, Esq.
          WEISBERG CUMMINGS, P.C.
          2704 Commerce Drive, Suite B
          Harrisburg, PA 17110
          Telephone: (717) 238-5707
          Facsimile: (717) 233-8133
          E-mail: lweisberg@weisbergcummings.com
                  dcummings@weisbergcummings.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jennifer L. Craighead, Esq.
          Joshua L. Schwartz, Esq.
          Jill S. Welch, Esq.
          BARLEY SNYDER
          126 E. King Street
          Lancaster, PA 17602
          Telephone: (717) 399-1523
          E-mail: jcraighead@barley.com
                  jschwartz@barley.com
                  jwelch@barley.com


LITHIA MOTORS: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Mendoza TILA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Joseph Mendoza, et al., filed an appeal from a Court
ruling in their lawsuit titled Joseph Mendoza, et al. v. Lithia
Motors, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:16-cv-01264-AA, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Oregon, Eugene.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
bring the putative class action suit against the Defendants,
asserting various claims, including common law fraud, violations of
the federal Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"), Oregon's Unlawful Trade
Practices Act ("UTPA"), and Oregon's financial elder abuse statute.
The named Plaintiffs are residents of Oregon or California, who
purchased vehicles and other goods or services from one or more of
the Defendants, all of which are headquartered in Oregon.

The appellate case is captioned as Joseph Mendoza, et al. v. Lithia
Motors, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-35341, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by May 24, 2019;

   -- Transcript is due on June 24, 2019;

   -- Appellants Dawn Caveye, Dana Dalton, Gina Dalton, Carol
      Jocks and Joseph Mendoza's opening brief is due on
      August 2, 2019;

   -- Appellees Lithia Financial Corporation, Lithia Klamath,
      Inc., Lithia Medford Hon, Inc., Lithia Motors, Inc. and
      Salem-V, LLC'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-Appellants JOSEPH MENDOZA, CAROL JOCKS, DAWN CAVEYE,
GINA DALTON and DANA DALTON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Bonner C. Walsh, Esq.
          WALSH PLLC
          1561 Long Haul Road
          Grangeville, ID 83530
          Telephone: (903) 574-1807
          E-mail: bonner@walshpllc.com

Defendants-Appellees LITHIA MOTORS, INC., LITHIA FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, SALEM-V, LLC, DBA Volkswagen of Salem, LITHIA KLAMATH,
INC., DBA Lithia Klamath Falls Auto Center and LITHIA MEDFORD HON,
INC., are represented by:

          Jeremy David Sacks, Esq.
          STOEL RIVES LLP
          760 SW Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000
          Portland, OR 97205
          Telephone: (503) 224-3380
          E-mail: Jeremy.sacks@stoel.com


LIVE WELL FINANCIAL: Williams Sues Over WARN Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
MONICA WILLIAMS on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff. v. LIVE WELL FINANCIAL, INC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00868-UNA (N.D. Ala., May 8, 2019) is an action on
behalf of Plaintiff, and other similarly situated former employees
who worked for Defendant and who were terminated without cause, as
part of, or as the result of, mass layoffs or plant closings
ordered by Defendant on or about May 3, 2019 and within 30 days of
that date who were not provided 60 days advance written notice of
their terminations.

The complaint asserts that Plaintiff was terminated without cause.
Plaintiff was not provided 60 days advance written notice of her
termination by Defendant, as required by the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act ("WARN Act"), the California Labor Code
("Lab.Code"), ("CAL-WARN Act"), says the complaint.

Plaintiff Monica Williams was employed by Defendant, as a Loan
Account Manager and worked at the Defendant's facility until her
termination on or about May 3, 2019.

Defendant is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business located at the Headquarters Facility and conducted
business in this district.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher D. Loizides, Esq.
     LOIZIDES, P.A.
     1225 King Street, Suite 800
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Phone: (302) 654-0248
     Facsimile: (302) 654-0728
     Email: loizides@loizides.com

          - and -

     Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
     René S. Roupinian, Esq.
     OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
     685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 245-1000
     Email: rsr@outtengolden.com
            jar@outtengolden.com



M LEONARD: Inman Asserts Breach of FDCPA in California
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against M Leonard &
Associates. The case is styled as Merlin Inman, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. M Leonard &
Associates and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
8:19-cv-00822 (C.D. Cal., May 2, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

M Leonard & Associates is a debt collection agency located in Van
Nuys, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Amir J Goldstein, Esq.
   Amir J Goldstein Law Offices
   8032 West Third Street Suite 201
   Los Angeles, CA 90048
   Tel: (323) 937-0400
   Fax: (866) 288-9194
   Email: ajg@consumercounselgroup.com



MASTERCARD INC: GBP14BB Interchange Fees Class Action Revived
-------------------------------------------------------------
Finextra reports that a GBP14 billion class action lawsuit against
Mastercard over interchange fees is back on after the Court of
Appeal granted permission to challenge an earlier decision to
dismiss the case.

The claim, brought under the Consumer Rights Act of 2015 which
paved the way for class action lawsuits, is being led by former
financial ombudsman Walter Merricks, who alleges that the card
scheme imposed "illegal" interchange fees that were ultimately
borne by UK consumers.

In July 2017, the Competition Appeals Tribunal (CAT) blocked the
suit -- which is on behalf of 46 million Brits -- concluding that
the claims were not suitable under the current collective actions
regime.

However, the Court of Appeal has now set aside the CAT ruling and
decided that the claimants can have their case for certification of
the class action reheard.

Merricks tells the Law Society Gazette: "It's now time for
Mastercard to admit the damage they did, to apologise to the
British public, and to agree to pay the compensation they owe."

Meanwhile, Mastercard tells the Financial Times: "Mastercard
continues to disagree fundamentally with the basis of the claim and
we believe UK consumers receive real value from the security,
convenience and consumer protection of our payment services." [GN]


MASTERCARD INC: Skadden Arps Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bill Batchelor, Esq. -- bill.batchelor@skadden.com -- Boris
Bershteyn, Esq. -- boris.bershteyn@skadden.com -- Bruce Macaulay,
Esq. -- bruce.macaulay@skadden.com --
Ingrid Vandenborre, Esq. -- ingrid.vandenborre@skadden.com -- and
Jonathon J. Egerton-Peters, Esq., of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher
& Flom LLP, on May 8 disclosed that the English Courts have
reignited the prospects of a GBP14 billion class action against
Mastercard.

In a much anticipated ruling, on April 16, 2019, the Court of
Appeal of England and Wales (the Court) granted an appeal by Walter
Merricks, the representative for over 46 million U.K. consumers,
against Mastercard in relation to alleged overcharging of interbank
fees between 1992 and 2008.  The Court favoured a broad approach to
class certification, lowering the standard of scrutiny favoured by
the lower court, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT).  The Court
found that class claimants need only show a real prospect of
success to secure class certification. Detail as to how the class
would substantiate its proposed economic model (in this case, a
relatively complex theory as to what credit card surcharges would
be passed on by merchants to consumers) or scheme of award
distribution, if successful, was not required.

Subject to a possible appeal to the U.K. Supreme Court, the case
will now return to the CAT, which will decide whether the class
action should proceed through the "certification stage" to a full
trial and, if so, whether Mastercard is liable to pay any damages.

The Mastercard case places U.K. class actions back under the
spotlight, refuelling the debate as to whether such actions may
gain prominence after a slower than anticipated start and, in turn,
raising questions as to how English law and practice will develop
in this area.

Background
In December 2007, the European Commission (EC) found that by
setting default interbank fees whenever consumers paid for goods or
services using their Mastercard in the European Economic Area (the
"Multilateral Interchange Fees", or MIFs), Mastercard restricted
price competition between the banks and violated EU competition
law. Mastercard's appeals against the EC Decision to the European
courts were unsuccessful.

EC Decisions are treated across the EU Member States as prima facie
evidence of anti-competitive conduct in "follow-on" private actions
for damages.  As a result, Merricks relied on the 2007 EC Decision
when commencing the U.K. class action in September 2016. On behalf
of approximately 46.2 million U.K. consumers, Merricks sought
damages for the allegedly inflated prices paid by those consumers
because the unlawful MIFs were either mostly or entirely passed on
to them.  Damages for the overcharge and interest were estimated at
over GBP14 billion -- reportedly the largest civil damages claim
ever brought in the U.K.

Merricks' claim was brought on an "opt-out" basis.  Opt-out class
actions in relation to competition/antitrust infringements --
collective actions on behalf of everyone matching a certain
description unless they expressly opt out of the proceedings --
were only introduced in the U.K. in October 2015.  They contrast
with "opt-in" class actions -- consisting only of members matching
the description who expressly elect to join the action -- which had
already existed for several years.

Both opt-out and opt-in claims must be (i) brought by an
appropriate authorised representative and (ii) "certified" by the
CAT as eligible for inclusion in collective proceedings.
Certification requires, amongst other things, that the claims are
brought on behalf of an identifiable class of persons, raise common
issues and are "suitable" to be brought in collective proceedings.
If the CAT is satisfied that the conditions are met, it may make a
"collective proceedings order" (CPO), thus allowing the claim to
proceed to a full trial.

For two principal reasons, in July 2017 the CAT refused to grant
Merricks a CPO.  First, the CAT was unconvinced that expert
evidence could adequately demonstrate the "pass-on" of MIFs from
merchants to consumers, so as to justify the aggregate damages
claimed.  Merricks had attempted to rely on a "top-down" approach
to calculate the total overcharge to consumers, and therefore the
total damages appropriate, but the CAT was not persuaded that
sufficient information to support this approach existed.  Second,
Merricks' proposed method of distributing damages -- calculating
the aggregate amount attributable to each year from 1992 through
2008 and distributing that on a per capita basis to each individual
falling within the class in the given year -- would not have
correlated to each individual's loss, thus contradicting the
compensatory principle of damages for torts under English law.

Court of Appeal Decision
Pass-On

The Court said that a proposed class representative need only
demonstrate that a claim has a "real prospect of success" at the
certification stage.  In support, the Court cited several Canadian
authorities (Pro-Sys v. Microsoft, in particular), noting that the
similarities with the English class action regimes were "obvious".
The Court endorsed top-down calculations of aggregate damages even
though they did not require proof of individual losses -- to insist
on such proof would "run counter to the provisions" of the U.K.
regime.

Applying this standard, Merricks only needed to convince the CAT
that both (i) the expert methodology concerning pass-on of MIFs to
consumers was "capable" of assessing the level of pass-on and (ii)
the data to operate that methodology would, or would likely, exist
at trial. Merricks did not need to produce or identify all of the
relevant evidence.  Instead, an analysis of pass-on to consumers on
an individual basis is "unnecessary when what is claimed is an
aggregate award", and pass-on to consumers "generally satisfies the
test of commonality of issue necessary for certification".  Nor did
the certification stage require a "mini trial", which was, in the
Court's opinion, "more or less what occurred" before the CAT. In
sum, the Court said the CAT had misdirected itself as to the
applicable test for certification and "demanded too much" of
Merricks for that stage of the case.

Distribution of Damages

The Court noted the absence in the relevant legislation of any
requirement that aggregate damages should be distributed according
to what an individual claimant has lost.  Although such a
compensatory system "will probably be the most obvious and
suitable" distribution method in cases where each individual's loss
is readily calculable, it is not mandatory.  If such a prerequisite
did exist, then the power to make an aggregate award would be
"largely negated" in class actions of this kind.

As the CAT "clearly did" consider that an aggregate award had to be
distributed to claimants so as to restore individual loss suffered
by them, the Court concluded that its approach was both "premature
and wrong".

Comment
The Court's judgment appears to significantly lower the initial
threshold for class actions to proceed in the U.K. Class
representatives need only establish a "real prospect of success"
-- a relatively low bar to overcome, particularly given the
significant time and costs incurred in class actions.

Although the Court's judgment endorsed the Canadian view that
certification is a continuing process, in practice this may provide
cold comfort to parties.  The suggestion by the Court that
terminating a class action "once the pleadings, disclosure and
expert evidence are complete and the Court is dealing with reality
rather than conjecture" does not fully reflect the fact that
completing the pleadings, disclosure and expert evidence stages in
litigation is a costly and time-consuming exercise.  Class
representatives and their funders should take note of the
potentially significant liability to pay adverse costs if the CPO
is revoked after completing such expensive steps in the process.

Only time will tell whether the Court's judgment results in an
increase in the number of class actions commenced in the U.K.;
however, developments should be monitored closely.  Thus far, no
opt-out claim has proceeded beyond the certification stage.
However, with a low bar to entry, and in a climate where the
subject matter for anticompetitive behaviour continues to be
widened by the U.K. anti-trust regulator, the Competition and
Markets Authority, there may follow a noticeable uptick in U.K.
class action litigation.

Of further note is the Court's departure from the compensatory
principle of damages for torts under English law, by allowing a
distribution of damages that does not correspond to a particular
individual's loss.  The acceptance of this principle is a
significant development in English law and creates novel ground for
the English courts and practitioners alike.

Finally, the case confirms the increasingly welcoming approach of
the English courts and U.K. Parliament towards third-party funding.
The Court specifically noted, for example, that the revised U.K.
class action regime was "obviously intended to facilitate a means
of redress which could attract and be facilitated by litigation
funding".  The U.K. litigation funding market has grown
significantly in recent years, with current estimates indicating
that the capital available for funding now stands at over GBP1.3
billion.  Third-party funding is a particularly valuable avenue for
U.K. consumers, given that opt-out class actions cannot be funded
by arrangements whereby lawyers receive a portion of any damages
received. In the U.S., by contrast, a material part of class
settlements can be awarded as fees to counsel for the class.

On a number of fronts, the Court's judgment provides, at least
temporarily, some much-needed clarification. Given the infancy of
the U.K. class action regime, such clarity should be welcomed
whilst also expecting further twists and turns.  Mastercard has
already indicated that it intends to appeal the Court's decision,
and separate opt-out CPO applications due to be heard by the CAT
later this year are likely to supplement the issues decided by the
Court.  In the first opt-out case to go before the CAT, it
commented about the process that "everyone is learning on the way".
For the moment at least, this still seems apposite.


MENDOTA INSURANCE: Harrell Files Class Suit Over Insurance Dispute
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mendota Insurance
Company. The case is styled as Angelique Harrell individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mendota
Insurance Company a Tennessee Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-00548-MMH-PDB (M.D. Fla., May 9, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Breach of Contract.

Mendota Insurance Company provides personal insurance protection,
automobile insurance, and flood insurance products for customers
and agents.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
     Jacob Lawrence Phillips, Esq.
     Normand PLLC
     3165 McCrory Place, Suite 175
     Orlando, Fl 32803
     Phone: (407) 603-6031
     Email: ed@ednormand.com
            jacob.phillips@normandpllc.com

          - and -

     Jordan David Utanski, Esq.
     Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq.
     Edelsberg Law, PA
     2875 NE 191st Street, Suite 703
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Email: utanski@edelsberglaw.com
            scott@edelsberglaw.com

          - and -

     Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
     Shamis & Gentile, PA
     14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 1205
     Miami, FL 33132
     Phone: (305) 479-2299
     Fax: (786) 623-0915
     Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Gonzales Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Richard Gonzales
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-02736 (E.D. N.Y., May 9, 2019).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     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


NATIONAL ENTERTAINMENT: Bid to Certify Club Dancers Class Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled STEPHANIE DE ANGELIS,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
NATIONAL ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, LLC, d/b/a VANITY, Case No.
2:17-cv-00924-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), asks the Court to:

   (1) conditionally certify this case as a collective action
       under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) with respect to a
       collective class of:

       All of Defendant's current and former dancers who have
       worked at Defendant's club during the three years before
       this Complaint was filed up to the present;

   (2) order expedited discovery of the names, all known
       addresses, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, and dates of
       employment of Collective Action Members employed during
       the specified time period; and

   (3) order issuance of notice to prospective Collective Action
       Members via ordinary mail and e-mail.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Esq.
          Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
          Courtney M. Werning, Esq.
          MEYER WILSON CO., LPA
          1320 Dublin Road, Suite 100
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 224-6000
          Facsimile: (614) 224-6066
          E-mail: mboyle@meyerwilson.com
                  mwilson@meyerwilson.com
                  cwerning@meyerwilson.com

               - and -

          Steven C. Babin, Jr., Esq.
          BABIN LAW, LLC
          1320 Dublin Road, Suite 100
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 224-6000
          Facsimile: (614) 224-6066
          E-mail: steven.babin@babinlaws.com

               - and -

          Lance Chapin, Esq.
          CHAPIN LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          580 South High Street, Suite 330
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 221-9100
          Facsimile: (614) 221-9272
          E-mail: lance.chapin@chapinlegal.com


NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Court Tosses Class Cert. Bid in Daniel Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Susan C. Bucklew denies the Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for
Class Certification in the lawsuit entitled EDWING D. DANIEL,
WILLIAM COTTRILL, BROOKE PADGETT, and ELAINE LAREINA LAI v. NAVIENT
SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 8:17-cv-02503-SCB-JSS (M.D. Fla.).

Judge Bucklew opines that the Plaintiffs fail to meet their burden
of proof for class certification.

Among other things, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs fail the
test for class ascertainability and fail to meet their burden in
demonstrating predominance under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.

The Plaintiffs has moved to certify a nationwide class consisting
of:

     All individuals in the United States who: (1) have federal
     student loans that are or were serviced by [NSL]; (2) are,
     or after October 1, 2007, were employed full-time in public
     service by a qualifying organization for purposes of the
     PSLF program; (3) were told by [NSL] their loans were
     eligible for the PSLF program; and (4) on or after October
     25, 2013, learned they were ineligible for the PSLF program
     because their federal student loans are not Direct Loans
     and/or they were not on a payment plan that is eligible for
     the PSLF program.

The Plaintiffs also sought certification of these subclasses:

   * Florida Subclass:

     All individuals who: (1) are residents of Florida; (2) have
     federal student loans that were serviced by [NSL]; (3) are,
     or after October 1, 2007, were, employed full-time in public
     service by a qualifying organization for purposes of the
     PSLF program; (4) were told by [NSL] their loans were
     eligible for the PSLF program; and (5) on or after October
     25, 2015, learned they were ineligible for the PSLF program
     because their federal student loans are not Direct Loans
     and/or they were not on a payment plan that is eligible for
     the PSLF program; and

   * Colorado Subclass:

     All individuals who: (1) are residents of Colorado; (2) have
     federal student loans that were serviced by [NSL]; (3) are,
     or after October 1, 2007, were, employed full-time in public
     service by a qualifying organization for purposes of the
     PSLF program; (4) were told by [NSL] their loans were
     eligible for the PSLF program; and (5) on or after January
     30, 2015, learned they were ineligible for the PSLF program
     because their federal student loans are not Direct Loans
     and/or they were not on a payment plan that is eligible for
     the PSLF program.[CC]


NCAA: Proebstle Seeks Damages for Student-Athlete's Injuries
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Proebstle, as Personal Representative of the Estate of
Richard Proebstle, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association (NCAA), Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01791 (S.D. Ind.,
May 2, 2019), seeks economic, monetary, actual, consequential,
compensatory, and punitive damages, past, present and future
medical expenses, other out of pocket expenses, lost time and
interest, lost future earnings, litigation and attorney fees,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, injunctive and/or
declaratory relief and such other and further relief resulting from
negligence, fraudulent concealment, breach of express contract,
breach of implied contract, breach of third-party express contract
and unjust enrichment.

Richard Proebstle played football at Michigan State University from
1960 to 1964. He endured numerous concussions, as well as countless
sub-concussive hits as part of routine practice and gameplay.
Proebstle suffered from memory loss, depression, anxiety, loss of
concentration, loss of impulse control, loss of executive
functioning, impaired judgment, emotional instability,
irritability, speech and language difficulties, sleeping
difficulties, motor impairment, dementia, Parkinson's disease,
Alzheimer's disease and CTE prior to his untimely death.

NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal office
located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206.
The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who
participate in intercollegiate athletics. Proebstle alleges NCAA
knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions,
concussion-related injuries and sub-concussive injuries that
resulted from playing college football, but did nothing.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Tel: 312.589.6370
     Fax: 312.589.6378
     Email: jedelson@edelson.com
            brichman@edelson.com

            - and -

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     329 Bryant Street
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Tel: 415.212.9300
     Fax: 415.373.9435
     Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com

            - and -

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


NEPTUNO RESTAURANTS: Denied Toribio Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Guillermo Toribio, on behalf of himself, and other similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff, v. Neptuno Restaurants, LLC, Michael
Jannetta and David Segovia, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-04032, (S.D.
N.Y., May 6, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, unpaid "spread of hours" pay and attorneys'
fees and costs, pursuant to the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act
and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate as "Sala One Nine," a restaurant located at 35
West 191th Street, New York, New York 10011 where Toribio worked as
a dishwasher, general helper, kitchen preparation assistant, bread
baker, cleaner and cook. He generally works a total of fifty-two
hours per week without the appropriate overtime premium, asserts
the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Cilenti, Esq.
      Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel. (212) 209-3933
      Fax. (212) 209-7102
      Email: pcooper@jcpclaw.com


NEW YORK HEALTH: Doncouse Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New York Health &
Racquet Club Foundation, Inc. The case is styled as GRACIELA
DONCOUSE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. New York Health & Racquet Club Foundation, Inc., New
York Health Club, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04227 (S.D.
N.Y., May 9, 2019).

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

New York Health & Racquet Club offers limitless group fitness
classes, expert personal training, and luxurious amenities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq,
     The Marks Law Firm PC
     175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
     New York, NY 10014
     Phone: (646) 770-3775
     Fax: (646) 867-2639
     Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com



NORTHWEST PALLET: Grandberry Files Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NORTHWEST PALLET
SERVICES, LLC. The case is styled as JERMAINE GRANDBERRY, NOAH
CLINES, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF OTHER MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL
PUBLIC SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. NORTHWEST PALLET SERVICES,
LLC, AN UNKNOWN BUSINESS ENTITY, Defendant, Case No. BCV-19-101284
(Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., May 9, 2019).

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

Northwest Pallet Supply Co. manufactures pallets and crates.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by EDWIN AIWAZIAN, ESQ.



POKEMON COMPANY: Website not Blind-friendly, Claims Dennis
----------------------------------------------------------
Derrick U. Dennis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Pokemon Company International, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-04055 (S.D. N.Y., May 6, 2019), seeks
preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and
punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable
attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further relief under
the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights
Law and New York City Human Rights Law.

Defendant operates a commercial website, www.pokemoncenter.com,
which sells Pokemon related merchandise. Plaintiff is legally blind
and claims that Defendant's website cannot be accessed by the
visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
     SHALOM LAW, PLLC.
     124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
     Kew Gardens, NY 11415
     Tel: (718) 971-9474
     Fax: (718) 865-0943
     Email: Jshalom@JonathanShalomLaw.com



RADIUS GLOBAL: Faces Shapiro Suit over Unsolicited Phone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Radius Global
Solutions LLC for an alleged violation the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA). The case is captioned RACHEL SHAPIRO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. RADIUS GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LLC, Defendant, Case No.
0:19-cv-61022 (S.D. Fla., April 23, 2019). Plaintiff Rachel Shapiro
alleges that Radius Global Solutions LLC has initiated numerous
unsolicited telephone calls to her cellular device and the cellular
devices of numerous other individuals across the country. Plaintiff
Shapiro also alleges that Radius Global used automated telephone
dialing system and artificial or prerecorded voice in their calls.

Radius Global Solutions LLC describes itself as a leading provider
of account recovery and debt collection, customer relationship
management and health care revenue cycle management solutions. The
company is headquartered in Ambler, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
     HEDIN HALL LLP
     1395 Brickell Ave, Suite 900
     Miami, FL 33131
     Telephone: (305) 357-2107
     Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
     E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com


RAPID PARTS: Denied OT Pay, Wage Notices, Paystubs, Lopez Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ivan Lopez, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Rapid Parts Plus Auto, Inc. and Ponciano
Ferreras, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-03950 (S.D. N.Y., May 2,
2019), seeks compensation for wages paid at less than the statutory
minimum wage, unpaid wages from Defendants for overtime work for
which they did not receive overtime premium pay as required by law,
and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
New York Labor Law, "spread of hours" requirements of New York
Labor Law and statutory damages for violation of the Wage Theft
Prevention Act.

Defendants owned and operated an auto parts supplier in the Bronx
where Lopez was employed as a delivery person. He regularly worked
seven days per week typically working roughly twelve-hour days, all
without overtime pay, notes the complaint. Defendants did not
provide a time clock, computer punch, timesheets, or any other
method for him to track his time worked. Lopez's effective rate of
pay was below the statutory federal minimum wage throughout his
employment. Defendants also failed to provide him with written wage
notices providing contact information, regular and overtime rates
and intended allowances claimed, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SAN JOSE RESTAURANT: Pontones Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled LAURA PONTONES, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. SAN JOSE RESTAURANT,
INCORPORATED; SAN JOSE MANAGEMENT, INC., d/b/a SAN JOSE MEXICAN
RESTAURANT AND SPORTS CANTINA; SAN JOSE MEXICAN RESTAURANT #2 OF
LUMBERTON, INC.; SAN JOSE MEXICAN RESTAURANT OF ELIZABETHTOWN,
INC.; SAN JOSE MEXICAN RESTAURANT OF N.C. INC.; SAN JOSE MEXICAN
RESTAURANT OF PEMBROKE, NC, INC.; SANJOSE MEXICAN RESTAURANT OF
RALEIGH INC.; SAN JOSE MEXICAN RESTAURANT OF SHALLOTTE, INC.; SAN
JOSE OF ROCKY MOUNT #2 INC., d/b/a SAN JOSE TACOS AND TEQUILA; SAN
JOSE OF ZEBULON, INC.; SAN JOSE OF ROANOKE RAPIDS, INC.; SAN JOSE
WAKEFIELD, INC., d/b/a SAN JOSE MEX AND TEQUILA BAR; PLAZA AZTECA
RALEIGH, INC., d/b/a SAN JOSE TACOS AND TEQUILA; HECTOR FLORES;
ALBERTO FLORES; JOSUE FLORES; JOSE PEREZ; VICENTE PEREZ; PABLO
MEZA; EDGARDO FLORES; and EDGAR FLORES, Case No. 5:18-cv-00219-D
(E.D.N.C.), moves for:

   (1) conditional certification of this action as a
       representative collective action under the Fair Labor
       Standards Act and certification of this action as a class
       action under Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules
       of Civil Procedure and pursuant to the North Carolina Wage
       and Hour Act;

   (2) approval of the proposed FLSA/R.23 NCHWA notice of this
       action and the consent form in both English and Spanish;

   (3) a production of names, last known mailing addresses,
       alternate addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses,
       and dates of employment of all putative class members;

   (4) ability to email and/or text message the proposed Notice,
       along with utilizing regular U.S. Mail and posting the
       Notice at all locations in English and Spanish; and

   (5) appointing named Plaintiff Laura Pontones as class
       representative, and the Law Offices of Gilda A. Hernandez,
       PLLC as class counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC
          1020 Southhill Dr., Suite 130
          Cary, NC 27513
          Telephone: (919) 741-8693
          Facsimile: (919) 869-1853
          E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Henry W. Jones, Jr., Esq.
          Lori Peoples Jones, Esq.
          JORDAN PRICE WALL GRAY JONES & CARLTON, PLLC
          P. O. Box 10669
          1951 Clark Ave.
          Raleigh, NC 27604
          Telephone: (919) 828-2501
          Facsimile: (919) 834-8447
          E-mail: hjones@jordanprice.com
                  ljones@jordanprice.com

               - and -

          James Larry Stine, Esq.
          WIMBERLY, LAWSON, STECKEL, SCHNEIDER & STINE, P.C.
          3400 Peachtree Rd., NE, Suite 400
          Lenox Towers
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Telephone: (404) 365-0900
          Facsimile: (404) 261-3707
          E-mail: jls@wimlaw.com


SOLIDCORE HOLDINGS: Andrews Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Solidcore Holdings, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Victor Andrews, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Solidcore
Holdings, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03659 (S.D. N.Y., April
24, 2019).

Solidcore Holdings, LLC owns and operates boutique fitness
studios.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group P.C.
   44 Court Street, Suite 1217
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Fax: (718) 504-7555
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


SYNTER RESOURCE: Englander Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Synter Resource
Group, LLC. The case is styled as Shia Englander individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Synter
Resource Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02732 (E.D. N.Y.,
May 9, 2019).

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

Synter Resource Group, LLC provides accounts receivable management,
first party collections, early intervention, third party
collections, transaction processing, and attorney network
services.[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


TRINET GROUP: No Appeal in Welgus Class Suit
--------------------------------------------
TriNet Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that no appeal has been made
on the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
which affirmed the district court's dismissal of the amended
complaint in Welgus v. TriNet Group, Inc., et al.

In August 2015, Howard Welgus, a purported stockholder, filed a
putative securities class action lawsuit, Welgus v. TriNet Group,
Inc., et al., under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

The complaint was later amended in April 2016 and again in March
2017. On December 18, 2017, the district court granted TriNet's
motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety, without
leave to amend. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the district
court's order on January 17, 2018. Plaintiff-Appellant filed his
opening appeal brief before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on
April 27, 2018. TriNet filed a responsive brief on June 28, 2018.

Plaintiff-Appellant filed his reply brief on August 20, 2018. Oral
arguments were held before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on
March 14, 2019. On March 26, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of the amended
complaint in its entirety.

Plaintiff-Appellant may appeal the decision by the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals but to date has not done so.

TriNet  said, "We are unable to reasonably estimate the possible
loss or expense, or range of losses and expenses, if any, arising
from this litigation."

TriNet Group, Inc. provides human resources solutions for small and
midsize businesses in the United States and Canada. TriNet Group,
Inc. was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in Dublin,
California.


TWITTER INC: May 23 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

IN RE TWITTER, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION

CASE NO. 3:16-cv-05314-JST

CLASS ACTION

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY
OF CLASS ACTION

To all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
shares of the publicly traded common stock of Twitter, Inc.
("Twitter" or the "Company") during the period from February 6,
2015 through July 28, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period").

You could be affected by a class action lawsuit against Twitter and
Individual Defendants Richard Costolo and Anthony Noto
(collectively "Defendants").  The Court which authorized this
notice is allowing the case to proceed as a class action on behalf
of a "Class" and appointed attorneys as "Co-Class Counsel."  The
Court has not decided that Defendants did anything wrong.
Defendants have not been ordered to pay any money.  No settlement
has been reached.  There is no money available now and no guarantee
that there will be.

The lawsuit alleges that Defendants knowingly concealed and made
false statements about Twitter's key operating metrics during the
Class Period, in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Defendants deny any wrongdoing in this lawsuit and believe that the
claims are without merit.

You are a potential "Class Member" only if you purchased or
otherwise acquired shares of the publicly traded common stock of
Twitter during the period from February 6, 2015 and July 28, 2015,
inclusive.  Excluded from the Class are Twitter and the Individual
Defendants; members of the immediate families of the Individual
Defendants; Twitter's subsidiaries and affiliates; any person who
is or was an officer or director of Twitter during the Class
Period; any entity in which any Defendant has a controlling
interest; and the legal representatives, heirs, successors and
assigns of any such excluded person or entity.  Also excluded from
the Class is any person or entity that timely and validly requests
exclusion from the Class.  In addition, Defendants have reserved
their rights to move to de-certify the Class, in whole or in part,
or to seek the exclusion from the Class of certain entities or
individuals at a later date.

If you want to stay in the Class, you do not have to do anything
now.  If you do nothing, you will stay in the Class and be bound by
the Court's orders and will lose any right you may have to sue
Defendants regarding the factual circumstances and claims in this
case.  If you do not want to be a Class Member or to be bound by
what the Court does and want to keep any rights you may have to sue
Defendants over the factual circumstances and claims asserted in
this case, you need to exclude yourself.  To be excluded, you must
send a letter to In re Twitter, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Administrator, P.O. Box 6389, Portland, OR 97228-6389 and must
include certain information, as set forth in the long-form notice
available at the website listed below.  If you choose to exclude
yourself, you cannot get money or benefits recovered if any are
awarded at a later date.  The deadline to exclude yourself is May
23, 2019.

This notice is only a summary.  For more information visit
www.TwitterSecuritiesLitigation.com or call 1 (888) 510-9590.

URL: www.TwitterSecuritiesLitigation.com

SOURCE United States District Court, Northern District of
California [GN]


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Olukayode Seeks OT Pay for Consultants
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against UnitedHealth Group,
Optum, Inc. and The Advisory Board Company for violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Maine, New York, and Maryland
state law. The case is captioned OLURO OLUKAYODE, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, OPTUM, INC. and THE ADVISORY BOARD COMPANY,
Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-01101 (D. Minn., April 23, 2019).
Plaintiff Oluro Olukayode alleges that he and other similarly
situated consultants were improperly classified as independent
contractors, and, as a result, did not receive overtime pay for
hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.

UnitedHealth Group is a company providing various healthcare and
well-being services. The company is headquartered in Minnetonka,
Minnesota. A subdivision of UnitedHealth, Optum provides healthcare
information services to hospitals and other healthcare facilities,
helping these facilities implement new electronic recordkeeping
systems. The Advisory Board Company also provides healthcare
information services to healthcare and other client facilities
across the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Adam Hansen, Esq.
     APOLLO LAW LLC
     3217 Hennepin Avenue South, Suite 7   
     Minneapolis, MN 55408
     Telephone: (612) 927-2969
     Facsimile: (419) 793-1804
     E-mail: adam@apollo-law.com

             - and -

     Harold Lichten, Esq.
     Olena Savytska, Esq.
     LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
     729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
     Boston, MA 02116
     Telephone: (617) 994-5800
     Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
     E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
             osavytska@llrlaw.com

             - and -

     David M. Blanchard, Esq.
     BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC
     221 N. Main Street, Suite 300
     Ann Arbor, MI 48104
     Telephone: (734) 929-4313
     E-mail: blanchard@bwlawonline.com


US PAPER MILLS: Shortchanges Workers Wages, Winter Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Cory Winter, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. U.S. Paper Mills Corp., and Sonoco Products
Company, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00657 (E.D. Wisc., May 6,
2019), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid agreed upon
wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory
and/or injunctive relief and/or any such other relief pursuant to
Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws and the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

US Paper Mills Corp. produces and sells lightweight paperboard for
conversion into cores, composite cans and tubes. Sonoco Products
produces composite cans, tubes, and cores, and it provides consumer
packaging, industrial products, protective packaging, and packaging
supply chain services domestically and internationally.

Winter worked at Defendants' production facilities in Menasha,
Wisconsin. He claims that their timekeeping system rounded off the
time to the nearest quarter hour thus leaving them uncompensated
for the rest of the minutes rendered. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      James A. Walcheske, Esq.
      Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
      WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
      15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304
      Brookfield, WI 53005
      Phone: (262) 780-1953
      Fax: (262) 565-6469
      Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
             sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com


V. G. MIRROR: Does not Pay Overtime Wages, Ordenano Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
DONALD ORDENANO and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff, v. V. G. MIRROR AND GLASS MART DISTRIBUTORS CORP. and
EMILIO GONZALEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-21854-XXXX (S.D.
Fla., May 8, 2019) is an action seeking to recover money damages
for unpaid overtime wages under the laws of the United States
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

Plaintiff worked approximately an average of 45-47 hours per week
without being compensated at the rate of not less than one-and
one-half times the regular rate at which he was employed, says the
complaint. Plaintiff was employed as a driver and warehouse worker
performing the same or similar duties as that of those other
similarly situated warehouse workers whom Plaintiff observed
working in excess of 40 hours per week without overtime
compensation, says the complaint.

Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from approximately 1999 to
January 21, 2019.

Defendant operates as an organization which sells and/or markets
its services and/or goods to customers from throughout the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
     SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
     20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Phone: (305) 503-5131
     Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
     Email: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


VALVE CORP: G.G. Appeals W.D. Washington Ruling to Ninth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs A.L., B.S. and G.G. filed an appeal from a Court ruling
in their lawsuit entitled G.G., et al. v. Valve Corporation, Case
No. 2:16-cv-01941-JCC, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
(assigned Case No. 16-00002-28798-1-SEA) was removed from the King
County Superior Court to the District Court.

Valve Corporation is an American video game developer and digital
distribution company headquartered in Bellevue, Washington.

The appellate case is captioned as G.G., et al. v. Valve
Corporation, Case No. 19-35345, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellants A.L., B.S. and G.G.'s opening brief is due on
      June 24, 2019;

   -- Appellee Valve Corporation's answering brief is due on
      July 24, 2019;

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants G.G., A.L. and B.S., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
          TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
          1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 682-5600
          E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com

               - and -

          Jasper D. Ward, IV, Esq.
          JONES WARD PLC
          1205 E Washington Street, Suite 111
          Louisville, KY 40206
          Telephone: (502) 882-6000
          Facsimile: (502) 587-2007
          E-mail: jasper@jonesward.com

Defendant-Appellee VALVE CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, is
represented by:

          Charles B. Casper, Esq.
          MONTGOMERY, MCCRACKEN, WALKER & RHOADS, LLP
          123 S. Broad Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19109
          Telephone: (215) 772-1500
          E-mail: ccasper@mmwr.com

               - and -

          Gavin W. Skok, Esq.
          RIDDELL WILLIAMS P.S.
          1001 Fourth Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98154-1192
          Telephone: (206) 624-3600
          E-mail: gskok@riddellwilliams.com


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Illegally Shared Geo-data, Morrison Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Morrison, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Verizon Communications Inc. and
Cellco Partnership, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01298, (D. Md., May
2, 2019), seeks redress for negligent violations of customer
privacy rights.

Morrison is a Verizon customer who claims that Verizon, a
telecommunications services provider, collected geolocation data
collected from its subscribers' cell phones and disseminated them
to third-parties. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VIVI BUBBLE: Bunting Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
-------------------------------------------------------
Vivi Bubble Tea Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Vivi Bubble Tea
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02424 (E.D. N.Y., April 25,
2019).

Vivi Bubble Tea serves a variety of Taiwanese bubble tea
drinks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group, P.C.
   44 Court Street, Suite 1217
   Brooklyn, NY 11217
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Fax: (718) 504-7555
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


WELLCARE HEALTH: Nasisi Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
CARA NASISI & ROBIN CHERNOFF, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. WELLCARE HEALTH PLANS,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04132 (S.D. N.Y., May 8, 2019) is
an action on behalf Plaintiffs and other similarly situated Care
Management Employees, who, due to Defendant's misclassification
scheme, were not paid all earned overtime pay for time they worked
in excess of 40 hours in individual work weeks in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and under the New York state law
under New York Minimum Wage Act, the New York Wage Payment Act, and
the supporting Department of Labor Regulations, (together, the
"NYLL").

Plaintiffs worked as Care Management Employees for Defendant.

The complaint asserts that Defendant's Care Management Employees
regularly worked over 40 hours per week but Defendant classified
them as exempt from state and federal overtime laws and did not pay
them overtime when they worked over 40 hours in an individual
workweek.

Defendant is a Fortune 200 Company that provides "government
sponsored managed care services to health plan participants through
Medicare, Medicare Advantage, and Medicare Prescription Drug
Plans".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ravi Sattiraju, Esq.
     THE SATTIRAJU LAW FIRM, P.C.
     116 Village Blvd., Suite 200
     Princeton, NJ 08540
     Phone: (609) 799-1266
     Facsimile: (609) 228-5649
     Email: rsattiraju@sattirajulawfirm.com

          - and -

     DOUGLAS M. WERMAN, ESQ.
     MAUREEN A. SALAS, ESQ.
     Werman Salas P.C.
     77 West Washington, Suite 1402
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 419-1008
     Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com
            msalas@flsalaw.com

          - and -

     TRAVIS M. HEDGPETH, ESQ.
     THE HEDGPETH LAW FIRM, PC
     3050 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 510
     Houston, TX 77056
     Phone: (281) 572-0727
     Facsimile: (281) 572-0728
     Email: travis@hedgpethlaw.com

          - and -

     JACK SIEGEL, ESQ.
     Siegel Law Group PLLC
     2820 McKinnon, Suite 5009
     Dallas, TX 75201
     Phone: (214) 790-4454
     Email: www.4overtimelawyer.com


WEST MEMPHIS FENCE: Class Cert. Denied; Renewed Bid Due July 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. D.P. Marshall, Jr., denied without prejudice the motion
for conditional certification in the lawsuit styled PEDRO PALMA,
Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated v. WEST
MEMPHIS FENCE & CONSTRUCTION, INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-00208-DPM
(E.D. Ark.).

According to the Order, the motion for conditional certification is
denied without prejudice, with equitable tolling to Pedro Palma,
and with instructions.  The Court directs targeted written
discovery and depositions on the employee/contractor issue, and on
how the Defendant operates its business.

In the circumstances, the Court prefers to consider conditional
certification on a more-complete picture of the Defendant's
operations and whether others are similarly situated.  Renewed
motion is due by July 29, 2019.[CC]


WETSCH ABBOTT: Johnson Appeals Order and Judgment to 8th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Joy Johnson filed an appeal from the District Court's
Order dated March 21, 2019, and Judgment dated March 22, 2019,
entered in the lawsuit entitled Joy Johnson v. Wetsch Abbott Osborn
Van Vliet, PLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-00006-RP, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks statutory and actual damages, reasonable attorneys' fees,
costs, and expenses incurred in this action, including expert fees,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest and other and further relief
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

On November 9, 2017, the Defendant sent a written communication to
Johnson in connection with the collection of an alleged debt.  Said
letter contradicted and overshadowed the prescribed validation
notice that demanded payment by December 14, 2018, exactly 30 days
after the date of the letter, yet still within the mandatory
validation window.

The appellate case is captioned as Joy Johnson v. Wetsch Abbott
Osborn Van Vliet, PLC, Case No. 19-1850, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

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

   -- Appendix is due on June 4, 2019;

   -- Brief of Appellant Joy Johnson is due on June 4, 2019;

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

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

Plaintiff-Appellant Joy Johnson, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jesse Stine Johnson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          7601 N. Federal Highway
          Boca Raton, FL 33487
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com

               - and -
         
          Eric Steven Mail, Esq.
          Eric David Puryear, Esq.
          PURYEAR LAW
          3719 Bridge Avenue, Suite 6
          Davenport, IA 52807
          Telephone: (563) 265-6961
          E-mail: mail@puryearlaw.com
                  eric@puryearlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee Wetsch Abbott Osborn Van Vliet, PLC, is
represented by:

          Kevin J. Driscoll, Esq.
          Andrew M. Stanley, Esq.
          FINLEY LAW FIRM
          699 Walnut Street, Suite 1700
          Des Moines, IA 50309
          Telephone: (515) 288-0145
          E-mail: kdriscoll@finleylaw.com
                  astanley@finleylaw.com


WILL COUNTY, IL: Dunn Moves to Certify Class and Four Subclasses
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled ANDREA DUNN, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. COUNTY OF WILL and
MIKE KELLEY, Sheriff of Will County, individually and in his
official capacity, Case No. 1:18-cv-06304 (N.D. Ill.), moves the
Court to certify a class with four subclasses:

   * Class: All persons detained in the Will County Adult
     Detention Facility in booking cells between September 17,
     2016, and the present;

   * Subclass 1: All those persons in the class detained
     overnight in the Will County Adult Detention Facility in
     booking cells;

   * Subclass 2: All those persons in the class arrested without
     a warrant and detained over 24 hours in the Will County
     Adult Detention Facility in booking cells awaiting a
     probable-cause hearing;

   * Subclass 3: All those persons in the class arrested without
     a warrant and detained over 36 hours in the Will County
     Adult Detention Facility in booking cells awaiting a
     probable-cause hearing; and

   * Subclass 4: All those persons in the class arrested without
     a warrant and detained over 48 hours in the Will County
     Adult Detention Facility in booking cells awaiting a
     probable-cause hearing.

Ms. Dunn also asks the Court to appoint her as the class
representative, and to appoint Heffner Hurst and Hale & Monico LLC
as class counsel.

In her complaint, Ms. Dunn alleges that the Defendants
systematically violate the Fourth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution by detaining warrantless arrestees in unreasonable
conditions and for unreasonable lengths of time at the Will County
Adult Detention Facility.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew T. Heffner, Esq.
          Matthew T. Hurst, Esq.
          HEFFNER HURST
          30 N. LaSalle, Suite 1210
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 346-3466
          E-mail: mheffner@heffnerhurst.com
                  mhurst@heffnerhurst.com

               - and -

          Jordan Marsh, Esq.
          HALE & MONICO LLC
          53 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 330
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 401-5510
          E-mail: jmarsh@ahalelaw.com


ZF FRIEDRICHSHAFEN: Santos Sues Over Defective Airbags
------------------------------------------------------
ADALGISA SANTOS, CARL PAUL MAURILUS, and COURTNEY MAINE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. ZF FRIEDRICHSHAFEN AG, ZF TRW AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS
CORP., TRW AUTOMOTIVE INC., TRW AUTOMOTIVE U.S. LLC, TRW VEHICLE
SAFETY SYSTEMS INC., HONDA MOTOR CO., LTD., AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR
CO., INC., HONDA OF AMERICA MFG. INC., HONDA R&D CO., LTD., TOYOTA
MOTOR CORP., TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., TOYOTA MOTOR
ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING NORTH AMERICA, INC., HYUNDAI MOTOR
GROUP, HYUNDAI MOTOR CO., and HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, Defendants,
Case No. 0:19-cv-61174-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 8, 2019) is an action
concerning defective airbag control units ("ACUs") designed and
manufactured by ZF Friedrichshafen AG, ZF TRW Automotive Holdings
Corp., and its related entities (collectively, "TRW"), and equipped
in vehicles manufactured, sold, or leased by Defendants Honda,
Acura, Hyundai, and Toyota and their related entities
(collectively, "Vehicle Manufacturer Defendants"). ACUs are
designed and manufactured to detect a vehicle crash, determine
whether airbag deployment is necessary, and deploy appropriate
airbags and other supplemental restraints where needed.

The ACU contains an electronic component—an application specific
integrated circuit ("ASIC") located in the front of the
vehicle—which monitors signals from other crash sensors located
in the vehicle. If the ASIC fails, the ACU will not operate
properly—causing tragic and often deadly results. Airbags are
critical safety features of any motor vehicle.

All TRW ACUs at issue in this litigation share a common, uniform
design defect: the TRW ACU's defective design makes the ASIC
unreasonably susceptible to damage or electrical overstress
("EOS"), which in turn prevents the ACU from properly communicating
with the airbags and seatbelt pretensioners during collisions (the
"ACU Defect"). Because of their uniform defective design, TRW's
ACUs are unreasonably susceptible to damage or EOS conditions,
which prevent the vehicles' airbags from deploying and the seatbelt
pretensioners from engaging during a collision, thereby failing to
protect vehicle occupants during a crash. The Vehicle Manufacturer
Defendants manufactured, sold, and leased vehicles containing TRW's
Defective ACUs--concealing the ACU Defect and knowingly
misrepresenting their vehicles as safe to consumers and the public,
asserts the conplaint.

As overwhelming evidence of the defect grew, Defendants did not
issue recalls, warn consumers, or otherwise protect them from the
risk through, for example, systematic loaner vehicle programs.
Vehicle Manufacturer Defendants' failure and/or delay in issuing
recalls and providing replacement parts is consequential--it
exposes purchasers, lessees, drivers, passengers, and, indeed, the
general public, to an ongoing and unnecessary risk of harm.
Plaintiffs and consumers are in the frightening position of having
to drive dangerous vehicles for many months and possibly years
while they wait for Defendants to recall and replace the defective
TRW ACUs in their cars. Plaintiffs are effectively left without
safe vehicles to take them to and from work, pick up their children
from schools or daycares, or, in the most urgent of situations,
transport themselves or others to hospitals.

The Defendants knew, and certainly should have known, that the TRW
ACUs installed in millions of vehicles were defective. By
concealing their knowledge of the nature and extent of the ACU
Defect from the public, while continuing to advertise their
products as safe and reliable, Defendants demonstrated a blatant
disregard for public welfare and safety. As a result of this
misconduct, Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Classes were
harmed and suffered actual damages, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs purchased their Class Vehicles (referring to all
vehicles in the United States that were manufactured, sold, or
leased by Vehicle Manufacturer Defendants and are equipped with
Defective ACUs primarily) for personal, family, and household use.

ZF TRW is a worldwide supplier of driveline and chassis technology
for cars and commercial vehicles, including active and passive
safety technology.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Boies, Esq.
     BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
     333 Main Street
     Armonk, NY 10504
     Phone: (914) 749-8200
     Fax: (914) 749-8300
     Email: dboies@bsfllp.com

          - and -

     STEPHEN N. ZACK, ESQ.
     MARK J. HEISE, ESQ.
     BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
     100 S.E. Second Street, Suite 2800
     Miami, FL 33131
     Phone: (305) 539-8400
     Facsimile: (305) 539-1307
     Email: szack@bsfllp.com
            mheise@bsfllp.com


ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Plotkin Files Class Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zwicker & Associates,
P.C. The case is styled as Kateryna Plotkin, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Zwicker &
Associates, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 11:19-cv-02402 (E.D. N.Y.,
April 24, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer
Credit.

Zwicker & Associates, P.C. operates as a law firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: ekroub@rgrdlaw.com


[*] Harvard Law Students Fight Mandatory Arbitration Agreements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sejal Singh and Andre Manuel, writing for The Nation, report that
by the time Leah Turner sued her employer, she had worked hundreds,
possibly even thousands, of hours at Chipotle without getting paid.
Turner's manager would regularly tell her to "clock out" from work,
but still require her to work extra hours unpaid. Turner's boss
would even sometimes retroactively go back into the system and
delete hours that people had already worked. Eventually, Turner
moved to a different store, only to find that wage theft was
rampant there too. In 2013, Turner decided to fight back. Along
with thousands of Chipotle workers, Turner filed a class-action
wage-theft lawsuit against Chipotle, demanding back pay that the
chain had stolen from its own workers. Individually, low-wage
workers' claims were too small to cover legal fees—but together,
they could hold the company accountable.

The Chipotle workers had evidence on their side. But last year,
thousands of the workers in Turner v. Chipotle were tossed out of
court because of a little-known legal loophole written into the
fine print of their employment contracts: a forced-arbitration
clause.

Thousands of Chipotle workers had unknowingly signed "mandatory
arbitration agreements," buried deep in the fine print of their HR
paperwork, waiving their right to sue over illegal treatment at
work, like sexual harassment, race discrimination, and wage theft.
Instead of going to court, people who have signed
forced-arbitration agreements are legally required to settle their
claims with a private third-party arbitrator. These arbitrators are
often handpicked by the defending company and paid by that same
company to the tune of $1,000 to $2,000 a day. Arbitrators'
determination is final, binding on both parties, and virtually
unreviewable by courts.

Forced arbitration effectively operates as a secretive, privatized
justice system that is stacked in favor of big corporations. The
Economic Policy Institute estimates that workers subject to
mandatory arbitration win just 38 percent as often as they would in
state court and 59 percent as often as they would in federal court.
Even when workers do win, they only get a fraction of the damages.
Consumers subject to forced arbitration fare just as poorly. Public
Citizen found that consumers only won in 6 percent of arbitrations
against financial institutions in California. Arbitration's opacity
and lack of procedural safeguards undoubtedly benefit companies who
are repeat players in the arbitration world. The threat is growing:
As of 2017, more than 60 million American workers have signed
forced-arbitration agreements in their employment contracts, and 81
of the largest 100 US companies have forced-arbitration clauses in
contracts with their customers for financial products, cell phones,
and more. The game was always rigged against working people—now,
they might not get to play at all.

That's why we launched the Pipeline Parity Project, a grassroots
campaign of law students fighting to end forced arbitration, stop
workplace discrimination, and unrig the legal system. We came to
law school to hold powerful corporate actors accountable for
ripping off consumers, violating their workers' rights, or
discriminating on the basis of race, gender, or disability. But our
future clients may never get their day in court in the first place
because of forced arbitration and corporate lawyers who use legal
jargon to cover up the ways that they've stacked the rules to favor
big corporations. As future lawyers, we think it's our
responsibility to take them on.

When we started Pipeline Parity Project last spring, we were just a
small group of Harvard Law School students furious about a rigged
justice system. Just one year later, organized students have
secured unprecedented disclosure of forced arbitration in the legal
profession and forced some of the country's largest firms to drop
arbitration agreements. Now, we're building a national network of
law students who are trying to rewrite the rules that protect the
powerful at the expense of the little guy.

Last year, at the height of the #MeToo movement, many law firms
began writing forced-arbitration clauses into their contracts with
their employees, including summer interns. Some forced-arbitration
clauses explicitly required firm employees -- not just attorneys,
but also summer interns, legal secretaries, and custodial staff --
to sign away their right to sue under Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act, which prohibits sex discrimination (including sexual
harassment) at work. As #MeToo reminds us, survivors are still
rarely believed unless they come forward together. If companies
require survivors of sexual harassment to arbitrate grievances
individually, they can more easily sweep sexual harassment under
the rug.

The problem is that many arbitration clauses include "class action
waivers," which require people to give up their right to
participate in a class-action lawsuit. Class-action lawsuits allow
workers and consumers who've been ripped off in the same way to put
their limited resources together to sue a larger entity. Take the
Chipotle workers. The typical Chipotle crew member makes just $9 an
hour and probably can't afford to hire an attorney. Besides, most
workers' claims ranged from $50 to a couple thousand each. If
you're one of the six in 10 Americans who couldn't cover an
unexpected $500 bill, that's a lot of money -- but hiring a lawyer
almost certainly costs much more. With a class action, regular
people can level the playing field and deter companies that would
rather hide illegal conduct under the rug by distributing its
effects among many people. But forced to arbitrate cases on their
own, regular people may not be able to access the justice system at
all. Most workers, knowing they are unlikely to succeed individual
arbitration, choose never to bring claims at all.

Wells Fargo made headlines in 2016 when it became known that the
company had fraudulently set up millions of fake accounts for real
consumers. Regulators eventually caught on and fined the company
$185 million. But absent government action, consumers would have
been left in the dust; Wells Fargo's contracts contained
forced-arbitration clauses. In fact, consumers who attempted to sue
over the fake accounts years earlier had been thrown out of court.

Courts often refer to forced-arbitration clauses as "agreements."
In reality, they're anything but. Many arbitration clauses are part
of "clickwrap" contracts: Those online forms where you "click to
agree to the terms and conditions." In a 2015 study, the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau found that consumers are rarely aware
that their contracts contain dispute-resolution clauses. Even when
people spot an arbitration clause lurking in a contract, they may
have no choice but to accept it. If you won't sign a
forced-arbitration clause with your bank, phone company, cable
provider, then you can't get the service. A restaurant worker or
nurse who refuses to accept a forced-arbitration agreement might
lose their job. In other words, regular people literally have no
choice but to accept the terms if they want to have access to goods
or even to their jobs. Companies know that consumers and workers
can't give up important services, like having a cell phone, to
argue fine-print contractual terms, so there is no meaningful
market competition regulating the use of forced-arbitration
agreements.

The Supreme Court has made it virtually impossible for workers and
consumers to fight arbitration clauses in court—but we can
organize to make sure companies don't force people to sign them in
the first place. We led a campaign to make the nation's most
prominent law firms disclose whether they force employees to sign
arbitration clauses, then successfully pushed several major firms
to stop using forced-arbitration clauses in their employees'
contracts. We're not the only people fighting forced arbitration in
our workplaces: We work alongside Google employees who led a
campaign that recently forced Google to get rid of the clauses in
their employment contracts. Companies rely on the people who work
for them, and that gives us the power to demand equitable, decent
working conditions.

But as future lawyers, we know that going workplace by workplace to
end forced arbitration isn't enough. We want to make sure our
future clients aren't locked out of the legal system because of
contractual fine print. And we want our future colleagues to
realize that forced arbitration unethically prevents the
disempowered from accessing justice. We need legislation to end
forced arbitration altogether, for everyone.

In the 1920s, Congress passed the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).
Legislative history shows that the FAA was meant to apply to big
companies arbitrating disputes with other big companies on an equal
playing field. It even had an explicit exception for employment
contracts. The FAA was primarily addressed at making sure federal
judges enforce arbitral awards; its authors never fathomed it would
be used to uphold unconscionable forced-arbitration clauses.

But the Supreme Court has vastly extended the reach of the FAA,
finding that it protects not only the outcomes of arbitrated
disputes but forced-arbitration clauses themselves. Because the
Supreme Court, especially Trump appointee Justice Gorsuch, is so
arbitration-friendly, states are effectively barred from limiting
forced arbitration. That means we need federal legislation. Federal
agencies have tried: In 2017, the Trump administration and
Republicans in Congress blocked a rule from the CFPB that would
have limited the use of forced-arbitration agreements in consumer
finance contracts.

That's why we support the recently reintroduced FAIR Act, which
would amend the FAA to ban the use of forced arbitration in
employment, consumer, and health-care contracts -- in other worse,
it would limit forced arbitration in cases where there are severe
asymmetries of power between the parties and the FAA was never
supposed to apply.

Forced arbitration is bad for workers, bad for consumers, and bad
for the justice system. The deck is already stacked in favor of
large corporations. We'll pursue legislative, advocacy, and legal
means to level the playing field so our future clients can have
their day in court. [GN]


[*] New Class Action Procedural Rules Under Paycheck Fairness Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cashida N. Okeke, Esq. -- Cashida.Okeke@jacksonlewis.com -- of
Jackson Lewis PC, in an article for Lexology, reports that
democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives continue to call for
stronger protections to combat wage inequality. By a vote of
242-187, the House recently passed the Paycheck Fairness Act to
enhance the federal protections guaranteed under the EPA.

Currently, to defend against an EPA claim, an employer can assert
any of four defenses to justify paying men and women differently
for the same work. Employers can pay workers at different rates if
the wage differential is based on i) seniority, ii) merit, iii)
quantity or quality of the employee's work, or iv) any factor other
than sex (sometimes referred to as a "catchall defense").

The Paycheck Fairness Act, H.R. 7, amends the applicability of the
last exception by requiring wage differentials to be based on a
"bona fide factor other than sex, such as education, training or
experience." This "bona fide factor defense" would require
employers to prove that wage differentials fully account for the
"entire differential in compensation," actually relate to the job
and are consistent with business necessity, and are not based on or
derived from existing gender-based wage disparities.

H.R. 7 also would afford enhanced anti-retaliation protections for
employees who not only file pay discrimination claims, but who
discuss their salaries with coworkers or initiate or participate in
pay equity investigations and hearings. However, employers are not
liable under H.R. 7 if an employee with access to wage information,
as part of their essential job functions, discloses such
information to other employees, unless the employee disclosed the
information as part of a complaint or employer-directed
investigation.

H.R. 7 would establish the Secretary of Labor's National Award for
Pay Equity in the Workplace to recognize employers for excellence
in pay practices. Employers can also receive assistance in
instituting compliance checks and modifying their equal pay
practices. Lastly, H.R. 7 creates a grant program that would
provide funds to eligible entities to design negotiation skills
training programs for women and girls.

Support for the measure was divided largely along party lines.
House Republicans criticized the bill as "designed for trial
lawyers" and pushed to add language limiting attorney's fees. Under
H.R. 7, violators can be subject to enhanced penalties, such as
compensatory and punitive damages.

In light of the political composition of the Senate, this bill is
unlikely to gain the support needed to be enacted.

This is not the first time this bill has surfaced. Previous efforts
to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act failed in the Senate in 2009
after passing in the House of Representatives.

States also continue to pass new fair pay laws. [GN]


[*] Next Wave of Class Actions to Come from Massive Data Breaches
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Clark, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that the next
wave of class action lawsuits will be the result of massive data
breaches, according to the eighth annual Carlton Fields Class
Action Survey released on April 16.

The survey is based on interviews with general counsel or senior
legal officers at 395 Fortune 1000 companies in the U.S.

In 2017, 28.9 percent of corporate counsel said the next wave of
class action suits would come from data privacy and security. That
number nearly doubled in 2018 with 54 percent of respondents
believing that the next wave of class action suits will come from
data privacy and security issues.

The report also said in-house lawyers are more concerned with the
California Consumer Privacy Act, or CCPA, which takes effect in
2020, than they are of the European Union's General Data Protection
Regulation, or GDPR.

Kavon Adli, the founder of The Internet Law Group in Beverly Hills,
California, said, however, companies should be as, if not more,
concerned with the GDPR. "I think the risk of a class action is
more limited in the case of the CCPA," Adli said.

He explained the data security is a limited area of the CCPA that
provides for a right of action. Whereas the GDPR provides for a
private right of action for all of its provisions.

"The CCPA is still sort of in flux. There have been some
legislative processes and there may still be more before it goes
into effect," Adli said. "At the current time it is far more
limited than the GDPR."

Julianna McCabe, the director of the National Class Action Survey
and a shareholder at Carlton Fields, said the state laws like the
CCPA and Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act make it easier
to file class action suits.

"When the legislators in those states pass laws that allow
consumers to bring private rights of action regarding these data
issues companies are rightly concerned," McCabe said. "California
in particular is a place where class actions are filed more than in
any other state in the nation. California is an issue; Illinois is
an issue, and other states are starting to copy those laws that are
probably going to get passed in the next three to five years."

Edward McAndrew, a partner at DLA Piper in Washington, D.C., said
the CCPA has a provision that entitles California residents to some
level of damages. He also said residents do not need to prove a
direct injury because of the data breach, just that the company
violated the CCPA.

"Early on we saw a lot of cases being dismissed on standing
grounds. With these statutory causes of action it's going to be
much more difficult to get cases dismissed at a preliminary stage,"
McAndrew said. "Those cases haven't been going into a full scale
discovery period."

Because of this, he explained there will be extensive and expensive
discovery that companies will be subjected to.

"Those are going to six and seven figure expenses for these
companies," McAndrew explained.

According to the report, companies spent $2.46 billion defending
class actions in 2018. That spending is the highest companies have
paid in defending class actions suits since 2008. Most companies,
according to the report, are facing class action lawsuits only in
the United States. [GN]


[*] Number of Class Actions v. Foreign Companies Up 39% in 2018
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ezequiel Minaya, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
foreign companies listed in the U.S. are facing rising costs for
insurance covering directors and officers, propelled by the
increasing number of lawsuits.

Known as D&O insurance, these policies protect board members and
company leadership against personal liability for the decisions and
actions they took performing those roles. The policies are often
triggered by a notable fall in stock price or a major merger or
acquisition that some investors oppose.

There were 217 securities class-action suits filed against both
foreign and domestic companies listed in the U.S. in 2018, a slight
rise from the 216 suits filed in 2017 and the highest number in 20
years, according to a report by insurance brokerage Woodruff Sawyer
& Co.

The number of class-action lawsuits filed against foreign
companies, however, rose 39% to 47 in 2018. Roughly 20% of the
companies listed on the Nasdaq and New York Stock Exchange are
based outside the U.S., with 4.5% of these foreign entities sued in
2018, the report said.

The financial risk associated with these lawsuits has also climbed.
The dollar amount of settlements for both foreign and domestic
companies in 2018 rose 71% to $2.4 billion from $1.4 billion in
2017, according to Woodruff Sawyer.

The median settlement amount was the highest in the past 10 years,
with the finance sector paying out the most at $941.5 million.

The increase in both lawsuits and financial risk is pushing up the
cost of D&O insurance for foreign companies, which for many years
paid less for this protection than domestic companies, said Priya
Huskins, a partner and senior vice president at Woodruff Sawyer.

"The cost of D&O insurance is on the rise for foreign filers and
often in a dramatic way," Ms. Huskins said, estimating that
premiums have increased anywhere between 6% and 30%. Ms. Huskins
said the disparity in premiums paid by domestic and foreign
companies stemmed from insurance providers systematically
underpricing the risk associated with foreign U.S.-listed companies
for several years.

That risk can be substantial. Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. agreed to
a $75 million settlement last year, one of several notable
settlements. The Chinese internet giant faced a class-action suit
filed in 2015 by law firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on
behalf of purchasers of Alibaba American depositary shares that
faulted the company for not disclosing meetings with China's State
Administration of Industry and Commerce before its $25 billion
public offering in 2014.

A spokesman for Alibaba Group didn't respond to requests for
comment.

"The best way to think of D&O insurance is it's malpractice
insurance for board members and company leadership," said Scott
Meyer, division president of financial lines, North America, at
insurance carrier Chubb Ltd.

Investor anger over the handling of sexual harassment accusations
or a cybersecurity breach have also emerged as increasingly common
reasons for lawsuits. The vast majority of the cases are settled,
Mr. Meyer said.

Company leaders could be at risk of losing personal assets without
this type of protection, prompting the vast majority of businesses
to seek the coverage. "I would say 99.9% of companies have the
coverage," Mr. Meyer said.

Chubb executives have noted the growing frequency of lawsuits and
growing size of settlements, which has translated into higher
premiums.

"Something needs to be done, because it's not sustainable," said
John Keogh, chief operating officer at Chubb. Contributing to the
growing cost of these suits are the climbing costs of legal
services.

In the past, it was a cottage industry for a few plaintiffs firms,
Mr. Meyer said. But now, with a pot of money at the end of the
game, he said, many different law firms have entered the field,
driving costs and expenses. [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 ***