CAR_Public/190522.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, May 22, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 102

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Robinson Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
3M COMPANY: Wilson Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
ABM INDUSTRIES: Settles PAGA Class Action for $5.4MM
ADK HOSPITALITY: Matzura Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Still Defends Suits Over Fee Assessment

AEROJET ROCKETDYNE: Schall Law Firm Probes Securities Claims
ALBERTSONS COS: Johnson Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
ALEXION PHARMA: 2nd Amended Complaint in Investor Suit Due May 31
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Kucur Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
ARS NATIONAL: Dellarocca Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach

ARSTRAT LLC: Jacobowitz Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York
BANCO SANTANDER: Antitrust Class Suits in New York Ongoing
BIRDEYE INC: Hindi Files Suit Over Unsolicited Telemarketing
BLUE APRON: Bid to Dismiss IPO-Related Suit in EDNY Still Pending
BLUE APRON: Continues to Defend PAGA and Class Action in Cal.

BOEING CO: May Replace 737 Max Planes Following Class Action
BREWSTER BY THE SEA: Andrews Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
BRIGHTVIEW HOLDINGS: June 14 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline
BROOKDALE SAN RAMON: Disabled Residents File Class Action
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Namuwonge Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois

C.TECH COLLECTIONS: Landau Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
CANADIAN HOCKEY: Junior Hockey Players' Class Action Okayed
CAVE ENTERPRISES: Puckett Suit Alleges BIPA Violation
CAWLEY & BERGMANN: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Greifman FDCPA Suit
CDK GLOBAL: AutoLoop Class Action Underway in Illinois

CENTRAL CREDIT: Nunez Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
CLASSIC PARKING: Oro Suit Alleges Calif. Labor Code Violations
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Dake Suit Moved to Northern Dist. of California
CONAGRA BRANDS: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action
CP PRINCE ST: Aucacama Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

CRAFT BREW: 9th Cir. Denies Review of Brouhaha Class Action
DIGNITY HEALTH: Buford Files Class Action in Cal. Super. Ct.
ELETROBRAS: ANDECO Class Action Underway in Brazil
ELETROBRAS: Consolidated Securities Class Suit in NY Concluded
ENEL CHILE: 35 Consumers Join SERNAC Class Suit

EQX HOTEL: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EVENTBRITE INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
EXXIZZ FOODS: Ramos Seeks Overtime Pay for Hours Worked Over 40
FANHUA INC: Bid to Dismiss Long Class Action Pending
FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Muldowney Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. New York

FORD MOTOR: Appeals Court Affirms Summary Judgment Ruling
FRANKLIN COLLECTION: Klemp Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Dismiss Bezio Class Action Pending
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Dismiss Hachem Class Suit Still Pending
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Dismiss Mahar Class Action Underway

GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Dismiss Varga Class Suit Awaits Court OK
GENERAL ELECTRIC: In Talks to Stay Houston Suit
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Suit by Sheet Metal Workers Local 17 Ongoing
GENOCEA BIOSCIENCES: First Circuit Appeal in Emerson Suit Underway
GERBER PRODUCTS: Court Certifies Baby Formula Class Action

GOOGLE INC: Cypress Ruling to Have Implications for Tech Suits
GTX INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Oncternal Merger
HERSHA HOSPITALITY: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HRONIS INC: Samudio Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
IBM CORP: ERISA Class Action in New York Ongoing

IMERYS TALC: Doyle Talc Injury Suit Removed to N.D. California
IMPINJ INC: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit Underway
IMPINJ INC: Plymouth County Retirement System Class Suit Stayed
INDIANA: Rodgers Files Prisoner Civil Rights Suit
INSPERITY INC: Summary Judgment in 401(k) Suit Partially Granted

IOC-CAPE GIRARDEAU: Smith Hits Unpaid Overtime, Illegal Deductions
ITURAN LOCATION: Class Cert. Bids in Data Security Suits Underway
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Brown Talc Injury Suit Moved to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Buddell Talc Injury Suit Moved to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Burton Talc Injury Suit Moved to C.D. Calif.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Caballero Talc Injury Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Davis Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Boyd Talc Injury Suit to C.D. California
JUSTIN TIME: Spicer Claims Overtime Pay for Hours Over 40
JUUL LABS: Targets Underage Users, Class Action Claims

KRONOS INC: Seeks Dismissal of Biometric Privacy Class Action
LITTLE CAESARS: Seeks Dismissal of Biometric Privacy Class Action
LOMA NEGRA: Appeal in Argentina Class Suit Confirmed
MDL 2672: 22 Cases in Clean Diesel Suit Remanded to State Court
MDL 2672: Anchor Marine's Bid to Remand Suit Granted

MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Turner Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. New York
MICHAELS COMPANIES: Migyanko Files Class Suit Under ADA
MONSANTO COMPANY: Humphrey Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Johnson Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Lucas Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: McGue Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Miceli Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Obregon Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Riordan Files Suit Over Herbicide Side-effects
MUELLER WATER: June 10 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set

MUFFLERS 4 LESS: Does not Pay Overtime Wages, Murrell Suit Says
NESTLE PURINA: Myers Files Suit Over Tuna Products' Deceptive Ad
NETSHOES CAYMAN: Shareholders' Class Suit in New York Consolidated
NIELSEN HOLDINGS: PERS Mississippi Named as Lead Plaintiff
NISSAN: Faces NHTSA Investigation Amid Class Action

NORTH COAST NATURAL: Bryant Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
OI SA: Appeal over Customer Service Center Suits Underway
ORAL CARE: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
OREGON: Faces Class Action Over Child Welfare System
OSCAR HEALTH: Dennis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

OUTDOOR FELLOW: Olsen Asserts Breach for Disabilities Act
PATRIZIA'S: Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
PAUL J. HOOTEN: Cowell Alleges Violation Under FDCPA
PHOENIX SUTTON: Lemache Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
PMC HOME & AUTO: Nelson Sues Over Unsolicited, Autodialed Calls

POST CONSUMER: Copeland Files Fraud Class Suit in New York
PURDUE PHARMA: Lawyers' Fees in Opioid Case Questioned
QUEST INTERNATIONAL: Hong Sues Over Policies Violating NY Labor Law
RICHARD SOKOLOFF: Arrunategui Alleges Violation Under FDCPA
RING CONCIERGE: Dennis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

RIVIERA BEACH, FL: Sued Over Inhumane Conditions at Stonybrook
ROYAL ROBBINS: Dennis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SERVICE CORP: Appeal in Moulton Class Suit Ongoing
SERVICE CORP: Bernstein Suit over Sales Practices Underway
SIMMONS BANK: Tannehill Files Class Action in E.D. Arkansas

SIZMEK: Former Employees File WARN Class Action
SOUTHERN COPPER: Lacey Class Action Dismissed
SOUTHERN ILLINOIS: Female Physicians' Pay Lawsuit Decertified
SPREZZABOX INC: Olsen Suit Alleges Disabilities Act Violation
SUSHI SUSHI: Torres Suit Alleges FLSA Violation

TARONIS TECHNOLOGIES: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action
TELADOC HEALTH: Reiner Securities Class Action Ongoing
TELADOC HEALTH: Unit Continues to Defend Thomas TCPA Class Suit
TELIGENT INC: Scott+Scott Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
TEXAS: Bryant Files Suit v. Texas Prison Officials

THOMPSON INDUSTRIAL: Razor Seeks Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
TIGER BRANDS: Listeriosis Suit Compensation Process Set to Begin
TOWER SEMICONDUCTOR: Israeli Supreme Court Reaffirms Ruling
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Isolde Class Suit Underway
TWITTER INC: Consolidated Class Suit in California Ongoing

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Needs Insurance, Class Actions Ongoing
USHEALTH GROUP: Hillman Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
VICVIC CORPORATION: Violates Wage and Hour Laws, Ortiz Suit Says
VIRGINIA: Inmates Files Suit v. DOC Over Solitary Confinement
VISALUS: Squire Patton Attorney Discusses TCPA Jury Verdict

VONAGE HOLDINGS: Dennis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WINC INC: Fischler Assert Breach of Disabilities Act

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Robinson Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, STEVEN ROBINSON, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-01165 (D. Minn., May  1, 2019), seeks
to hold 3M liable for hearing loss or damage Plaintiff allegedly
suffered while serving variously in the U.S. military, including
during foreign conflicts. The Plaintiff contends that Combat Arms
TM Earplugs, Version 2 ("CAEv2") manufactured and sold by Aearo
were defectively designed and failed to provide adequate hearing
protection. 3M denies these allegations.

CAEv2, designed by Aearo in close collaboration with the U.S.
military, represented a revolutionary breakthrough in hearing
protection for service members. CAEv2 helped servicemembers better
maintain situational awareness (e.g., to hear nearby voice
commands) while also maintaining some protection from gunfire and
other higher decibel sounds. CAEv2 met the U.S. military's
specifications and helped the military provide hearing protection
to service members.

Despite knowing of the dangerous defects in its earplugs, Defendant
sold the Dual-ended Combat ArmsTM earplugs to the branches of the
U.S. military for more than a decade without providing the U.S.
military and/or Plaintiff with any warning of said defects, causing
Plaintiff and other service members similar permanent injuries,
such as hearing loss.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Yvonne M. Flaherty, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          E-mail: ymflaherty@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Roberto Martinez, Esq.
          Francisco R. Maderal, Esq.
          COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A.
          255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 476.7400
          Facsimile: (305) 476.7444
          E-mail: bob@colson.com
                  frank@colson.com

3M COMPANY: Wilson Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, JEFFREY WILSON, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-21693-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 1, 2019),
seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing loss or damage Plaintiff
allegedly suffered while serving variously in the U.S. military,
including during foreign conflicts. The Plaintiff contends that
Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2 ("CAEv2") manufactured and sold
by Aearo were defectively designed and failed to provide adequate
hearing protection. 3M denies these allegations.

CAEv2, designed by Aearo in close collaboration with the U.S.
military, represented a revolutionary breakthrough in hearing
protection for service members. CAEv2 helped servicemembers better
maintain situational awareness (e.g., to hear nearby voice
commands) while also maintaining some protection from gunfire and
other higher decibel sounds. CAEv2 met the U.S. military's
specifications and helped the military provide hearing protection
to service members.

Despite knowing of the dangerous defects in its earplugs, Defendant
sold the Dual-ended Combat ArmsTM earplugs to the branches of the
U.S. military for more than a decade without providing the U.S.
military and/or Plaintiff with any warning of said defects, causing
Plaintiff and other service members similar permanent injuries,
such as hearing loss.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Roberto Martinez, Esq.
          Francisco R. Maderal, Esq.
          Lazaro Fields, Esq.
          COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A.
          255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 476.7400
          Facsimile: (305) 476.7444
          E-mail: bob@colson.com
                  frank@colson.com
                  laz@colson.com

               - and -

          William E. Robertson, Jr., Esq.
          KIRK PINKERTON , P.A.
          240 South Pineapple Avenue, 6th Floor
          Sarasota, FL 34236
          Telephone: (941) 364-2400
          Facsimile: (941) 364-249
          E-mail: wrobertson@kirkpinkerton.com


ABM INDUSTRIES: Settles PAGA Class Action for $5.4MM
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Manzo, writing for Times of San Diego, reports that ABM
Industries, a janitorial service provider, recently agreed to a
$5.4 million settlement in a class-action lawsuit on behalf of
3,000 employees. The employees claimed they were not reimbursed for
the use of personal cell phones to clock in and out and communicate
with their supervisors.

Based on similar lawsuits, the trial attorneys should get about
$1.8 million and the state of California $2.7 million. Then there
are administrative fees and related costs totaling another
$500,000. That leaves the 3,000 employees with roughly $400,000, or
about $133 each.

It's simply the latest example of a California law designed to
protect employees but actually benefiting primarily trial
attorneys.

If you are unfamiliar with this law, it's the Private Attorneys
General Act, or PAGA, enacted in 2004. Under the law, a disgruntled
employee can seek an attorney and then become deputized by the
state to enforce any labor law violation.

Opinion logoThe California Labor Law Digest is over 1,100 pages, so
there are plenty of laws to choose from. Most employers are not
familiar with all of these because it has become an impossible task
to keep up.

More than 35,000 PAGA lawsuit notices have been sent out since this
law's inception. The victims aren't just businesses, but also
nonprofits, religious institutions, schools, hospitals — almost
anyone who has an employee. The trial attorneys do not care who the
target is; they just care about their big payday.

Employers are being targeted for late lunches (even a minute late),
miscalculated bonuses (even a penny off ) or having incorrect
information on a paycheck stub (even a typo in the company name).
Most of these so-called disgruntled employees are being recruited
by trial attorneys with the promise of a big payday only to end up
with far less than they were promised.

Penalties in a PAGA lawsuit can reach up to 2,430 times the alleged
actual damages. This an outrageous number and is used as a threat
to settle cases in mediation. In mediation everything is negotiable
except for the trial attorney's fees. The state made a deal with
attorneys in 2004 that they get all of their fees paid in full.

PAGA has become one of the biggest extortion scams in the history
of California. This law needs to be repealed. [GN]


ADK HOSPITALITY: Matzura Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ADK Hospitality LLC
d/b/a Batavia Downs. The case is styled as Steven Matzura, On
Behalf of Himself And All Other Persons Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. ADK Hospitality LLC d/b/a Batavia Downs, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-04345 (S.D. N.Y., May 13, 2019).

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

Batavia Downs is a harness racing track and casino in Batavia, New
York. It is located in Genesee County between Buffalo and Rochester
just off of the New York State Thruway.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
     150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003
     Phone: (212) 228-9795
     Fax: (212) 982-6284
     Email: nyjg@aol.com


ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Still Defends Suits Over Fee Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend itself from several class action complaints
over improper assessment of fees.

In February 2009, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries were
named as defendants in a purported class action suit in the Circuit
Court of Macon County, Alabama.

Similar class action complaints were brought against the Company
and certain of its subsidiaries in 2011 in Duval County, Florida
and in 2013 in Quitman County, Georgia and Barbour County, Alabama,
and in 2014 in Chester County, Pennsylvania. The 2013 Georgia
complaint was dismissed in March 2014.

In late 2015 in Gwinnett County, Georgia, another purported class
action suit was filed. The plaintiffs in those cases primarily
allege that the defendants charged improper charges (fuel,
administrative and environmental charges) that were in breach of
the plaintiffs' service agreements with the Company and seek
damages in an unspecified amount.

Advanced Disposal said, "The Company believes that it has
meritorious defenses against these purported class actions, which
it will vigorously pursue. Given the inherent uncertainties of
litigation, including the early stage of these cases, the unknown
size of any potential class, and legal and factual issues in
dispute, the outcome of these cases cannot be predicted and a range
of loss, if any, cannot currently be estimated."

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

Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. provides non-hazardous solid waste
collection, transfer, recycling, and disposal services. The company
is involved in the curbside collection of residential refuse from
small carts or containers into collection vehicles for transport to
a disposal/recycling site. The company was formerly known as ADS
Waste Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to Advanced Disposal
Services, Inc. in January 2016. Advanced Disposal Services, Inc.
was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Ponte Vedra, Florida.


AEROJET ROCKETDYNE: Schall Law Firm Probes Securities Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on April 14 disclosed that it is investigating claims on behalf of
investors of Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. ("Aerojet" or "the
Company") (NYSE: AJRD ) for violations of Secs.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.

The investigation focuses on whether the Company issued false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information
pertinent to investors. Spruce Point Management published a report
on April 9, 2019, containing multiple allegations, including that
the Company "is facing fundamental pressures, masked by complicated
and aggressive accounting, which gives investors a potentially
misleading impression of stability and growth." The report also
alleged, "~$900M of liabilities associated with the business
[makes] the Company 5x more levered than it appears" and that
"analysts blindly pencil in 4% revenue growth in the next two
years, despite hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue programs
that are disappearing." Following the publication of the Spruce
Point report, Aerojet's share price fell sharply in intraday
trading on the same day.

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.

The Schall Law Firm -- http://www.schallfirm.com-- represents
investors around the world and specializes in securities class
action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. [GN]


ALBERTSONS COS: Johnson Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 24,
2019, the matter captioned PAM JOHNSON, individually and as
successor in interest to DONNA JOHNSON, deceased; MICHELLE
BLANKENSHIP, successor in interest to WAYNE JOHNSON; KIM JOHNSON,
an individual v. ALBERTSONS COMPANIES INC. individually and as
successor in interest to SAV-ON DRUG STORES, INC. and THE VONS
COMPANIES, INC., et al., Case No. JCCP 4674/BC679466, 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-03294 to the
proceeding.

The State Court Talc Claims against JJCI center on allegations that
exposure to the Debtors' talc caused the Decedents' injuries,
specifically, death due to mesothelioma.  JJCI disputes these
allegations.

The Complaint and First Amended Complaint generally alleges that
exposure to asbestos, contained in the Debtors' talc, through the
habitual use of JJCI cosmetic talcum powder products, caused the
Decedents' personal injury and wrongful death.

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]

Defendant JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. is represented by:

          Alexander G. Calfo, Esq.
          Julia E. Romano, Esq.
          Carter L. George, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          633 West 5th Street, Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443-4355
          Facsimile: (213) 443-4310
          E-mail: acalfo@kslaw.com
                  jromano@kslaw.com
                  cgeorge@kslaw.com


ALEXION PHARMA: 2nd Amended Complaint in Investor Suit Due May 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 25, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that in the shareholder
class action suit related to the misrepresentations and omissions
about SOLIRIS, the court has granted plaintiffs until May 31, 2019
to file a second amended complaint, thereby rendering moot
defendants' pending motion to dismiss.

On December 29, 2016, a shareholder filed a putative class action
against the Company and certain former employees in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut, alleging that
defendants made misrepresentations and omissions about SOLIRIS.

On April 12, 2017, the court appointed a lead plaintiff. On July
14, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended putative class action
complaint against the Company and seven current or former
employees.

The complaint alleges that defendants made misrepresentations and
omissions about SOLIRIS, including alleged misrepresentations
regarding sales practices, management changes, and related
investigations, between January 30, 2014 and May 26, 2017, and that
the Company's stock price dropped upon the purported disclosure of
the misrepresentations.

The plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified monetary relief,
unspecified equitable and injunctive relief, interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on September 12,
2017. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to defendants' motion to
dismiss on November 13, 2017, and defendants' filed a reply brief
in further support of their motion on December 28, 2017.

On March 26, 2019, the court held a telephonic status conference.
During that conference, the court informed counsel that it was
preparing a ruling granting the Defendants' pending motion to
dismiss. The court inquired of plaintiffs' counsel whether they
intended to seek leave to amend their complaint, and indicated that
if they wished to file a second amended complaint, they would be
allowed to do so.  

On April 1, 2019, plaintiffs' counsel informed the court that
plaintiffs were seeking to file a second amended complaint. On
April 2, 2019, the court granted plaintiffs until May 31, 2019 to
file a second amended complaint, thereby rendering moot defendants'
pending motion to dismiss. No schedule has yet been set for
defendants' response to the second amended complaint.  

Alexion Pharmaceuticals said, "Given the early stage of these
proceedings and the anticipated filing of a second amended
complaint containing new allegations, we cannot presently predict
the likelihood of obtaining dismissal of the case, nor can we
estimate the possible loss or range of loss at this time."

Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company,
develops and commercializes various therapeutic products. The
company was founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts.

ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Kucur Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
--------------------------------------------------
Suleyman Kucur, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Alltran Financial, LP, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-02789 (E.D. N.Y., May 13, 2019) seeks to recover for
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").

In its efforts to collect an alleged Debt, Defendant contacted
Plaintiff by letter ("the Letter") dated June 13, 2018. The Letter
claims that Plaintiff owes $7,709.60.  However, Plaintiff did not
owe $7,709.60 at the time Defendant sent the Letter. As such,
Defendant did not clearly convey, from the perspective of the least
sophisticated consumer, the actual amount of the alleged Debt as
required by the FDCPA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Suleyman Kucur is a natural person allegedly obligated to
pay a debt.

Defendant is regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection of
debts allegedly owed by consumers.[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) 706-5055
     Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com


ARS NATIONAL: Dellarocca Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARS National
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Miriam Dellarocca,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ARS National Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-02478 (E.D. N.Y., April 26, 2019).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ARSTRAT LLC: Jacobowitz Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARStrat, LLC. The
case is styled as Isaac Jacobowitz, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARStrat, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02500-RJD-RER (E.D. N.Y., April 29,
2019).

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

ARstrat, LLC is a third-party collection agency based in Texas that
specializes in collecting delinquent healthcare bills.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BANCO SANTANDER: Antitrust Class Suits in New York Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Banco Santander (Mexico), S.A., Institucion de Banca Multiple,
Grupo Financiero Santander Mexico said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company
continues to defend antitrust class action suits in New York.

A putative class action filed in New York federal court by two U.S.
pension funds on March 30, 2018, alleges that the Bank, along with
other members of the Santander Group including Santander Espana,
violated U.S. antitrust laws by conspiring with other major
financial institutions, including Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria
(BBVA), J.P. Morgan, HSBC, Barclays, Deutsche Bank, Bank of America
and Citi, to rig auctions and fix prices of Mexican Government
Bonds (Cetes, Bonos M, Udibonos, Bondes D) ("MGBs"), allegedly
inflating prices.

In particular, the complaint alleges that the defendants: (1)
rigged MGB auctions through collusive bidding and information
sharing; (2) sold MGBs purchased at auction at artificially higher
prices; and (3) agreed to fix the "bid-ask spread" artificially
wider, overcharging and underpaying customers in every MGB
transaction by suppressing the "bid price" at which the defendants
offered to buy MGBs and increasing the "ask price" at which they
offered to sell. The complaint further alleges that these
activities resulted in MGB prices being between 20% and 50% higher
than they otherwise would have been in a competitive market.

According to the complaint, the alleged conspiracy came to light
following an April 2017 announcement that the Comision Federal de
Competencia Economica (COFECE) had uncovered evidence of
anticompetitive behavior in the MGB marketplace.

In addition, the Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating
Authority Pension Plan and the Metropolitan Transportation
Authority Defined Benefit Pension Plan Master Trust, filed a second
putative antitrust class action in New York federal court alleging
the Bank along with other members of the Santander Group conspired
with other financial institutions to fix MGB auctions and purchase
prices. These actions were consolidated into one case. At this
time, we are also aware of a third, similar complaint, which may be
consolidated with the existing cases in the future.

Banco Santander said, "We are in the process of preparing our
defenses. The investigation is in preliminary stages. While the
Bank does not currently anticipate incurring any liability in
connection with this investigation, it is not possible to predict
their outcome and any adverse finding or penalty imposed could have
a material adverse effect on our reputation, financial condition or
results of operations."

Banco Santander (Mexico), S.A., Institucion de Banca Multiple,
Grupo Financiero Santander Mexico provides various banking products
and services in Mexico. The company operates through Retail Banking
and Global Corporate Banking segments. The company was founded in
1932 and is headquartered in Mexico City, Mexico. Banco Santander
(MExico), S.A., InstituciOn de Banca Múltiple, Grupo Financiero
Santander MExico is a subsidiary of Grupo Financiero Santander
MExico, S.A. de C.V.


BIRDEYE INC: Hindi Files Suit Over Unsolicited Telemarketing
------------------------------------------------------------
JAMIL HINDI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BIRDEYE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
0:19-cv-61201-BB (N.D. Tex., May 13, 2019) is a putative class
action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"),
arising from Defendant's knowing and willful violations of the
TCPA.

The Defendant engages in unsolicited telemarketing directed towards
prospective customers with no regard for consumers' privacy rights,
asserts the complaint. The Defendant's telemarketing consists of
sending text messages to consumers soliciting them to purchase
Defendant's goods and services and encourage their friends to do
the same. The Defendant caused thousands of unsolicited text
messages to be sent to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and
Class Members, causing them injuries, including invasion of their
privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass,
and conversion, says the complaint.

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

BirdEye markets itself as the number one software for reviews,
webchats, and surveys.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
     IJH LAW
     1200 Brickell Ave. Suite 1950
     Miami, FL 33131
     Phone: 786.496.4469
     Email: IJHiraldo@IJHlaw.com

          - and -

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


BLUE APRON: Bid to Dismiss IPO-Related Suit in EDNY Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the motion to dismiss
the consolidated class action suit filed before the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York remains pending before
the Court.

The Company is subject to a consolidated putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York alleging federal securities law violations in connection with
the Company's June 2017 initial public offering, or the IPO.  

The amended complaint alleges that the Company and certain current
and former officers and directors made material misstatements or
omissions in the Company's registration statement and prospectus
that caused the stock price to drop. Pursuant to a stipulated
schedule entered by the parties, defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint on May 21, 2018.  

Plaintiffs filed a response on July 12, 2018 and defendants filed a
reply on August 13, 2018. The motion to dismiss remains pending
before the Court.

The Company is also subject to two putative class action lawsuits
filed in New York Supreme Court alleging federal securities law
violations in connection with the IPO, which are substantially
similar to the above-referenced federal court action.

The parties have entered into stipulations staying the state court
actions pending resolution of the motion to dismiss filed in the
federal court action.

Blue Apron said, "The Company is unable to provide any assurances
as to the ultimate outcome of any of these lawsuits or that an
adverse resolution of any of these lawsuits would not have a
material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial
position or results of operations."

Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. operates direct-to-consumer platform that
delivers original recipes, and fresh and seasonal ingredients. It
also operates Blue Apron Market, an e-commerce marketplace that
provides cooking tools, utensils, and pantry items. Blue Apron
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 2012 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.


BLUE APRON: Continues to Defend PAGA and Class Action in Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. continues to defend against a Private
Attorneys General Act (PAGA) lawsuit before the California Superior
Court and a separate class action filed by counsel to the PAGA
plaintiff, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

The Company is subject to a lawsuit filed in California Superior
Court under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") on behalf of
certain non-exempt employees in the Company's Richmond, California
fulfillment center.  

The complaint was filed on October 16, 2017, and alleges that the
Company failed to pay wages and overtime, provide required meal and
rest breaks, provide suitable resting facilities and provide
accurate wage statements, to non-exempt employees in violation of
California law.

Plaintiffs' counsel filed a separate class action lawsuit alleging
largely the same claims, but covering a longer period, which is now
pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.

The Company believes that it is likely that the two cases will be
consolidated, and the parties are preparing for mediation in an
attempt to resolve both cases. The Company is currently unable to
provide any assurances as to the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits
or that adverse resolution of these lawsuits would not have a
material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial
position or results of operations.

Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. operates direct-to-consumer platform that
delivers original recipes, and fresh and seasonal ingredients. It
also operates Blue Apron Market, an e-commerce marketplace that
provides cooking tools, utensils, and pantry items. Blue Apron
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 2012 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.


BOEING CO: May Replace 737 Max Planes Following Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Villasanta, writing for International Business Times,
reports that the likelihood is increasing The Boeing Company might
develop a brand new passenger jet aircraft to replace the Boeing
738 MAX 8, whose reputation was severely damaged following two
horrific crashes in the space of five months that left 346 persons
dead.

Boeing admitted a newly installed autopilot system was responsible
for the crash of Lion Air Flight 610 on Oct. 29, 2018 and the crash
of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 on March 10, 2019.

Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg acknowledged, for the first time, that
bad data feeding into an automated flight system on the ill fated
MAX 8 jetliners played a role in two crashes after Ethiopian
aviation officials said their investigation found no pilot error in
the crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 from Addid Ababa.

"But with the release of the preliminary report of the Ethiopian
Airlines flight 302 accident investigation it's apparent that in
both flights the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System,
known as MCAS, activated in response to erroneous angle of attack
information," Muilenberg said in a statement.

"It's our responsibility to eliminate this risk. We own it and we
know how to do it," Muilenburg added.

Muilenburg said Boeing is "deeply saddened by and are sorry for the
pain these accidents have caused worldwide." He also said the
company is taking a "comprehensive" and "disciplined" approach to
get the software update right.

Boeing anticipates its certification and implementation "in the
weeks ahead." Muilenburg said Boeing remains confident in the
fundamental safety of the 737 Max, which have been grounded since
mid-March.

Some aviation industry experts, however, claim Boeing might need a
replacement for the 737 MAX series that consists of the MAX 8 and
the MAX 9 to gain back people's trust. Doing this might not be
feasible for Boeing given the 737 MAX is the fastest-selling plane
in Boeing history.

The latest iteration of Boeing's lucrative 737 family of jetliners
accounts for 80 percent of Boeing's 5,800-plane order backlog.

It's going to be an uphill battle for Boeing to restore confidence
in the grounded jet.

"You can't hide the 737, you've got thousands of them of all types
flying worldwide today for airlines," Henry Harteveldt, travel
industry analyst and founder of Atmosphere Research Group, told
Business Insider.

He said Boeing can't rebrand the plane because people will quickly
see through this deception. Boeing is, therefore, going to either
have to convince people to fly the 737 Max or build a replacement.

This means the plane that replaces the 737 will have to be a clean
sheet design.

Boeing also faces a tsunami of lawsuits arising from the 737 MAX
that will amount into the billions of dollars.

Boeing investors filed a class-action lawsuit in Chicago alleging
Boeing defrauded its shareholders by failing to reveal potential
safety shortcomings of the 737 MAX after the two fatal crashes.

Many of the families of the 346 victims of Lion Air Flight 610 and
Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 have filed multiple lawsuits against
Boeing. On the other hand, airlines whose 371 grounded 737 MAX
remain grounded have initiated compensation proceedings to collect
damages from Boeing.

Industry analysts expect Boeing's mammoth legal and regulatory
problems to get worse before they get better. [GN]


BREWSTER BY THE SEA: Andrews Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brewster By The Sea, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Victor P. Andrews, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Brewster By The Sea, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-10991 (D. Mass., April 26, 2019).

Brewster By The Sea is a bed and breakfast located in the quiet and
quaint town of Brewster on Cape Cod.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   C.K. Lee, Esq.
   Lee Litigation Group PLLC
   30 E39th Street, 2nd Flr.
   New York, NY 10016-2555
   Tel: (212) 465-1188
   Email: cklee@leelitigation.com


BRIGHTVIEW HOLDINGS: June 14 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on April 15 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against BrightView Holdings, Inc. ("BrightView" or the
"Company") (NYSE: BV) and certain of its officers and directors.  
The class action, filed in United States District Court, United
District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and indexed under
19-cv-01610, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities, other than Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased
or otherwise acquired BrightView common stock pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's initial public offering completed on or
around July 2, 2018 (the "IPO"), seeking to recover compensable
damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act").  The claims in this
action arise from the materially misleading Registration Statement
and Prospectus (defined below) (collectively, the "Offering
Documents") issued in connection with the IPO.

If you are a shareholder who purchased BrightView securities
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's IPO, you have until June
14, 2019, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the
class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss this action, contact Robert S.
Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.

BrightView was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Plymouth
Meeting, Pennsylvania.  The Company provides commercial landscaping
services in the United States, operating through two segments,
Maintenance Services and Development Services.

On or around July 2, 2018, BrightView completed its IPO, in which
the Company issued and sold 24,495,000 shares of common stock at an
offering price of $22.00 per share, generating net proceeds of
approximately $501.2 million after deducting underwriting discounts
and commissions and other offering expenses.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made materially false and
misleading statements in the Offering Documents concerning the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that:  (i) a material portion of
BrightView's contracts were underperforming and/or represented
undesirable costs to the Company; (ii) as a result of the
foregoing, BrightView would implement a "managed exit" strategy to
end its low margin and non-profitable contracts with customers;
(iii) this "managed exit" strategy would negatively impact
BrightView's future revenue throughout 2018, and would continue to
do so well into fiscal year 2019; and (iv) as a result, the
Offering Documents were materially false and/or misleading and
failed to state information required to be stated therein.

On August 8, 2018, after market-close, BrightView issued a press
release announcing its financial and operating results for the
third quarter of 2018, ended June 30, 2018.  Despite reporting
"strong third quarter results" and "record revenues," the Company
reported that "[r]evenues from the Development Services segment
declined 5.7%" compared to the prior year "due to winding down
production on certain large projects that reached substantial
completion during the quarter, coupled with the timing of
commencing work on new projects."

The following day, on August 9, 2018, BrightView filed its
quarterly report for the same period with the Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC"), reiterating the results previously
announced in its earlier press release.  Therein, the Company
disclosed that its Maintenance Services revenue was negatively
impacted by its "Managed Exit" strategy. The Managed Exit strategy
was Brightview's purported corporate strategy to allow certain
"underperforming contacts" to expire upon maturity or renegotiate
the contracts to provide the Company with more favorable terms.
Critically, this was the first time the Company disclosed that it
held "underperforming" customer contracts.

On this news, BrightView's common stock price fell $2.30 per share,
or over 10%, to close at $19.90 per share on August 9, 2018, on
exceptionally heavy trading volume.  This represented a decrease of
nearly 10% from the IPO price.  BrightView's common stock price
continued to fall by an additional $3.53 per share over the
following three trading sessions to close at a low of $16.37 per
share on August 14, 2018, or approximately 25.6% below the IPO
price.

The extent of the Company's "underperforming contracts" was further
revealed on November 27, 2018, when BrightView issued a press
release reporting its financial and operating results for the
fourth quarter and fiscal year 2018. Therein, the Company revealed
that for the fourth quarter and full year, its Managed Exit
strategy offset its Maintenance Services revenue by 2.6% and 1.6%,
respectively.  Additionally, BrightView disclosed that its Managed
Exit strategy would result in a decline in revenue of $15 to $25
million over the course of full year fiscal 2019.

The following day, BrightView filed its annual report for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2018 with the SEC, reiterating the
financial and operating results reported in its earlier press
release. The Company elaborated on the extent of its
underperforming contracts, disclosing that Net Service revenues for
the twelve months ended September 30, 2018 of $2,353.6 million,
were negatively impacted "by a $23.1 million decrease as a result
of the Company's managed exit strategy surrounding underperforming
contracts."

On November 28, 2018, BrightView also hosted a conference call with
investors and analysts to discuss the Company's financial and
operating results.  On that call, BrightView's Chief Executive
Officer ("CEO") Andrew V. Masterman  disclosed that certain of the
Company's contracts not only had "no margin", but in fact were
"under water".

Then, on February 7, 2019, BrightView issued a press release
announcing its financial and operating results for the first
quarter 2019, ended December 31, 2018.  In the press release, CEO
Masterman attributed the Company's disappointing financial and
operating results to, inter alia, the Company's "strategic Managed
Exit initiative and other operating conditions that we highlighted
in our guidance on our November 2018 earnings conference call, as
well as a slow start to the season for our snow removal services."
Additionally, in the Company's quarterly report filed with the SEC
that same day, the Company advised investors that the
underperforming contracts part of the Managed Exit strategy
accounted for a year-over-year quarterly decline of $10.8 million
in landscape services revenues.

Later that day, on February 7, 2019, the Company held an earnings
conference call with investors and analysts. On that call,
Defendant Masterman warned investors that Company's underperforming
contracts comprising its Managed Exit strategy accounted for a
$23.1 million drop in revenue for full year fiscal 2018, and the
Company expected a loss in revenue of over $25 million for 2019.

On this news, BrightView's common stock price declined $1.51 per
share, or over 10%, to close at $13.23 per share on February 7,
2019, representing a decline of nearly 40% from the IPO price.  The
price of BrightView's common stock continued to fall by an
additional $0.48 per share, or 3.6%, to close at a low of $12.75
per share on February 8, 2019, representing a total decline of 42%
from the IPO price.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, The
Pomerantz Firm, - http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the
field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later,
the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established,
fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has
recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of
class members. [GN]


BROOKDALE SAN RAMON: Disabled Residents File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Jon Kawamoto, writing for East Bay Times, reports that when Rita
Stiner signed an agreement in February 2016 with Brookdale San
Ramon for her disabled daughter who uses a wheelchair, she fully
expected Brookdale to live up to the accord.

But Brookdale San Ramon has not only failed to provide the services
listed in the agreement -- as well as the enhanced personal
services plan -- it also has created "humiliating, frustrating and
hazardous situations on a daily basis" for Stacia Stiner, according
to a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.

The lawsuit says that Brookdale San Ramon has not provided Stacia
Stiner with a room that has any physical access features, including
insufficient space in the bathroom, which makes it impossible for
her to enter in her wheelchair; lack of a roll-in shower and
insufficient grab bars; and storage space in her closet that is out
of reach for her. Stiner has had to wait up to 45 minutes to order
breakfast, wait up to an hour for help getting dressed in the
morning and wait up to an hour for staff to respond if she needs to
use the toilet, according to the lawsuit.

Stiner, 48, is one of eight disabled and elderly residents who are
suing Brookdale Senior Living in federal court, accusing the
nation's largest provider of assisted living centers of financial
abuse and multiple violations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

The lawsuit will seek class-action status for the estimated 5,000
residents in Brookdale's 89 assisted living facilities in
California, as well as unspecified damages. No date has been set
when the plaintiffs' attorneys will seek the class-action status.

"It is our view that Brookdale has failed to accommodate the
disabilities of the named plaintiffs, has discriminated against
them on the basis of their disability and has defrauded them of
hard-earned money by not providing them the individualized services
they were promised," said attorney Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld of Rosen
Bien Galvan & Grunfeld, of San Francisco, in an interview. Her firm
is one of three law firms representing the plaintiffs.

In addition to violating the ADA and accompanying regulations,
Brookdale also has not adhered to requirements of the state's Unruh
Civil Rights Act, the lawsuit maintains. The Unruh Civil Rights Act
bans discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry,
national origin, age, disability, medical condition, genetic
information, marital status or sexual orientation.

The lawsuit contends that Brookdale has violated the ADA by failing
to make its facilities usable by people with disabilities.

The lawsuit also alleges that Brookdale has violated the Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, committed elder financial abuse and engages in
unlawful and fraudulent practices.

"The results of Brookdale's callous and profit-driven approach are
devastating: As multiple reports by state regulators confirm,
residents are left without assistance for hours after falling, they
are given the wrong medications, they are denied clean clothing,
showers and nutritious food, and they are left in their own waste
for long periods of time," the lawsuit continues.

Brookdale, with headquarters in Brentwood, Tennessee, owns and
operates senior living and retirement communities across the United
States and is a for-profit company. Brookdale has a total of 961
retirement communities serving 75,000 people, according to its
website.

Heather Hunter, a spokeswoman for Brookdale's corporate office in
Tennessee, said: "The only remark we have is that we strongly
disagree with the allegations and are defending ourselves."

The lawsuit is not the first time that Brookdale has been in the
courts. In December, a suit filed in Ventura County Superior Court
alleged residents of Brookdale's 10 California nursing homes are
being illegally evicted.

In a separate case, Brookdale has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court
to review a 2012 case involving allegations of fraudulent Medicare
billings totaling about $35 million. That case was brought by a
former Brookdale employee in its Tennessee office.

And in a case involving a bizarre death, the granddaughter of a
90-year-old senior resident sued Brookdale over an alligator
attack. The body of Bonnie Walker, a resident of Brookdale
Charleston in South Carolina, was found in July 2016 in a pond near
the senior living community. The coroner ruled the death an
accident and said the cause was "multiple sharp and blunt-force
injuries" consistent with those made by an alligator.

The federal court lawsuit, amended on Feb. 15, was first filed on
July 13, 2017. It was prompted by "scores of family and resident
council meetings and hundreds of communications to Brookdale
management," which "have failed to rectify these problems, leaving
plaintiffs and the class no choice but to seek redress."

On Jan. 25, U.S. District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. denied
Brookdale's motion to dismiss the case, setting the stage for a
potential jury trial. No date has been set for a trial.

The lawsuit details the plaintiffs' issues with Brookdale
facilities across the state.

According to the lawsuit, on October 2016, Stiner's mother, Rita
Stiner, received a letter from Brookdale's executive director,
telling her that the cost for basic service, medication management,
dressing and grooming assistance, shower help and toilet assistance
would increase from $4,736 to $5,638 a month, a 19 percent
increase.

Rita Stiner spoke with Shawn Cull, acting executive director in San
Ramon, and said he told her that Brookdale would not charge the
full amount of the increases. But Brookdale subsequently sent Rita
Stiner notices of late payment and a "30-day final demand to pay,"
the lawsuit stated.

A call seeking comment from Cull was not returned.

Edward Boris was a resident at Brookdale Fountaingrove's assisted
living facility from Sept. 10, 2015, to July 21, 2016. He required
regular monitoring of his catheter.

The lawsuit says that in May 2016, his catheter overflowed,
disconnected and spilled urine all over his room. And on July 20,
2016, Boris's catheter developed a blockage, "but Brookdale's staff
failed to identify or address the problem for about 24 hours."

The lawsuit said the next day, Boris was reported in extreme pain
and suffered a urinary tract infection and kidney failure and had
to stay in intensive care for several days. After he left the
hospital, his condition deteriorated to the point where he needed
skilled nursing care.

Ralph Schmidt, 54, is blind and suffers from short-term memory
loss, the result of a traumatic brain injury. He was a resident at
Brookdale Tracy from September 2011 to Oct. 30, 2017.

"Brookdale responded to Mr. Schmidt's frustration and need for
appropriate accommodations in shockingly inappropriate ways," the
lawsuit says. "Professing to be concerned that Mr. Schmidt might
harm someone with his tapping cane, Brookdale staff once took it
away from him for several weeks."

Schmidt's toilet overflowed "on several occasions," and "Brookdale
responded by locking Mr. Schmidt out of the bathroom in his
apartment altogether. Rather than fix the problems with the toilet,
Brookdale gave Mr. Schmidt, via his conservator, Heather Fisher,
the option of a portable toilet in Mr. Schmidt's room or paying for
a full-time personal caretaker at the additional cost of $250 per
day," according to the lawsuit. [GN]


BROOKDALE SENIOR: Namuwonge Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned AISHA NAMUWONGE, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BROOKDALE SENIOR
LIVING, INC. and KRONOS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2019CH04411 was
removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery
Division, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on May 13, 2019, and assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-03239.

In her Complaint, Plaintiff contends that Kronos and Brookdale both
violate the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), in
connection with Brookdale's use of "fingerprint" time clocks
supplied by Kronos.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     Melissa A. Siebert, Esq.
     Erin Bolan Hines, Esq.
     Ian M. Hansen, Esq.
     Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
     111 South Wacker Drive, Suite 4700
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Phone: (312) 704-7700
     Fax (312) 558-1195
     Email: masiebert@shb.com
            ehines@shb.com
            ihansen@shb.com


C.TECH COLLECTIONS: Landau Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
----------------------------------------------------
Yitty Landau, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. C.Tech Collections, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-02789 (E.D. N.Y., May 13, 2019) asserts violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").

In its efforts to collect an alleged Debt, Defendant contacted
Plaintiff by letter ("the Letter") dated December 26, 2018. The
Plaintiff is enrolled in New York's Medicaid program. Other than
for co-pays, Medicaid patients may not be balance-billed. The
alleged Debt is not a co-pay, but rather represents unlawful
balance billing. By sending a collection letter to Plaintiff to
collect on the alleged Debt, Defendant misrepresented the status of
the debt as collectible, when it was not. As such, Defendant
violated the FDCPA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Yitty Landau is a natural person allegedly obligated to
pay a debt.

Defendant is regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection of
debts allegedly owed by consumers.[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) 706-5055
     Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com


CANADIAN HOCKEY: Junior Hockey Players' Class Action Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shannon Kari, writing for Law Times, reports that judges presiding
over class action proceedings should be cautious about using the
principles set out by the Supreme Court in Hryniak to narrow
litigation at the certification stage, the Divisional Court stated
in a case about compensation for junior hockey players.

The three-judge panel made the comments in Berg et al. v. Canadian
Hockey League et al., a ruling that overturned the decision by
Justice Paul Perell to refuse to certify some of the plaintiffs'
claims in the class action over whether the players are employees
of their teams.

"In Hryniak, the cry for proportionality is directed at coming up
with efficient and fair procedures for resolving disputes. It is
not a direction to use what is essentially a procedural motion such
as certification to make decisions of substance about what properly
pleaded causes of action parties are entitled to advance," wrote
justices Harriet Sachs, Julie Thorburn and Robert Reid in a joint
decision of the court.

"A decision to eliminate causes of action is a substantive
decision, not a procedural one," the court explained in its
decision released on April 3.

Ted Charney, co-counsel for the plaintiffs along with Steven
Barrett -- sbarrett@goldblattpartners.com -- at Goldblatt Partners
LLP, says they are pleased that the Divisional Court certified all
of the claims including breach of contract, negligence and
conspiracy, as well the causes of action accepted by Perell.

"They are all essential to the plaintiffs' theory of the case. The
Divisional Court accepted the argument that it is not up to the
court to determine how a case should be litigated. Let the lawyers
decide on strategy," says Charney, who heads Charney Lawyers in
Toronto.

Lauren Tomasich -- ltomasich@osler.com -- a partner at Oslers LLP
in Toronto, notes that, unlike a summary judgment motion, there
will not be a full record before a judge at the certification stage
in a class action. "The Divisional Court is saying that this is not
an opportunity to re-craft the pleadings," notes Tomasich, whose
practice focuses on class action defence.

If a defendant is alleging over-pleading, then there will need to
be evidence presented "from a procedural perspective" about why
certain causes of action should not be allowed to go forward, says
Tomasich, who is not involved in the junior hockey player
litigation.

The class action is one of three parallel proceedings in Alberta,
Quebec and Ontario involving former "major junior league" players.
In the Ontario action, one of the main claims is that the players
did not receive the minimum employment benefits they were entitled
to under the Employment Standards Act. In a notice explaining who
may be eligible to the join the class, the plaintiffs' lawyer
states that if the action is ultimately successful, former players
may receive as much as $10,000 per season plus overtime.

Since the 2013-14 season, the standard player agreement in the
Ontario Hockey League has stated that it is not a contract of
employment and any compensation is referred to as a reimbursement
or honorarium. For every full season, a player is entitled to a
one-year "scholarship" to attend a post-secondary institution. The
court heard that the three major junior leagues in Canada paid out
a total of $6.2 million in scholarships in 2014-15.

Regardless of the outcome of the class action, the proceeding will
not have an impact on current and future junior hockey players in
the province. At the request of the OHL, the Ontario government
enacted regulations last fall that explicitly exempt players on a
"major junior ice hockey team" from the protections of the
provincial employment provisions. Other exempted groups under the
statute include adults in provincial jails and young offenders on
some form of work release program as part of their sentence.

Patricia Jackson, a senior partner at Torys LLP in Toronto and lead
counsel for the defendant hockey leagues, declined to comment as
the legal proceedings are ongoing.

In his decision to exclude some of the causes of action, Perell
found that they were redundant and already addressed by the core
question in the litigation. The Divisional Court disagreed and
found that he overstepped his role at this stage of the
litigation.

As well, it found that Perell's analysis on whether a class action
is a preferable procedure did not use a comparative analysis as
outlined by the Supreme Court in AIC Limited v. Fischer and focused
instead on proportionality and redundancy. "This is not the inquiry
that AIC Limited mandates," the Divisional Court said. [GN]


CAVE ENTERPRISES: Puckett Suit Alleges BIPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Brando Puckett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Cave Enterprises Operations, LLC, Case No. 2019CH03720
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., March 21, 2019), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act.

The Defendant violated BIPA by failing to provide its employees
with a written, publicly available policy identifying its retention
schedule, and guidelines for permanently destroying its employees'
fingerprints when the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining
their fingerprints is no longer relevant, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a citizen of the state of Illinois who worked for
the Defendant through early 2019.

The Defendant is a Chicago-based for-profit Delaware limited
liability company that owns and operates over 100 Burger King
franchises throughout the United States including Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Fish, Esq.
      Seth Matus, Esq.
      THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
      200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
      Naperville, IL 60563
      Tel: (630) 355-7590
      Fax: (630) 778-0400
      E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
              smatus@fishlawfirm.com
              admin@fishlawfirm.com


CAWLEY & BERGMANN: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Greifman FDCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nelson S. Roman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York dismissed the case, SARAH GREIFMAN,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. CAWLEY & BERGMANN, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-08784 (NSR)
(S.D.N.Y.).

The Plaintiff brings the putative class action on behalf of herself
and those similarly situated, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 1692,
et seq., the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), against
Cawley for deceptive and misleading debt collection.  The
Plaintiff, a consumer, alleges that she was contacted by the
Defendant, a debt collector, by letter dated Jan. 18, 2018, for the
purpose of collecting a debt owed by the Plaintiff.  She asserts
that the Defendant's debt collection letter makes several false or
misleading representations.

The Plaintiff alleges that the letter provides that the she owes a
debt to JH Portfolio Debt Equities, LLC.  Her allegations suggest
that such representation is false because as of the date of the
debt collection letter, she did not contract with, did not owed any
money to nor owe a debt to JH Portfolio.  She further suggests that
the information contained in the debt collection letter would be
confusing to the least sophisticated consumer in part because it
fails to "clearly name the creditor to whom the debt is owed."  The
Plaintiff asserts claims pursuant to FDCPA Section 1692e and
Section 1692g.

Presently before the Court is the Defendant's motions to dismiss
the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12
(b)(6).  

Applying "the least sophisticated consumer standard," Judge Roman
determines that the debt collection letter received by the
Plaintiff is neither false nor misleading.  Though the Plaintiff is
correct that the letter indicates that the Defendant is attempting
to collect a debt and identifies JH Portfolio as the debtor, the
document clearly and unambiguously also identifies the original
debtor as "Citibank N.A./Citi Simplicity Card."  Nowhere in the
debt collection letter does it state or can it be interpreted to
suggest that the Plaintiff contracted with, borrowed monies from or
incurred an original debt from JH Portfolio.

He also finds that the Plaintiff's recipient of the debt collection
letter as alleged, invoked the right to have the debt verified
provided she mailed a notice of dispute within 30 days of receiving
a communication from the Defendant.  The Plaintiff, however, does
not allege in her Complaint that she timely mailed a notice to
Defendant disputing the debt or requesting verification of the
debt.  As previously mentioned, the debt collection letter clearly
identifies the current creditor, JH Portfolio, the original
creditor, Citibank, the amount of the debt, and that the Defendant
has been contracted to collect a debt owed by the Plaintiff to JH
Portfolio.  Viewing the letter from the least sophisticated
consumer, the document is neither false, confusing nor misleading.
Though the Plaintiff's Complaint suggest that the debt collection
letter is susceptible to "two or more meanings" and or to an
inaccurate reading, such allegations are made in conclusory fashion
and not supported by the facts.  Accordingly, the Plaintiff's
Section 1692g claim(s) must be dismissed.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Roman granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint.  The Clerk of the Court is
respectfully directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 12, and to
terminate the action.  The Order constitutes the Court's Opinion
and Order.

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

Sarah Greifman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by David Michael Barshay --
dbarshay@barshaysanders.com -- Baker Sanders, LLC & Craig B.
Sanders -- csanders@barshaysanders.com -- Barshay Sanders, PLLC.

Cawley & Bergmann, LLC, Defendant, represented by Donald S.
Maurice, Jr. -- dmaurice@MauriceWutscher.com -- Maurice &
Needleman, P.C. & Brady James Hermann --
bhermann@MauriceWutscher.com -- Maurice Wutscher, LLP.


CDK GLOBAL: AutoLoop Class Action Underway in Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
CDK Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit initiated by Loop LLC d/b/a
AutoLoop.

Loop LLC d/b/a AutoLoop ("AutoLoop") brought suit against CDK
Global, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on April 9, 2018, but reserved its rights with respect to
remand to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin at the conclusion of the MDL proceedings.

On June 5, 2018, AutoLoop amended its complaint as a putative class
action on behalf of itself and all other automotive software
vendors in the United States that purchased data integration
services from CDK or Reynolds and Reynolds.

CDK Global, LLC moved to compel arbitration of AutoLoop's claims,
or in the alternative, to dismiss those claims; that motion was
denied on January 25, 2019. CDK Global, LLC filed an answer to
Autoloop's complaint and counterclaims against Autoloop on February
15, 2019.

AutoLoop filed an Answer to CDK Global, LLC’s counterclaims on
March 8, 2019.

CDK Global, Inc. provides software and technology solutions for
automotive retailers in the United States and internationally. The
company operates through Retail Solutions North America,
Advertising North America, and CDK International segments. CDK
Global, Inc. is headquartered in Hoffman Estates, Illinois.


CENTRAL CREDIT: Nunez Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
Aisha Nunez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Central Credit Services LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-02790 (E.D. N.Y., May 13, 2019) seeks to recover
for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA").

In its efforts to collect an alleged Debt, Defendant contacted
Plaintiff by letter ("the Letter") dated June 14, 2018. The Letter,
which conveyed information regarding the alleged Debt, fails to
instruct the consumer to which of the multiple addresses provided
written disputes must be sent. As a result, the least sophisticated
consumer would likely be confused as to which of the multiple
addresses she should send her written dispute to.   Because the
Letter is open to more than one reasonable interpretation in this
regard, it violates the FDCPA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Aisha Nunez is an individual allegedly obligated to pay a
debt.

Defendant is regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection of
debts allegedly owed by consumers.[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) 706-5055
     Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com


CLASSIC PARKING: Oro Suit Alleges Calif. Labor Code Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Santiago Oro, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. Classic Parking, Inc. and Does 1 to 50, Case
No. 19STCV09538 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 21,
2019), is brought against the Defendant for violations of
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover meal break premiums, rest break
premiums, penalties for accurate itemized wage statements, wages
upon termination or resignation, other penalties, and injunctive
and other equitable relief.

The Plaintiff is a resident of California and is an employee of the
Defendant.

The Defendant is believed to be a California corporation operating
within the State of California. Defendant's corporate address is
3208 Royal St., Los Angeles, CA 90007. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      DARREN M. COHEN, Esq.
      KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
      16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
      Encino, CA 91436
      Tel: (818) 990-8300
      Fax: (818) 990-2903
      E-mail: clcohen@kingsleykingsley.com


COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Dake Suit Moved to Northern Dist. of California
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARY ANN DAKE, the Plaintiffs, vs. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY, et
al., the Defendants, Case No. CGC-18-276697, was removed from the
Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on April 29,
2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case
No.: 3:19-cv-2319 to the proceeding.

On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two
affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada,
Inc., 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.

Since the Chapter 11 Case was commenced, the Debtors have remained
as debtors in possession under 11 U.S.C. section 1101 and have the
rights, powers, and duties set out in 11 U.S.C. sections 1107 and
1108. At the time the Debtors commenced the Chapter 11 Case, the
State Court Talc Claims were pending in the State Court. The State
Court Talc Claims are not proceeding before the United States Tax
Court and are not brought by a governmental unit to enforce its
police or regulatory powers.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligence, negligent failure to warn strict liability failure to
warn, and design defect of their talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendant:

          Amy Zumsteg, Esq.
          Alexander G. Calfo, Esq.
          Julia E. Romano, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          633 West 5th Street, Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: 213 443 4355
          Facsimile: 213 443 4310
          E-mail: acalfo@kslaw.com
                  jromano@kslaw.com
                  azumsteg@kslaw.com

CONAGRA BRANDS: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP ("Labaton Sucharow") disclosed that on April
15, 2019 it filed a securities class action lawsuit, captioned
Houston Municipal Employees Pension System v. Conagra Brands, Inc.
No. 19-cv-02550 (N.D. Ill.) (the "Action"), on behalf of its client
Houston Municipal Employees Pension System ("Houston Municipal")
against Conagra Brands, Inc. (NYSE: CAG) ("Conagra" or the
"Company"), and certain officers and directors (collectively,
"Defendants").

The Action, which asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and SEC
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, expands the class definition for
Exchange Act claims asserted in the previously filed action
captioned West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Conagra
Brands, Inc., No. 19-cv-01323 (N.D. Ill.), brought on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Conagra
common stock from June 27, 2018 through December 19, 2018,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), to specifically include legacy
Pinnacle Foods, Inc. ("Pinnacle") common stock holders who received
Conagra common stock in exchange for their Pinnacle shares on
October 26, 2018 upon completion of the Company's acquisition of
Pinnacle (the "Class Period").

Conagra, based in Chicago, Illinois, manufactures and markets
packaged foods for retail consumers, restaurants and institutions.
The Company has a portfolio of well-known food brands including
Reddi-wip, Hunt's, Healthy Choice, Slim Jim and Orville
Redenbacher's.

On June 27, 2018, Conagra announced the acquisition of Pinnacle, in
a cash and stock transaction valued at approximately $10.9 billion
(the "Transaction"). Pursuant to the terms of the Transaction,
Conagra was to pay approximately $5.1 billion in cash and issue
approximately 77.45 million Company shares out of the Company's
treasury to former holders of Pinnacle common stock. Upon closing
of the Transaction on October 26, 2018, Pinnacle common stock
holders received $43.11 in cash and 0.6494 shares of Conagra common
stock in exchange for each share of Pinnacle held. The implied
consideration price for each share of Pinnacle was valued at $68.00
per share.

At the time of the Transaction and throughout the Class Period,
Conagra represented the merger as a combination of two "growing
portfolios" that would enhance Conagra's multi-year transformation
plan and expand its presence and capabilities in its most strategic
categories, including frozen foods and snacks. Conagra highlighted
their due diligence of the deal, the similar cultures and work
ethics of the two companies, and the tremendous synergies of the
deal.

Unbeknownst to shareholders, however, Conagra and its management
were aware or recklessly disregarded that the Transaction would not
result in anywhere near the sort of benefits that Defendants had
publicly represented. Just a few weeks after the closing of the
merger, on December 20, 2018, Conagra stunned the market by
releasing its third quarter 2018 results, as well as an update on
the performance of the newly merged company, which revealed that
Pinnacle's performance had been much worse than Defendants had
previously represented. In addition, Defendants revealed that
Pinnacle's three leading brands had "suffered sales and
distribution losses" in 2018, and accounted "for the vast majority
of Pinnacle's current challenges" due to self-inflicted subpar
innovation and executional missteps.

As a result of the disclosure, on December 20, 2018, Conagra's
stock price fell $4.81 per share to $24.28, or nearly 17%, wiping
out over $2.3 billion in Conagra's market capitalization,
continuing to fall precipitously over the following two trading
days for a total decline of approximately 30%.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Conagra common stock during
the Class Period and were damaged thereby, you are a member of the
"Class" and may be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff. Lead
Plaintiff motion papers must be filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois no later than April 23, 2019.
The Lead Plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent
members of the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as Lead
Plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in the Action. If you are
a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share
in that recovery as an absent Class member. You may retain counsel
of your choice to represent you in the Action.

If you would like to consider serving as Lead Plaintiff or have any
questions about this lawsuit, you may contact Francis P.
McConville, Esq. of Labaton Sucharow, at (800) 321-0476, or via
email at fmcconville@labaton.com.

Houston Municipal is represented by Labaton Sucharow, which
represents many of the largest pension funds in the United States
and internationally with combined assets under management of more
than $2 trillion. Labaton Sucharow has been recognized for its
excellence by the courts and peers, and it is consistently ranked
in leading industry publications. Offices are located in New York,
NY, Wilmington, DE, and Washington, D.C. More information about
Labaton Sucharow is available at www.labaton.com. [GN]


CP PRINCE ST: Aucacama Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Manuel Aucacama, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CP PRINCE ST LLC (D/B/A COCO
PAZZO), ALESSANDRO BANDINI, PINO DOE, JOSEPH ESSA, and GIUSEPPE
LOUNGO, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04245 (S.D. N.Y., May 9, 2019)
is an action on behalf of Plaintiff, and other similarly situated
individuals, for unpaid 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, including applicable
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

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

Plaintiff Aucacama was employed as a dishwasher and a cleaner at
the Defendants' restaurant.

Defendants own, operate, or control an Italian restaurant, located
at 160 Prince Street, New York, NY 10012 under the name "Coco
Pazzo".[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


CRAFT BREW: 9th Cir. Denies Review of Brouhaha Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence I Weinstein, Esq., and Carl Mazurek, Esq., of Proskauer
Rose LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, report that in
a 2-1 decision memorialized in a one-page order, a Ninth Circuit
panel recently denied Kona Brewing's request for leave to appeal a
grant of class certification to a consumer class claiming that the
company's branding deceptively communicated the false message that
Kona beer is brewed in Hawaii. Broomfield v. Craft Brew Alliance,
No. 18-80145 (9th Cir. 2019).

Plaintiffs claimed that by giving Hawaiian names to its beers such
as "Hanalei Island IPA" and "Kanaha Blonde Ale," and incorporating
images of Hawaiian scenes on its beer bottle labeling, Kona Brewing
communicated the false message that its beers were brewed in Hawaii
when they actually are brewed in New Hampshire and Tennessee.

In its petition for permission to appeal the class certification
order, Kona argued that the District Court rubber stamped
plaintiffs' argument that the class of purchasers all gleaned the
same material, misleading message from the imagery on the
packaging, even though the issue of whether class-wide liability
can be predicated solely upon imagery is one of first impression in
the Ninth Circuit. Kona also argued that the District Court's
evaluation of plaintiffs' proposed conjoint analysis for class-wide
damages was insufficiently probing, and that the District Court
failed to appreciate deficiencies in plaintiffs' damages model.

The panel majority denied Kona's petition, issuing a one-sentence
order citing without further explanation to a previous Ninth
Circuit decision, Chamberlan v. Ford Motor Co., 402 F.3d 952 (9th
Cir. 2005). Under Chamberlan, the Ninth Circuit cautioned that
permitting an interlocutory appeal under Rule 23(f) should be a
"rare occurrence," and is only justified when: (1) there would be a
death knell situation for either party absent review – that is,
where the certification decision would effectively end the
litigation by making it prohibitive for one of the parties to
continue; (2) the petition presents unsettled and fundamental
issues of law related to class actions; or (3) there is a manifest
error in the district court's certification decision.

Judge Gould, in dissent, opined that at least two of the Chamberlan
criteria were present. He wrote that "certification may cause the
defendant unduly to feel pressed to reach a settlement without
regard to merits because of the size of the California market for
beer." He also wrote that certification could resolve the issues
raised by appellant, which he viewed as important unsettled legal
questions.

The decision underscores the difficulties defendants of class
action lawsuits face if they are unsuccessful in resisting class
certification at the district court level. As Judge Gould noted,
class certification shifts the dynamics of a case, pressuring
defendants to settle rather than endure costly litigation in order
to achieve end-of-case review. In this sense, a grant of class
certification may be dispositive of a case despite being
unconnected to the merits of the claims. [GN]


DIGNITY HEALTH: Buford Files Class Action in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DIGNITY HEALTH. The
case is styled as BUFORD, THERESA INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. DIGNITY HEALTH A
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION D/B/A ST. MARY'S MEDICAL CENTER, DOES 1 TO
20, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. CGC19575930 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
San Francisco Cty., May 13, 2019).

The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints".

Dignity Health is a California-based not-for-profit public-benefit
corporation that operates hospitals and ancillary care facilities
in 3 states.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by KANE MOONE, ESQ.


ELETROBRAS: ANDECO Class Action Underway in Brazil
--------------------------------------------------
Centrais Eletricas Brasileiras S.A. - Eletrobras said in its Form
20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
on April 30, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018,
that the company continues to defend a class action suit initiated
by the National Consumers Association (ANDECO).

The National Consumers Association (ANDECO) filed a class action in
Brasilia against the company, Amazonas D, Eletroacre, Ceal, Cepisa,
Ceron and Boa Vista Energia. ANDECO claims the historic amount of
R$27,080 million.

The plaintiff alleges that, despite having ANEEL's authorization,
the prorated collection of non-technical losses (fraud, theft,
measurement errors, billing and delivery without measurement) by
the distribution companies is improper. Therefore, the distribution
companies should be ordered to reimburse the consumers twice the
amount erroneously charged, per article 42 of the Brazilian
Consumer Protection Code (Codigo de Defesa do Consumidor) ("CDC"),
from 2010 to 2014, according to their respective balance sheets.

It also calls for the annulment of all ANEEL's resolutions that
allow the collection and inclusion of amounts charged for
non-technical losses in the invoices.

The plaintiff requested a preliminary injunction to suspend
collection and the enforceability of the related ANEEL's
resolutions, which was denied. As ANEEL is part of the suit, the
claim was reassigned to a federal court.

In August 2016, the court issued an initial order maintaining the
enforceability of ANEEL's resolutions. In November 2017, the court
issued a decision excluding ANEEL from the claim and for this
reason the proceeding returned to state court.

As of December 31, 2018, the contingency amount for this claim is
R$132.8 million.

Centrais Eletricas Brasileiras S.A. - Eletrobras, through its
subsidiaries, engages in the generation, transmission, and
distribution of electricity in Brazil. The company was founded in
1962 and is based in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.


ELETROBRAS: Consolidated Securities Class Suit in NY Concluded
--------------------------------------------------------------
Centrais Eletricas Brasileiras S.A. - Eletrobras said in its Form
20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
on April 30, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018,
that the consolidated securities class action pending before the
Southern District of New York (SDNY) has been concluded.

Between July and August 2015, two putative securities class action
complaints were filed against the company and certain of its
employees in the SDNY. In October 2015, these actions were
consolidated, and the Court appointed lead plaintiffs, Dominique
Lavoie and the City of Providence.

The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in December
2015 purportedly on behalf of investors who purchased the company's
U.S. exchange-traded securities between August 17, 2010 and June
24, 2015 and filed a second amended complaint on February 26,
2016.

The plaintiffs alleged that the company and certain of its officers
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and among other things, that the
company and the individual defendants knew or should have known
about alleged fraud committed against us by a cartel of
construction firms, as well as bribes and kickbacks allegedly
solicited and received by our employees; that the company and the
individual defendants made material misstatements and omissions
regarding the alleged fraud; and that the company stock price
declined when the alleged fraud was disclosed.

In March 2017, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
company's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. All
claims against Jose Antonio Muniz Lopes, the company's former CEO,
were dismissed, as were scheme liability claims against Jose da
Costa Carvalho Neto, the company's former CEO, and Armando Casado
de Araujo, the company's former CFO, under Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) promulgated thereunder.

The motion to dismiss was otherwise denied as to the remaining
claims. In May 2018, the company entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle the investors' class actions for U.S.$14.75
million to resolve all pending claims brought by the putative class
of plaintiffs. The settlement does not represent admission of
wrongdoing or an illegal act of misconduct by us and we deny the
accusations in the claim.

In June 2018, the parties submitted to the court the stipulation of
settlement and other supporting documents.

The settlement was preliminarily approved on August 17, 2018 and
confirmed by the court on December 12, 2018. On January 23, 2019,
the deadline for appealing the decision that definitively approved
the settlement was reached and no appeal has been brought.

Eletrobras said, "As a result of, the final settlement is fully
effective, and, to our knowledge, no further judicial action is
pending against us in the United States. The full value of the
aforementioned memorandum of understanding, U.S.$14.75 million, to
settle the class action was covered by our Directors and Officers
insurance policy."

Centrais Eletricas Brasileiras S.A. - Eletrobras, through its
subsidiaries, engages in the generation, transmission, and
distribution of electricity in Brazil. The company was founded in
1962 and is based in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.


ENEL CHILE: 35 Consumers Join SERNAC Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Enel Chile S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that 35 new consumers have
joined the class action lawsuit sponsored by the National Consumer
Board against Enel Distribucion Chile S.A.

A class action lawsuit has been sponsored by the National Consumer
Board (SERNAC) for alleged breach of the collective, diffuse
interest of the consumers as provided for in the Consumer
Protection Law, for which they petitioned that Enel Distribucion
Chile S.A. should be fined for the breach of the above-mentioned
law, and also that it should be ordered to pay compensation for
damages caused to all of the consumers as a result of the
interruption of the electricity supply that affected a large part
of the Metropolitan Region as a result of the inclement weather
front, specifically a snowstorm, in July 2017.

On November 13, 2017, Enel Distribucion Chile answered the
complaint. Enel Distribucion Chile believes that the expected
outcome of the litigation is remote, considering the background
that is at hand. It is worth mentioning that in this case the
amount of compensation claimed is indeterminate. Besides, 35 new
consumers have joined the lawsuit. A summons to a conciliation
hearing is pending.

Enel Chile S.A., an electricity utility company, engages in the
generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity in Chile.
The company operates through Generation Business and Distribution
Business segments. The company was formerly known as Enersis Chile
S.A. and changed its name to Enel Chile S.A. in November 2016. The
company was founded in 2016 and is based in Santiago, Chile. Enel
Chile S.A. is a subsidiary of Enel Iberoamerica S.R.L.


EQX HOTEL: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against EQX Hotel Management,
LLC. The case is styled as Victor Lopez, On Behalf of Himself And
All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. EQX Hotel
Management, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04329 (S.D. N.Y., May
13, 2019).

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

Equinox Hotel Management, Inc. was founded in 1995. The company's
line of business includes operating public hotels and motels.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
     150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003
     Phone: (212) 228-9795
     Fax: (212) 982-6284
     Email: nyjg@aol.com


EVENTBRITE INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP  ("GPM") on April 15 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Gomes v.
Eventbrite, Inc. et al., (Case No. 3:19-cv-02019), on behalf of
Eventbrite, Inc. (NYSE: EB ) ("Eventbrite" or the "Company")
investors who: a) purchased or otherwise acquired Eventbrite
securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's false and/or
misleading registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the
"Registration Statement") issued in connection with the Company's
September 2018 initial public offering ("IPO" or the "Offering");
and/or b) purchased or otherwise acquired Eventbrite securities
between September 20, 2018 and March 7, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Investors are hereby notified that they have  60 days from the
April 16, 2019, date of this notice to move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff in this action.

On September 19, 2018, Eventbrite sold shares in its initial public
offering ("IPO") at $23 per share. In the IPO registration
statement, Eventbrite stated that its acquisition of Ticketfly "had
a positive impact on our net revenue growth" in the third quarter
of 2017. On March 7, 2019, Eventbrite reported its annual financial
results, and in a related conference call, Eventbrite's Chief
Executive Officer and co-founder, Julia Hartz, stated that the
strategy to integrate Ticketfly "will impact revenues in the
short-term."

On this news, shares of Eventbrite fell 7.96, or over 24%, to close
at $24.46 on March 8, 2019, thereby injuring investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the Company's migration of
customers from Ticketfly to Eventbrite was progressing slower than
expected; (2) that, as a result, the Ticketfly integration would
take longer than expected; (3) that, as a result, the Company's
revenue and growth would be negatively impacted; and (4) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased Eventbrite securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than  60 days from April 16, 2019, the
date of this notice  to ask the Court to appoint you as lead
plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to
learn more about this action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire,
of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California
90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.

CONTACT:

     Lesley Portnoy, Esq.
     Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
     Tel: 310-201-9150
     Tel: 888-773-9224
     Email: shareholders@glancylaw.com
            www.glancylaw.com [GN]


EXXIZZ FOODS: Ramos Seeks Overtime Pay for Hours Worked Over 40
---------------------------------------------------------------
Renee Ramos, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Exxizz Foods, Inc., Matthew Otero and Sopheak Otero, Defendants,
Case No. 19-cv-00132, (S.D. Tex., May 6, 2019), seeks unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Exxizz Foods operates as Rockport Donuts where Ramos worked as a
dishwasher and server up to January 2018 at their Rockport, Texas
location. She claims to have worked nine hours per day, seven days
per week without breaks, for an average of 63 hours per week, all
without overtime pay for hours worked above 40 hours per week and
was not given any payroll records. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Byron Hamilton, Esq.
      Xenos Yuen, Esq.
      SIEGEL YUEN & HONORÉ, PLLC
      6100 Corporate Dr. Ste. 580
      Houston, TX 77036
      Tel: (713) 541-6256
      Fax: (713) 541-9409
      Email: xy@yuenlawoffice.com
             litxy@yuenlawoffice.com


FANHUA INC: Bid to Dismiss Long Class Action Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Fanhua Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company is seeking
dismissal of the class action suit initiated by Miao Long.

On September 7, 2018, Miao Long, individually and on behalf of an
alleged class of similarly situated holders of the Group's American
Depositary Shares (ADSs), filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Group and two of their executive officers.

The complaint alleges that the Group made false and misleading
statements regarding the Group's business, operational and
compliance policies. The complaint principally alleges that they
engaged in improper business practices including irregular
accounting, which were intended to benefit the Group's insiders and
overstated their financial assets and performance metrics. The
complaint asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the Security
Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder and under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

In an order dated December 13, 2018, the Court appointed Miao Long
as lead plaintiff and approved the selection of Pomerantz LLP as
lead counsel.

On January 2, 2019, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York ordered a briefing schedule,
providing that after the court's entry of an order appointing a
lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act,
the lead plaintiff must either file a consolidated complaint or
give notice of its intent not to do so (and therefore proceed on
its initial complaint) by February 20, 2019.

The Group's response to the operative complaint was due by April 1,
2019; the lead plaintiff's opposition is due by May 1, 2019; and
the Group's reply is due by May 15, 2019.

On February 20, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint. The Group, which is the only defendant that has been
served so far, filed a motion to dismiss the amended compliant on
April 1, 2019.

Fanhua said, "The outcome of the above class action cannot be
reliably estimated with reasonable certainty at this stage and no
provision has thus been made as of December 31, 2018."

Fanhua Inc. distributes insurance products in China. It operates
through two segments, Insurance Agency and Claims Adjusting. The
company was formerly known as CNinsure Inc. and changed its name to
Fanhua Inc. in December 2016. Fanhua Inc. was founded in 1998 and
is headquartered in Guangzhou, China.


FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Muldowney Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Firstsource
Advantage, LLC. The case is styled as Matthew Muldowney
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Firstsource Advantage, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
5:19-cv-00565-GLS-TWD (N.D. N.Y., May 13, 2019).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FORD MOTOR: Appeals Court Affirms Summary Judgment Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Ford
unintended acceleration class action lawsuit is finally over after
vehicle owners failed to provide evidence of defective electronic
throttle control systems.

A group of plaintiffs that include consumers and corporations filed
the lawsuit alleging multiple 2002-2010 Ford, Lincoln and Mercury
vehicles are at risk of unintended acceleration events.

The class action, filed in 2013, is a consolidated action comprised
of three lawsuits that allege Ford should have equipped the
vehicles with failsafe "brake over accelerator" systems to prevent
unintended acceleration.

According to the plaintiffs, Ford violated the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act, breached implied and express warranties, and violated
unjust enrichment laws and state consumer protection statutes.

Certain owners and lessees claim their vehicles suffered unintended
acceleration incidents, although there are no claims of property
damage or personal injuries. The plaintiffs say their vehicles are
worth much less than their purchase or lease prices and customers
deserve damages to recover the diminished values of the vehicles.

Ford filed motions to dismiss all three actions which the district
court granted in part and denied in part.

In 2014, the court dismissed the warranty and unjust enrichment
claims of those plaintiffs who had not experienced unintended
acceleration. According to the judge, the plaintiffs "failed to
demonstrate a plausible claim that they paid more for their
vehicles than their actual worth when they have used their vehicles
without incident for many years."

From there the remaining plaintiffs filed the consolidated class
action lawsuit, however, Ford said the plaintiff's expert witnesses
should be excluded and summary judgment granted. A motion for
summary judgment is when a defendant, in this case Ford, claims the
judge should rule in favor of the defendant without going to
trial.

The district court judge agreed to grant partial summary judgment
to Ford on the warranty and unjust enrichment claims because
unintended acceleration events can be caused by many factors
unrelated to electronic throttle control systems.

According to the judge, the plaintiffs failed to provide experts
who could testify the incidents were "proximately caused by the
alleged defect rather than some other known cause for such
events."

As for the remaining claims set forth in the lawsuit, the judge
granted Ford's motion to exclude the opinions of the plaintiffs'
three experts, a fatal blow to the case because "the challenged
expert opinions [were] critical to the remaining summary judgment
issues."

The judge found that because the expert opinions failed to prove
the plaintiffs' theory of defect, the theory was "largely
hypothetical."

The plaintiffs appealed from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit which affirmed the lower court's summary
judgment ruling.

Vehicles Named in the Unintended Acceleration Class Action
Lawsuit:

Ford Five Hundred
Ford Crown Victoria
Ford Econoline
Ford Edge
Ford Escape
Ford Escape Hybrid
Ford Expedition
Ford Explorer
Ford Explorer Sport Trac
Ford F-100; F-150; F-250; F-350; F-450; F-53; F-550; F-750
Ford Flex
Ford Focus
Ford Freestyle
Ford Fusion
Ford Mustang
Ford Taurus
Ford Taurus X
Ford Thunderbird
Ford Transit Connect
Lincoln LS
Lincoln Mark LT
Lincoln MKS
Lincoln MKT
Lincoln MKX
Lincoln MKZ
Lincoln Town Car
Lincoln Zephyr
Mercury Cougar (XR7)
Mercury Grand Marquis
Mercury Mariner
Mercury Milan
Mercury Montego
Mercury Mountaineer
Mercury Sable [GN]


FRANKLIN COLLECTION: Klemp Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
----------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL KLEMP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FRANKLIN COLLECTION SERVICE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00691 (E.D. Wis., May 13, 2019) is an
action brought over the illegal practices of Defendant when
attempting to collect an alleged debt from Plaintiff in violation
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").

FCSI regularly engages in the collection of defaulted consumer
debts owed to others. It is not a law firm. It is not authorized to
practice law in the State of Wisconsin or any other State.

In attempting to collect debts, FCSI uses the mail, telephone,
internet, and other instruments of interstate commerce. FCSI mailed
or caused to be mailed a letter dated May 15, 2018 (the "Letter")
to KLEMP. The Letter alleged KLEMP had incurred and defaulted on a
financial obligation (the "Debt") owed to AT&T Corporation. The
Letter's advice that KLEMP should consult an attorney regarding
FCSI's "remedies" and Klemp's "defenses" leads the unsophisticated
consumer to believe that FCSI is a collection lawfirm. Also
supporting the impression that FCSI is a collection lawfirm is a
disclaimer buried at the second page of the Letter, which
collection lawfirms use to indicate no attorney has actually
reviewed the debtor's file: "When this letter was mailed, no
attorney had reviewed your account."

The Plaintiff asserts that the Letter gives the false, deceptive,
and misleading impression to an unsophisticated consumer that it
was sent by a licensed attorney or law firm when, in fact, the
Letter was not sent by an attorney or law firm. It also gives the
false and misleading impression that FCSI could sue Klemp to
collect the Debt when, in fact, FCSI does not own the Debt nor is
it authorized to practice law in the State of Wisconsin or anywhere
else, says the complaint.

Plaintiff KLEMP is a natural person.

FCSI is a business the principal purpose of which is the collection
of defaulted consumer debts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Francis R. Greene, Esq.
     Philip D. Stern, Esq.
     Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
     STERN•THOMASSON LLP
     3010 South Appleton Road
     Menasha, WI 54952
     Phone" (973) 379-7500
     Email: Philip@SternThomasson.com
            Andrew@SternThomasson.com
            Francis@SternThomasson.com


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Dismiss Bezio Class Action Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company's motion to
dismiss the complaint in the Bezio class action suit is still
pending.

In June 2018, a lawsuit (the Bezio case) was filed in New York
state court derivatively on behalf of participants in GE's 401(k)
plan (the GE Retirement Savings Plan (RSP)), and alternatively as a
class action on behalf of shareowners who acquired GE stock between
February 26, 2013 and January 24, 2018, alleging violations of
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on alleged
misstatements and omissions related to insurance reserves and
performance of GE's business segments in a GE RSP registration
statement and documents incorporated therein by reference.

In November 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended derivative
complaint naming as defendants GE, former GE executive officers and
Fidelity Management Trust Company, as trustee for the GE RSP.

In January 2019, GE filed a motion to dismiss.

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

General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company
worldwide. It operates in Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation, Oil &
Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital segments.
The company was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Dismiss Hachem Class Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the  defendants' motion
to dismiss the Hachem class action suit is still pending.

Since November 2017, several putative shareholder class actions
under the federal securities laws have been filed against GE and
certain affiliated individuals and consolidated into a single
action currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (the Hachem case).

In October 2018, the lead plaintiff filed a fourth amended
consolidated class action complaint naming as defendants GE and
current and former GE executive officers. It alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 related to insurance reserves and accounting for
long-term service agreements and seeks damages on behalf of
shareowners who acquired GE stock between February 27, 2013 and
January 23, 2018.

GE has filed a motion to dismiss, and briefing on that motion
concluded in October 2018.

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

General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company
worldwide. It operates in Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation, Oil &
Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital segments.
The company was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Dismiss Mahar Class Action Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company is seeking
dismissal the amended complaint in the Mahar securities lawsuit.

In July 2018, a putative class action (the Mahar case) was filed in
New York state court naming as defendants GE, former GE executive
officers, a former member of GE’s Board of Directors and KPMG.

It alleged violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 based on alleged misstatements related to insurance
reserves and performance of GE's business segments in GE Stock
Direct Plan registration statements and documents incorporated
therein by reference and seeks damages on behalf of shareowners who
acquired GE stock between July 20, 2015 and July 19, 2018 through
the GE Stock Direct Plan.

In February 2019, this case was dismissed. In March 2019,
plaintiffs filed an amended derivative complaint naming the same
defendants.

In April 2019, GE filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company
worldwide. It operates in Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation, Oil &
Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital segments.
The company was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Dismiss Varga Class Suit Awaits Court OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company is seeking
dismissal of the Varga class action suit in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of New York.

In December 2018, a putative class action (the Varga case) was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New
York naming GE and a former GE executive officer as defendants in
connection with the oversight of the GE RSP.

It alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary duties under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by failing
to advise GE RSP participants that GE Capital insurance
subsidiaries were allegedly under-reserved and continued to retain
a GE stock fund as an investment option in the GE RSP.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a class of GE
RSP participants and beneficiaries from January 1, 2010 through
January 19, 2018 or later.

In April 2019, GE filed a motion to dismiss.

General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company
worldwide. It operates in Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation, Oil &
Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital segments.
The company was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: In Talks to Stay Houston Suit
-----------------------------------------------
General Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company is in the
process of negotiating an agreement to stay the Houston securities
case pending resolution of the motion to dismiss the Hachem case
currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  

In October 2018, a putative class action (the Houston case) was
filed in New York state court naming as defendants GE, certain GE
subsidiaries and current and former GE executive officers and
employees.

It alleges violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 and seeks damages on behalf of purchasers of senior
notes issued in 2016 and rescission of transactions involving those
notes.

General Electric said, "We are in the process of negotiating an
agreement to stay this case pending resolution of the motion to
dismiss the Hachem case."

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

General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company
worldwide. It operates in Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation, Oil &
Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital segments.
The company was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Suit by Sheet Metal Workers Local 17 Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a lawsuit by the Sheet Metal Workers Local 17 Trust Funds
case.

In February 2019, a putative class action (the Sheet Metal Workers
Local 17 Trust Funds case) was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York naming as defendants GE and
current and former GE executive officers.

It alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 based on alleged misstatements regarding GE's
H-Class turbines and the disclosure in October 2018 about the
goodwill impairment charge related to GE's Power business.

The lawsuit seeks damages on behalf of shareowners who acquired GE
stock between December 27, 2017 and October 29, 2018.

General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company
worldwide. It operates in Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation, Oil &
Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital segments.
The company was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts.


GENOCEA BIOSCIENCES: First Circuit Appeal in Emerson Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
Genocea Biosciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the appeal in Emerson
et al. v. Genocea Biosciences, Inc., et al., has been docketed in
the First Circuit under the caption Yuksel, et al. v. Genocea
Biosciences, et al., Civil Action No. 19-1036 (1st Cir.).

Beginning on October 31, 2017, three putative class action
complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts (the "District of Massachusetts" or the "Court"),
naming the Company, Chief Executive Officer William D. Clark, and
former Chief Financial Officer Jonathan Poole as defendants. The
Court consolidated the three actions into one case, captioned
Emerson et al. v. Genocea Biosciences, Inc., et al., Civil Action
No. 17-cv-12137-PBS (D. Mass.), and appointed the Genocea Investor
Group (a group of five purported shareholders) as lead plaintiff.

On March 29, 2018, counsel for the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint in the District of Massachusetts that alleged violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 in connection
with the Company's disclosures from March 31, 2016 to September 25,
2017 concerning the development of GEN-003.

The amended complaint added Seth V. Hetherington, former Chief
Medical Officer, to the original named defendants, and sought
unspecified damages and costs. On December 6, 2018, the District of
Massachusetts granted defendants' motion to dismiss the amended
complaint for failure to state a claim.

On January 7, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in
the District of Massachusetts regarding the Court order dismissing
the amended complaint.

The appeal has been docketed in the First Circuit under the caption
Yuksel, et al. v. Genocea Biosciences, et al., Civil Action No.
19-1036 (1st Cir.).

Genocea Biosciences said, "The Company is unable at this time to
determine whether the outcome of the securities action litigation
would have a material impact on its results of operations,
financial condition or cash flow."

Genocea Biosciences, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, discovers
and develops novel cancer vaccines. Genocea Biosciences, Inc. was
founded in 2006 and is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.


GERBER PRODUCTS: Court Certifies Baby Formula Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Jane Metcalf, Esq. -- jmetcalf@pbwt.com -- and D. Brandon Trice,
Esq. -- dbtrice@pbwt.com -- of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP,
in an article for JDSupra, report that a recent decision from the
Eastern District of New York, Hoth v. Gerber Prods. Co., 15-cv-2995
(E.D.N.Y.), granted class certification to purchasers of Gerber
baby formula in Florida and New York who claimed to have been
misled by representations that the formula reduced infants' risk of
developing allergies. The certified class is unusual, however, in
that not all of its members actually purchased the product labeled
with the alleged misrepresentation. Many courts have concluded that
this lack of uniform exposure defeats certification by precluding a
showing of classwide injury, but the Hoth court credited evidence
that the general "advertising and labeling practice [regarding
allergy prevention] allowed a price premium to be charged across
the entire line of [challenged] products." Op. at 41 (emphasis in
original).

The Hoth court's lenient interpretation of the Rule 23
requirements, if adopted by other courts, has the potential to give
some class members windfalls, permitting them to recover for
deceptive representations they never even saw. But industry members
need not despair of this possibility just yet, because Hoth is far
from a typical "food mislabeling" class action. Gerber's allergy
prevention claim not only appeared on food labels, but in
nationally circulated television and magazine advertisements. And
although the ultimate questions of classwide materiality and injury
have yet to be resolved, the claim at issue is more significant,
and thus more credible as a "price premium" driver, than many of
the statements that are challenged in class actions. Thus, Hoth
should not be read as dispensing with the requirement, applicable
in most food labeling actions, that all members of a putative class
must have purchased the product with the misrepresentation in order
to satisfy the requirements of Rule 23.

The Injury Requirement

Although New York's General Business Law (GBL) does not require
actual reliance on an allegedly false labeling statement, it does
require a showing that the plaintiff suffered cognizable injury as
a result of the alleged misrepresentation.  This generally requires
plaintiffs to offer "reliable evidence that they paid a premium for
[the product with the disputed] label." Weiner v. Snapple Bev.
Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6094, *12 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2011).
The Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
("FDUTPA")—the other statute under which the Hoth plaintiffs
assert claims—likewise does not require actual reliance, but does
require a showing of injury that plaintiffs typically make by
establishing that they paid a premium for the product. Moss v.
Walgreen Co., 765 F. Supp. 2d 1363, 1367 (S.D. Fla. 2011).

This does not necessarily mean that class members who did not see
or consider the alleged misrepresentation, but who claim that the
market value of the misrepresentation caused the price to become
inflated, have suffered an injury.  After all, if a consumer paid
the "inflated" price without taking the alleged misrepresentation
into account, then she would have been willing to pay the same
amount without the misrepresentation, and did not suffer an injury
because of it. And class members who purchased the product when it
did not did not even have the alleged misrepresentation have an
even weaker claim to injury, because a labeling misrepresentation
cannot have influenced the price of a product on which it did not
appear. For this reason, courts generally deny certification when
the defendant can show that not all class members purchased the
product with the challenged claim. See Randolph v. J.M. Smucker
Co., 303 F.R.D. 679, 691 (S.D. Fla. 2014); In re Scotts EZ Seed
Litig., 304 F.R.D. 397, 403 (S.D.N.Y. 2015).

The Hoth Decision

The putative class in Hoth consists of individuals who purchased
Gerber's Good Start Gentle (GSG) infant formula products in New
York and/or Florida between 2011 and 2016. Plaintiffs allege Gerber
falsely claimed that GSG reduces infants' risks of developing
allergies and atopic dermatitis. These claims, Plaintiffs assert,
appeared in a variety of advertising and labeling settings,
including the following:

   -- A television commercial that ran for several weeks in 2012
and 2013, encouraging consumers to choose GSG because "You want
your Gerber baby to have your imagination . . . your smile . . .
your eyes . . . not your allergies";
   -- A magazine advertisement that ran in a variety of magazines
between December 2011 and January 2013 with a similar message to
the TV ad;
   -- A safety seal sticker placed on certain GSG containers
between July 2013 and January 2015, stating GSG is the "1st & Only
Routine Formula to Reduce the Risk of Developing Allergies";
   -- A coupon distributed in 2011 and 2012 representing GSG as the
"first and only formula" to relieve the symptoms of atopic
dermatitis.

Gerber opposed certification principally because, throughout the
five-year class period, its GSG products were sold in three
different formats and in various containers with at least 32
different labels, and its advertisements varied over time and
across different media.  As a result, Gerber argued, plaintiffs
could not show that class members were uniformly injured by the
representation at issue and thus could not satisfy Rule 23's
requirements of typicality (the named plaintiffs' claims are
typical of those of the class), commonality (there are questions of
law or fact that are common to the class), ascertainability (the
class members can be identified according to objective criteria),
or predominance (issues common to the class predominate over
individualized inquiries).

In a decision adopting the magistrate judge's report and
recommendation in relevant part, the district court granted
certification.[1]  The district court took the broadest possible
view of injury under the Florida statute, reasoning that the
absence of a reliance requirement permitted a showing of injury
"regardless of whether the consumer cared about or even saw those
claims," as the "mental state" of the consumer is irrelevant.  Op.
at 30 (citations omitted).  It applied a similar analysis to the
New York GBL, holding that "the individual reason for purchasing a
product becomes irrelevant" when a statute does not require actual
reliance.  Op. at 45.  Thus, although the court concluded that
"some amount of exposure [to the challenged claim] is necessary"
for each class members to establish reliance, it concluded that the
variations over time in Gerber's marketing and labeling did not
preclude a showing of classwide injury.  Op. at 46 (emphasis
added).

Applying this "some exposure" standard to the Gerber campaign at
issue, the court concluded "generalized exposure c[ould] be
inferred" as to the putative classes, because the
misrepresentations at issue were "abundant, accompanied by
advertising campaigns, and appeared prominently on shelves where
consumers shopped."  Op. at 41.  The court also noted that although
some products "may not have been labeled with the representation,
none explicitly disclaimed it and consequently, the representations
as to Good Start Gentle could be understood to apply to the full
product line."  Op. at 25 (citation omitted; alterations adopted;
emphasis added).

In summary, the court concluded, the marketing and labeling
throughout the class period was "sufficiently uniform that it is
likely that a reasonable consumer could have been misled and
encouraged to purchase GSG" by the allegedly false representation.
Op. at 48.  This statement is a bit perplexing because the
objective "reasonable consumer" standard applies to the
determination of whether a claim is actually misleading, not
whether a particular consumer was injured by it.  But the upshot of
this statement, and of the court's analysis, is that the campaign
was sufficiently pervasive that knowledge of it could be imputed to
all the class members, even if they did not purchase products whose
labeling bore the challenged representation.  

The court gave great weight to a parallel California case involving
the same GSG products and allergy representations, Zakaria v.
Gerber Prod. Co., 15-cv-200 (C.D. Cal.), where the court certified
a class under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) on the
basis that classwide exposure may be inferred where there is a
"sufficiently extensive advertising campaign that includes the
alleged misrepresentation."  Op. at 38 (citation omitted).  The
Hoth court inferred this exposure as to an even broader swath of
consumers than the Zakaria court, a departure that it justified on
the grounds that the New York and Florida statutes, unlike the
California statute, do not contain an "actual reliance"
requirement.

Having found that the class was generally exposed to the
representation, the court had little difficulty concluding that
Rule 23's requirements were satisfied.  As to typicality, the named
plaintiffs' claims shared the same essential characteristics of
those of the class, as they were exposed to Gerber's advertising
and business practices in purchasing GSG, regardless of whether
they were exposed to different ads or labels.  The court also held
that predominance was satisfied because plaintiffs did not need to
establish reliance -- an issue that often gives rise to
overwhelming individualized inquiries -- and a class action would
resolve the common question of whether Gerber's representation was
objectively unreasonable and resulted in a price premium.

As to "ascertainability" -- which the court construed as a distinct
"implied requirement" of Rule 23 -- the court held that the class
could be defined by objective criteria that establish membership
through a combination of receipts, purchase information from reward
cards or credit cards, and sworn affidavits.  The court noted that
lack of memory was less likely to be an issue for baby formula than
for other consumer products, since most consumers can pinpoint the
period of time during which they purchased baby formula based on
their children's ages.

How Far Can General Exposure Go?

The theory that "general" or "widespread enough" exposure to
misrepresentations is a basis for showing classwide injury has
serious shortcomings.  Why should a consumer who bought a
truthfully labeled product and did not rely on any
misrepresentations be able to assert a consumer protection claim?
And how "pervasive" does a campaign have to be to permit an
inference of "general exposure"?  Moreover, shouldn't the proponent
of class certification have to adduce evidence not only that the
challenged representations were "abundant," but that class members
actually saw them and took them into account when making their
purchasing decisions?  For all of these reasons, the "general
exposure" theory is likely to create tremendous uncertainty for
consumers and defendants if it is adopted by other courts.

The Hoth court deemed the "general exposure" finding adequate on
the grounds that the consumer protection statutes at issue do not
contain an actual reliance requirement.  But setting aside whether
that is a fair characterization of the statutes, it does not really
justify the court's conclusions.  The Hoth court essentially used
the "abundance" and "prominence" of the campaign as a proxy for
reliance, reasoning that the misrepresentations were so pervasive
that most class members must have seen them.  So its reasoning
still depended on the application of a reliance requirement, albeit
a watered-down one.

At the same time, some of the considerations driving the court's
analysis are well-taken.  It shouldn't be the case that a seller
can avoid liability for misleading marketing by intermittently
ceasing its misrepresentations, omitting the misrepresentations
from certain products in a product line while including them on
others, or varying misrepresentations in immaterial ways "by for
example, creating multiple labels for a product line."  Op. at 41.
If the seller engages in a misleading marketing campaign as to a
product line over a general period of time, it may be reasonable to
conclude that it affected the purchasing decisions of even those
who did not buy products labeled with the misrepresentation.  But
contrary to the Hoth court's suggestions, this is effectively a
showing of reliance, i.e., that even class members who did not buy
products with the representation still relied on it.

The good news is that these same factors make it unlikely that the
Hoth analysis will have a lot of traction in garden-variety food
labeling cases.  One main reason that these cases are such a
headache for industry members is that they often arise from
peripheral statements that appeared on product labels, but were the
subject of limited (if any) advertising.  Thus, despite having
invested little in a labeling statement and gotten no "price
premium" whatsoever from it, a manufacturer may suddenly face a
significant classwide damages claim based on the statement.  The
Hoth analysis, which applies only in cases involving a pervasive
and concerted advertising campaign, is unlikely to carry the day in
those cases.    

Many food-labeling cases also involve claims that are relatively
commonplace (e.g., "no preservatives," "natural ingredients").
Hoth, by contrast, involved a claim of a health benefit that was
purportedly unique to the product category.  Gerber's claim to
offer the "first and only" baby formula with the capacity to reduce
allergy risk is more memorable than, say, the fact that a
particular canned fruit was one of seven in its category to contain
"no added sugar."  As a result, it is more plausible to assert that
it influenced even purchasers who were not looking at the claim at
the time they bought the products.  So in our view, the novel Hoth
analysis is more likely a result of that case's particular facts
than a sea change in the requirements for showing injury under
consumer protection statutes.

[1] The district court also adopted the magistrate's findings as to
the other elements for certification, to which Gerber did not
object, and that certification should be denied as to other state
and multistate classes for which reliance was required, to which
plaintiffs did not object. [GN]

The cases are JENNIFER HASEMANN and DEBBIE HOTH, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GERBER
PRODUCTS CO., d/b/a Nestle Nutrition, Nestle Infant Nutrition, or
Nestle Nutrition North America, Defendant. JEREMY GREENE and
CETARIA WILKERSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. GERBER PRODUCTS CO., d/b/a Nestle
Nutrition, Nestle Infant Nutrition, or Nestle Nutrition North
America, Defendant. WENDY MANEMEIT, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GERBER PRODUCTS CO.,
d/b/a Nestle Nutrition, Nestle Infant Nutrition, or Nestle
Nutrition North America, Defendant, Nos. 15-CV-2995 (MKB) (RER),
16-CV-1153 (MKB) (RER), 17-CV-93 (MKB) (RER)(E.D.N.Y.).

A full-text copy of the Memorandum & Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y434893a from Leagle.com.

Jennifer Hasemann & Debbie Hoth, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by George Volney
Granade, II, Reese Richman LLP, John A. Yanchunis, Morgan & Morgan
Complex Litigation Group, Kevin S. Landau, Taus, Cebulash & Landau,
LLP, Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Berger & Montague, pro hac vice,
Shanon J. Carson, Berger & Montague, P.C., pro hac vice, Brett H.
Cebulash, Taus, Cebulash & Landau, LLP, Carlos F. Ramirez, Carlos
F. Ramirez, Esq., E. Michelle Drake, Berger & Montague PC, pro hac
vice, Marisa Kendra Glassman, Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation
Group, Miles Greaves, Taus Cebulash & Landau LLP, Shoshana Savett,
Berger Montague PC, pro hac vice & Michael Robert Reese, Reese
LLP.

Wendy Manemeit, Plaintiff, represented by Carlos F. Ramirez, Carlos
F. Ramirez, Esq., Miles Greaves, Taus Cebulash & Landau LLP &
Shoshana Savett, Berger Montague PC, pro hac vice.

Gerber Products Co., doing business as Nestle Nutrition doing
business as Nestle Infant Nutrition doing business as Nestle
Nutrition North America, Defendant, represented by David I. Zalman,
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, Geoffrey White Castello, III, Kelley Drye
& Warren LLP & Jaclyn Marie Metzinger, Kelly Drye & Warren LLP.


GOOGLE INC: Cypress Ruling to Have Implications for Tech Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shari Claire Lewis, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
several weeks ago, in Frank v. Gaos, No. 17-961 (U.S. March 20,
2019), the U.S. Supreme Court vacated a decision by the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that upheld a settlement of class
action claims against Google for alleged violations of the Stored
Communications Act (SCA). The Supreme Court initially had agreed to
hear the case to address the question of whether the proposed
settlement, which provided for cy press payments but no individual
recovery to absent class members, was "fair, reasonable, and
adequate" as required for court approval of the settlement pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2). However, after oral
argument, the Supreme Court turned its attention to an entirely
different issue—whether the plaintiffs had standing to pursue
recovery under the SCA in the first instance—and remanded for
further proceedings on that issue. In doing so, the Supreme Court
applied its recent ruling in Spokeo v. Robins, 578 U. S. ___, 136
S. Ct. 1540, 194 L. Ed. 2d 635 (2016) to Internet and technology
claims. It concluded that, to have standing, plaintiffs must
demonstrate actual and concrete harm that is not established by
mere violation of a statutory right, such as under the SCA or other
privacy statutes.

The Supreme Court's ruling, therefore, did not determine the
original issue concerning approval of class action settlements.
Instead, it may be interpreted to substantially limit the ability
of consumers to sue Internet companies and other technology
businesses for what often are only technical violations of the law,
because any individual plaintiff may find it difficult to
demonstrate actual and quantifiable harm as a result of such
alleged violations for purposes of standing.

The Complaints Against Google
The Frank case arose when an individual filed a class action
complaint against Google for alleged violations of the SCA, which
prohibits "a person or entity providing an electronic communication
service to the public" from "knowingly divulg[ing] to any person or
entity the contents of a communication while in electronic storage
by that service." 18 U. S. C. Sec. 2702(a)(1). The SCA also creates
a private right of action that entitles any "person aggrieved by
any violation" to "recover from the person or entity, other than
the United States, which engaged in that violation such relief as
may be appropriate." 18 U. S. C. Sec. 2707(a).

The complaint alleged that when an Internet user conducted a Google
search and clicked on a hyperlink to open one of the webpages
listed on the search results page, Google transmitted information
including the terms of the search to the server that hosted the
selected webpage. This so-called "referrer header" told the server
that the user arrived at the webpage by searching for particular
terms on Google's website. For instance, if a user entered "2016
presidential election" into Google's search box and clicked on a
link to www.cnn.com/election on the search results page, the
"referrer header" would tell CNN that the user found his or her way
there via
http://www.google.com/search?q=2016+presidential+election.Notably,
the referrer header did not provide identifying information
regarding the user performing the search. The complaint alleged
that Google's transmission of users' search terms in referrer
headers violated the SCA.

Google moved to dismiss for lack of standing three times. Its first
attempt was successful. The district court reasoned that although
"a plaintiff may establish standing through allegations of
violation of a statutory right," the plaintiff had "failed to plead
facts sufficient to support a claim for violation of her statutory
rights." That is, the district court decided, she had failed to
plead that she actually had clicked on a link provided through a
Google search that resulted in referrer header information being
sent about the search.

After the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, Google again moved
to dismiss. That second attempt was partially successful. The
district court dismissed the plaintiff's state law claims, but
denied the motion as to the plaintiff's SCA claims. The district
court reasoned that because the SCA created a right to be free from
the unlawful disclosure of certain communications, and because the
plaintiff alleged a violation of the SCA that was specific to her
(that is, it was based on a search she had conducted), the
plaintiff alleged a concrete and particularized injury.

The district court rested that conclusion on Edwards v. First
American, 610 F.3d 514 (9th Cir. 2010) -- a Ninth Circuit decision
reasoning that an Article III injury existed whenever a statute
gave an individual a statutory cause of action and the plaintiff
claimed that the defendant violated the statute.

After the district court ruled on Google's second motion to
dismiss, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Edwards to address
whether an alleged statutory violation alone could support
standing.

In the meantime, the plaintiff and a second individual filed a
second amended complaint against Google. Google once again moved to
dismiss. Google argued that the named plaintiffs did not have
standing to bring their SCA claims because they had failed to
allege facts establishing a cognizable injury. Google recognized
that the district court had previously relied on Edwards to find
standing based on the alleged violation of a statutory right but
said that because the Supreme Court had agreed to review Edwards,
it would continue to challenge the district court's conclusion.

The Supreme Court eventually dismissed Edwards, concluding that
certiorari had been improvidently granted. As a result, Google
withdrew its argument in Frank that the plaintiffs lacked standing
for the SCA claims and the issue was never reached.

The plaintiffs' putative class action was consolidated with a
similar complaint, and the parties negotiated a settlement that
required Google to include certain disclosures on some of its
webpages about referrer headers and to pay $8.5 million.

Of the $8.5 million settlement fund, approximately $3.2 million was
set aside for attorneys' fees, administration costs, and incentive
payments to the named plaintiffs. None of the approximately $5.3
million remaining was allocated to any of the 129 million class
members; if it had been allocated on a pro rata basis, each class
member would have received four cents from the fund.

Instead, the funds were allocated to six cy pres recipients, each
of which was to receive anywhere from 15 percent to 21 percent of
the money provided that they agreed "to devote the funds to promote
public awareness and education, and/or to support research,
development, and initiatives, related to protecting privacy on the
[Internet]." The six recipients were AARP; the Berkman Center for
Internet and Society at Harvard University; Carnegie Mellon
University; the Illinois Institute of Technology Chicago-Kent
College of Law Center for Information, Society and Policy; the
Stanford Center for Internet and Society; and the World Privacy
Forum. Each of the recipients had submitted a detailed proposal for
how the funds would be used to promote Internet privacy.

The district court granted preliminary certification of the class
and preliminary approval of the settlement. Five class members
objected to the settlement, complaining among other things that
providing only cy pres relief did not comport with the requirements
of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). After a hearing, the district court
granted final approval of the settlement.

After two of the class members appealed, the Supreme Court issued
it decision in Spokeo v. Robins, 578 U. S. __ , 136 S. Ct. 1540,
194 L. Ed. 2d 635 (2016), concerning a claim brought under the Fair
Credit Reporting Act of 1970 that Spokeo's search engine resulted
in dissemination of inaccurate information concerning Robins. The
court concluded that, "Article III standing requires a concrete
injury even in the context of a statutory violation." Spokeo
rejected the premise that "a plaintiff automatically satisfies the
injury-in-fact requirement whenever a statute grants a person a
statutory right and purports to authorize that person to sue to
vindicate that right."

Despite the intervening Spokeo decision, in Frank, a divided panel
of the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court, without
addressing Spokeo. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide
whether a class action settlement that provided a cy pres award but
no direct relief to class members satisfied the Rule 23(e)(2)
requirement that a settlement binding class members be "fair,
reasonable, and adequate." The standing issue was not part of that
order.

Standing
After oral argument on the cy press settlement question, the court
ordered supplemental briefing from the parties and from the
Solicitor General to address whether any named plaintiff had
alleged SCA violations sufficiently concrete and particularized to
support standing under Spokeo.

The Solicitor General's supplemental brief, which declared in its
opening paragraph that, "[i]n the government's view, none of the
named plaintiffs has Article III standing," is worth reading. The
brief explained that, in contending that they had standing, the
named plaintiffs appeared to allege two distinct injuries arising
from alleged violations of the SCA: First, that the disclosure of
their search terms itself inflicted a harm, even though the
disclosures did not identify them as the individuals who performed
the searches, and, second, that the disclosures created a risk of
harm by enabling third parties to "reidentify" them and connect
them to particular searches.

In the government's view, neither of those alleged harms
constituted an injury in fact sufficient for Article III standing
after Spokeo. Even the allegations of potential "reidentification"
were too speculative to satisfy the standing requirement, the
government asserted.

The government suggested, therefore, that the court should vacate
the judgment in Frank and remand for the Ninth Circuit and district
court to address whether the plaintiffs had standing.

The Court's Decision
The court did just that. In its brief per curiam decision, the
court said that it concluded, after reviewing the supplemental
briefs, that the case should be remanded for the Ninth Circuit and
district court "to address the plaintiffs' standing in light of
Spokeo."

The court declared that nothing in its per curiam opinion "should
be interpreted as expressing a view on any particular resolution of
the standing question." (Justice Thomas, dissenting, concluded that
the plaintiffs had standing, but no other Justice joined in his
opinion.)

However, given Spokeo and the court's apparent reliance on the
Solicitor General's supplemental brief, there appears to be a good
likelihood that, if the case reaches the court again, it would hold
that the plaintiffs did not have standing.

The Upshot
Whereas the Frank case was expected to be a referendum on the
ability of district courts to approve cy pres class action
settlements, that discussion was "sidelined." Instead, it morphed
into something with potentially broader implications: consumer
standing in lawsuits against Internet businesses. If the district
court and the Ninth Circuit -- and perhaps the Supreme Court--
decide in Frank that the named plaintiffs do not have standing to
assert SCA claims against Google, consumers may be limited in their
ability to bring class actions against Internet service providers
and other Internet and technology companies for technical
violations of the SCA and under a host of other federal statutes --
such as the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Video Privacy
Protection Act -- that plaintiffs have been relying on for years to
sue these kinds of defendants.

By the same token, if consumer class action standing is limited,
then the cy pres question may simply disappear, because defendants
would not have to agree to settlement lawsuits to avoid the
possibility -- however small it may be -- of large statutory damage
awards. Stay tuned.

Shari Claire Lewis, a partner in the Long Island office of Rivkin
Radler, can be reached at shari.lewis@rivkin.com. [GN]


GTX INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Oncternal Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Halper Sadeh LLP, a global investor rights law firm, on April 15
announced the filing of a shareholder class action lawsuit against
GTx, Inc. ("GTx" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: GTXI) in connection
with the proposed sale of GTx to Oncternal Therapeutics, Inc.
("Oncternal").

If you are a GTx shareholder and would like to discuss your legal
rights and options, please visit GTx (GTXI) Merger or contact
Daniel Sadeh or Zachary Halper at (212) 763-0060 or
sadeh@halpersadeh.com or zhalper@halpersadeh.com.

The lawsuit alleges that Defendants issued a materially misleading
registration statement recommending that GTx shareholders vote in
favor of the proposed transaction. According to the complaint, the
registration statement contains materially incomplete and/or
misleading information concerning: (1) GTx's and Oncternal's
financial projections relied upon by the Company's financial
advisor in support of its fairness opinion of the proposed
transaction; and (2) potential conflicts of interests affecting
certain members of the Board. As a result, GTx shareholders must be
provided with this information in order to adequately assess and
value the merger consideration. The lawsuit seeks to enjoin the
shareholder vote on the proposed transaction until such information
is disclosed.

If you are a GTx shareholder and would like to discuss your legal
rights and options, please visit
https://halpersadeh.com/actions/gtx-inc-gtxi-merger-oncternal-stock/
or contact Daniel Sadeh or Zachary Halper at (212) 763-0060 or
sadeh@halpersadeh.com or zhalper@halpersadeh.com.

Our attorneys represent investors all over the world who have
fallen victim to securities fraud and corporate misconduct. They
have been instrumental in implementing corporate reforms and
recovering millions of dollars on behalf of defrauded investors.

Contact Information:

     Daniel Sadeh, Esq.
     Zachary Halper, Esq.
     Halper Sadeh LLP
     Tel: (212) 763-0060
     Email: sadeh@halpersadeh.com
            zhalper@halpersadeh.com
            https://www.halpersadeh.com [GN]


HERSHA HOSPITALITY: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hersha Hospitality
Management L.P. The case is styled as Victor Lopez, On Behalf of
Himself And All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v.
Hersha Hospitality Management L.P., Hersha Hospitality Limited
Partnership, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04322 (S.D. N.Y., May 13,
2019).

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

HHM, formerly known as Hersha Hospitality Management, operates
nearly 130 hotels across the United States. It provides turnkey
hotel management, asset management and receivership for properties
with leading 4 brand affiliations through Marriott, Hilton, Hyatt
and Intercontinental Hotel Group.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
     150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003
     Phone: (212) 228-9795
     Fax: (212) 982-6284
     Email: nyjg@aol.com


HRONIS INC: Samudio Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HRONIS, INC. The case
is styled as JORGE SAMUDIO, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF OTHER
MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v.
HRONIS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
BCV-19-101310 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., May 13, 2019).

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

Hronis Inc. owns and operates numerous vineyards that produces
markets and distributes a wide variety of grapes and citrus
products. Hronis offers its products and services throughout the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by DOUGLAS HAN, ESQ.



IBM CORP: ERISA Class Action in New York Ongoing
------------------------------------------------
International Business Machines Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April
30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that a
class action alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) remains pending before the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

In May 2015, a putative class action was commenced in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York related
to the company's October 2014 announcement that it was divesting
its global commercial semiconductor technology business, alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).


Management's Retirement Plans Committee and three current or former
IBM executives are named as defendants. On September 29, 2017, the
Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended
complaint. On December 10, 2018, the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals reversed the District Court order and the matter remains
pending.

International Business Machines Corporation operates as an
integrated technology and services company worldwide. The company
was formerly known as Computing-Tabulating-Recording Co. and
changed its name to International Business Machines Corporation in
1924. The company was incorporated in 1911 and is headquartered in
Armonk, New York.


IMERYS TALC: Doyle Talc Injury Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 24, 2019, the matter titled KRISTIE LYNN DOYLE
(individually and as successor-in-interest to decedent DANIEL
CHRISTOPHER DOYLE) and ETHAN DOYLE (a minor, by his Guardian Ad
Litem JEFFREY DUANE YORS) v. IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., et al.,
Case No. 18CV333609, from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Santa Clara to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California (San Jose Division).

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-02239-NC to the
proceeding.

The State Court Talc Claims against J&J center on allegations that
exposure to the Debtors' talc caused the Decedent's injuries,
specifically, death due to mesothelioma.  J&J disputes these
allegations.

The First Amended Complaint generally alleges that exposure to
asbestos, contained in the Debtors' talc, through the habitual use
of J&J cosmetic talcum powder products, caused the Decedent's
personal injury and wrongful death.

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:

          Alexander G. Calfo, Esq.
          Julia E. Romano, Esq.
          Amy P. Zumsteg, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          633 West 5th Street, Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443-4355
          Facsimile: (213) 443-4310
          E-mail: acalfo@kslaw.com
                  jromano@kslaw.com
                  azumsteg@kslaw.com


IMPINJ INC: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Impinj, 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 a motion to dismiss the consolidated
Montemarano and Baton Rouge securities lawsuits remains pending.

On August 27, 2018, a class action complaint for violation of the
federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington against the company, its chief
executive officer, chief operating officer and former chief
financial officer. Captioned Montemarano v. Impinj, Inc., et al.,
the complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of
the company's common stock from May 4, 2017 through and including
August 2, 2018, asserts claims that the company made false or
misleading statements in its financial statements, press releases
and conference calls during the purported class period in violation
of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, or the Securities Exchange Act. The complaint seeks
monetary damages, costs and expenses.

On October 2, 2018, another class action complaint for violation of
the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington against the company, its
chief executive officer, chief operating officer and former chief
financial officer. Captioned Employees' Retirement System of the
City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge v. Impinj, Inc.,
et al., the complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all
purchasers of the company's common stock from November 3, 2016
through and including February 15, 2018, asserts claims that the
company made false or misleading statements about customer demand
for our products and inventory in SEC filings, press releases and
conference calls in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act. The complaint seeks monetary damages, costs and
expenses.

On January 14, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington consolidated the Montemarano and Baton Rouge
actions and appointed the Employees' Retirement System of the City
of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge as lead plaintiff.

On February 13, 2019, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that from
July 21, 2016 through February 15, 2018, the company made false or
misleading statements about customer demand and the capability of
the company's products and platform in violation of Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act.

On March 19, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. On April 10, 2019, the lead
plaintiff filed an opposition to this motion.  Defendants' reply
brief in support of the motion is due April 30, 2019.

Impinj, Inc. operates a platform that enables wireless connectivity
for everyday items by delivering each item’s unique identity,
location, and authenticity to business and consumer applications.
Impinj, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Seattle,
Washington.


IMPINJ INC: Plymouth County Retirement System Class Suit Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Impinj, 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 case entitled, Plymouth County
Retirement System v. Impinj, Inc., et al., has been stayed.

On January 31, 2019, a class action complaint for violation of the
federal securities laws was filed in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York for the County of New York against the company, its
chief executive officer, chief operating officer, former chief
financial officer, members of the company's board of directors and
the underwriters of the company's July 2016 initial public stock
offering, or IPO, and December 2016 secondary public offering, or
SPO.  

Captioned Plymouth County Retirement System v. Impinj, Inc., et
al., the complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of
the company's stock pursuant to or traceable to its IPO and SPO,
alleges that the company made false or misleading statements in the
registration statements and prospectuses in those offerings
concerning demand for our products and inventory in violation of
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.

On April 9, 2019, the New York Supreme Court entered an order
staying the action and requiring the parties to update the court
every 90 days as to the status of the pending federal securities
class actions.

Impinj, Inc. operates a platform that enables wireless connectivity
for everyday items by delivering each item’s unique identity,
location, and authenticity to business and consumer applications.
Impinj, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Seattle,
Washington.


INDIANA: Rodgers Files Prisoner Civil Rights Suit
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Curtis Hill. The case
is styled as Christopher Rodgers, Donnell Wilson, Jonte' Crawford,
Gemari Cotton, Jamar Lewis, Luis Bailey, Christopher M Pitcock also
known as: Christopher Pitcock, Lesnick Jones, Gabriel Edwards and
Alex Robertson, individually and for all similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Curtis Hill, Attorney General, Terry Curry, Marion
County Chief Prosecutor, Barbara McConnell, Lake County Chief
Prosecutor, Christopher Fronk, St Joseph County Chief Prosecutor
and Vicki Becker Elkhart County Chief Prosecutor, Defendants, Case
No. 3:19-cv-00336-JD-MGG (N.D. Ind., April 29, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Prisoner Civil
Rights.

The Defendants are individuals and government representatives.

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.




INSPERITY INC: Summary Judgment in 401(k) Suit Partially Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
Insperity, 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 court has partially
granted the company's motion for summary judgment, resulting in the
dismissal of the claims concerning allegations of excessive
recordkeeping fees.

In December 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
company and a third-party who served as the discretionary trustee
of the Insperity 401(k) retirement plan that is available to
eligible worksite employees (the "Plan") in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta
Division, on behalf of Plan participants.

The suit generally alleges the third-party discretionary trustee of
the Plan and Insperity breached their fiduciary duties to plan
participants by selecting an Insperity subsidiary to serve as the
recordkeeper for the Plan, by causing participants in the Plan to
pay excessive recordkeeping fees to the Insperity subsidiary, by
failing to monitor other fiduciaries, and by making imprudent
investment choices.

The court certified a class defined as "all participants and
beneficiaries of the Insperity 401(k) Plan from December 22, 2009
through September 30, 2017." The court dismissed the breach of
fiduciary duty claims relating to the selection of an Insperity
subsidiary to serve as the recordkeeper of the Plan.

On March 28, 2019, the court partially granted Insperity's motion
for summary judgment, resulting in the dismissal of the claims
concerning allegations of excessive recordkeeping fees. The court
has denied plaintiffs' request for a jury trial but has not yet set
a date for the bench trial.

Insperity said, "We believe we have meritorious defenses, and we
intend to vigorously"

Insperity, Inc. provides human resources (HR) and business
solutions to enhance business performance for small and
medium-sized businesses in the United States.  The company was
formerly known as Administaff, Inc. and changed its name to
Insperity, Inc. in March 2011. Insperity, Inc. was founded in 1986
and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.


IOC-CAPE GIRARDEAU: Smith Hits Unpaid Overtime, Illegal Deductions
------------------------------------------------------------------
Maria L. Smith and Casandra J. Henderson, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. IOC-Cape
Girardeau LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00072 (E.D. Mo., May 6,
2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages owed
under the Missouri Minimum Wage Law and the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

IOC-Cape Girardeau operates as Isle Casino Cape Girardeau, a casino
located in Cape Girardeau, Missouri. Defendant failed to pay the
mandated federal and/or state minimum wage rate for all hours
worked and overtime for all hours worked over 40 in a single
workweek and also made improper deductions from its employees'
paychecks for gaming license fees and other deductions which
reduced its employees' compensation below the required minimum
wage, says the complaint.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
      Michael J. Rahmberg, Esq.
      McCLELLAND LAW FIRM
      The Flagship Building
      200 Westwoods Drive
      Liberty, MO 64068-1170
      Telephone: (816) 781-0002
      Facsimile: (816) 781-1984
      Email: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com
             mrahmberg@mcclellandlawfirm.com


ITURAN LOCATION: Class Cert. Bids in Data Security Suits Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ituran Location and Control Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that motions for class
certification in the two class action suits related to the
company's allegdd violation of the Protection of Privacy Law, 5741
– 1981 and the Protection of Privacy Regulations (Data Security)
5777-2017, are pending.

On July 19, 2018, the company received two class action lawsuits
that were filed against the Company, alleging that the Company
violated the Protection of Privacy Law, 5741 – 1981 and the
Protection of Privacy Regulations (Data Security) 5777-2017.

The plaintiffs  request that the lawsuits will be approved as a
class action and allege  that the company did not secure customer
information properly, as required by the law, and that the lack of
information security procedures allowed hacking into the company's
website, which caused  exposure of customers sensitive personal
information. The lawsuits are yet to be approved as a class
actions.

The total amount claimed if the lawsuits are to be approved as a
class action were estimated by the plaintiffs to be approximately
NIS 600 million (approximately USD 160 million).

Ituran Location said, "Our defense against the approval of the
class action lawsuits was filed on December 13, 2018."

Ituran Location said, "While we cannot predict the outcome of this
case, if we are not successful in defending our claim, we could be
subject to significant costs, adversely affecting our results of
operations."

Ituran Location and Control Ltd., together with its subsidiaries,
provides location-based services and wireless communications
products in Israel, Brazil, Argentina, and the United States.  The
company was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Azor, Israel.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Brown Talc Injury Suit Moved to C.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 24, 2019, the matter titled LAWRENCE BROWN, as
surviving statutory beneficiary for the wrongful death of JACQUELYN
BROWN, deceased, individually and on behalf of all other heirs of
decedent 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.; 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-03287 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 December 22, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the
Superior Court of Los Angeles County, which generally alleges that
the Debtors' talc, through the habitual use of J&J cosmetic talcum
powder products, caused the Decedent'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: Buddell Talc Injury Suit Moved to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 24, 2019, the matter captioned ISAAC BUDDELL,
individually, and as successor-in-interest on behalf of the ESTATE
OF MERYL KAPLAN 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., 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-03300 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 Decedent'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: Burton Talc Injury Suit Moved to C.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 24, 2019, the matter titled JACQUELINE BURTON,
individually and as personal representative of the ESTATE OF
DOROTHY RAE POWELL 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-03299 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 1, 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 Decedent'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: Caballero Talc Injury Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 24, 2019, the lawsuit titled LAURA CABALLERO,
individually 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., f/k/a LUZENAC AMERICA, INC.; 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-03306 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 27, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the
Superior Court of Los Angeles County, which generally alleges that
the Debtors' talc, through the habitual use of J&J cosmetic talcum
powder products, caused the Plaintiff's personal injury and/or
wrongful death.

The 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: Davis Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 24, 2019, the lawsuit styled ROBERT DAVIS,
individually and as successor-in-interest to the ESTATE OF NORMA
DAVIS 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., 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-03302 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 March 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Superior
Court of Santa Clara County, which generally alleges that the
Debtors' talc, through the habitual use of J&J cosmetic talcum
powder products, caused the Decedent'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: Moves Boyd Talc Injury Suit to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 24, 2019, the matter captioned EVEN BOYD and AISHA
DAVISON, as surviving beneficiaries for the wrongful death of
JENNIFER BOYD, individual and on behalf of all other heirs of
decedent 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-03263 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 June 1, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in the Superior
Court of Los Angeles County, which generally alleges that the
Debtors' talc, through the habitual use of J&J cosmetic talcum
powder products, caused the Decedent'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


JUSTIN TIME: Spicer Claims Overtime Pay for Hours Over 40
---------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Spicer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Justin Time Transportation, LLC and Justin
Smith, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00329, (E.D. Ark., May 6, 2019)
seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs, including
reasonable attorney's fees for failure to pay lawful minimum and
overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

Justin Time Transportation provides transportation services to
customers throughout Arkansas and across the country. Spicer worked
for Justin Time as a driver for three years. He was paid a rate
based on the number of miles he drove and the weeks he worked for
Justin Time. He claims to have rendered in excess of 40 hours per
week without being paid the appropriate overtime pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JUUL LABS: Targets Underage Users, Class Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------
Zach Schlein, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal class
action suit has accused electronic-cigarette manufacturer JUUL Labs
Inc. of illegally underplaying the dangers of its product to expand
its appeal among underage users.

The lawsuit was filed on April 15 in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida and names JUUL as a defendant
alongside its parent company Altria Group Inc. and Philip Morris
USA Inc., a separate subsidiary under the Altria umbrella. The
complaint was brought by the parents of a 15 year-old Sarasota
girl, who purportedly became addicted to nicotine through JUUL
usage. The plaintiffs list seven causes for action against the
defendants, including fraud and deceptive trade practices.

Media representatives with JUUL and Altria did not respond to
emailed and telephoned requests for comment by press time.

Jonathan Gdanski, an attorney with Fort Lauderdale law firm
Schlesinger Law Offices, is representing the plaintiffs. The lawyer
said his clients filed their suit as a putative class action on
behalf other children and parents facing similar circumstances. He
cites a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistic
showing nearly 5 million middle and high school students were
current users of a tobacco product in 2018. Gdanski claims that
number has grown in recent years, in large part due to the
proliferation of JUUls among younger consumers, "creating an entire
new generation of nicotine addiction" in the process.

"It really is tragic," Gdanski said. "For decades the public health
community worked against the powerful tobacco industry to reduce
youth smoking. . . That entire trend is now being reversed. . . .
For the first time in decades youth smoking of regular combustive
cigarettes are up."


Gdanski attributed the rise to the differences in marketing for
e-cigarettes and adult tobacco users. Whereas JUUL ad campaigns
encourage adults to begin vaping as a safer alternative to
traditional cigarettes, the company's marketing allegedly serve to
introduce nicotine to young people through an entirely new avenue.

"What [tobacco companies] are doing is reintroducing an entire
epidemic of youth nicotine addiction to this generation," Gdanski
said. "What we had hoped was on its way out is on its way back in,
. . . and it's because the manufacturers of nicotine addiction
hadn't left."

Altria purchased JUUL with a 35% stake in the company in December
-- a move Gdanski described as a maneuver by the company to
"reposition itself as the leader in youth nicotine addiction."

The fraud charge outlined in the complaint alleges the defendants
"deceptively sold or partnered to sell JUUL products to plaintiffs
as non-addictive nicotine delivery systems, or less addictive
nicotine products than cigarettes, when defendants knew it to be
untrue."

The suit also alleges the companies are liable for failure to warn
about nicotine addiction from JUULs.

"Defendant JUUL has intentionally downplayed, misrepresented,
concealed, and failed to warn of heightened risks of nicotine
exposure and addiction," the suit said. "Since the Altria
Defendants partnered with JUUL, they too intentionally downplayed,
misrepresented, concealed, and failed to warn of the heightened
risks of nicotine exposure and addiction."

The potential class outlined in the complaint would include all
people in the U.S. who've purchased JUUL products, as well as the
legal guardians of JUUL users under 18.

Gdanski compared electronic cigarettes to Big Tobacco, which has
been subject to multimillion-dollar verdicts for misleading
customers about the dangers associated with smoking.

"I know people will say e-cigarettes may be safer than combustible
cigarettes," he said. "The benchmark is being safer than the
deadliest product ever created. Do we want people using the product
for 20, 30 years, only to learn what the true dangers are?" [GN]


KRONOS INC: Seeks Dismissal of Biometric Privacy Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
company that provides the high-tech employee timekeeping devices
used by many companies targeted in class action lawsuits under an
Illinois privacy law has asked a Chicago federal judge to end a
sprawling class action filed against it under the same law.

On April 15, Kronos Incorporated filed a memorandum in federal
court, saying the four-month-old class action -- ostensibly on
behalf of potentially thousands of workers throughout Illinois --
violates basic legal principles protecting the company from facing
multiple class actions brought by essentially the same group of
plaintiffs under the statute known as the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act.

"Plaintiffs assert that ‘there are no other class members who
have an interest [in] individually controlling the prosecution of
[their] individual claims.' Nothing could be further from the
truth," Kronos argues in its brief. "This lawsuit is duplicative of
14 BIPA class actions already filed against Kronos as a defendant,
co-defendant, or respondent in discovery…

". . . This lawsuit is Plaintiffs' attempt to grossly maximize
their leverage against Kronos and override the plethora of BIPA
class action lawsuits that already involve Kronos, pending before
other state and federal judges."

The brief comes as the latest step in the court fight that began in
January, when lawyers with the firm of Stephan Zouras LLP, of
Chicago, filed the class action against Kronos in Cook County
Circuit Court.

The named plaintiffs attached to the action include Charlene
Figueroa and Jermaine Burton.

The lawsuit essentially asserted Lowell, Mass.-based Kronos should
be held accountable under the Illinois BIPA law because it supplied
employers across Illinois with so-called biometric time clocks,
which require employees to verify their identities, typically by
scanning fingerprints, when punching in and out of work shifts.

Many employers now rely on such biometric devices to cut down on
so-called "punch fraud," a practice by which employees may clock a
co-worker in or out of work shift when that co-worker has otherwise
left early or arrived late, without losing pay.

The lawsuit, however, asserts Kronos had an obligation under the
BIPA law to provide users with written notifications concerning how
their fingerprint scans would be used, stored, distributed and
ultimately destroyed when no longer needed, and did not do so
before workers at thousands of businesses across Illinois began
using their devices to track their work hours.

The lawsuit asks the court to award damages, which under the BIPA
law, can be $1,000-$5,000 per violation. And under the law, a
single violation could be counted as each time an employee used a
Kronos timekeeping device, potentially leaving the company on the
hook for untold millions, or even billions of dollars in damages.

The lawsuit is a departure from hundreds of past lawsuits filed
previously or pending in Cook County and elsewhere in Illinois,
including dozens filed previously by the Stephan Zouras firm. Those
lawsuits have typically targeted employers who use biometric time
clocks, such as those made and supplied by Kronos, on behalf of a
group of workers within a specific company. Kronos has been, at
times, named as a co-defendant in a number of those lawsuits.

In this lawsuit, however, Kronos has been directly targeted,
without any of the employers it counts as customers or clients.

In response, Kronos moved to send the lawsuit from Cook County
court to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, and has asked the court to dismiss the class action.

Kronos said the proposed class action is far too large and
unwieldy, as it would seek to combine in one lawsuit the claims of
workers from thousands of different employers, each with its own
set of employment rules, workplace policies, contracts, collective
bargaining agreements, work shifts and even different BIPA-specific
releases, notifications and waivers.

Further, Kronos noted it is already a defendant or co-defendant in
dozens of BIPA-related class actions, including lawsuits brought by
Figueroa against her employer, Tony's Finer Foods, and Burton
against his employer, BWAY.

Kronos noted all of those lawsuits are at various points in their
journey through the courts, and employers in those lawsuits have
begun staking out different defenses and offering different kinds
of evidence and arguments.

Allowing Stephan Zouras to continue with this class action, Kronos
argued, would amount to duplicating class actions, and giving the
plaintiffs the chance to collect multiple times from the same
lawsuits.

"This class action is the epitome of gamesmanship and disregard for
fair adjudicatory process," Kronos wrote in its brief.

"It rehashes the allegations from Plaintiffs' multiple
previously-filed suits in a gambit to create a ‘mega' class
derived from thousands of unidentified employers, intentionally
glossing over numerous, employer-specific factual and legal
differences so that Plaintiffs can leverage a massive recovery that
is completely disproportionate to any possible BIPA liability they
could hope to prove."

Kronos is represented in the action by attorneys Melissa A. Siebert
and Ian M. Hansen of the firm of Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, of
Chicago, and Debra Bernard, of the firm of Perkins Coie LLP, of
Chicago. [GN]


LITTLE CAESARS: Seeks Dismissal of Biometric Privacy Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that Little Caesars has asked an Illinois federal
court to throw out a proposed Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act class action claiming the pizza chain failed to obtain
workers' written consent. [GN]


LOMA NEGRA: Appeal in Argentina Class Suit Confirmed
----------------------------------------------------
Loma Negra Compania Industrial Argentina Sociedad Anonima said in
its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 30, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2018, that an Argentine court has decided to confirm the
appealed resolution regarding the admission and certification of a
class action and order its registration in the Public Registry of
Collective Processes.

In February 27, 2007, Damnificados Financieros Asociacion Civil
filed a class action as representative of the holders of the notes
issued by Inversora Electrica de Buenos Aires S.A., or IEBA, in an
aggregate principal amount of Ps.200,000,000, in 1997, or the IEBA
Notes, against several defendants (including the company, as a
former minority shareholder of IEBA).

Plaintiff seeks to extend liability to the defendants for the lack
of payment of the IEBA Notes alleging, among other things,
under-capitalization of IEBA, as issuer.

The company filed several defenses, including, without limitation,
lack of standing to sue, statute of limitations, that we were no
longer shareholders of IEBA at the time of the issuance of the IEBA
Notes and that the IEBA Notes have been successfully restructured
through a reorganization plan duly endorsed by the competent court
with effect against all holders of the IEBA Notes and declared
fulfilled by resolution of the same court dated April 18, 2008.

On August 28, 2017, the court admitted the class action and as of
September 5, 2017, the Company appealed the court's decision. The
Court rejected such appeal, thus on September 28, 2017 the company
filed a petition in error because of denial of appeal. Finally, the
petition in error was admitted.

As of August 28, 2018, the Court decided to confirm the appealed
resolution regarding the admission and certification of the class
action and order its registration in the Public Registry of
Collective Processes (Registro Publico de Procesos Colectivos).

Loma Negra said, "Based on our Argentine litigation counsel's
opinion, we believe that the chances of success of the claim
against us are remote."

Loma Negra Compania Industrial Argentina Sociedad Anonima, together
with its subsidiaries, manufactures and markets cement and its
by-products in Argentina and Paraguay. It operates through Cement,
Masonry Cement and Lime; Concrete; Railroad; Aggregates; and Others
segments. The company was founded in 1926 and is based in Buenos
Aires, Argentina. Loma Negra Compania Industrial Argentina Sociedad
Anonima is a subsidiary of Loma Negra Holding GmbH.


MDL 2672: 22 Cases in Clean Diesel Suit Remanded to State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, This Order Relates
To: MDL Dkt. No. 6101, MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC) (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted ECF No. 6101 motion to remand to
California state court the 22 cases that VWGoA removed based on
federal-question jurisdiction.  

The complaints in these 22 cases are materially the same as
complaints that the Court examined in a recent Order in which it
held that it lacked federal-question jurisdiction.  Judge Breyer
adopts the same reasoning that the Court does not have
federal-question jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' cases.  Because
federal subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking, the Judge granted
the Plaintiffs' motion to remand.  The Clerk of the Court will
remand the 22 cases listed in the appendix to the Plaintiffs'
motion to the state courts where they were filed.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 5, 2019 Order is available at
https://bit.ly/2W7BdPx from Leagle.com.

Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey --
rob@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice,
Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com --
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart --
astewart@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G. Shapiro
-- tshapiro@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro,
Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague --
avague@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin & White, Casey Erin
Lucier -- clucier@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J.
Baker, III -- chuck.baker@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge
and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker -- ctucker@rhodesokla.com – Rhodes
Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Dana Woodrum Lang --
dana.lang@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, David M.
Eisenberg -- eisenberg@bscr-law.com -- Sterchi, Cowden & Rice, LLC,
Henry Buist Smythe, Jr. -- henry.smythe@wbd-us.com – Womble
Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller --
hfeller@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, William R. Scherer --
wscherer@conradscherer.com -- Conrad and Scherer, LLP, J. Randolph
Bibb, Jr. -- rbibb@lewisthomason.com -- Lewis, Thomason, King,
Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., James K. Toohey -- tooheyj@jbltd.com --
Johns & Bell LTD, Jeffrey Lance Chase -- JChase@herzfeld-rubin.com
-- Chase Kurshan Herzfeld & Rufin LLC, Jeffrey S. Rugg --
jrugg@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Jennifer
Marino Thibodaux -- jthibodaux@gibbonslaw.com -- Gibbons PC.


MDL 2672: Anchor Marine's Bid to Remand Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted the Plaintiffs' motion to remand the
case, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES,
AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, This Order Relates To: Dkt. No.
8 Anchor Marine Envtl. Servs., Inc. v. Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc.,
No. 3:18-cv-2369-CRB, MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC) (N.D. Cal.), to the
state court where it was filed.

The Plaintiffs are a corporation and individuals who purchased
Porsche TDI diesel-engine cars.  They filed their case in Georgia
state court and named as Defendants Porsche Cars North America,
Inc. ("PCNA"), Porsche AG, Audi AG, and Volkswagen AG.  PCNA
removed their case to federal court based on federal-question
jurisdiction.  Now pending is the Plaintiffs' motion to remand
their case to state court.

The Plaintiffs' complaint is materially the same as complaints that
the Court examined in a recent Order in which it held that it
lacked federal-question jurisdiction.  Judge Breyer adopts the same
reasoning that the Court does not have federal-question
jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' case.  Because federal
subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking, he granted the Plaintiffs'
motion to remand.  The Clerk of the Court will remand the case to
the state court where it was filed.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 19, 2019 Order is available
at https://bit.ly/2YB0zTs from Leagle.com.

Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey --
rob@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice,
Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com --
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart --
astewart@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G. Shapiro
-- tshapiro@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro,
Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague --
avague@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin & White, Casey Erin
Lucier -- clucier@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J.
Baker, III -- chuck.baker@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge
and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker -- ctucker@rhodesokla.com – Rhodes
Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Dana Woodrum Lang --
dana.lang@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, David M.
Eisenberg -- eisenberg@bscr-law.com -- Sterchi, Cowden & Rice, LLC,
Henry Buist Smythe, Jr. -- henry.smythe@wbd-us.com – Womble
Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller --
hfeller@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, William R. Scherer --
wscherer@conradscherer.com -- Conrad and Scherer, LLP, J. Randolph
Bibb, Jr. -- rbibb@lewisthomason.com -- Lewis, Thomason, King,
Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., James K. Toohey -- tooheyj@jbltd.com --
Johns & Bell LTD, Jeffrey Lance Chase -- JChase@herzfeld-rubin.com
-- Chase Kurshan Herzfeld & Rufin LLC, Jeffrey S. Rugg --
jrugg@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Jennifer
Marino Thibodaux -- jthibodaux@gibbonslaw.com -- Gibbons PC.


MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Turner Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mercantile Adjustment
Bureau, LLC. The case is styled as Sherry A. Turner individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00611 (W.D. N.Y., May 13, 2019).

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

Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, LLC provides collection and accounts
receivable management services to lenders.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


MICHAELS COMPANIES: Migyanko Files Class Suit Under ADA
-------------------------------------------------------
The Michaels Companies, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Ronald J. Migyanko, inidvidually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Michaels Companies, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00493-JFC (W.D. Penn., April 29,
2019).

The Michaels Companies, Inc. owns and operates arts and crafts
specialty retail stores for makers and do-it-yourself home
decorators in North America. It operates Michaels stores that offer
approximately 45,000 stock-keeping units (SKUs) in crafts, home
decor and seasonal, framing, and paper crafting.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



MONSANTO COMPANY: Humphrey Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Humphrey, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and DOES 1 to
100, Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01155 (E.D. Mo.,
May 1, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff,
as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
          GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
          9500 Nall Ave. Suite 400
          Overland Park, KS 66207
          E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
          Telephone: (913) 451-3433
          Facsimile: (913) 839-0567

MONSANTO COMPANY: Johnson Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
Johnnie Johnson, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and DOES 1 to
100, Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01141 (E.D. Mo.,
May 1, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff,
as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
          GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
          9500 Nall Ave. Suite 400
          Overland Park, KS 66207
          E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
          Telephone: (913) 451-3433
          Facsimile: (913) 839-0567

MONSANTO COMPANY: Lucas Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
Genevieve Lucas, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and DOES 1 to
100, Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01120 (E.D. Mo.,
May 1, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff,
as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
          GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
          9500 Nall Ave. Suite 400
          Overland Park, KS 66207
          E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
          Telephone: (913) 451-3433
          Facsimile: (913) 839-0567


MONSANTO COMPANY: McGue Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
Thomas McGue, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and DOES 1 to 100,
Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01158 (E.D. Mo., May 1,
2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
          GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
          9500 Nall Ave. Suite 400
          Overland Park, KS 66207
          E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
          Telephone: (913) 451-3433
          Facsimile: (913) 839-0567


MONSANTO COMPANY: Miceli Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
Jean Miceli, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and DOES 1 to 100,
Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01111-JMB (E.D. Mo., May
1, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
          GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
          9500 Nall Ave. Suite 400
          Overland Park, KS 66207
          E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
          Telephone: (913) 451-3433
          Facsimile: (913) 839-0567

MONSANTO COMPANY: Obregon Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosa Obregon, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and DOES 1 to 100,
Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01157 (E.D. Mo., May 1,
2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
          GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
          9500 Nall Ave. Suite 400
          Overland Park, KS 66207
          E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
          Telephone: (913) 451-3433
          Facsimile: (913) 839-0567

MONSANTO COMPANY: Riordan Files Suit Over Herbicide Side-effects
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Riordan, Plaintiff, v. Monsanto Company, Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-01194 (E.D. Mo., May 6, 2019), seeks compensatory and
punitive damages, costs, expert fees, disbursements and attorneys'
fees incurred in prosecuting this action, disgorgement of profits,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate and
such other relief resulting from negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (R), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

Riordan used Roundup for both residential and agricultural use
since 1980. He was subsequently diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin
Lymphoma.

Monsanto is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation
based in St. Louis, Missouri. It is the world's leading producer of
glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, a broad-spectrum
herbicide used to kill weeds and grasses known to compete with
commercial crops grown around the globe.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
     GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
     9500 Nall Ave., Suite 400
     Overland Park, KS 66207
     Tel: (913) 451-3433
     Fax: (913) 839-0567
     Email: kgoza@gohonlaw.com


MUELLER WATER: June 10 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the June
10, 2019 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class
action filed on behalf of investors who purchased Mueller Water
Products, Inc. ("Mueller Water Products" or the "Company") (NYSE:
MWA) securities between May 9, 2016 and August 6, 2018, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Mueller Water Products investors have until
June 10, 2019 to file a lead plaintiff motion in this class
action.

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

On April 27, 2017, in connection with its second quarter 2017
financial results, the Company disclosed that its radio products
produced between 2011 and 2014 had been failing prematurely,
resulting in a $9.8 million warranty charge.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.43 per share, more
than 11%, to close at $11.25 per share on April 28, 2017, thereby
injuring investors.

Then, on August 6, 2018, in connection with its third quarter 2018
financial results, the Company reported a $14.1 million warranty
charge.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.74 per share, or
6%, to close at $11.58 per share on August 7, 2018, thereby
injuring investors further.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the Company lacked adequate
testing for product quality; (2) that certain products with radio
components were susceptible to fail prematurely; (3) that, as a
result, the Company was reasonably likely to incur increased
expenses, including warranty costs; (4) that these costs would
materially impact the Company's financial statements; (5) that the
Company lacked adequate internal controls over warranty costs and
estimates; and (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Mueller Water Products
securities during the Class Period you may move the Court no later
than June 10, 2019 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this
putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or
if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to the pending class action
lawsuit, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925
Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at
310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.
[GN]


MUFFLERS 4 LESS: Does not Pay Overtime Wages, Murrell Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
RONALD MURRELL, on behalf of himself and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff v. MUFFLERS 4 LESS
III, INC., D/B/A VELASQUEZ MUFFLER & BRAKES 1, AN ILLINOIS
CORPORATION SANTIAGO AND VACA, INDIVIDUALLY, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-03238 (N.D. Ill., May 13, 2019) is an action brought under
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage
Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA").

Plaintiff, at all times pertinent to the cause of action, was
employed by Defendants. Plaintiff, on a regular basis, worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek without pay at a rate of time and
one-half for such hours pursuant to the requirements of the federal
and state statutes, asserts the complaint.

Furthermore, Defendants' reduction of Plaintiff's pay when he
worked less than 56 hours rendered Plaintiff an hourly employee
entitled to overtime pay at time and one-half his regular hourly
rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a work week.
Defendants on multiple occasions also illegally deducted from
Plaintiff's wages, and from the wages of others similarly situated,
business losses and expenses. For example, Defendants deducted from
Plaintiff's pay, expenses and losses that arose for parts needed
for repairs and misplaced keys, relates the complaint.

Plaintiff, RONALD MURRELL is a former employee of Defendants who,
between approximately June 2017 and April 2019, was employed by
Defendants as a technician.

MUFFLERS 4 LESS III, INC. D/B/A/ VELASQUEZ MUFFLER & BRAKES 1, owns
and operates a vehicle service station.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John William Billhorn, Esq.
     BILLHORN LAW FIRM
     53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 401
     Chicago, IL 60604
     Phone: (312) 853-1450


NESTLE PURINA: Myers Files Suit Over Tuna Products' Deceptive Ad
----------------------------------------------------------------
LORI MYERS, ALISON CULLEN, and ALEXANDER MOUGANIS, On Behalf of
Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. NESTLE
PURINA PETCARE COMPANY, a Missouri company, Defendant, Case No.
5:19-cv-00898 (C.D. Cal., May 13, 2019) is action on behalf of
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated consumers who purchased the
Fancy Feast tuna products seeking to halt the dissemination of the
products' false, misleading and deceptive advertising message;
correct the misleading perception it has created in the minds of
consumers; and obtain redress for those who have purchased the
Fancy Feast tuna products.

Recognizing that consumers expect its products to be responsibly
sourced, Defendant promises consumers that its Fancy Feast tuna
products are "Dolphin Safe" by displaying a dolphin safe logo on
every product label. However, unknown to consumers, a substantial
number of dolphins and other marine life are killed and harmed by
the fishermen and fishing methods used to catch Defendant's tuna.
Thus, Defendant's dolphin safe label representations are false,
misleading, and/or deceptive, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs purchased the tuna products many times throughout the
relevant period.

Nestle Purina PetCare Company markets, sells, and distributes tuna
cat food products under its Fancy Feast brand.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     PATRICIA N. SYVERSON, ESQ.
     MANFRED P. MUECKE, ESQ.
     BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
     600 W. Broadway, Suite 900
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 798-4593
     Email: psyverson@bffb.com
            mmuecke@bffb.com

          - and -

     ELAINE A. RYAN, ESQ.
     CARRIE A. LALIBERTE, ESQ.
     BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
     2325 E. Camelback Rd. Suite 300
     Phoenix, AZ 85016
     Phone: (602) 274-1100
     Email: eryan@bffb.com
            claliberte@bffb.com

          - and -

     Brian D. Penny, Esq.
     GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY P.C.
     8 Tower Bridge, Suite 1025
     161 Washington Street
     Conshohocken, PA 19428
     Phone: (484) 342-0700
     Email: penny@lawgsp.com

          - and -

     Brian M. Brown, Esq.
     ZAREMBA BROWN PLLC
     40 Wall Street, 52nd Floor
     New York, NY 10005
     Phone: (212) 380-6700
     Email: bbrown@zarembabrown.com

          - and -

     Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
     Christopher C. Gold, Esq.
     Bradley M. Beall, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
     Boca Raton, FL 33432
     Phone: (561) 750-3000
     Email: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
            cgold@rgrdlaw.com
            bbeall@rgrdlaw.com


NETSHOES CAYMAN: Shareholders' Class Suit in New York Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
Netshoes (Cayman) Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the court has entered
an order consolidating two purported shareholder class action suits
pending before the Supreme Court of New York.

Two purported shareholder class actions under the Securities Act
were filed in the Supreme Court of New York, claiming that the
company, among other defendants, made alleged material
misstatements or omissions in the registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with the company's initial public
offering.

The plaintiffs have not specified an amount of alleged damages in
the actions. A court order consolidating these actions was entered
on September 14, 2018.

Netshoes said, "Because this lawsuit is in its early stage, the
possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the
litigation cannot be estimated and consequently we have made no
provisions with respect to this litigation.  In the event that this
litigation is decided against us, or we enter into an agreement to
settle such matters, we may be required to pay substantial
amounts."

Netshoes (Cayman) Limited, through its subsidiaries, operates as a
sports and lifestyle online retailer in Brazil and internationally.
The company operates through its e-commerce Websites, such as
netshoes.com, shoestock.com, and zattini.com. Netshoes (Cayman)
Limited was incorporated in 2000 and is headquartered in Sao Paulo,
Brazil.


NIELSEN HOLDINGS: PERS Mississippi Named as Lead Plaintiff
----------------------------------------------------------
Nielsen Holdings plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the shareholder class
action suits pending before the Southern District of New York have
been consolidated and the court has appointed Public Employees'
Retirement System of Mississippi as lead plaintiff.

In August 2018, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the Southern District of New York, naming as defendants
Nielsen, former Chief Executive Officer Dwight Mitchell Barns, and
former Chief Financial Officer Jamere Jackson.

Another lawsuit, which alleges similar facts but also names other
defendants, including former Chief Operating Officer Stephen
Hasker, was filed in the Northern District of Illinois in September
2018 and transferred to the Southern District of New York in
December 2018.

These lawsuits assert violations of certain provisions of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, based on allegedly
false and materially misleading statements relating to the outlook
of Nielsen's Buy (now "Connect") segment, the Company's
preparedness for changes in global data privacy laws and Nielsen's
reliance on third-party data.

The actions were consolidated on April 22, 2019, and the Public
Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi was appointed lead
plaintiff for the putative class. Nielsen expects that an amended
or consolidated complaint will be filed and intends to file a
motion to dismiss the amended or consolidated complaint.

Nielsen Holdings plc, together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
measurement and data analytics company. It operates in two
segments, Buy and Watch. The company was formerly known as Nielsen
N.V. and changed its name to Nielsen Holdings plc in August 2015.
Nielsen Holdings plc was founded in 1923 and is headquartered in
New York, New York.


NISSAN: Faces NHTSA Investigation Amid Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Jay Traugott, writing for Carbuzz, reports that over 675,000
vehicles are affected.

According to Reuters, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration has opened a probe into 675,000 examples of the
2017-2018 Nissan Rogue over reports of unintended braking. The
probe was opened as a response to a request by the Center for Auto
Safety, the very same non-profit organization that successfully
lobbied for a full-scale investigation into certain Hyundai and Kia
model engine fires.

This time, the government agency has tasked itself with looking
into reports of the Rogue's automatic emergency braking system.
Apparently, it has been engaging with no obstruction in the
vehicle's path. So picture yourself driving along in your
late-model Nissan Rogue and the system decides to suddenly hit the
brakes for no reason.

Clearly, that can cause an accident. Fortunately, there have not
been any reports, at least so far, of any injuries or fatalities.
Nissan has already acknowledged the report and says it will work
closely with the NHTSA and its Canadian counterpart, Transport
Canada. It is already notifying affected Rogue owners throughout
North America that a software update will soon be happening.

"As always, Nissan will continue to work collaboratively with NHTSA
and Transport Canada on all matters of product safety," Nissan said
in a statement. This isn't the first time Nissan is dealing with an
unintended braking situation.

The automaker is currently facing a class-action lawsuit in
California for Nissan and Infiniti vehicles sold since 2015. The
lawsuit claims there's a defect which can trigger the vehicles'
brakes to cause them "to abruptly slow down or come to a complete
stop in the middle of traffic."

Having safety systems like automatic emergency braking in modern
vehicles is certainly a good thing, but that's only one side of the
coin. These systems need to work as intended. Otherwise, they could
become the cause of the accidents they're designed to prevent.
[GN]


NORTH COAST NATURAL: Bryant Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
TeNita Bryant, and Theodore McQueen, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. North Coast Natural
Solutions, LLC, North Coast 5 Natural Solutions Corporation, Level
5 Global International Holdings Corporation, and Tierney Williams,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01075 (N.D. Ohio, May 13, 2019) is an
action on behalf of Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated
individuals as a result of Defendants' failure to compensate them
for all hours worked in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("OMFWSA"), and
the Prompt Pay Act.

The complaint asserts that Defendants have a common policy of not
paying Bryant, McQueen, and similarly situated employees minimum
wage, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs work for Defendants as a Vice President of Human
Resources and a manufacturing worker.

North Coast manufactures hemp products, such as hempcrete, a
lightweight and biodegradable version of concrete.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Claire I. Wade-Kilts, Esq.
     Sean H. Sobel, Esq.
     Sobel, Wade & Mapley, LLC
     2460 Fairmount Boulevard, Ste 314
     Cleveland, OH 44106
     Phone: (216) 223-7213
     Fax: (216) 223-7213
     Email: wade@swmlawfirm.com
            sobel@swmlawfirm.com


OI SA: Appeal over Customer Service Center Suits Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Oi 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 appeal is ongoing in the 44 civil
class action suits related to the re-opening of customer service
centers.

The company is a defendant in 44 civil class actions filed by the
Attorney General of the National Treasury jointly with certain
consumer agencies demanding the re-opening of customer service
centers. The lower courts have rendered decisions in all of these
proceedings, some of which have been unfavorable to the company.
All of these proceedings are currently under appeal.

Oi S.A. said, "As of December 31, 2018, we had recorded provisions
in the amount of R$10.2 million for those claims in respect of
which we deemed the risk of loss as probable."

Oi S.A., a switched fixed-line telephony services concessionaire,
provides integrated telecommunication services in Brazil. The
company offers fixed telephony services, including voice, data
communication, and pay TV services; local and intraregional
long-distance carrier services; domestic and international
long-distance services; and mobile voice and data
telecommunications services, as well as value-added services. Oi
S.A. was founded in 1963 and is headquartered in Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil. On June 20, 2016, Oi S.A. along with its subsidiaries filed
for bankruptcy protection.


ORAL CARE: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oral Care Products,
LLC. The case is styled as Aretha Crosson Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. Oral Care Products, LLC doing business as: SmileActives,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02787 (E.D. N.Y., May 13, 2019).

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

Our Smile Solutions Center is a one-stop shopping for all oral care
products: from electric toothbrushes and toothpaste, to specialty
products for sensitivity.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OREGON: Faces Class Action Over Child Welfare System
----------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Loudenback, writing for The Chronicle of Social Change,
reports that as the Oregon state legislature considers the fate of
an increasing number of foster children sent to out-of-state
institutional facilities, legal advocates filed a class-action
lawsuit in federal court designed to address the state of its
"overwhelmed" child welfare system.

Filed by New York-based A Better Childhood, Disability Rights
Oregon and Davis Wright Tremaine, the lawsuit says Oregon
"continues to be a constitutionally inadequate parent,
revictimizing already vulnerable and innocent children."

Oregon Governor Kate Brown (D), Oregon Department of Human Services
Director Fariborz Pakseresht, Child Welfare Director Marilyn Jones,
and the Oregon Department of Human Services (DHS) were named as
defendants in the suit, Wyatt B. v. Brown.

Lawyers sued on behalf of 10 plaintiffs, all current Oregon foster
youth, ranging from 1-year-old Noah F. to 17-year-old Norman N. The
lawsuit includes all Oregon foster children who are or will be in
the legal and physical custody of DHS.

Three specialty classes of youth in care are also included:
children with physical, intellectual, cognitive or mental health
disabilities; children 14 years old and older, who are eligible for
transition services and lack an appropriate reunification or other
permanency plan; and children who identify as sexual or gender
minorities. This is believed to be the first time a child welfare
class-action lawsuit has identified youth aging out of foster care
and a lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer or transgender population as
subclasses.

In the 77-page complaint, lawyers for the children allege that DHS
has failed to provide enough placements and services for foster
children in Oregon, and especially those suitable for children
dealing with a high degree of mental health issues as a result of
their trauma.

"Instead, DHS places these children in inappropriate institutions,
ships them out of state where they are placed in costly and
questionable for-profit congregate programs that do not address
their needs, or largely abandons them so they wind up in homeless
shelters or on the streets," the lawsuit says.

According to the lawsuit, that treatment violates the Americans
with Disabilities Act and other federal anti-discrimination and
child welfare laws.

The complaint describes the state's foster care system as "so
dysfunctional that Oregon cannot accurately track how bad its
services are." The complaint also faults Oregon for ignoring
recommendations for system improvement for more than a decade,
inadequate assessments and case planning, a high level of
caseworker turnover and placement instability that often leads to
foster children staying at institutions with little oversight.

"There has been an extraordinary abdication of responsibility for
the kids in Oregon's foster care system," said A Better Childhood
Executive Director Marcia Lowry, a litigator in the lawsuit who has
led scores of class-action lawsuits against child welfare systems
over the past 40 years. "I don't think there is anyone in a
position of leadership and authority in the government that is
really taking responsibility for what's happening to these kids. I
think they've been totally abandoned."

Sent to a Homeless Shelter Seven Times

The lawsuit draws on the experiences of children like Naomi B., a
16-year-old from Corvallis, Oregon, who has spent the past five
months shuffling between homeless shelters and institutions, many
of them designed to incarcerate young people in the state's
juvenile justice system.

The suit alleges that Naomi first entered foster care in November
2018 after twice ending up at Good Samaritan Hospital's emergency
room threatening suicide. After DHS found that she could not safely
stay with her father, a placement couldn't be found for Naomi. With
her father's consent, Naomi was sent to Jackson Street youth
shelter, which DHS contracts with for placements. It would be the
first of seven times she was sent to the shelter.

On December 13, 2018, Naomi was sent to Creekside, the remodeled
former headquarters of a police department that is now designed to
provide a higher level of care. On her first day, Naomi was
attacked by another resident and witnessed her roommate in a locked
cell slash her wrists.

After another stint at a juvenile detention center and a failed
placement at the home of a family friend, Naomi returned to the
homeless shelter. During this time, Naomi still had not been
provided with adequate counseling or therapy, according to the
lawsuit.

At the end of January, Naomi was placed at the Youth Inspiration
Program (YIP) in Klamath Falls, Oregon. An addiction and behavioral
treatment program for girls at risk of deep involvement in the
state's juvenile justice system, the facility includes
DHS-contracted shelter beds alongside a section of beds earmarked
for girls in the juvenile delinquency program. During the time she
was staying at the locked facility, Naomi was not allowed outside
the facility. Instead, she was escorted to a 30-by-30 foot concrete
outdoor exercise yard, which was enclosed by a 20-foot-tall fence
topped by barbed wire.

According to the complaint, youth at YIP are only allowed one book
in their rooms at a time, and all clothes and other personal items
are secured in a separate locker room. During her time there,
Naomi's education suffered. She was only allowed one-and-a-half to
two-and-a half hours of online schooling daily, exhausting the
facility's educational offerings over the course of two months.

She was given just one hour of therapy a week, while having to
attend mandatory daily group substance abuse and sex abuse therapy
sessions, despite no problem with substance use or a history of sex
abuse.

Foster Homes Have Declined in Oregon

According to the most recent federal numbers available from 2017,
there were 7,972 children placed in Oregon's foster care system.
That's actually a 12.5 percent drop from five years prior, when the
state had 8,686 children in care.

Still, the state's struggle to recruit enough foster homes has been
a protracted effort in recent years. A 2018 audit from Oregon
Secretary of State Dennis Richardson (R) found that foster homes in
the state had plummeted by 50 percent in five years, leaving few
placement options for youth in care.

According to a 2016 federal review by the Children's Bureau of the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, a lack of foster
homes helped drive poor marks on foster care outcomes like the
ability of the state to find a permanent home for foster children
and the safety and well-being of children in care.

"Due to this shortage of foster homes, placement decisions appear
to be driven, at times, by foster home availability rather than the
needs of the child," the review reads.

However, in a recent interview with the Oregonian, Jones, the
state's child welfare director, said that the issue is not foster
homes but the state's lack of intensive care available at
institutions.

"We don't have … foster families that can meet the high trauma
that these children have," Jones said. "They can be suicidal and
homicidal. They can have self-harm or have harmed others."

Out of State, Little Oversight

This is not the first time that Oregon has faced a class-action
lawsuit about where the state places its foster youth. In 2016, the
Oregon Department of Human Services was sued to end the housing of
foster kids in hotels, state offices and other temporary locations.
Last year, state child welfare officials agreed to phase out the
practice by 2020.

However, since 2017, the practice of placing children out-of-state
has jumped dramatically. The reporting of Lauren Dake at Oregon
Public Radio and Hillary Borrud at The Oregonian have revealed
several instances in which foster children have been placed at
institutions with little oversight from the state.

At a meeting of the Oregon state Senate Human Services Committee,
Sen. Sara Sara Gelser (D) found that 85 Oregon foster youth are now
placed out of state, a number that has more than doubled since
2017. The majority of Oregon foster youth located out of the state
are placed in residential placements operated by Sequel Youth and
Family Services and Acadia Healthcare. Gelser raised questions
about Oregon's oversight of these privately run residential
treatment facilities, which have faced allegations of abuse and
neglect. In some cases, there is no record of Oregon child welfare
workers checking on foster children placed at these facilities.

"We need more action than a roundtable discussion," Gelser said at
the meeting. "We need people on the ground checking on each of
these children today and getting them home."

Case Planning Has Suffered

The state also faces severe issues with elevated caseloads and
caseworker turnover. The 2018 report from the Secretary of State
found that Oregon child welfare workforce had a 23 percent turnover
rate and about one third of staff had been on the job for 18 months
or less. In response, Jones and other state leaders are supporting
a state bill this year that would remove a state requirement for
child welfare workers to possess a college-degree.

According to the lawsuit, poor training and support of caseworkers
has contributed to inadequate assessments and case planning,
meaning that many older children who remain in foster care receive
little to no support for their transition to adulthood.

Of the children who have aged out of foster care in Oregon, 32
percent had been in care since before age 13, compared with 17
percent nationally.

Elliott Hinkle, a former foster youth who now works with youth in
care in Portland, said that the state already has "plenty" of
recommendations from years for reform. But with change slow to
come, Oregon should now pivot toward prioritizing the healthy
development of young people in care, Hinkle said.

"All this movement and shifting around has made for a lack of a
consistent person or persons in their lives," Hinkle said. "For the
10 youth in this lawsuit, that just scratches the surface of people
in Oregon that are experiencing growing up not knowing what a
healthy, consistent adult relationship in their life is like to
carry them through to adulthood." [GN]


OSCAR HEALTH: Dennis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oscar Health Agency
Inc. The case is styled as Derrick U Dennis on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Oscar Health Agency
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04341 (S.D. N.Y., May 13, 2019).

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

Oscar Health Agency Inc. operates as a health insurance plan
provider.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OUTDOOR FELLOW: Olsen Asserts Breach for Disabilities Act
---------------------------------------------------------
Outdoor Fellow, LLC 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. Outdoor Fellow, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-03828 (S.D. N.Y., April 29, 2019).

Outdoor Fellow is a hand poured, scented candle company based in
New York City.[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


PATRIZIA'S: Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
JOSE LUIS QUIEJ LOPEZ and JOSE XIQUIN (A/K/A MIGUEL QUIEJ-LOPEZ),
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. PATRIZIA'S OF 2ND AVENUE LLC (D/B/A PATRIZIA'S OF
MANHATTAN), DEAN CHRISTODOULOU, RINO DOE, and FELIPE DOE,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04330 (S.D. N.Y., May 13, 2019) seeks
unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), 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, including applicable
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours
compensation for the hours that they worked, asserts the complaint.
Defendants also failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the
hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any
hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premiums, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendants and were employed as
delivery workers at the restaurant.

Defendants own, operate, or control an Italian restaurant, located
at 462-466 2nd Ave, New York, NY 10016 under the name "Patrizia's
of Manhattan".[BN]

The Plaintiffs are 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


PAUL J. HOOTEN: Cowell Alleges Violation Under FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paul J. Hooten &
Associates, PLLC. The case is styled as Vera Cowell, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Paul J.
Hooten & Associates, PLLC and Paul J. Hooten, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-02493 (E.D. N.Y., April 28, 2019).

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

Paul J. Hooten & Associates, PLLC is a collection agency in Mt.
Sinai, NY.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
   775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255
   Huntington, NY 11743
   Tel: (631) 335-1107
   Email: mpash@verizon.net



PHOENIX SUTTON: Lemache Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
EDGAR CHALE LEMACHE, JEISSON BENITEZ SANCHEZ, JEXSAR RODAS
MALDONADO, LUIS ESPINOZA, DIEGO FAREZ, GEORGE GEBRON, RUSTLER
PANTALEON, RIGOBERTO GUALLPA, and CARLOS ORTIZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PHOENIX
SUTTON STR. INC., MICHAL SIWIEC and PETER SIWIEC, as individuals,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02800-RJD-RML (E.D. N.Y., May 13,
2019) seeks compensatory damages and liquidated damages in an
amount exceeding $100,000.00 as a result of the violations of
Federal and New York State labor laws.

Plaintiffs worked approximately 60 hours or more per week during
their employment for Defendants, yet Defendants did not pay
Plaintiffs time and a half of their regular hourly wage for hours
worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions
contained in the FLSA and NYLL, asserts the complaint.

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

Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as scaffolders, construction
workers, and laborers.

PHOENIX SUTTON STR. INC., is a corporation organized under the laws
of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


PMC HOME & AUTO: Nelson Sues Over Unsolicited, Autodialed Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
KALEB NELSON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PMC HOME & AUTO INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC, a
Florida company, Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-01387-TMC (D. S.C.,
May 13, 2019) asserts that PMC violate the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and the South Carolina Telephone Privacy Protection
Act by making unsolicited, autodialed calls to consumers without
their consent, including calls to consumers registered on the
national Do Not Call registry.

The Plaintiff seeks to stop PMC's violations, and to otherwise
obtain injunctive and monetary relief for all persons injured by
PMC's conduct.

PMC uses an autodialer to calls these leads even when it does not
have consent to call them, regardless of whether their phone
numbers are registered on the national Do Not Call registry
("DNC"), asserts the complaint. In Plaintiff's case, PMC made
repeated unsolicited, autodialed calls to Plaintiff, despite
Plaintiff having registered his phone number with the DNC to
prevent such calls. To make matters worse, PMC continued to call
Plaintiff even after Plaintiff made it clear he wanted the calls
stopped.

Plaintiff Nelson is, and at all times relevant to the complaint
was, a Greenville, South Carolina resident.

PMC Home & Auto Insurance Agency, LLC operates as an insurance
agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     C Tyson Nettles, Esq.
     Nettles Law Firm
     PO Box 22007
     Phone: (843) 278-8416
     Email: tyson@tysonnettleslaw.com

          - and -

     Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
     KAUFMAN P.A.
     400 NW 26th Street
     Miami, FL 33127
     Phone: (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
     Phone: (877) 333-9427
     Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
     Email: law@stefancoleman.com


POST CONSUMER: Copeland Files Fraud Class Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Post Consumer Brands,
LLC. The case is styled as Kenneth Copeland, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Post Consumer
Brands, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02488 (E.D. N.Y., April
26, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Fraud filed pursuant to the
Truth-In-Lending Act.

Post Consumer Brands (previously Post Cereals and Postum Cereals)
is an American consumer cereal manufacturer that makes Honey
Bunches of Oats, Pebbles, Great Grains, Post Shredded Wheat, Post
Raisin Bran, Grape-Nuts, Honeycomb, Frosted Mini Spooners, Golden
Puffs, Oh's, Cinnamon Toasters, Fruity Dyno-Bites, Cocoa
Dyno-Bites, Berry Colossal Crunch and Malt-O-Meal hot wheat
cereal.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Spencer I. Sheehan, Esq.
   Sheehan & Associates, P.C.
   505 Northern Boulevard, Suite 311
   Great Neck, NY 11021
   Tel: (516) 303-0552
   Fax: (516) 234-7800
   Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com


PURDUE PHARMA: Lawyers' Fees in Opioid Case Questioned
------------------------------------------------------
Paul Monies and Trevor Brown, writing for Oklahoma Watch, report
that attorneys in the state's sprawling opioid lawsuit have bragged
that they slept on cots in their offices and went through millions
of pages of evidence.

But one private attorney in the case, a former legislative leader,
stands to make $5.6 million in the recent settlement against Purdue
Pharma despite having no obvious role documented in court filings
and little trial experience in cases like the one Attorney General
Mike Hunter brought against Purdue and other drug makers.

Attorney Glenn Coffee's firm in Oklahoma City is one of three
outside law firms contracted by Hunter in the opioid case. Coffee
is notified of every filing in the voluminous case, which is set to
go to trial in Cleveland County at the end of May. And Coffee was
among the officials in the room when Hunter announced a $270
million settlement with Purdue on March 26.

But a review of the publicly available court file shows little
involvement by Coffee in the day-to-day work of the case, which was
filed in June 2017.

Most of the courtroom appearances, briefs and motions were made by
assistant attorney generals or lawyers for the other two outside
law firms, Texas-based Nix Patterson LLP and Oklahoma City-based
Whitten Burrage. Those firms will collect 90 percent of the $55.5
million in contingency fees (after a $4 million reduction to help
pay for opioid addiction treatment).

Coffee is a former Senate Pro Tem and was a paid legal advisor to
Hunter's 2018 campaign. His law firm, Glenn Coffee & Associates,
specializes in campaign finance and ethics laws. He declined
comment for this story, saying he doesn't do interviews while cases
are active.

Hunter's office said Coffee was brought into the state's opioid
lawsuit for his experience in complex business litigation.

"The teams have worked indivisibly and in tandem throughout the
pendency of the case," Hunter spokesman Alex Gerszewski said. "Work
is assigned based on a variety of factors, including individual
experience, knowledge, availability and expertise."

Gerszewski did not specifically answer questions about whether
Coffee took depositions, wrote motions, attended hearings or
participated in settlement negotiations or discovery hearings.

Legal Contract Questioned

Coffee's involvement in the opioid case stands in contrast to his
12 years in the Senate, when he was among leaders pushing for
lawsuit reform and advocating for caps on attorneys' fees in
class-action lawsuits. Those efforts didn't bring about changes.

The issue of paying contingency fees to state-contracted lawyers
surfaced again last year, when Hunter's opponent in the GOP primary
and runoff campaign, Tulsa attorney Gentner Drummond, questioned
the state's opioid contingency contract, suggesting politics was
involved. He said the state should have competitively bid the
contract instead of paying on contingency, meaning the lawyers get
paid only if they win or a settlement is reached.

More than a dozen states use competitive bidding for outside legal
services, but it's not a requirement in Oklahoma. The federal
government doesn't allow its agencies to enter into contingency fee
contracts.

Pursuit of Curbs, Transparency in Contingency Cases

In Oklahoma, the attorney general issues an annual report that
includes a list of outside attorney contracts and the amounts paid.
But the latest report does not include contracts with contingency
fee arrangements.

In the opioid case, according to a fee breakdown in the contract,
Nix Patterson gets 57 percent of the awarded attorney fees, Whitten
Burrage gets 33 percent and Glenn Coffee & Associates gets 10
percent. That translates into $31.6 million, $18.3 million and $5.6
million. If settlements or judgments are reached with other opioid
makers in the case, the same allocation percentages will apply.

In explaining Coffee's role, Gerszewski noted the lawyer's previous
experience as former Gov. Mary Fallin's attorney during settlement
negotiations on a water case with the Chickasaw and Choctaw tribes.
Coffee also represented the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences
Center as it formed a nonprofit, OU Medicine Inc., to take over the
OU hospital system from HCA Healthcare in February 2018.

"His experience in complex litigation and knowledge is unmatched
and has been indispensable in this (opioid) case," Gerszewski
said.

Apart from the opioid case, Hunter and Coffee share a business
relationship, with Hunter's campaign renting an office from
Coffee's family business and Coffee advising Hunter's 2018
campaign.

The Hunter campaign paid Coffee more than $22,700 for legal
services in the campaign, according to Ethics Commission reports.
It also paid TVC Pro Driver, a Coffee family company, more than
$5,000 for the rent of a small office in Oklahoma City.

Hunter said the office rental was done at market rate and the legal
services contract was done at arm's length.

Years of Contention Over Fees

As minority leader of the Oklahoma Senate in the mid-2000s, Coffee
spearheaded a multi-year tort reform effort that included bills to
place new caps on how much lawyers could receive from contingency
fees.

His proposal would have replaced current state law that caps the
fees at 50 percent of the total settlement. Instead, it would
create a sliding scale in which contingency fees would be capped at
30 percent for judgments or settlements under $250,000, 20 percent
for those between $250,000 and $1.25 million and 10 percent for
those over $1.25 million.

In 2005, after seeing his latest attempt to push through changes
fail, Coffee sent out a press release blaming Democrats and warning
that businesses could leave the state because of its "legal
climate" and the "real problem" of lawsuit abuse.

Coffee continued to advocate for the changes over years to no
avail, including when Republicans took control of the Senate in
2008 and he became Senate leader. He even suggested pushing a state
question in 2009 to ask voters to limit contingency fees.

Nothing resulted, and Oklahoma's law has since remained unchanged.

But Coffee's legislative failure ultimately made him a financial
winner years later.

If Coffee's plan had passed, outside attorneys in the Purdue
settlement would be eligible for $27 million out of the $270
million settlement – less than half what they actually will get.
And Coffee's share – 10 percent of that amount – would be $2.7
million instead of the $5.6 million he will end up with.

How Much Is Too Much?

Since Coffee left the Legislature, other lawmakers have tried to
limit contingency fees.

The latest attempt was last year when a bill was introduced by Sen.
Nathan Dahm, R-Broken Arrow.

The proposal, similar to Coffee's 2008 bill, would have set new
limits on how much attorneys can make off contingency fees. In
addition to proposing the same fee schedule as Coffee's bill,
Dahm's would have capped total contingency fees for a case at $50
million.

Dahm said he and other Senate Republicans have worried about the
large shares of the pie that attorneys come away with in a
settlement or judgment.

Concerns date back to the 1990s, when Oklahoma was awarded $2.3
billion over 25 years as part of a multi-state settlement with the
tobacco industry. Private attorneys for Oklahoma got $250 million.

Although Dahm said he isn't aware of impropriety with the Purdue
settlement, he felt the nearly $60 million awarded to the private
lawyers was excessive.

"Personally, that was just too large for a lot of us," he said,
referring to concerns Senate Republicans related to Hunter during a
closed-door caucus meeting the day after the settlement was
announced.

But attorneys representing the state in the settlement noted
there's a big risk in taking the case on contingency: If you lose,
you get nothing.

Brad Beckworth, a partner with Nix Patterson, told the judge in a
March 26 settlement hearing that almost a dozen lawyers spent time
away from home, sleeping on cots or mattresses – or in one case
in the closet – on the fourth floor of Whitten Burrage's Oklahoma
City office.

Altogether, his staff and lawyers from the other two firms worked
thousands of hours on the case and have spent more than $10
million. He estimates with all the attorney and paralegal time
involved in lawsuit, the fees amounted to between $500 and $550 an
hour.

"(That amount) is a lot, it is," Beckworth said. "But when you're
at risk and on a contingent basis, that's a pretty low return."
[GN]


QUEST INTERNATIONAL: Hong Sues Over Policies Violating NY Labor Law
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SUNG EIK HONG, YONG M. KOO, JOON G. KIM, KEVIN K. LEE, YOON S. KIM,
DONG IL LIM, and HUN MIN PARK, individually and on behalf of all
other employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Quest
International Limousine, Inc., Mangil Park, and James Park,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04336 (S.D. N.Y., May 13, 2019) is an
action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"),
New York Labor Law ("NYLL") and 12 New York Codes, Rules, and
Regulations ("NYCRR") to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime
compensation, unlawfully retained gratuities, spread of hours
premium, and damages arising out of failure to provide pay stubs
and wage notifications owed to Plaintiffs for work performed for
Defendants.

The complaint relates that Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in
excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage or
overtime compensation for the hours that they worked each week.
Yet, the Defendants maintained a policy and practices of requiring
Plaintiffs to work in excess of 40 hours per week without paying
them minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and
state laws. Defendants also failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of their hours worked, and failed to pay Plaintiffs
appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of
pay, or for any additional overtime premium, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs are former drivers for Defendants.

Defendants and/or their enterprise are directly engaged in
interstate commerce.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ken H. Maeng, Esq.
     HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC.
     136-20 38th Ave., Suite 10G
     Flushing, NY 11354
     Phone: 718.353.8588
     Email: kmaeng@hanglaw.com


RICHARD SOKOLOFF: Arrunategui Alleges Violation Under FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Richard Sokoloff. The
case is styled as Edwin Arrunategui, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Richard Sokoloff,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02491 (E.D. N.Y., April 28, 2019).

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

Richard Sokoloff is a debt collection agency that has been in
business for more than 25 years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
   775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255
   Huntington, NY 11743
   Tel: (631) 335-1107
   Email: mpash@verizon.net


RING CONCIERGE: Dennis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ring Concierge LLC.
The case is styled as Derrick U Dennis on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ring Concierge LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04338 (S.D. N.Y., May 13, 2019).

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

Ring Concierge LLC offers custom engagement rings and fine jewelry
curated for women, by women.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RIVIERA BEACH, FL: Sued Over Inhumane Conditions at Stonybrook
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zach Schlein, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that the
City of Riviera Beach has been accused of negligence in a class
action lawsuit filed in Palm Beach Circuit Court over living
conditions at Stonybrook Apartments.

Along with the city, the suit also names Stonybrook's former owner
Global Ministries Foundation and current owner Millennia Cos. as
defendants. The nine-count complaint alleges "inhumane living
conditions" at the low-income apartment complex, resulting in
property damage and injuries to residents.

According to the complaint, several of Stonybrook's 216 apartments
are "in violation of applicable building, housing, or health
codes," and are infested with vermin. The suit also contends "the
common areas are kept in a condition that is neither clean nor
safe" and an alarming number of the complex's air conditioning
units have mold that has "permeated the old drywall."

The plaintiffs are said to "have endured adverse health
consequences," citing Stonybrook residents' "extremely high use of
asthma drugs and breathing treatments, and repeated trips to seek
medical care." One inhabitant, Stephanie Taylor, brought her 11
year-old daughter to seek medical treatment after she complained of
difficulty breathing. The suit said Taylor's child's "heart and
most vital signs stopped" after they collapsed in the parking lot.
Although they survived the scare, they were "placed on life support
for over a week."

The class action -- which names current and former residents of
Stonybrook as plaintiffs -- notes the property has been cited by
Riviera Beach's code inspectors for housing violations.
Approximately 50 units were marked with orange tags in July 2018
for being "unsafe for human occupancy."

The attorney representing Stonybrook's residents, Watson Leigh
partner Malik Leigh, said problems have persisted at the apartment
complex despite Riviera Beach officials' awareness of the issue.
The suit lists "thousands of nuisance calls from residents and
guests of Stonybrook for . . . past and existing crime,
communicable health and safe concerns, storm damage," in addition
to the health citations made on the property as evidence of the
city's inaction. The civil rights litigator said the basis of the
willful negligence charges against Riviera Beach stems from its
purported failure to enforce the Florida Residential Landlord
Tenant Act, which he alleges GMF and Millennia has violated by
failing to keep the building within code and address the health
worries raised by residents.

"The city has full knowledge of what's going and acquiesced to it.
They provided no oversight," Leigh said.

Neither Riviera Beach's City Attorney's Office nor attorney Christy
Goddeau replied to requests for comment by deadline.

Leigh said the companies "tried their hardest not to acknowledge
what was going on, because if you acknowledge it, you have to fix
it," citing the Florida Residential Landlord Tenant Act's
provisions requiring property owners to maintain the upkeep of
their premises.

"They're the ones that kept people in those conditions," Leigh
said. "Their only concern was to continue to get rent, and to
threaten and harass residents from having actions against them."
The complaint cited retaliatory measures taken by Millennia and GMF
taken against residents who have organized with the Palm Beach
Tenants Union or called the city to make their concerns known, such
as the withholding of repairs to units.

A separate complaint entered filed on April 16 named six plaintiffs
with injuries "a bit greater than everyone else's," and who aren't
part of the class, Leigh said.

The second suit listed resident Olivia on April 15 as one of
several plaintiffs whose children "were . . . hospitalized from
problems with asthma." It noted "in units where the HVAC unit was
entirely covered with black mold, [residents] or their children had
either recently visited, or were on their way to the doctor."

"All are/were on nebulizer treatments, and most used these
nebulizers on average of five times per day," the complaint said.

Leigh said he intends to ask the court to consolidate the two
complaints so they can be heard by the same jury.

"These women are the absolute extremes of what happened to
[Stonybrook residents] and their kids," he said.

Conditions similar to that of Stonybrook have been reported at
other properties under GMF and Millennia's purview. This includes
the Eureka Gardens community in Jacksonville as well as Cordoba
Courts in Opa-locka. Residents at both Eureka Gardens and Cordoba
Courts have spoken out about the mold pervading their homes as well
as GMF and Millennia's alleged refusal to address the problems.

The Palm Beach Circuit Court's docket lists litigator Rory Jurman
as GMF and Millennia's legal counsel. Jurman, a shareholder with
Fowler White Burnett's Fort Lauderdale office, did not respond to
requests for comment by press time and had filed no response by
press time.

It's Leigh's hope this litigation will create "a guidepost" for
others facing similar circumstances. He said many of the
communities that were owned by GMF before transferring to Millennia
"have much of the exact same issues and problems."

Leigh added, "If you can create something that allows people to say
‘OK, well there is a manner or method of redress,' then let's go
about doing it." [GN]


ROYAL ROBBINS: Dennis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Royal Robbins, LLC.
The case is styled as Derrick U Dennis on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Royal Robbins, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04337 (S.D. N.Y., May 13, 2019).

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

Royal Robbins LLC manufactures and sells outdoor clothing for men
and women.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SERVICE CORP: Appeal in Moulton Class Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 25,
2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the
company's subsidiary continues to defend a class action suit
entitled, Karen Moulton, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc., Service
Corporation International and others; Case No. 2013-5636; in the
Civil District Court Parish of New Orleans, Louisiana.

This case was filed as a class action in June 2013 against SCI (the
company) and the company's subsidiary in connection with SCI's
acquisition of Stewart Enterprises, Inc. The plaintiffs allege that
SCI aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties by Stewart
Enterprises and its board of directors in negotiating the
combination of Stewart Enterprises with a subsidiary of SCI. The
plaintiffs seek damages concerning the combination.

The company filed exceptions to the plaintiffs' complaint that were
granted in June 2014. Thus, subject to appeals, SCI will no longer
be party to the suit. The case has continued against the company's
subsidiary Stewart Enterprises and its former individual directors.
However, in October 2016, the court entered a judgment dismissing
all of plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal.


Service Corporation said, "Given the nature of this lawsuit, we are
unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or ranges of loss,
if any."

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

Service Corporation International provides deathcare products and
services in the United States and Canada. The company operates
through Funeral and Cemetery segments. The company was founded in
1962 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.


SERVICE CORP: Bernstein Suit over Sales Practices Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 25,
2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the
company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Caroline
Bernstein, on behalf of herself and Marla Urofsky on behalf of Rhea
Schwartz, and both on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
SCI Pennsylvania Funeral Services, Inc. and Service Corporation
International, Case No. 2:17-cv-04960-GAM; in the United States
District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

This case was filed in November 2017 as a purported national or
alternatively as a Pennsylvania class action regarding our Forest
Hills/Shalom Memorial Park in Huntingdon Valley, Pennsylvania and
the company's Roosevelt Memorial Park Cemetery in Trevose,
Pennsylvania.

Plaintiffs allege wrongful burial and sales practices. Plaintiffs
seek compensatory, consequential and punitive damages, attorneys'
fees and costs, interest, and injunctive relief.

Service Corporation said, "Given the nature of this lawsuit, we are
unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or ranges of loss,
if any."

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

Service Corporation International provides deathcare products and
services in the United States and Canada. The company operates
through Funeral and Cemetery segments. The company was founded in
1962 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.


SIMMONS BANK: Tannehill Files Class Action in E.D. Arkansas
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Simmons Bank. The
case is styled as Donald Tannehill on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Simmons Bank, Defendant,
Case No. 3:19-cv-00140-DPM (E.D. Ark., May 13, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Simmons Bank is a bank with operations in Arkansas, Colorado,
Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas. It is the primary
subsidiary of Simmons First National Corporation, a bank holding
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     E. Adam Webb, Esq.
     Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC
     1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480
     Atlanta, GA 30339
     Phone: (770) 444-0773
     Email: adam@webbllc.com

          - and -

     Francis J. Casey Flynn, Esq.
     Tiffany Marko Yiatras, Esq.
     Consumer Protection Legal LLC
     308 Hutchinson Road
     Ellisville, MO 63011
     Phone: (314) 725-7700
     Email: casey@consumerprotectionlegal.com
            tiffany@consumerprotectionlegal.com

          - and -

     Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq.
     Kaliel PLLC
     1875 Connecticut Avenue NW
     10th Floor
     Washington, DC 20009
     Phone: (202) 350-4783
     Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com

          - and -

     William F. Burns, Esq.
     Watson Burns, PLLC
     253 Adams Avenue
     Memphis, TN 38103
     Phone: (901) 529-7996
     Fax: (901) 529-7998
     Email: bburns@watsonburns.com


SIZMEK: Former Employees File WARN Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Ronan Shields, writing for Adweek, reports that several former
Sizmek employees have filed a class action lawsuit against the
company, citing the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
Act as a reason for additional compensation.

Plaintiffs, led by former Sizmek communications manager Jared
McKinley Kreiner, allege they are entitled to compensation after
they were not given due notice during a round of layoffs that took
place on January 31 of this year, a series of cutbacks that came as
Sizmek's financial backers held back on delivering a crucial
tranche of funding.

Per the April 12 filings, the plaintiffs allege that Sizmek
terminated "at least 50 full-time employees" without issuing them
60 days advance written notice of their terminations as required by
the WARN Act. Similarly, the aggrieved ex-Sizmek employees were not
provided 90 days advance written notice as required by the New York
WARN Act, according to the papers which were filed in the Southern
District of New York.

The papers state that affected employees are seeking the sum of
their unpaid wages, salary, commissions, bonuses and other
associated employment benefits for the 60 days they would have been
entitled to under the earlier cited legislation in addition to
associated legal costs.

"Sizmek does not comment on litigation, however, this adversary
proceeding is subject to bankruptcy court jurisdiction and Sizmek
intends to defend itself," a company spokesperson told Adweek.

Sizmek filed for Chapter 11 proceedings on March 29, a voluntary
bankruptcy maneuver that represented a coda for a difficult period
for the company when it struggled to accommodate the market shift
away from managed service programmatic offerings.

This passage of time also saw it purchase demand-side platform
Rocket Fuel for $145 million in mid-2017, adding to the existing
costs of migrating its ad server to a new platform during a period
that saw revenues fall from $399 million in 2016 to $289 million
the following year, according to its Chapter 11 filing.

Per the Chapter 11 filings, by the first quarter of 2019, Sizmek's
projected revenues had fallen to $170 million and its private
equity backers Vector Capital declined to deliver the second half
of an earlier agreed upon $30 million funding round.

Sizmek is now seeking a buyer for the company, stating that it has
received dozens of inbound inquiries from potential buyers with
"more than 10 parties who have already signed a non-disclosure
agreement" to perform due diligence. Final offers are expected by
April 23.

Sizmek's Chapter 11 filing is the third such high-profile instance
of an ad-tech company filing for bankruptcy protection within 12
months. In May 2018, Videology filed for similar Chapter 11
protection ahead of its $100 million sale to Amobee. Later in the
same year, Visto, formerly known as Collective, announced a sale to
Zeta Global last year after a similar voluntary bankruptcy filing.

However, the class action lawsuit of April 12 goes some way to
demonstrate the human cost of the ongoing realignment of the
ad-tech sector, one that has claimed a high number of jobs in
recent weeks alone with fellow ad-tech companies DataXu and Verve
announcing similar cutbacks

A court ruling from early April stated that Sizmek, which accrued
up to $172 million in debt, could pay its staff as it seeks to
reorganize the company, with the company later confirming a
significant number of layoffs.

Although estimates vary, separate sources with knowledge of the
proceedings claim the number was about 80 to 100 staff, with the
cutbacks primarily affecting HR, marketing, sales and account
management teams.

Sources also state that staff working on Sizmek's creative and
contextual targeting offerings were said to have been impacted by
the most recent reduction in the workforce, with a significant
number of teams there now down at least 50% compared to earlier
headcount.

Meanwhile, multiple sources with knowledge of these proceedings
have also alleged that the company has yet to reimburse the
outgoing employees' expense claims, sales commissions or bonus
entitlements. A Sizmek spokesperson responded to these allegations
with the below statement.

"Expenses and pre-petition commissions for current and severed
employees will be addressed by a supplement to Sizmek's Wages and
Benefits motion. Sizmek's original Wages and Benefits motion was
approved on an interim basis on April 4 and permits the company to
pay only base wages. This supplement and associated relief are
scheduled for hearing on April 23. The company is permitted to pay
post-petition commissions in the ordinary course." [GN]


SOUTHERN COPPER: Lacey Class Action Dismissed
---------------------------------------------
Southern Copper 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 claims against the
defendants in the case, Carla Lacey, on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated stockholders of Southern Copper
Corporation, and derivatively on behalf of Southern Copper
Corporation, have been dismissed with prejudice.

A purported class action derivative lawsuit filed in the Delaware
Court of Chancery was served on the Company and its Directors in
February 2016 relating to the 2012 capitalization of 99.999% of MGE
by Controladora de Infraestructura Energetica Mexico, S.A. de C.V.,
an indirect subsidiary of Grupo Mexico (the "CIEM Capitalization"),
the Company's entry into a power purchase agreement with MGE in
2012 (the "MGE Power Purchase Agreement"), and the 2012
restructuring of a loan from the Company's Mexican Operations to
MGE for the construction of two power plants to supply power to the
Company's Mexican operations (the "MGE Loan Restructuring").

The action purports to be brought on behalf of the Company and its
common stockholders. The complaint alleges, among other things,
that the CIEM Capitalization, the MGE Power Purchase Agreement and
the MGE Loan Restructuring were the result of breaches of fiduciary
duties and the Company's charter.

On March 20, 2018, the parties reached an agreement-in-principle to
settle the action. On March 23, 2018, the parties informed the
Court of the settlement-in-principle to resolve all claims asserted
by Plaintiff against Defendants in the action and requested that
the Court stay the action in its entirety pending filing by the
parties of a stipulation of settlement. The Parties filed the
executed stipulation on August 22, 2018. Under the proposed
settlement, Grupo Mexico or Americas Mining would pay to the
Company $50 million in cash less any attorneys’'fees (including
costs) awarded by the Court to Plaintiff's counsel (the "Net
Settlement Amount") in return for a release of all derivative and
direct claims.

A settlement hearing was held on November 27, 2018. On December 27,
2018, the Court issued its ruling approving the $50 million
settlement. Pursuant to the Court's ruling, Plaintiff's counsel was
awarded $13.5 million (for attorneys' fees, expenses, and a $5,000
incentive fee award to plaintiff Carla Lacey).

The remaining $36.5 million was distributed via a special dividend
on February 21, 2019 to the Company's public stockholders (other
than the director defendants, Grupo Mexico, Americas Mining, or any
entity in which Grupo Mexico or Americas Mining has or had a direct
or indirect controlling interest) who held shares of common stock
of the Company as of February 11, 2019.

Southern Copper said, "As result of the payment of the settlement,
the claims against the Defendants have been dismissed with
prejudice."

Southern Copper Corporation engages in mining, exploring, smelting,
and refining copper and other minerals in Peru, Mexico, Argentina,
Ecuador, and Chile. Southern Copper Corporation was founded in 1952
and is based in Phoenix, Arizona. Southern Copper Corporation is a
subsidiary of Americas Mining Corporation.


SOUTHERN ILLINOIS: Female Physicians' Pay Lawsuit Decertified
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald L. Maatman Jr., Esq., and Christina M. Janice, Esq., of
Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that on March
29, 2019, in Ahad v. Board of Trustees of Southern Illinois
University, et al., Case No. 15-CV-3308 (C.D. Ill. Mar. 29, 2019),
Judge Sue E. Myerscough of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of Illinois decertified a collective action under the
Equal Pay Act involving a group of female physicians.  Although
Plaintiff alleged that she and a class of female physicians
employed by Defendants were paid less than male counterparts for
similar work under Defendants' centralized Compensation Plan, the
Court found that the individual physicians who opted-in to the
collective action had specialized practices, job duties, and
compensation that required too many individualized inquiries, and
as a result, they could not maintain a collective action. The
decision is an important read for all corporate counsel focused on
equal pay compliance and litigation.

Background
In October 2015, a physician employed by Southern Illinois
University and SIU Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. ("Defendants")
brought a class and collective action against Defendants alleging
that she and other female faculty physicians working for Defendants
were paid substantially lower compensation than male physicians for
the same or similar work, in violation of the Equal Pay Act and
Illinois Equal Pay Act, Title VII, and the Illinois Human Rights
Act.  Central to the claims of Plaintiff and the three other
physicians opting-in to the litigation ("Plaintiffs") were
contentions that all female faculty physicians were required to
perform similar core duties, and that all were compensated based on
the use of a centralized "Compensation Plan" administered by
Defendants.  Initially, the Court conditionally certified
Plaintiffs' Equal Pay Act claim as a collective action under Sec.
216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, but later denied
Plaintiffs' Rule 23 motion for class certification under the
Illinois Equal Pay Act, Title VII and the Illinois Human Rights
Act, for failure to show commonality and typicality of claims.

Defendants subsequently moved to decertify the collective action
under Sec. 216(b), arguing that Plaintiffs were not
similarly-situated, that individual inquiries predominated the
litigation, and that Plaintiffs had not identified a common policy
or practice responsible for the alleged unequal pay.

The Court's Ruling
The Court agreed with each of the Defendants' contentions, and
ordered decertification of the collective action.  While Plaintiffs
argued that the Court should view their positions with a high level
of generality in that all members of the collective action
performed core duties of administration, teaching, research and
service, the Court agreed with Defendants' argument that in
decertification proceedings, it is proper to examine more closely
the similarities and differences in job titles and duties, work
locations, supervision, and compensation.

Applying this level of scrutiny, the Court found that the four
Plaintiffs each worked in different medical disciplines, such as
bariatric surgery, colon and rectal surgery, family practice and
osteopathy.  Each Plaintiff also worked in one of several faculty
positions in one of two different departments, each with its own
duties, and each requiring different time commitments in the areas
of administration, teaching, research, and service.  Furthermore,
each department was supervised by a different department chair
responsible for hiring and compensation decisions.

The Court also found that compensation decisions were based on a
variety of rated factors particular to medical specialty, position,
department, and whether the employee served as an assistant
professor, associate professor, professor, or director.  Individual
compensation decisions also were affected by productivity,
including the ability to take on Medicare and Medicaid patients.

The Court concluded that under these circumstances, the individual
inquiries required to sustain or defend claims of pay
discrimination under the Equal Pay Act demonstrated that Plaintiffs
were not similarly-situated, thereby warranting decertification.

Moreover, the Court opined that Plaintiffs failed to identify a
common policy or practice responsible for the alleged unequal pay.
While Plaintiffs pointed to Defendants' Compensation Plan as a
gender neutral, "single" or "centralized" process for setting and
adjusting compensation, the Court observed that department chairs
were given discretion under the Compensation Plan to make
compensation recommendations based on a variety of objective and
individualized factors, such as salary survey data, funding
sources, background and qualifications, and market factors.
Although Plaintiffs noted that the Dean of Southern Illinois
University and CEO of Southern Illinois University Physicians &
Surgeons, Inc. were responsible for the administration of the
Compensation Plan, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs failed to
establish that the discretion shown by these high-level individuals
caused a disparate impact disfavoring women in pay.

Finally, the Court, following Wal-Mart v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338
(2011), ruled Plaintiffs' statistical evidence of disparate impact
unhelpful, because it "does not and cannot show whether a common
cause existed regardless of the statistically significant showing
of pay disparities based on gender." Id. at 25.

Implications For Employers
The decision in Ahad underscores the importance of tying employee
compensation decisions to objective, measurable criteria, that are
utilized and documented in the exercise of properly delegated
managerial discretion.  To minimize the risk of unequal pay
problems, employers are well served to review their position
descriptions, hiring and compensation tools and training, and
compensation decisions for both for disparate impact and for
success in obtaining and retaining talent. [GN]


SPREZZABOX INC: Olsen Suit Alleges Disabilities Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sprezzabox, 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. Sprezzabox, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-02523 (S.D. N.Y., April 29, 2019).

SprezzaBox is an e-commerce retail subscription company that
provides a wide range of products for men such as ties and bow
ties, socks, pocket squares, tie clips, cufflinks, and lapel pins.
It helps its users choose a monthly reliable or prepaid membership
and a stylist will handpick different products.[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


SUSHI SUSHI: Torres Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------
Ricardo Cajero Torres and Mario Bautista, individually and on
behalf of all other employees similarly situated, v. Sushi Sushi
Holdings Inc. dba Sushi Sushi, Igor Grinberg, and Angie "Doe", Case
No. 1:19-cv-02532 (S.D. N.Y., March 21, 2019), is brought against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants violated FLSA by engaging in a pattern and practice
of failing to pay their employees, including the Plaintiffs,
minimum wage and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40
each workweek.

Plaintiff Torres is a resident of Queens and was employed by the
Defendants as a delivery worker from January 2016 to January 27,
2019.

Plaintiff Bautista is a resident of Manhattan and was employed but
the Defendants as a delivery worker from December 2017 to January
20, 2019.

The Defendant Sushi Sushi Holdings Inc. dba Sushi Sushi, operates
two Japanese Sushi restaurants, with one located at 1504 Amsterdam
Ave, New York, NY 10031 and the other located at 126 MacDougal
Street, New York, NY 10038.

The Defendant Grinberg is the owner, officer, director and/or
managing agent of Sushi Holdings.

The Defendant Angie "Doe" is the supervisor, manager and/or
managing agent of Sushi Holdings. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


TARONIS TECHNOLOGIES: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
In a release issued under the same headline on April 12, 2019 by
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, please note that the
date for the lead plaintiff deadline has been corrected in the
sub-headline and third paragraph of the release, as well as the
case number in the first paragraph. The corrected release follows:

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that it has
filed a federal class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida on behalf of those
investors who acquired Taronis Technologies, Inc., f/k/a MagneGas
Applied Technology, ("Taronis" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: TRNX)
common stock between January 28, 2019 and February 12, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), against the Company and certain of
the Company's executives and officers.  This action is captioned
Chad Hatten v. Taronis Technologies, Inc. et al; 19-cv-00889.

Investors who purchased Taronis Technologies, Inc. shares and
suffered losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain a copy of the filed complaint and additional information
concerning the action on our website, www.whafh.com.

If you have incurred losses in the shares of Taronis during the
Class Period, you may, no later than June 14, 2019, request that
the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please
contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an
investor in Taronis Technologies, Inc.   

The filed complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:

   -- the Company did not have a contract with the City of San
Diego;
   -- the Company or its management had engaged in a scheme to
defraud; and
   -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On January 28, 2019, the Company announced that the City of San
Diego (CA) had elected to use its process known as MagneGas as its
metal cutting fuel of choice, marking the first major city contract
for the adoption of this technology.  On this news, the Company's
stock rapidly increased over 25% in the following days, reaching an
intraday high of $5.89 per share on January 31, 2019

Following this rapid rise of the Company's stock price, the Company
subsequently retracted its prior announcement about the contract
with the City of San Diego.

On February 12, 2019, the Company issued a Form 8-K, noting that
the "Company has determined that it is necessary to correct its
prior disclosure . . . The Company treats purchase orders as
contracts and made its prior disclosure with that treatment in
view, however, the Company does not have any formal binding
contracts, agreements or long−term purchase commitments with the
City of San Diego beyond the existing approval, nor any commitment
that any of the Company's products will be purchased as the
products of choice for their respective applications."

On this date, the shares of Taronis closed at $0.92 per share, down
84% from its post-announcement high reached on January 31, 2019.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Synergy publicly traded securities during the Class Period.  The
Plaintiff is represented by Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
LLP.  Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution
of securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country.  The firm
has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego.  The reputation and expertise of this firm
in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com. [GN]


TELADOC HEALTH: Reiner Securities Class Action Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Teladoc Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend itself from a purported class action suit entitled,
Reiner v. Teladoc Health, Inc., et al.

On December 12, 2018, a purported securities class action complaint
(Reiner v. Teladoc Health, Inc., et.al.) was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York against
the Company and certain of the Company's officers and a former
officer.

The complaint is brought on behalf of a purported class consisting
of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
shares of the Company's common stock during the period March 3,
2016 through December 5, 2018.

The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly false or
misleading statements and omissions with respect to, among other
things, the alleged misconduct of one of the Company's previous
Executive Officers.

The complaint seeks certification as a class action and unspecified
compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys' fees. A lead
plaintiff has not yet been appointed.

The Company believes that the claims against the Company and its
officers are without merit, and the Company and its named officers
intend to defend the Company vigorously.

Teladoc Health said, "In light of, among other things, the early
stage of the litigation, the Company is unable to predict the
outcome of this action and are unable to make a meaningful estimate
of the amount or range of loss, if any, that could result from an
unfavorable outcome."

Teladoc Health, Inc. provides telehealth services. It offers a
portfolio of services and solutions covering 450 medical
subspecialties, such as flu and upper respiratory infections,
cancer, and congestive heart failure. Teladoc Health, Inc. was
founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.


TELADOC HEALTH: Unit Continues to Defend Thomas TCPA Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Teladoc Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that Best Doctors, Inc., a
company subsidiary, continues to defend a purported class action
suit entitled, Thomas v. Best Doctors, Inc.

On May 14, 2018, a purported class action complaint (Thomas v. Best
Doctors, Inc.) was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts against the Company's wholly owned
subsidiary, Best Doctors, Inc.

The complaint alleges that on or about May 16, 2017, Best Doctors
violated the U.S. Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by
sending unsolicited facsimiles to plaintiff and certain other
recipients without the recipients' prior express invitation or
permission.

The lawsuit seeks statutory damages for each violation, subject to
trebling under the TCPA, and injunctive relief.

Teladoc Health said, "The Company will vigorously defend the
lawsuit and any potential loss is currently deemed to be
immaterial."

Teladoc Health, Inc. provides telehealth services. It offers a
portfolio of services and solutions covering 450 medical
subspecialties, such as flu and upper respiratory infections,
cancer, and congestive heart failure. Teladoc Health, Inc. was
founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.


TELIGENT INC: Scott+Scott Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), a national
securities and consumer rights litigation firm, on April 15
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against
Teligent, Inc. ("Teligent" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: TLGT) and one
of its executives (collectively, "Defendants").

The action, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, asserts claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act"), 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), and Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17
C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5, on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Teligent common stock between May 2, 2017 and
November 7, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Teligent researches, develops, produces, supplies, and sells
generic pharmaceutical products.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated provisions of the
Exchange Act by issuing false and misleading statements to
investors, including in filings with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC"). Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements regarding, and/or failed to disclose,
product non-conformities in research and development and
non-compliance with applicable regulations.

On November 6, 2017, after the market closed, Teligent filed a Form
8-K with the SEC disclosing disappointing third quarter 2017
earnings. Total revenue fell to $13.7 million from the previous
quarter's $18.4 million, a 25.5% drop, and from third quarter
2016's $16.2 million, a 15.4% drop. Teligent's press release quoted
President and Chief Executive Officer Jason Grenfell-Gardner
attributing the drop in revenue to FDA approval delays and
competition.

On this news, Teligent's share price fell $2.29 on November 7,
2017.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from April 15, 2019, the date of this notice.
Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain a member of the proposed class.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's
counsel, Jeffrey Jacobson of Scott+Scott at (646) 992-4756, or via
email at jjacobson@scott-scott.com.

           About Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices
in New York, London, Connecticut, California, and Ohio.

CONTACT:

          Jeffrey Jacobson, Esq.
          Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
          Tel: (646) 992-4756
          Email: jjacobson@scott-scott.com [GN]


TEXAS: Bryant Files Suit v. Texas Prison Officials
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Texas prison
officials. The case is styled as Roy Shiloh Bryant On behalf of 500
similarly situated prisoners at Eastham Unit, Plaintiff v. Brian
Collier Director, TDCJ ID, D Muniz Warden, Eastham Unit, G Spurlock
Law Library/Indigent Supply Supervisor, Samuel Dominey Laundry
Manager, Carrie L Whatley Grievance Investigator III, Defendants,
Case No. 6:19-cv-00213-JDK-JDL (E.D. Tex., May 13, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.

Brian Collier, 51, joined the TDCJ in 1985 as a clerk. He has held
a wide variety of positions to include Correctional Officer, Parole
Officer, Unit Supervisor, Program Administrator, and Parole
Division Director.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


THOMPSON INDUSTRIAL: Razor Seeks Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
-----------------------------------------------------------
Van Razor, Robert Moore and Shauncy Perry, each individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Thompson
Industrial Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00136, (E.D.
Ark., May 6, 2019) seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and
costs, including reasonable attorney's fees for failure to pay
lawful minimum and overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

Thompson Industrial Services provides industrial cleaning services
across the United States. Plaintiffs worked for Thompson in their
Mississippi County location as laborers, technicians and foremen.

Plaintiffs claim to have uncompensated work time donning their
heavy and substantial personal protective equipment and gear while
not clocked-in. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chris Burks, Esq.
      WH LAW, PLLC
      1 Riverfront Pl., Suite 745
      North Little Rock, AR 72114
      Telephone: (501) 891-6000
      Email: chris@whlawoffi.ces.com


TIGER BRANDS: Listeriosis Suit Compensation Process Set to Begin
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zoe Mahopo, writing for Sowetan Live, reports that hundreds of
listeriosis victims are a step closer to getting compensation after
their lawyers  finally filed court papers in a class action lawsuit
against food giant Tiger Brands.

Cathrine Marcus from Richard Spoor Attorneys confirmed that court
papers were filed at the South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg
on April 15.

The listeria outbreak which was traced to contaminated cold meat
products of polony, viennas and russians resulted in more than 200
deaths while there were 1,065 confirmed laboratory cases.

The cold meats were produced by Enterprise Foods which is a
subsidiary of Tiger Brands.  Most of those affected were pregnant
women and infants.

The papers were filed after the court granted a certificate order
in December, paving a way for victims to go ahead with the
lawsuit.

"We have a very strong case and we want our clients to be
compensated as soon as possible," Marcus said.

She said they would also claim constitutional damages on behalf of
their clients. Marcus said the first stage of the case would be to
establish liability on the part of the Tiger Brands in terms of the
Consumer Protection Act.

Tiger Brands spokesperson Nevashnee Naicker said they received the
summons on April 16. "We have only received summons this morning
and our lawyers are looking through it," Naicker said.

She said the company would release a proper statement once it had
studied the court papers.

Many people suffered miscarriages, disabilities and death because
of the deadly outbreak which is said to be the biggest in South
African history.

Tons of Enterprise cold meat products had to be pulled from the
shelves and destroyed.  Tiger Brands announced the reopening of its
factory outlet in Polokwane, Limpopo, following thorough cleaning
and inspections by environmental health officers in December. [GN]


TOWER SEMICONDUCTOR: Israeli Supreme Court Reaffirms Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tower Semiconductor Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 25, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the Israeli Supreme
Court has reaffirmed the district court's ruling in an investor
class action and denied the plaintiff's request for appeal.

In January 2016, a short-selling focused firm issued a short sell
thesis report which the Company believed contains false and
misleading information about the Company's strategy, business model
and financials.

Following this short sell thesis report, shareholder class actions
were filed against the Company, certain of its officers, directors
and its external independent auditor in the US and Israel. This
short sell thesis analyst acknowledged at the time of the report
that he shall be assumed to be in a short position in Tower's
shares.

In July 2016, the US court-appointed lead plaintiff voluntarily
withdrew the action and the US court approved the voluntary
dismissal of the class action in the US.

In February 2018, the Israeli court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss as the Israeli plaintiff did not meet the required burden
of proof. In April 2018, the Israeli plaintiff appealed to the
Israeli supreme court.

In October 2018, the Israeli Supreme Court reaffirmed the district
court's ruling and denied the plaintiff's request for appeal.

Tower Semiconductor Ltd., an independent semiconductor foundry,
manufactures and markets analog intensive mixed-signal
semiconductor devices in the United States, Japan, Asia, and
Europe. The company was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in
Migdal Haemek, Israel.


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Isolde Class Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------
Trinity Industries, Inc. continues to defend against the Isolde
consolidated class suit, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 25,
2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.  The court has
ordered the lead plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by May 17,
2019.

On January 11, 2016, the previously reported cases styled Thomas
Nemky, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated
v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and James E.
Perry, Case No. (2:15-CV-00732) ("Nemky") and Richard J. Isolde,
Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated v.
Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and James E. Perry,
Case No. (3:15-CV-2093) ("Isolde"), were consolidated in the
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, with all future
filings to be filed in the Isolde case.

On March 9, 2016, the Court appointed the Department of the
Treasury of the State of New Jersey and its Division of Investment
and the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund and United
Association Local Union Officers & Employees' Pension Fund as
co-lead plaintiffs ("Lead Plaintiffs"). On May 11, 2016, the Lead
Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Complaint alleging defendants
Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, James E. Perry, and
Gregory B. Mitchell violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
defendants Mr. Wallace and Mr. Perry violated Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and
misleading statements and/or by failing to disclose material facts
about Trinity's ET Plus and the FCA case styled Joshua Harman, on
behalf of the United States of America, Plaintiff/Relator v.
Trinity Industries, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:12-cv-00089-JRG
(E.D. Tex.).

On August 18, 2016, Trinity, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Perry, and Mr.
Mitchell filed motions to dismiss Lead Plaintiffs Consolidated
Complaint, which remain pending. On March 13, 2017, the Court
granted defendant's motion to stay and administratively close
proceedings pending the Fifth Circuit appeal. On March 8, 2019, the
Court ordered that Lead Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint by
May 17, 2019. The Court ordered that Defendants' deadline to
answer, move against, or otherwise respond to an amended complaint
is July 17, 2019.

Trinity, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Perry, and Mr. Mitchell deny and intend
to vigorously defend against the allegations in the Isolde case.

Trinity Industries said, "Based on the information available to the
Company, we currently do not believe that a loss is probable with
respect to this shareholder class action; therefore, no accrual has
been included in the accompanying Consolidated Financial
Statements. Because of the complexity of these actions as well as
the current status of certain of these actions, we are not able to
estimate a range of possible losses with respect to these
matters."

Trinity Industries, Inc. provides rail transportation products and
services in North America. It operates through three segments:
Railcar Leasing and Management Services Group, Rail Products Group,
and All Other. Trinity Industries, Inc. was founded in 1933 and is
headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


TWITTER INC: Consolidated Class Suit in California Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Twitter, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a consolidated class action suit in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.

Beginning in September 2016, multiple putative class actions and
derivative actions were filed in state and federal courts in the
United States against Twitter, Twitter's directors, and/or certain
former officers alleging that false and misleading statements, made
in 2015, are in violation of securities laws and breached fiduciary
duty.

The putative class actions were consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California. On October 16, 2017,
the court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion
to dismiss.

On July 17, 2018, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in the consolidated securities action.

Twitter said, "The Company disputes the claims and intends to
continue to defend the lawsuits vigorously."

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

Twitter, Inc. operates as a platform for public self expression and
conversation in real time. The company offers various products and
services, including Twitter, a platform that allows users to
consume, create, distribute, and discover content; and Periscope, a
mobile application that enables user to broadcast and watch video
live with others. The company operates in the United States and
internationally. Twitter, Inc. was founded in 2006 and is
headquartered in San Francisco, California.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Needs Insurance, Class Actions Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Andrew G. Simpson, writing for Insurance Journal, reports that Uber
Technologies Inc., on its way to an initial public offering that
some media reports say could raise $10 billion, might not be in the
position it is in without insurance.

"Our business depends heavily on insurance coverage for drivers and
on other types of insurance for additional risks related to our
business," the ridesharing pioneer notes in its recent filing.

Uber faces many potential liabilities, some that come with the
field of transportation and others that come with forging a new
industry. There are traffic accidents and injuries, assaults on
passengers, even e-scooters left on sidewalks. Like every business,
Uber faces cyber risks. It also faces challenges to how it
classifies and treats its independent contractor drivers.

Then there the risks to its brand and reputation from all of the
negative publicity stemming from what it calls its "workplace
culture and forward-leaning approach" to operations, compliance and
personnel under previous management.

Given that risks abound, it's no surprise that Uber depends and
spends heavily on insurance.

"If insurance carriers change the terms of such insurance in a
manner not favorable to drivers or to us, if we are required to
purchase additional insurance for other aspects of our business, or
if we fail to comply with regulations governing insurance coverage,
our business could be harmed," the firm noted.

At the end of last year, Uber had insurance reserves of close to $3
billion set aside, according to the regulatory filings made in
preparation for its planned IPO.

That was a big jump from 2017, when it had $2 billion in reserves.
The 2017 reserve figure was itself a similar jump over 2016.

(In its filings, Uber disclosed that it had a $3 billion operating
loss last year on revenue of $11.3 billion. Over the past three
years, its operating losses have topped $10 billion. The company
achieved net income of $997 million for 2018, but that came
primarily as a result of selling some foreign assets and a boost in
the stock it owns in China's ridesharing company. The company said
it expects its operating costs to increase "significantly in the
future" and it "may not achieve profitability.")

Insurance Needs
Uber's insurance reserves are just estimates of its potential
losses and related expenses. The company acknowledges that its
estimates are subject to "inherent variability" due in part to its
"limited historical experience" as a startup in a new industry.
That can mean there are risks that traditional insurers are not yet
ready to assume.

For some of their insurance needs, Uber and its drivers rely on
traditional insurers. Insurance for Uber's ridesharing operations
include third-party automobile liability, automobile comprehensive
and collision, physical damage, and uninsured and underinsured
motorist coverage.

Allstate provides Uber with commercial auto insurance in some
states. Uber has partnered with Allstate, Farmers, James River
Insurance, Progressive and other carriers to develop coverage for
its drivers that supplements their personal auto policies that do
not cover commercial use. Various other insurers including Geico,
Slice, State Farm, American Family, Liberty Mutual, Mapfre,
Mercury, Erie, Travelers and MetLife have come out with their own
insurance policies for drivers.

In addition to insurance related to its ridesharing products, Uber
carries other automobile insurance coverage for owned vehicles and
employee activity, as well as insurance coverage for non-automotive
corporate risks including general liability, workers' compensation,
property, cyber liability, and director and officers' liability.

Traditional insurers aren't handling everything. Uber also has a
captive insurance subsidiary to cover for certain risks including
auto liability, uninsured and underinsured motorist, auto physical
damage, general liability and workers' compensation. Its Hawaiian
captive company, called Aleka Insurance Inc., is managed by Aon.
Its smaller rival Lyft also has a Hawaii captive insurer, Pacific
Valley Insurance Co.

As heavily dependent upon insurance as Uber is, the company has
said it is not interested in entering the insurance business.
Rather, the global transportation firm is content to focus on being
an "intelligent purchaser" of insurance, continuing to work with
insurance carriers and brokers.

"No, to be honest, we're trying to get out of the insurance
business," Curtis Scott, global head of insurance for Uber, said at
the Insuretech Connect Conference (ITC) last October.

Citing reports of other tech firms including Amazon showing an
interest in insurance, he said Uber is not among them. "I can tell
you that Uber doesn't have a desire to. We are good at being a tech
company that's in logistics and we want to do that. That's what
we're strong at," he said.

"Insurance companies are good at being insurance companies and
that's hard to do," he added.

Going forward, insurance is bound to remain an important focus for
Uber.

There are the liabilities that will arise as it continues expanding
into freight handling (Uber Freight), fast food delivery (Uber
Eats), e-scooters rentals (Jump) and autonomous vehicles (Advanced
Technologies Group).

In addition, Uber says service providers and business customers of
Uber Freight and Uber for Business may require higher limits of
coverage as a condition for contracting with them.

Uber also recognizes that its insurance will be affected if
lawmakers change insurance requirements for ridesharing or if
municipalities mandate certain levels of insurance for dockless
e-bikes and e-scooters.

Big Worry
While Uber worries about insurance requirements, that's not its
biggest concern. Its biggest worry is if its drivers have to be
classified as employees instead of independent contractors.

The status of its drivers as independent contractors continues to
be challenged in courts in the U.S. and abroad. The firm notes in
its regulatory filing that it is involved in "numerous legal
proceedings globally, including putative class and collective class
action lawsuits, demands for arbitration, charges and claims before
administrative agencies, and investigations or audits by labor,
social security, and tax authorities that claim that drivers should
be treated as our employees (or as workers or quasi-employees where
those statuses exist), rather than as independent contractors."

Uber holds to its belief that its drivers are independent
contractors "because, among other things, they can choose whether,
when, and where to provide services on our platform, are free to
provide services on our competitors' platforms, and provide a
vehicle to perform services on our platform."

However, it recognizes it may not win this argument everywhere. For
example, in March, Uber agreed to pay $20 million to settle
California and Massachusetts lawsuits challenging the company's
classification of drivers as independent contractors, and not
employees. The settlement is subject to a final approval hearing in
July.

According to Uber, more than 60,000 of its drivers have filed or
expressed an intention to file arbitration demands against it
asserting similar claims.

The company is closely watching various court cases and legislative
proposals here and abroad that could establish new rules for
determining employee or independent contractor status. Uber says
that if it is required to reclassify its drivers, not only would it
incur considerable additional costs but any such reclassification
would require it to "fundamentally change" its business model, and
would have an "adverse effect" on its "business and financial
condition." [GN]


USHEALTH GROUP: Hillman Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
NADIA HILLMAN, individually & on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. USHEALTH GROUP, INC. & USHEALTH ADVISORS,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00394-A (N.D. Tex., May 13, 2019)
is a complaint for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") against Defendants.

The complaint alleges that Plaintiff Hillman and the other putative
class members--the Defendants' sales "agents"--are not and were not
paid any monies unless they made a sale.  The Defendants do not pay
their sales agents a direct wage. They also do not pay their sales
agents a minimum wage for each hour actually worked, or for
overtime when they work more than 40 hours in a workweek.
Plaintiffs were entitled to be paid time and one half their regular
rate for all hours worked over 40 each week, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Hillman started working for Defendants in December 2018
as an "agent".

USHA markets and sells individual insurance coverage and
supplementary products underwritten by The Freedom Life Insurance
Company of America and the National Foundation Life Insurance
Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq.
     Mazaheri & Mazaheri
     325 N St Paul St Ste 3100
     Dallas, TX 75201
     Phone: (214) 461-9458
     Email: bernie@thelaborfirm.com


VICVIC CORPORATION: Violates Wage and Hour Laws, Ortiz Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL ORTIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. VICVIC CORPORATION d/b/a SEVENTH STREET
CAFE, and VICTOR SCOTTO, as an individual, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-02799-JMA-AYS (E.D. N.Y., May 13, 2019) seeks to recover
damages for egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour
laws arising out of Plaintiff's employment.

Although Plaintiff ANGEL ORTIZ worked approximately 60 or more
hours per week during his employment by Defendants from April 2013
until December 2016, and approximately 51 or more hours per week
from January 2017 until February 2019, Defendants did not pay
Plaintiff time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant
violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and
NYLL, asserts the complaint. The Defendants also willfully failed
to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements
in a conspicuous place at the location of their employment as
required by both the NYLL and the FLSA, adds the complaint.

Plaintiff ANGEL ORTIZ was employed by Defendants from November 2005
until February 2019.

VICVIC CORPORATION d/b/a SEVENTH STREET CAFE, is a corporation
organized under the laws of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


VIRGINIA: Inmates Files Suit v. DOC Over Solitary Confinement
-------------------------------------------------------------
William Thorpe, Frederick Hammer, Dmitry Khavkin, Gerald Mcnabb,
Gary Wall, Vernon Brooks, Brian Cavitt, Derek Cornelison,
Christopher Cottrell, Peter Mukuria, Steven Riddick and Kevin
Snodgrass, individually and as representatives of class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. Virginia Department Of
Corrections, Harold Clarke, Randall C. Mathena, H. Scott Richeson,
A. David Robinson, Henry J. Ponton, Marcus Elam, Denise Malone,
Steve Herrick, Tori Raiford, Jeffrey Kiser and Carl Manis, each
individually and in their official capacities, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-00332, (E.D. Va., May 6, 2019), seeks to declare that
indefinite solitary confinement with no opportunity for review
violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States
Constitution, Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans With
Disabilities Act of 1990 and permanent injunctive relief resulting
from breach of court-ordered settlement agreement.

Plaintiffs are inmates who are isolated in solitary confinement at
Virginia's twin maximum-security prisons, Red Onion and Wallens
Ridge State Prisons--and have remained in long-term solitary
confinement for between two and 23 years despite the lack of a
Virginia sentencing statute or regulation that warrants long-term
solitary confinement based on their crimes or sentences.

Inmates are subjected to indefinite isolation, devoid of mental
stimulation, with only limited and sporadic human interaction,
confined for twenty-two hours a day in a small cell, illuminated by
artificial light 24 hours a day, interfering with normal sleep.
Prisoners are allowed to go outside to exercise in a small
enclosure for no more than two hours with thrice-weekly showers,
occasional trips to the library and sporadic, exclusively
non-contact, visits from clergy or family members.

Plaintiffs have each exhibited mental and physiological health
symptoms common to the serious harms caused by long-term solitary
confinement. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alyson Cox, Esq.
     Daniel Levin, Esq.
     Kristen J. McAhren, Esq.
     Maxwell J. Kalmann, Esq.
     Timothy L. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
     701 Thirteenth Street, NW
     Washington, DC 20005
     Tel: (202) 626-3600
     Fax: (202) 639-9355
     Email: alyson.cox@whitecase.com

            - and -

     Owen C. Pell, Esq.
     WHITE AND CASE LLP
     1221 Avenue of the Americas
     New York, NY 10020
     Tel: (212) 819-8200

            - and -

     Vishal Agraharkar, Esq.
     Eden Heilman, Esq.
     AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF VIRGINIA
     701 E. Franklin St., Suite 1412
     Richmond, VA 23219
     Tel: (804) 644-8022
     Email: vagraharkar@acluva.org
            eheilman@acluva.org


VISALUS: Squire Patton Attorney Discusses TCPA Jury Verdict
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eric J. Troutman, Esq. -- eric.troutman@squirepb.com -- of Squire
Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an article for National Law Review,
reports that TCPAWorld.com broke the news on Friday that a federal
jury in Oregon state had apparently awarded $925MM to a certified
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") class on April 12. The
case was brought by Edelson, P.C. against a multi-level marketing
company called ViSalus. The jury found that the company made
1,850,436 unlawful automated calls resulting in an award of
$925,218,000.00, or so it seemed.

An Oregonian report entered shortly after the trial seemed to
confirm the findings:

"A federal jury found a Michigan-based marketing company engaged in
unlawful telemarketing by placing nearly 2 million recorded
robocalls to potential customers across the United States offering
deals on weight-loss products, dietary supplements and energy
drinks. The jury of seven women and one man determined the company
made 1,850,436 unlawful automated calls to residential or cellphone
numbers. Each violation calls for a $500 penalty, bringing the
damages to just over $925 million for a class consisting of about
800,000 people."

But according to an e-mail received by TCPAWorld from ViSalus'
counsel -- John O'Neal -- john.oneal@quarles.com -- of Quarles &
Brady -- news of ViSalus' demise may have been greatly exaggerated:
"The statement that there was a $925[MM] damages award is not true.
Rather, the verdict was a special form where the jury answered
questions. Again, it was not a damages award and the judge has
reserved ruling on damage issues for future briefs and hearings."

He goes on to explain that Plaintiff may not have obtained the
critical ruling needed to sustain a verdict: "[W]e believe that
special verdict shows that plaintiff failed to prove essential
elements of her class claim . . . the jury wrote in Defendant's
favor on the special verdict form "we cant tell" (or similar
language) for the two questions regarding the number of alleged
calls to mobile phones and the number of alleged calls to
residential phones."

According to the Oregonian report, the Defendant had argued in
closing argument that plaintiffs made "unreasonable" assumptions
that weren't backed up by corroborating evidence or witnesses.
"They tried to extrapolate, guess and speculate," O'Neal is quoted
as having told jurors.

In his e-mail, O'Neal conveyed to TCPAWorld that this argument
struck a chord: "We were gratified to see that the jury agreed with
us on those points and look forward to upcoming hearings to
implement the correct legal results flowing from the special
verdict. Indeed, whether there will even be a damages award, as
well as whether the class should now be decertified as a result of
the jury's answers, will be the subject of further proceedings in
the coming weeks and months. We are excited about putting our
positions before the Court as soon as we can though, and are
already preparing briefs on those very issues."

How very very interesting.

Since I have nothing else better to do I went ahead and pulled the
verdict form to take a look for myself. Turns out O'Neal is right,
at least to a degree.

On the one hand, the jury found 1,850,436 calls were made "in
violation of the TCPA" to cellular telephones and residential
landlines "combined."

So now the real question–will this discrepancy matter? Since
these were pre-recorded marketing calls the consent standard is the
same as to both populations– express written consent was required
and, apparently, not obtained. So one wonders why the verdict form
even included questions 5 and 6. Perhaps this becomes an
ascertainability question.

We'll keep a very close eye on developments and report as more
information becomes available.

If the "verdict" is what it seems, it may result in largest TCPA
verdict ever handed down by a jury to my knowledge. The judgment
Golan v. Veritas Entertainment, LLC, 2017 WL 2861671 (E.D. Mo.
2017), which was tried to a jury,  was originally set to be much
larger -- the court reduced on constitutional concerns– but
judgment was entered as a matter of law, without the jury ever
ruling.

Also interesting, this case was something of an inside job. The
class representative was actually a former promoter for the
company, who quit after just four months on the job apparently due
to being unhappy with the company. The suit arose because she
allegedly received calls from Visalus years later, prompting the
suit. (Note to self: don't call (disgruntled?) former employees
pitching products they didn't want to sell, much less use. Got
it.)

One final note, Jay Edelson had remarked on the Squire Patton Boggs
Unprecedented podcast that as many as 5,000,000 illegal calls may
have been made. (Listen at the 52:20 mark -- "there are 5,000,000
calls.") The fact that the jury found only 1.8MM illegal must be
viewed as something of a victory for the Defendant. On the other
hand, the issue of willfulness was reserved for the Court so things
still might get a lot worse before they don't get any better for
ViSalus. [GN]


VONAGE HOLDINGS: Dennis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vonage Holdings Corp.
The case is styled as Derrick U Dennis on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Vonage Holdings Corp.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04340 (S.D. N.Y., May 13, 2019).

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

Vonage Holdings Corp., is a provider of cloud communications
services for businesses and consumers, and consumer and
communication solutions across multiple devices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WINC INC: Fischler Assert Breach of Disabilities Act
----------------------------------------------------
WINC, 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. WINC, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-02522 (E.D. N.Y., April 29, 2019).

Winc, Inc. engages in the production of wine. It also offers online
subscription wine delivery services. The company was founded in
2012 and is headquartered in Los Angeles, 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



                            *********

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 ***