CAR_Public/190524.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, May 24, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 104

                            Headlines

ABBVIE: Sheet Metal Workers Union Sues over Adalimumab Drug Sales
ADIENT US: Mellow Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Damages
AL HENDRICKSON: Ely Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
ALL MY SONS: Leonard Hits Misclassification, Unpaid Overtime Wages
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Gracius Sues Over Erroneous Collection Letter

ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Lebron Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
AMERICAN BEECH: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC: Endencia Files Product Liability Class Suit
AMW CONSTRUCTION: Moody Seeks Overtime Pay
ANCESTRY.COM: Collett Sues over False Advertising

APMEX INC: Faces Traynor ADA Suit in S.D. New York
APPFOLIO INC: Settlement Process in Leo Class Suit Continues
APPLIED INTEGRATED: Eric Cooper's Wage Suit Dismissed
ASPEN DENTAL: Stone Files Fraud Class Suit in E.D. Wash.
ASSET MAXIMIZATION: Israel Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York

AT&T SERVICES: Gadelhak Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 7th Cir.
BMB RANDALL: Frias Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
BRISTOL BAY: Abikar II Transferred to Judge Sammartino
BUTCHERBOX LLC: Johnson Sues Food Delivery Co. in New York
CALIFORNIA NATURAL: P. Suarez's Injunctive Relief Claims Tossed

CAPELLA UNIVERSITY: Court Narrows Doctoral Students' Claims
CARSON SMITHFIELD: Todaro Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
CBE GROUP: Truckenbrodt Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
CHARLOTTE-MECKLEBURG: Benitez Claims for Damages Junked
COWEN INC: Seeks to Drop Amended Complaint in Fletcher Class Suit

CREATIVE WASTE: O'Mara Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
CROWN NJ GAMING: Leong Suit Removed to New Jersey Dist. Ct.
CSX TRANSPORTATION: Removes Burns Suit to N.D. Illinois
DENALI WATER: $420K Settlement in Verdugo Suit Has Prelim Approval
DHI GROUP: Final Approval Hearing of Douglas Settlement in Aug.

DISCOVER FINANCIAL: B&R Suit Briefing, Discovery to End in July
DRK THIRD AVENUE: JC Contracting Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
EFUEGO CORP: Faces Traynor ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EHEALTHINSURANCE: Dennis Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
ENVOY AIR INC: Hinkley Suit Removed to N.D. Texas

ENVOY AIR: Hinckley Suit Asserts Discrimination
ETHOS DATA: Newell Sues Over Unauthorized Voice Messages
FCA US: Yost Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. for Breach of Contract
FIFTH THIRD: Lindauer Sues over Excessive Overdraft Fees
GC SERVICES: Yang Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York

GENERAL REVENUE: Higgins Sues over Debt Collection Practices
GEORGIA: Court Approves Settlement in SMU Prisoners' Suit
GNC HOLDINGS: Appeal on Workweek Suit Judgment Still Pending
GOLDEN CIRCLE: Sundermann Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
HAWAIIAN GARDENS: Benavidez Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Employees

HOT TOPIC: Mullen Files ADA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
HOWARD L. NATIONS: Gaudet Asserts Breach of Contract, Malpractice
HYATT HOTELS: Still Defends Suits over Alleged Antitrust Matters
ICON ENTERTAINMENT: Court Won't Consolidate De Angelis Suits
ICON ENTERTAINMENT: De Angelis Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration

INDIVIOR PLC: Rosen Law Files Securities Suit Over Suboxone Scheme
INSTITUTE OF HUMAN: Unsolicited Marketing Violates TCPA, Says Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Carr et al. Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Carroll Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Dorman Suit Moved to C.D. California

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Morris Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Murillo Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removed Dayton Suit to N.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removed Gibson Suit to S.D. Texas
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removed Gruder Suit to C.D. California

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Santana Suit Moved to C.D. California
KIMBERLY HASTIE: Court Denies A. Diamond's Class Certification Bid
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Glover Files Class Suit in S.D. Florida
LIFE STORAGE: Faces Peterson Labor Suit in Sacramento
LOEWS HOTELS: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

LOOT CRATE: Olsen Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
LPL FINANCIAL: Class Action Dismissed with Prejudice
M&E CONSTRUCTION: Maldonado Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
MAKEHAUS LLC: Reyes Seeks Overtime Pay for Welders
MANHATTAN CRYOBANK: Frankiewicz Files Suit in S.D. New York

MCDERMOTT INT'L: Class Cert. Bid in Chicago Bridge Suit Underway
MCDERMOTT INT'L: Named as Defendant in Curti and Stremcha Suits
MDL 2672: Court Enjoins J. Feinman from Pursuing Lien Claims
MDL 2700: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment Granted to Genentech
MDL 2741: Snyder v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated

MDL 2741: Swain v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Wooderson v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MELBOURNE POLICE: Faces Johnson Suit in M.D. Florida
MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Thornton Balks at Merger Deal with NVIDIA
MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Unger Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York

MIDLAND CREDIT: Cirruzzo Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
MOMO INC: Marchand Files Suit Over False, Misleading Reports
MONSANTO COMPANY: Ramirez Sues over Unsafe Weed Killer Products
MONSANTO COMPANY: Van Hortman Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MOPHIE, INC: Power Bank Capacity Deceptive, Young Says

MOSHI MOSHI: Sanchez Seeks Unpaid OT Wages for Employees
NEW YORK: Court Excludes City's Expert in ADA Suit vs. Police
NORTHWESTERN LAKE: Mazya Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Court Junks Walfish Misclassification Suit
NVIDIA CORP: LeBoeuf Sues Over Graphic Card's False, Deceptive Ads

OHIO BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES: Stifel Sues over Lamination Fees
OHR PHARMACEUTICAL: Lowinger Files Suit Over NeuBase Merger Deal
PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT: Casino Employees Suit Removed to W.D. Mo.
PPL CORP: Bid to Remand Talen Suit to State Court Still Ongoing
PPL CORP: Cane Run Environmental Claims Still Ongoing vs. LG&E

PPL CORP: Defendants Seek to Nix PPL's Suit vs. Riverstone, et al.
QUANTENNA COMMUNICATIONS: Kerry Files Suit Over ON Merger Deal
QVC INC: Thompson Suit Removed to C.D. California
RADIUS GLOBAL: Kruse Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California
RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT: Magistrate Narrows Claims in M. Reilly Suit

REVMD PARTNERS: Espinosa Suit Asserts BIPA Breach
SAKS INCORPORATED: Sacklow Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y.
SALLIE MAE BANK: Licznerski Suit Asserts TCPA Breach
SCHLUMBERGER LIFT: Magistrate OKs Protective Order in Garcia Suit
SELECTIVE SERVICE: Claims in Suit Over Male-Only Draft Narrowed

SHARP ELECTRONICS: Lammey Sues Over Defective Microwaves
SHEARER'S FOODS: Miller, Dingey Seek Overtime Pay
SPENCER GIFTS: Mullen Files ADA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
SPRINT CORP: Falsified New Customer Data, Meneses Claims
SPROUTS FARMERS: Faces Arbitration Demands on Phishing Scam Suits

SPROUTS FARMERS: May 31 Final Hearing for Securities Suit Accord
STARKIST CO: Tuna Product not "Dolphin-Safe", Says Class Action
STATE COLLECTION: Bahr Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
STATE IMPOUND: Baumert Appeals Fulton Cty. State Ct. Ruling
STEEL PARTNERS: Still Faces Del. Stockholder Class Suit at Mar. 31

TARGET CORPORATION: Faces Garcia Labor Suit in Sacramento
TASKUS USA: Moreno Seeks Damages for FLSA Violations
THOR MOTOR: Underpaid Workers' Overtime Wages, Hayes Suit Says
TOKYO ELECTRIC: Court Junks Navy Crew's Claims Under Int'l Comity
TOYOTA MOTOR: Loo Sues over Transmission Defects in 2018 Camry

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Glasgo Files Suit in N.D. California
UNIFIN INC: Pfeiffer Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
UNITED AMERICAN: Faces Miholich Suit for Invasion of Privacy
UNITED STATES: Court Stays Thakkar Suit
UNITED STATES: Hernandez Files Suit v. Homeland Security

US STEEL: Oklahoma Pension Plan Sues over Falsely Inflated Prices
WAL-MART INC: Krauss Suit Removed to E.D. California
WORLDMARK: Timeshare Buyers Directed to Amend Class Suit
WPX ENERGY: Appeal Pending on Class Status Denial in Nevada Suit
WPX ENERGY: Continues to Defend Natural Gas Purchasers Suits

WYETH CONSUMER: Engram Files Suit in New York for Fraud

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: $1MM Medical Expenses Award Reinstated
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 229 Talcum Suits vs. Colgate-Palmolive Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Accrues $28MM Aero-Related Costs at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Accrues $954MM for Respirator Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Still Faces 2,335 Claimants at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Had 1,500 Pending Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Had US$100MM Reserves at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Global Had $366MM Reserve at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Upholds $33MM Jury Award in Finch
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had 56,000 Claims at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Decades Old Asbestos Cases in V.I. Inch Forward
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Records $164MM Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX, Subsidiaries Still Defend Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Has $592.3MM Liabilities at March31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Hid Asbestos in Talc for Years, SC Jury Told

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Had 3,288 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NHS Trust Fined Over Royal Shrewsbury Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: SoCal Man Awarded $3MM for Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Burden in Calif. Suit Upped $7.6MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: UTC Records $333MM Asbestos Liability at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers' Exposure Suit vs. TIM SpA Continues


                            *********

ABBVIE: Sheet Metal Workers Union Sues over Adalimumab Drug Sales
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Abbvie Inc and
other adalimumab biosimilar makers for violations of the Sherman
Antitrust Act, the Clayton Act, and state antitrust and consumer
protection statutes. The case is captioned SHEET METAL WORKERS'
LOCAL UNION NO. 28 WELFARE FUND, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. ABBVIE INC., ABBVIE
BIOTECHNOLOGY LTD., AMGEN INC., FRESENIUS KABI USA, LLC, MOMENTA
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., MYLAN INC., MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
PFIZER INC., SAMSUNG BIOEPIS CO., LTD. and SANDOZ, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02674 (N.D. Ill., April 19, 2019).

In an effort to maintain and extend its monopoly in the market for
its biologic medication Humira (a/k/a adalimumab), AbbVie, Inc.
allegedly undertook a carefully crafted, ill-conceived and illegal
course of action, including working in conjunction with the
adalimumab biosimilar makers also named as defendants in the case,
to suppress competition and raise prices to adalimumab purchasers.
Defendants' conduct served to maintain AbbVie's stranglehold on the
U.S. market for adalimumab, shut out would-be competitors whose
entrance into the U.S. market would naturally cause prices for
adalimumab to decline, and deny U.S. consumers the benefits of fair
competition. AbbVie's initial unlawful undertaking, executed over
the course of almost two decades, involved crafting what is called
a "patent thicket," in which the company sought hundreds of patents
surrounding the biologic in order to protect against competitor
encroachment. Such a thicket disincentivizes competitors from
seeking FDA approval and from litigating patent lawsuits initiated
by AbbVie to judgment through the courts.

Sheet Metal Workers' Local Union No. 28 Welfare Fund is an employee
welfare benefit plan that represents thousands of employees and
their dependents on whose behalf health and other benefits are
provided on a self-funded and insured basis. The Plan is
headquartered in Mineola, New York.

AbbVie Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws
of Delaware with its corporate headquarters located at 1 North
Waukegan Road, North Chicago, Illinois. AbbVie Inc. is a
biopharmaceutical company that develops, distributes and sells
pharmaceutical and biologic drugs. AbbVie Inc. holds FDA Biologic
License Application No. 125057 for Humira (adalimumab). [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Peter J. Flowers, Esq.
     MEYERS & FLOWERS
     3 North Second Street, Suite 300
     St. Charles, IL 60174
     Telephone: (630) 232-6333
     Facsimile: (630) 845-8982
     E-mail: pjf@meyers-flowers.com

             - and -

     David W. Mitchell, Esq.
     Brian O. O'mara, Esq.
     Arthur L. Shingler III, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
     San Diego, CA 92101-8498
     Telephone: (619) 231-1058
     Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
     E-mail: davidm@rgrdlaw.com
             bomara@rgrdlaw.com
             ashingler@rgrdlaw.com

             - and -

     Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
     Jennifer Scullion, Esq.
     SEEGER WEISS LLP
     77 Water Street, 8th Floor
     New York, NY 10005
     Telephone: (212) 584-0700
     Facsimile: (212) 584-0799
     E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
             jscullion@seegerweiss.com


ADIENT US: Mellow Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Damages
--------------------------------------------------------
ERIC MELLOW, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ADIENT US LLC, Defendant, Case No.
5:19-cv-00212-JMH (E.D. Ky., May 15, 2019) to recover unpaid wages,
liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

The Defendant implemented a policy of paying the hourly-paid
factory workers, including Plaintiff, their regular hourly rate for
hours worked in shifts ending on Saturday and Sunday, in violation
of its terms of employment. The Defendant had knowledge about the
hourly-paid factory workers, including Plaintiff, regularly working
shifts ending on Saturday and Sunday but nonetheless failed to pay
them for all hours worked in these shifts in accordance with its
terms of employment.

As a result of Defendant's unlawful common policies and practices,
the hourly-paid factory workers, including Plaintiff, were deprived
of compensation to which they were entitled according to their
terms of employment with Defendant, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Adient US LLC as an hourly-paid factory
worker from approximately October 1, 2016 through December 10,
2018.

Adient US LLC manufactures automotive seats. Adient US LLC was
formerly known as Johnson Controls Interiors LLC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Trent Taylor, Esq.
     Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
     Jessica R. Doogan, Esq.
     BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE WENTZ MCINERNEY PEIFER, LLP
     250 E. Broad Street, 10th Floor
     Columbus, OH 43215
     Phone: (800) 274-5297
     Fax: (614) 744-2300
     Email: ttaylor@barkanmeizlish.com
            bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
            jdoogan@barkanmeizlish.com

          - and -

     Jason T. Brown, Esq.
     Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
     Lotus Cannon, Esq.
     BROWN, LLC
     111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
     Jersey City, NJ 07310
     Phone: (877) 561-0000
     Fax: (855) 582-5297
     Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
            nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
            lotus.cannon@jtblawgroup.com


AL HENDRICKSON: Ely Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------
JACKSON ELY, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff,
v. AL HENDRICKSON JR. ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a Al Hendrickson Toyota
and ALFRED E HENDRICKSON, JR., Defendants, Case No.
0:19-cv-61207-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 13, 2019) is an action to
recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages and retaliatory
discharge under the the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week without overtime
compensation, notes the complaint. In total, Plaintiff worked
approximately 146 compensable weeks under the Act, or 145
compensable weeks if 3 years preceding the date of the filing of
the instant action is counted.

Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages accumulated from
the date of hire and/or from 3 years preceding the date of the
filing of this Complaint.

Plaintiff was employed as a Car Detailer from approximately 1997
through February of 2019.

Defendant is a Car Dealership and, through its business activity,
affects interstate commerce.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALL MY SONS: Leonard Hits Misclassification, Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN LEONARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. All My Sons Business Development, LLC, AMS
Group Holdco, LLC, and RVNB Holdings, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-00374-GAF (W.D. Mo., May 10, 2019) is a lawsuit filed as a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), on
behalf of all similarly situated persons employed by Defendants in
the last three years as Inside Sales Manager, Inside Sales
Representative or Virtual Sales Manager.

Plaintiff and individuals working in these positions were paid on a
salary basis and regularly required to work more than 40 hours per
week without being compensated for overtime because they were
misclassified as exempt under the FLSA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff worked for All My Sons as an Inside Sales Manager from
August 27, 2018 to March 19, 2019.

All My Sons is a national moving company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lara Krigel Pabst, Esq.
     Ivan L. Nugent, Esq.
     KRIGEL & KRIGEL, P.C.
     4520 Main Street, Suite 700
     Kansas City, MO 64111
     Phone: 816.756.5800
     Facsimile: 816.756.1999
     Email: lpabst@krigelandkrigel.com
            inugent@krigelandkrigel.com

          - and -

     Stephen J. Moore, Esq.
     SHANK & MOORE, LLC
     1968 Shawnee Mission Pkwy, Suite 100
     Mission Woods, KS 66205
     Phone: 816.471.0909
     Facsimile: 816.471.3888
     Email: sjm@shankmoore.com


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Gracius Sues Over Erroneous Collection Letter
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cassandra Gracius, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Alltran Financial, LP,,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02763 (E.D. N.Y., May 10, 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, which
conveyed information regarding the alleged Debt. The Letter claims
that Plaintiff owes $881.92. However, Plaintiff asserts that she
did not owe $881.92 at the time Defendant sent the Letter or at the
time she received 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 Cassandra Gracius 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



ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Lebron Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ALLTRAN Financial LP.
The case is styled as Zalmen Lebron individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLTRAN Financial LP,
LVNV Funding LLC, John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
7:19-cv-04281 (S.D. N.Y., May 10, 2019).

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

Alltran Financial, LP specializes in revenue cycle, accounts
receivable, and contact center solutions within healthcare,
financial services, higher education, and government industries in
the Unites States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMERICAN BEECH: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Beech, LLC.
The case is styled as Victor Lopez, On Behalf of Himself And All
Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. American Beech, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04282 (S.D. N.Y., May 10, 2019).

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

American Beech, LLC provides decorated guestrooms within a
10-minute walk from Camera Obscura and East End Seaport Maritime
Museum. Railroad Museum of Long Island and Greenport Carousel are
also within half a mile (1 km).[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


AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC: Endencia Files Product Liability Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Psychiatric
Association, et al. The case is styled as Frances Endencia doing
business as: The Pampered Pet Veterinary Service Dr., DVM & on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. American
Psychiatric Association, Stafford Henry Dr, as Representative,
IDFPR, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03161 (N.D. Ill., May 10,
2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Pharmaceutical Personal Injury
Product Liability.

The American Psychiatric Association is the main professional
organization of psychiatrists and trainee psychiatrists in the
United States, and the largest psychiatric organization in the
world.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se:

     Frances Endencia, Esq.
     1212 S Naper Blvd #119
     Naperville, IL 60540
     Phone: (630) 656-2854
     Email: fendencia@outlook.com


AMW CONSTRUCTION: Moody Seeks Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against AMW Construction
LLC for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The
case is captioned SCOTT MOODY, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMW Construction LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00119 (S.D. Tex., April 24, 2019).
Plaintiff Scott Moody alleges that AMW has paid him and other
non-exempt employees with straight time only for all hours they
worked. Moody did not receive overtime compensation at the required
rate of time-and-one-half for all hours worked over 40 each
workweek.

AMW Construction is a Texas limited liability company that provides
septic installation, repair, and clean-out services throughout the
Aransas Pass, Corpus Christi, and Rockport, Texas areas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Clif Alexander, Esq.
     Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
     Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
     Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq.
     Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
     ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
     819 N. Upper Broadway
     Corpus Christi, TX 78401
     Telephone: (361) 452-1279
     Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
     E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
             austin@a2xlaw.com
             lauren@a2xlaw.com
             cgordon@a2xlaw.com


ANCESTRY.COM: Collett Sues over False Advertising
-------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Ancestry.com Inc.
and Ancestry.com DNA, LLC for negligence and violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law. The
case is captioned LORI COLLETT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated; v. ANCESTRY.COM INC., a corporation, and
ANCESTRY.COM DNA, LLC. a limited liability company; Defendants,
Case No. RG19016197 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., April 24, 2019).

Plaintiff Lori Collett sues Ancestry.com lnc. and Ancestry.com DNA,
LLC for misleading and deceiving patients in California and across
the country about what Ancestry was actually doing with their DNA.
Ancestry-com DNA LLC sells and conducts DNA testing where customers
pay a fee to receive genetic results that are then stored in a
database and controlled by AncestryDNA. Both Defendants sell
genealogical services to the public and California residents
through the collection and analysis of DNA and other medical
information. However, pursuant to Federal and California law,
Defendants are health care providers and are required to keep
medical information private.

Ancestry.com Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in Utah. Ancestry.com DNA LLC is a Delaware
Limited Liability Company with its principal place of business in
Utah. Both companies are  wholly-owned subsidiaries of Ancestry.com
Holdings LLC, a multi-billion-dollar genealogy enterprise. Ancestry
sells genealogy and DNA products and services throughout the
country and across the globe. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel T. Lebel, Esq.
     CONSUMER LAW PRACTICE OF DANIEL T. LEBEL
     PO Box 720286
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Telephone: (415) 513-1414
     Facsimile: (877) 563-7848
     E-mail: danlebel@consumerlawpractice.com

          - and -

     Bryce Bell, Esq.
     Mark M. Schmitz, Esq.
     BELLLAW, LLC
     2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 580
     Kansas City, MO 64108
     Telephone: (816) 886-8206
     Facsimile: (816) 817-8500
     E-mail: Bryce@BellLawKC.com
             MS@BellLawKC.com

          - and -

     A. Scott Waddell, Esq.
     WADDELL LAW FIRM LLC
     2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 580
     Kansas City, MO 64108
     Telephone: (816) 914-5365
     Facsimile: (816) 817-8500
     E-mail: scott@aswlawfirm.com

          - and -

     Maureen M. Brady, Esq.
     Lucy McShane, Esq.
     MCSHANE BRADY
     1656 Washington Street, Suite 120
     Kansas City, MO 64108
     Telephone: (816) 888-8010
     Facsimile: (816) 332-6295
     E-mail: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com
             lmcshane@mcshanebradylaw.com

          - and -

     Paul "Pablo" H. Mose, Esq.
     REBEIN BROTHERS, PA
     810 Frontview
     Dodge City, KS 67801
     Telephone: (620) 227-8126
                (913) 432-4464
                (620) 227-8451
     E-mail: pablo@rb3r.com


APMEX INC: Faces Traynor ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
YASEEN TRAYNOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. APMEX, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-03408-GBD (S.D.N.Y., April 17, 2019) alleges violation of
The Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Judge
George B. Daniels.

APMEX, Inc., an online dealer, engages in buying and selling gold,
silver, and other precious metal products in the United States,
Canada, Europe, and Australia. APMEX, Inc. was formerly known as
American Precious Metals Exchange, Inc. The company was
incorporated in 2001 and is based in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dov Michael Mittelman, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          E-mail: mittelmandov@yahoo.com


APPFOLIO INC: Settlement Process in Leo Class Suit Continues
------------------------------------------------------------
AppFolio, Inc. continues to work through the class settlement
process for the case styled Leo v. AppFolio, Inc., according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

In September 2017, a putative federal class action styled Leo v.
AppFolio, Inc. (Civ. No. 3:17-cv-05771; W.D.  Wash.) was filed
naming the Company as a defendant and alleging certain violations
of the FCRA in connection with the Company's tenant screening
Value+ service.

The parties reached an agreement to settle the Leo Litigation on a
class-wide basis in the fourth quarter of 2018.  The court has
approved the proposed settlement on a preliminary basis, and the
parties continue to work through the class settlement process.

The Company said, "We have not admitted and will not admit any
liability whatsoever in connection with the claims and allegations
in the Leo Litigation.  The final settlement will be subject to
court approval."

AppFolio, Inc. provides industry-specific cloud-based software
solutions for small and medium-sized businesses in the property
management and legal industries. AppFolio, Inc. was founded in 2006
and is headquartered in Santa Barbara, California.


APPLIED INTEGRATED: Eric Cooper's Wage Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Marco A. Hernandez of the United States District Court for
the District of Oregon denied the Plaintiffs' motion to remand to
state court the case captioned ERIC COOPER, individually and on
behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. APPLIED INTEGRATED
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a foreign corporation, Defendant, No.
3:18-cv-01561-HZ (D. Or.) after determining that the District Court
has jurisdiction over the case under Section 301 of the Labor
Management Relations Act.

Plaintiff Eric Cooper brings this putative class action for failure
to timely pay final wages as required by Or. Rev. Stat. Section
652.140 against Defendant Applied Integrated Technologies, Inc.
The Defendant removed this case to federal court on the ground that
it is preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA.

Section 301 of the LMRA provides: "Suits for violation of contracts
between an employer and a labor organization representing employees
in an industry affecting commerce . . . may be brought in any
district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the
parties."

The Court granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case,
agreeing with the Defendant that the Plaintiff's claims should be
dismissed because he failed to exhaust the grievance and
arbitration provisions of the CBA before filing suit.

A full-text copy of the Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yx9l9v8r from Leagle.com.

Eric Cooper, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by David Arthur Schuck, Schuck Law, LLC,
Karen A. Moore, Schuck Law LLC & Stephanie J. Brown, Schuck Law,
LLC.

Applied Integrated Technologies, Inc., foreign corporation,
Defendant, represented by April L. Upchurch Fredrickson, Jackson
Lewis PC & Mark A. Crabtree, Esq. -- Mark.Crabtree@jacksonlewis.com
-- Jackson Lewis PC.


ASPEN DENTAL: Stone Files Fraud Class Suit in E.D. Wash.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aspen Dental
Management Inc.  The case is styled as Janet Stone on her own
behalf and on the behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Aspen Dental Management Inc. a foreign corporation, Adam Mileski
DDS PLLC, a Washington corporation, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00167-RMP (E.D. Wash., May 15, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Aspen Dental Management, Inc. is a dental support organization, a
dental practice management corporation that provides business
support and administrative services in the US. Its headquarters is
in DeWitt, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Boyd McFadden Mayo, Esq.
     Mayo Law Group PLLC
     220 West Main Avenue
     Spokane, WA 99201
     Phone: (509) 381-5091
     Fax: (509) 241-0834
     Email: mack@bmayolaw.com

          - and -

     Elizabeth A Adams, Esq.
     Toby James Marshall, Esq.
     Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC
     936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
     Seattle, WA 98103
     Phone: (206) 816-6603
     Fax: (206) 319-5450
     Email: eadams@terrellmarshall.com
            tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com



ASSET MAXIMIZATION: Israel Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asset Maximization
Group, Inc. The case is styled as Shari Israel individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Asset
Maximization Group, Inc., John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-02767 (E.D. N.Y., May 10, 2019).

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

Asset Maximization Group, Inc., located in New York City,
specializes in debt collection.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AT&T SERVICES: Gadelhak Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 7th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ali Gadelhak, the plaintiff in the proposed class action captioned,
Ali Gadelhak, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. AT&T SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-01559, appeals on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, from the final judgment and order entered by
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
March 29 2019, granting defendant AT&T Services, Inc.'s motion for
summary judgment and denying Plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment; and from any other orders relating to the entry of
judgment.

The appeal was filed in the United States Court Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit on April 19, 2019, and assigned Case No.
19-1738.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
     Timothy Sostrin, Esq.
     Michael Hilicki, Esq.
     Keogh Law, Ltd.
     55 W. Monroe St., Ste. 3390
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: 312.726.1092
     Fax: 312.726.1093
     Email: TSostrin@KeoghLaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

     Hans J. Germann, Esq.
     Mayer Brown LLP
     71 South Wacker Drive
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Phone: (312) 782-0600
     Email: hgermann@mayerbrown.com

          - and -

     Kyle J Steinmetz, Esq.
     Mayer Brown
     71 S Wacker Drive
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Phone: (312) 701-8547
     Email: ksteinmetz@mayerbrown.com


BMB RANDALL: Frias Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------
The case, JOSEFINA TORRES FRIAS, Individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. JUAN M. DE VARGAS,
ALEJANDRO RODRIGUEZ, JVANA D. VARGAS, Individually and BMB RANDALL
RESTAURANT CORP., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03953 (S.D.N.Y.,
May 2, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid wages and related damages for
unpaid overtime hours worked under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plantiff and other FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs are and have been similarly situated, have had
substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, and are
have been subjected to Defendant's decision , policy, plan, and
common policies, programs, and practices willfully failing and
refusing to pay them the lawful minimum wage and one and one half
times their regular rate for work in excess of 40 per
workweek.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and proposed FLSA collective
plaintiffs:

          Darren P.B. Rumack, Esq.
          THE KLEIN LAW GROUP
          39 Broadway Suite 1530
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 344 9022
          Facsimile: (212) 344 0301

BRISTOL BAY: Abikar II Transferred to Judge Sammartino
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California transferred to District Judge Janis
L. Sammartino under the first-to-file rule the case captioned
Abucar Nunow ABIKAR, Barkadle Sheikh Muhamed AWMAGAN, Arab Mursal
DEH, Majuma MADENDE, Osman Musa MOHAMED, Osman Musa MUGANGA, Rukia
MUSA, and Fatuma SOMOW, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bristol Bay Native Corporation,
Glacier Technical Solutions, LLC, and Workforce Resources, LLC, and
DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-1700-GPC-AGS (S.D. Calif.).

The Plaintiffs in this case (Abikar II) are asserting numerous
violations of California's Labor Code, the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), and claims for unfair business practices under the Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL") and conversion for the Defendants' failure
to pay earned wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to
furnish accurate wage statements, and failure to pay wages due upon
termination of employment.

The Plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class of East African,
Iraqi, Afghani, Filipino, and Mexican former role players employed
by the Defendants since July 2014.  The proposed class definition
in include "[a]ll persons who are employed by or have been employed
as a role-player on an hourly basis or who hold or held the
position role-player ("role players"), by Defendants in the State
of California from four years before the filing of this suit to the
present."

Prior to the filing of Abikar II, the Plaintiffs were already
engaged in litigation with the Defendants in Case No.
17-cv-01036-GPC-AGS filed on May 18, 2017.  Abikar I involved the
same eight plaintiffs, from countries in East Africa, who sought to
represent a putative class of East African refugees consisting of
role players employed or formerly employed by Defendants.  The
Plaintiffs in Abikar I asserted claims for discrimination and
harassment based on race, color, national origin, religious,
gender/sex discrimination and harassment under 42 U.S.C. Section
2000e, 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 and California Government Code
sections 12940(a) & (j).

In between the filing of Abikar I and Abikar II, on September 27,
2017, Plaintiffs Ahmad Jawad Abdul JAMIL, Ahmad Jamshid Abdul JAMIL
and Ahmad Farhad Abdul JAMIL ("Jamil Plaintiffs") filed a complaint
("Jamil") in the San Diego Superior Court against Defendants
Bristol Bay Native Corporation and Workforce Resources, LLC, which
was removed to this court on January 4, 2018 and assigned to
District Judge Janis L. Sammartino in Case No. 18cv27-JLS(NLS).  In
Jamil, three plaintiffs are seeking to represent a putative class
consisting of cultural advisors/role players employed by Defendants
Bristol Bay Native Corporation and Workforce Resources LLC.
Plaintiffs in Jamil are asserting claims for various labor code
violations as well as claims under the UCL and California's Private
Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").  The Jamil Plaintiffs' class
allegations seek to bring claims on behalf of a wage class, meal
class, rest period class, waiting time class, wage statement class
and include "[a]ll persons who work for Defendant in the positions
of role players, cultural advisors, translators, or employees . . .
within the four (4) years prior to the filing of this Complaint, up
through the final disposition of this action."

The Court held that "[t]ransfer is proper under the first-to-file
rule where the complaints raise similar, but not identical, claims
and include similar, but not identical, plaintiffs," citing Carrera
v. First American Home Buyers Protection Co., 2009 WL 10674763, at
(C.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2009).

Here, the parties do not dispute that the causes of action in
Abikar II and Jamil are not identical.  Abikar II involves an
additional claim for conversion and a claim under the FLSA not
contained in Jamil's complaint. Because the causes of action are
not identical, the Court exercises its discretion and transfers the
case to the docket of District Judge Sammartino.

A full-text copy of the Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y2suxtnp from Leagle.com.

Abucar Nunow Abikar, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Barkadle Sheikh Muhamed Awmagan, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Arab Mursal Deh, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Majuma
Madende, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Osman Musa Mohamed, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Osman Musa Muganga, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Rukia Musa, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated & Fatuma Somow, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by A. Melissa Johnson, The Spencer Law Firm.

Bristol Bay Native Corporation, Glacier Technical Solutions, LLC &
Workforce Resources, LLC, Defendants, represented by Amy Todd-Gher,
Esq. -- atodd-gher@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C & Matthew
B. Riley, Esq. -- mriley@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C.


BUTCHERBOX LLC: Johnson Sues Food Delivery Co. in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Butcherbox, LLC. The
case is styled as Kyle Johnson individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Butcherbox, LLC, a
Massachusetts limited liability company, Does 1 - 10, Inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-at-00382 (E.D. Cal., May 15, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

ButcherBox, LLC is an online food sales and delivery business. The
business delivers 100% Grass-fed Beef, Organic Chicken & Heritage
Breed Pork to your door.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
     Pacific Trial Attorneys
     4100 Newport Place Drive, Suite 800
     Newport Beach, CA 92660
     Phone: (949) 706-6464
     Fax: (949) 706-6469
     Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com


CALIFORNIA NATURAL: P. Suarez's Injunctive Relief Claims Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned PAMELA SUAREZ, individually on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA
NATURAL LIVING, INC., d/b/a CALIFORNIA BABY + KIDS, Defendant, No.
17 CV 9847 (VB)(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Vincent L. Briccetti granted in
part and denied in part defendant's motion to dismiss the claims of
the putative nationwide class pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(2), and to dismiss the claims of the putative New York
subclass pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

Plaintiff Pamela Suarez brings this putative class action against
defendant California Natural Living, Inc., d/b/a California Baby +
Kids, claiming the defendant engaged in deceptive marketing and
sales of cosmetics products that the defendant allegedly
misrepresented to be natural or contain natural cleansers. The
Plaintiff alleges the defendant's false representations induced her
and the putative class members to purchase the products at premium
prices.

The Plaintiff, a New York citizen, brings three claims on behalf of
a putative nationwide class and two claims on behalf of a putative
New York subclass. She seeks damages, preliminary and permanent
prospective injunctions, costs, and fees.

The Court agrees with the defendant that the plaintiff lacks
standing to seek prospective injunctive relief because she fails to
adequately plead the defendant's conduct will cause her to suffer a
cognizable future injury.  The plaintiff alleges she "would not
have purchased" the products "[h]ad [she] known the truth -- that
the representations she relied upon in purchasing the products were
false, misleading, and deceptive."  Thus, plaintiff cannot show a
likelihood of future injury sufficient to generate Article III
standing to pursue injunctive relief.  Accordingly, the plaintiff's
class action claims for injunctive relief are dismissed.

The Court disagrees with the defendant that the Court should
dismiss for lack of class standing the plaintiff's claims arising
from products she has not purchased.  The Court holds that assuming
without deciding that the Court properly assesses the question at
the pleading stage, the products are sufficiently similar to
support the plaintiff's class standing.  Accordingly, the Court
denies without prejudice the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack
of class standing the plaintiff's claims arising from products she
did not purchase. The Defendant may renew this argument at the
class certification stage.

A full-text copy of the Opinion & Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y2wzzerq from Leagle.com.

Pamela Suarez, individually on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Melissa S. Weiner,
Halunen Law, pro hac vice & Jason P. Sultzer, The Sultzer Law Group
PC.

California Natural Living, Inc., doing business as California Baby
+ Kids, Defendant, represented by Angela L. Diesch, Diesch Forrest
Apc, pro hac vice & Stephen E. Paffrath, Diesch Forrest Apc.


CAPELLA UNIVERSITY: Court Narrows Doctoral Students' Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
denied in part defendants Capella University, Inc., and Capella
Education Company's motion to dismiss Plaintiff Ornelas's
common-law and statutory fraud claims and granted in part as to
Plaintiffs' remaining claims in the case captioned Carolyn Wright
et al., Plaintiffs, v. Capella University, Inc., and Capella
Education Company, Defendants. Case No. 18-cv-1062 (WMW/SER). (D.
Minn.).

The Plaintiffs are current and former doctoral students of Capella
University that hail from Alabama, Florida, Kansas, Massachusetts,
New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee. Defendants are Capella
Education Company and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Capella
University, Inc. (Capella), both of which are Minnesota
corporations.

The Plaintiffs contend, Capella represented its doctoral programs
as shorter and less expensive than the programs actually were.
Plaintiffs purportedly relied on Capella's representations of the
time and cost to complete the programs when deciding to enroll.
Plaintiffs allege that, after enrolling in Capella's doctoral
programs, Capella created obstacles so as to prolong the programs
and collect more tuition.  

The Plaintiffs assert claims of common-law and statutory fraud,
breach of contract, and unjust enrichment.

Capella moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' amended complaint for failure
to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
   
In part, Capella argues that Plaintiff Lois Mason's claims are
premature and that Plaintiff Jacqueline Carter has not suffered an
injury.  

For this reason, the Court addresses Capella's standing arguments
first and then addresses Capella's remaining arguments as to the
merits of Plaintiffs' amended complaint.

Mason and Carter, like the other Plaintiffs, allege that Capella
induced them to enroll in doctoral programs based on false promises
and representations of the programs. They lost time and money,
Plaintiffs contend, by enrolling and participating in a program in
which they otherwise would not have enrolled. The alleged time and
money that was lost began to accrue when Mason and Carter enrolled
in their programs and paid tuition for them. As alleged, the injury
is particularized and actual.

Accordingly, the Court rejects Capella's argument that Mason and
Carter need to wait until their projected graduation dates in order
to bring claims against Capella.

For this reason, Mason and Carter have standing to bring this
lawsuit.

Failure to State a Claim

Capella next contends that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim
on which relief can be granted.

Common-Law Fraud (Counts 1, 7, 11, 14, 18, 22, 26, 30, 34, 38 and
44)

Capella contends that the Plaintiffs have neither alleged a
misstatement of fact nor pleaded their fraud claims with
particularity. Alternatively, Capella argues that the
educational-malpractice doctrine bars Plaintiffs' claims. Each
argument is addressed in turn.

Misstatement of Fact

Capella argues that Plaintiffs' common-law fraud claims do not
sufficiently allege an actionable misstatement of fact. To state a
claim for common-law fraudulent misrepresentation under Minnesota
law, a plaintiff must allege that (1) a party falsely represented a
past or existing material fact that is susceptible of knowledge (2)
the party made the representation either knowing that it was false
or without knowing if the representation was true or false (3) the
party intended to induce another to act in reliance on the
representation (4) the plaintiff acted in reliance on the
representation and (5) the plaintiff consequently suffered
pecuniary damages.

Plaintiff Wright

Plaintiff Carolyn Wright, who enrolled in Capella's Doctor of
Nursing Practice (DNP) program, alleges that she relied on a
statement on Capella's website that claims, it just two years you
can earn your DNP.

Wright fails to allege a false statement of material fact. Although
Capella's website and course catalogue suggest that it is possible
for a student to complete a DNP degree within 2 years, neither
source represents that the average student completion rate is
within that time period. Nor do these sources guarantee that Wright
will complete the DNP degree within 2 years. For this reason,
Wright's experience at Capella and the statistics presented in the
Gainful Employment report are not incompatible with the
representations on Capella's website and course catalogue. Nothing
in Wright's allegations suggests that it would be impossible to
complete a DNP degree in 2 years. Consequently, there is no
allegation of a false representation of material fact.

Count 1 is dismissed as asserted by Wright.

Plaintiffs Kennedy, Brannen, and Matelski

Plaintiffs Debbra Kennedy, Sherry Bailey Brannen, and Shauna
Matelski enrolled in Capella's Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) program.
Each of these Plaintiffs alleges that she was induced to enroll in
this program based on Capella's website, which represented that the
Ed.D. program is designed to be completed in less than 3 years.

These three Plaintiffs do not sufficiently allege a false
representation. Accepting Plaintiffs' allegations as true for the
purpose of this motion, Capella represents that the Ed.D. program
is designed to take less than 3 years. Capella does not represent
that an average student would complete the degree in 3 years, nor
did Capella guarantee that Kennedy, Brannen, or Matelski would
complete the Ed.D. program in fewer than 3 years. Neither the
statistics contained in the Gainful Employment report nor the
experiences of the Plaintiffs contradict the representation of a
3-year design time.

Kennedy, Brannen, and Matelski have not stated a claim for
common-law fraud. Count 1 is dismissed as asserted by these
Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs Mason and Norris

Mason enrolled in Capella's DIT program, allegedly relying on a
recruiting email, which stated that DIT is a structured three year
program; 2.5 years with transfer credit for you. Mason maintains
that the DIT program was longer than Capella represented, as
indicated by Capella's Gainful Employment report, which discloses a
program length of 39 months. Similarly, Plaintiff Candace Norris
enrolled in Capella's Doctor of Business Administration (DBA)
program after a recruiter informed her that it was a 3-year program
and that it would be possible to finish the program in 2.5 years.
Norris contends that the DBA program was longer than Capella
represented, as evidenced by the Gainful Employment report, which
discloses a program length of 45 months.
Mason and Norris fail to sufficiently allege a false representation
of a material fact, however.

The recruiter's email to Mason states that the DIT program is a
structured 3-year program. A program's structure is distinct from
its average length, however. The email's reference to 2.5 years
with transfer credit for you also misses the mark as a false
representation of a material fact. Although this statement is
tailored to Mason, it represents only the structured length of the
program as it applies to Mason. It does not represent how long it
will actually take Mason to complete the program.  

As asserted by Mason and Norris, Count 1 is dismissed.

Plaintiff Ornelas

Plaintiff Maurice Jose Ornelas enrolled in Capella's PhD in Public
Safety program, with a specialty in Criminal Justice. He alleges
that he enrolled in this program in reliance on an email from a
Capella recruiter that stated, our typical learner will complete
their PhD program in 3 years, plus or minus one quarter, by
averaging 2 courses per quarter.

Unlike Capella's representations of design times or program
structures, here, Capella represents how long it takes a typical
learner to complete the PhD in Public Safety program. The typical
learner's 3-year length is contradicted by Capella's disclosure in
the Gainful Employment report, which states that the program is, on
average, 6 years and 3 months. This reported length is more than
twice as long as the length that Capella represents in its
recruiting email. Ornelas has adequately alleged that Capella made
a false representation of material fact.

Because Ornelas has stated a claim for common-law fraud, Capella's
motion to dismiss is denied as to Count 1 as asserted by Ornelas.

Plaintiff Carter

Carter enrolled in Capella's DSW program purportedly in reliance on
an email from a Capella recruiter. The email stated that the DSW
program is designed to be completed in three years, and Capella's
course catalogue included a 3-year and 1-quarter recommended course
schedule. In contrast to this information, Capella reports that
only 19 percent of students who graduated with a DSW degree between
2014 and 2015 were able to do so within 42 months.

Like Kennedy, Brannen, and Matelski, Carter does not sufficiently
allege a false representation of material fact. That a program is
designed to be completed in a certain amount of time is not false
merely because the average student takes longer to complete that
program. And the course catalogue displays only a possible
schedule; it does not represent the actual or guaranteed length of
the program.  

Count 1 is dismissed as asserted by Carter.

Plaintiff Goldstein

Plaintiff Geoffrey Goldstein enrolled in the PhD in Business
Management program after a recruiter allegedly informed him that he
would graduate within 3 years if he enrolled in consecutive
quarters. Although Goldstein enrolled in consecutive quarters and
received top grades during those quarters, two years into the
program Capella told Goldstein that he must either voluntarily
withdraw from the program or restart the entire dissertation
process from the beginning. Whether these allegations amount to
misstatements of fact is a close call. But assuming without
deciding that Goldstein sufficiently alleges a misstatement of
fact, Goldstein's fraud claim nonetheless fails because he does not
plead his claim with particularity.

Only Goldstein's common-law fraud claim, Count 44, is dismissed for
failure to plead the fraud claim with particularity. And Count 1 is
dismissed as asserted by Goldstein.

Educational-Malpractice Doctrine

Defendants contend that Plaintiffs' common-law fraud claims are
barred by the educational malpractice doctrine.

The educational-malpractice doctrine bars courts from inquiring
into the nuances of educational processes and theories. This
doctrine does not bar allegations that the institution failed to
perform on specific promises, but the doctrine does bar challenges
to the general quality of the instructors and the education the
students received.

Here, Ornelas is the only Plaintiff with surviving common-law fraud
claims. Ornelas alleges that Capella misrepresented the average
time and cost of its PhD in Public Safety program. To assess this
claim, the Court need not assess the general quality of Ornelas's
instructors nor the effectiveness of Capella's programs. Instead,
the relevant inquiry would be tied to objective enrollment
statistics.

Ornelas's common-law fraud claims are not barred by the
educational-malpractice doctrine.
Statutory Fraud (Counts 4, 5, 10, 21, 25, 29, 33, 37, 41 and 42)

In addition to alleging common-law fraud, Plaintiffs also allege
statutory fraud. Capella again argues that Plaintiffs have not
pleaded these fraud claims with sufficient particularity, that
Plaintiffs have failed to allege an actionable misstatement of
fact, and that these claims are barred by the
educational-malpractice doctrine.

Plaintiffs' statutory fraud claims are based on the same
allegations as their common-law fraud claims. As such, the analysis
in Part I.A. applies with equal force here. As explained, only
Ornelas sufficiently alleges that Capella made a false
representation concerning the time and cost of its doctoral
programs. And, consistent with the educational-malpractice doctrine
analysis in Part I.A.3, Ornelas's statutory fraud claims do not
require an inquiry into Capella's educational decisions or
pedagogy. Accordingly, Ornelas states a claim for statutory fraud.

Capella's motion to dismiss is denied as to Counts 4 and 5 only to
the extent that these nationwide claims are asserted by Ornelas.

Breach of Contract (Counts 3, 8, 12, 15, 19, 23, 27, 31, 35, 39 and
45)

Plaintiffs contend that Capella breached its promises that students
would have control over the length of their degree programs and
that the degrees could be obtained in a set amount of time. Capella
moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' breach-of-contract claims for failure
to state a claim.

Under Minnesota law, contract formation requires communication of a
specific and definite offer, acceptance of that offer, and
consideration.  

Plaintiffs claim that Capella promised that its students would
control the length of their degree programs, and Capella promised
that each degree program could be completed in a set amount of
time. But the allegations in the amended complaint do not support
the existence of any such promises. Capella's representations on
which Plaintiffs rely include statements of how long the degree
programs are designed to take, how the program is structured, what
a recommended sequence of courses is, or the length of time it
takes a typical learner to complete the program. None of these
allegations supports the assertion that Capella made a specific and
definite offer to any of the Plaintiffs that students would be in
control of the length of the program or that degrees would be
obtainable within a set timeframe.

Plaintiffs' nationwide breach-of-contract claim, Count 3, is
dismissed.

Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Count 6)

Capella moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' breach of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing claim. Every contract under Minnesota law
includes an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
requiring that one party not unjustifiably hinder the other party's
performance of the contract.

As explained above, Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged the
existence of a contract under Minnesota law between Capella and
Plaintiffs in which Capella promised that students had control over
the length of the programs or that a degree was obtainable in a
certain amount of time. Because there is no underlying contract,
Plaintiffs' claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing cannot stand.

Count 6 is dismissed for this reason.

Unjust Enrichment (Counts 2, 9, 13, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40 and
43)

Plaintiffs allege that Capella was unjustly enriched when it
retained Plaintiffs' tuition money. Plaintiffs allege that Capella
did not provide students with the doctoral process that was
promised and expected in connection with the payment of the
tuition. Capella moves to dismiss the unjust-enrichment claims
because Plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law, as demonstrated
by their fraud and contract claims. Alternatively, Capella moves to
dismiss these claims because they fail to state a claim on which
relief can be granted.

To state an unjust-enrichment claim under Minnesota law, a
plaintiff must allege (1) a benefit conferred (2) the defendant's
appreciation and knowing acceptance of the benefit and (3) the
defendant's acceptance and retention of the benefit under such
circumstances that it would be inequitable for him to retain it
without paying for it.

Capella argues that Plaintiffs fail to allege how the retention of
tuition payments is inequitable. This Court agrees. Plaintiffs
received educational services in exchange for each semester for
which Plaintiffs paid tuition. There is no plausible allegation
that Capella guaranteed a degree, or a degree in a certain period
of time, in exchange for tuition. The allegations do not support an
inference that it is illegal or unlawful for Capella to retain the
tuition payments.  

Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for unjust enrichment. Count 2 is
dismissed.

Accordingly, Counts 2 through 25, 27, 28, and 30 through 45 of
Plaintiffs' amended complaint are dismissed without prejudice.
Count 1 is dismissed without prejudice only to the extent that it
is asserted by Plaintiffs Wright, Kennedy, Brannen, Norris,
Matelski, Goldstein, Mason, and Carter.

A full-text copy of the District Court’s May 6, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yy2yk6nk  from Leagle.com

Carolyn Wright, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brandon Michael Wise --
bwise@pwcklegal.com -- Peiffer Rosca Wolf Abdullah Carr & Kane,
APLC, pro hac vice, Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr. --
g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com -- Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield,
Paul A. Lesko -- plesko@pwcklegal.com -- Peiffer Rosea Wolf
Abdullah Carr & Kane, APLC, pro hac vice & Roberta A. Yard  --
r.yard@rwblawfirm.com- Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield.

Debbra Kennedy, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Sherry Bailey Brannen, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Candace Norris, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Maurice Jose Ornelas,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Shauna
Matelski, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Geoffrey Goldstein, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Lois Mason, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated & Jacqueline Carter, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Reinhardt Wendorf &
Blanchfield, Paul A. Lesko, Peiffer Rosea Wolf Abdullah Carr &
Kane, APLC, pro hac vice & Roberta A. Yard, Reinhardt Wendorf &
Blanchfield.

Capella University, Inc. & Capella Education Company, Defendants,
represented by Courtney E. Ward-Reichard, Nilan Johnson Lewis PA,
Donald M. Lewis, Nilan Johnson Lewis PA, Canadian Pacific Plaza120
South Sixth Street Suite 400Minneapolis, MN 55402, H. Christopher
Bartolomucci -- cbartolomucci@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP,
pro hac vice, John J. Wackman, Nilan Johnson Lewis PA, Canadian
Pacific Plaza120 South Sixth StreetSuite 400Minneapolis, MN 55402,
Kenneth Winn Allen  -- winn.allen@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis
LLP, pro hac vice & Terence McCarrick, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, 655
15th St. NW. Washington, DC 20005, pro hac vice.


CARSON SMITHFIELD: Todaro Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CARSON SMITHFIELD,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as MICHAEL TODARO III on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARSON
SMITHFIELD, LLC, CARSON SMITHFIELD, LLC, CW NEXUS CREDITCARD
HOLDINGS I, LLC, John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-12407-MAS-LHG (D. N.J., May 10, 2019).

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

Carson Smithfield, LLC is a debt collection agency located in
Woodbury New York, with a branch office in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     BEN A. KAPLAN, ESQ.
     280 Prospect Ave. 6G
     Hackensack, NJ 07601
     Phone: (201) 803-6611
     Fax: (866) 596-4973
     Email: ben@chulskykaplanlaw.com


CBE GROUP: Truckenbrodt Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The CBE Group, Inc.
The case is styled as John Truckenbrodt individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The CBE Group, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02870 (E.D. N.Y., May 15, 2019).

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

The CBE Group, Inc. operates as a credit information and accounts
receivable management company in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHARLOTTE-MECKLEBURG: Benitez Claims for Damages Junked
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned RAYMOND BENITEZ, individually And on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, d/b/a Carolinas
Healthcare System, d/b/a AtriumHealth, Defendant, No.
3:18-cv-00095-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C.), Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr., of
the United States District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina, Charlotte Division, granted in part Defendant
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority's Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings.

On June 19, 2016, the United States Department of Justice and the
State of North Carolina filed suit against the seeking injunctive
relief.  The Defendant is a North Carolina not-for-profit
corporation providing healthcare services with its principal place
of business in Charlotte.  Its flagship facility is Carolinas
Medical Center, a large general acute-care hospital located in
downtown Charlotte.  The Defendant also operates nine other general
acute-care hospitals in the Charlotte area.  The Governments
brought a civil antitrust action to enjoin the Defendant "from
using unlawful contract restrictions that prohibit commercial
health insurers in the Charlotte area from offering patients
financial benefits to use less-expensive healthcare services
offered by [Atrium's] competitors." The Governments contend that
"[t]hese steering restrictions reduce competition resulting in harm
to Charlotte area consumers, employers, and insurers." (Id.). The
Governments' suit remains pending in this Court.

On February 28, 2018 -- almost two years after the Governments
filed suit seeking injunctive relief against Defendant -- Raymond
Benitez commenced the instant suit against the Defendant on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated.  In this proposed
class action for restraint of trade, the Plaintiff seeks classwide
damages and injunctive relief under Section One of the Sherman Act,
15 U.S.C. Section 1, and Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, 15
U.S.C. Sections 15, 26, against the Defendant.  The only difference
between the requested relief in the Plaintiff's suit as compared to
the Governments' is that the Plaintiff also seeks monetary damages
for the Defendant's alleged antitrust violations.

The Court ordered that the Plaintiff's claim for monetary damages
under Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 15, is
dismissed and the Plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief is stayed
pending the resolution of the Governments' preexisting suit against
Defendant.

The Court held that, according to the plain text of Chapter 131E,
the statute under which the Defendant was formed, as well as the
functions Defendant performs and powers the Defendant possesses,
the Defendant is a special governmental unit under the Local
Government Antitrust Act of 1984 (LGAA). Therefore, the LGAA
shields the Defendant from antitrust claims for monetary damages.

As the parties concede, the Plaintiff's injunctive request is
identical to the Governments' requested relief in the preexisting
action currently pending in this Court. Thus, the resolution of the
Governments' preexisting suit would fully resolve the matters at
issue in this case, the Court concluded.

A full-text copy of the Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y4zvdbn5 from Leagle.com.

Raymond Benitez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Thomas Sirolly, Esq.
-- bsirolly@mololamken.com -- MoloLamken LLP, pro hac vice, Justin
Michael Ellis, Esq. -- jellis@mololamken.com -- MoloLamken LLP, pro
hac vice, Lauren M. Weinstein, Esq. -- lweinstein@mololamken.com --
MoloLamken LLP, pro hac vice, Robert Stephen Berry, Berry Law PLLC,
pro hac vice, Steven F. Molo, Esq. -- smolo@mololamken.com --
MoloLamken LLP, pro hac vice, Thomas Joseph Wiegand, Esq. --
twiegand@mololamken.com -- MoloLamken, pro hac vice & Adam Samuel
Hocutt, Dozier, Miller, Pollard & Murphy LLP.

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority, doing business as
Atrium Health, Defendant, represented by Hampton Y. Dellinger,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. Cooney, III, Womble Bond
Dickinson (US) LLP, Matthew Felton Tilley, Womble Bond Dickinson
(US) LLP, Nicholas A. Widnell, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, pro
hac vice, Richard A. Feinstein, Boies Schiller Flexner, pro hac
vice, Russ Ferguson, Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, Sean N.
Johnson, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, pro hac vice, Brian Allen
Hayles, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice PLLC, Debbie W. Harden,
Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, Mark Joseph Horoschak, Womble,
Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, Michael P. Fischer, Womble Carlyle
Sandridge & Rice & Sarah Motley Stone, Womble Bond Dickinson (US)
LLP.


COWEN INC: Seeks to Drop Amended Complaint in Fletcher Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cowen Inc. has filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in a
putative class action lawsuit initiated by Landol Fletcher,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019.

On December 27, 2013, Landol Fletcher filed a putative class action
lawsuit against Convergex Holdings, LLC, Convergex Group, LLC,
Cowen Execution, Convergex Global Markets Limited and G-Trade
Services LLC (collectively, "Convergex") in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Landol
Fletcher and all others similarly situated v. Convergex Group LLC,
Cowen Execution, Convergex Global Markets Ltd., Convergex Holdings
LLC, G-Trade Services LLC, & Does 1-10, No. 1:13-CV-09150-LLS).

The suit alleges breaches of fiduciary duty and prohibited
transactions under ERISA and seeks to maintain a class action on
behalf of all ERISA plan participants, beneficiaries and named
fiduciaries whose plans were impacted by net trading by Convergex
Global Markets Limited from October 2006 to December 2011.  On
April 11, 2014, Landol Fletcher and Frederick P. Potter Jr., filed
an amended complaint raising materially similar allegations.

This matter was assumed by the Company as a result of the Company's
previously announced acquisition of Convergex Group, which was
completed on June 1, 2017.  On February 17, 2016, the District
Court granted Convergex's motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
Plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Second Circuit, and the AARP and
Department of Labor filed amicus briefs on plaintiffs' behalf.  The
appeal was argued on December 12, 2016.

On February 10, 2017, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (1)
reversed the District Court, finding that plaintiff has
constitutional standing in a "representative" capacity to sue for
damages to the ERISA defined benefit plan in which he is a
participant, and (2) remanded to the District Court to reconsider,
in light of the Circuit Court's decision, the issue whether
plaintiff has standing to pursue claims on behalf of ERISA plans in
which plaintiff is not a participant.

Convergex filed a petition for rehearing, and the Court of Appeals
denied the petition.  On June 30, 2017, the Company filed a notice
of motion and memorandum of law in support of a motion to stay the
proceedings in the District Court pending resolution of its
petition for writ of certiorari, which the Company intended to file
with the U.S. Supreme Court.

On August 16, 2017, the District Court granted the Company's motion
to stay the proceedings in the District Court pending resolution of
the Company's petition for writ of certiorari.  On September 1,
2017, the Company filed a petition with the United States Supreme
Court for a writ of certiorari requesting review of the decision of
the Court of Appeals.

On January 8, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the Company's
petition for a writ of certiorari.  The previously granted stay of
the proceedings in the District Court has been lifted, and the case
is proceeding in the District Court.  Status conferences were held
on April 6, 2018, October 12, 2018, and December 4, 2018.

On March 15, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's amended complaint.

The Company said, "We are indemnified against losses arising from
this matter pursuant to, and subject to, the provisions of the
purchase agreement relating to the acquisition of Convergex Group.
Because the case is in its preliminary stages, the Company cannot
predict the outcome at this time, but it does not currently expect
this case to have a material effect on its financial position or
its results of operations."

Cowen Inc. is a publicly owned asset management holding company.
Through its subsidiaries, the firm provides alternative investment
management, investment banking, research, and sales and trading
services for its clients.  Cowen Group, Inc. was founded in 1994
and is headquartered in New York, New York with additional offices
in Boston, Massachusetts, Chicago, Illinois, Cleveland, Ohio,
Dallas, Texas, and San Francisco, California.


CREATIVE WASTE: O'Mara Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
William O'Mara, and Damien Hunter, for themselves and on behalf of
those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Creative Waste Solutions,
LLC d/b/a B & L Disposal Services; Lou Bizzari; and Vanessa Lake,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02021-GEKP (E.D. Pa., May 9, 2019)
seeks to recover from Defendants overtime pay as required by the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage
Act ("PMWA").

Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours within a
workweek. Despite working numerous overtime hours for Defendants,
Plaintiffs were not paid an overtime premium for all of their
overtime hours until after December 2017. The Defendants failed
and/or refused to properly compensate Plaintiffs, and those
similarly situated, at a rate of one and one-half times their
regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single
workweek, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs worked for B & L in Delaware County, Pennsylvania.

B & L is a disposal service company, which operates throughout
Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Angeli Murthy, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     600 N. Pine Island Rd., Suite 400
     Plantation, FL 33324
     Phone: (954) 327-5369
     Fax: (954) 327-3016
     Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com


CROWN NJ GAMING: Leong Suit Removed to New Jersey Dist. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned CHRISTOPHER LEONG, individually and on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CROWN NJ
GAMING INC d/b/a DraftKings, and CROWN GAMING INC., Defendants,
Case No. ATL-L-000114-19 was removed from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County to the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey on May 10, 2019, and assigned
Case No. 1:19-cv-12424-JHR-JS.

Plaintiff alleges violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act,
fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, and negligence.
Plaintiff, on behalf of a putative class of other SBNC contestants,
seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, statutory
penalties, punitive damages, costs and attorney's fees, and pre-
and post-judgment interest.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     James E. Cecchi, Esq.
     John M. Agnello, Esq.
     Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
     CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
     5 Becker Farm Road
     Roseland, NJ 07068
     Phone: (973) 994-1700

          - and -

     Joshua I. Schiller, Esq.
     Damien J. Marshall, Esq.
     Benjamin Margulis, Esq.
     BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
     55 Hudson Yards
     New York, NY 10001
     Phone: (212) 446-2300


CSX TRANSPORTATION: Removes Burns Suit to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of SIOBHAN BURNS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CSX
TRANSPORTATION, INC., Defendant, filed a notice to remove the
lawsuit from the Circut Court of the State of Illinois, County of
Cook (Case No. 2019-CH-02935) to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on April 17, 2019. The clerk of court
for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-02592. The case is assigned to Robert M. Dow, Jr.

CSX Transportation, Inc. operates rail networks in the United
States. CSX Transportation, Inc. was formerly known as Seaboard
System Railroad, Inc. and changed its name to CSX Transportation,
Inc. in July 1986. The company was incorporated in 1944 and is
based in Jacksonville, Florida. CSX Transportation, Inc. operates
as a subsidiary of CSX Corp. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon M. Mise, Esq.
          Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
          PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE, APLC
          818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
          St. Louis, MO 63104
          Telephone: (314) 833-4825
          E-mail: bwise@pwcklegal.com
                  plesko@pwcklegal.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Bonnie Keane DelGobbo, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          191 North Wacker Drive, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60606-1901
          Telephone: (312) 416-6200
          Facsimile: (312) 416-6201
          E-mail: bdelgobbo@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Joel Griswold, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          SunTrust Center
          200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 2300
          Orlando, Florida 32801-3432
          Telephone: (407) 649-4088
          E-mail: jcgriswold@bakerlaw.com


DENALI WATER: $420K Settlement in Verdugo Suit Has Prelim Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for Central District of California
issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Amended Class Action Settlement in the case captioned
ENRIQUE VERDUGO, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. DENALI WATER SOLUTIONS, LLC; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 5:18-cv-00170-ODW
(SHKx). (C.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Enrique Verdugo brought this wage-and-hour class action
suit against Defendant Denali Water Solutions, LLC, alleging that
Verdugo and proposed class members work or worked for Denali as
drivers in California and Denali failed to pay wages owed and other
benefits.   

The parties define the proposed class as all individuals who are or
previously were employed by Denali as drivers in the State of
California at any time during the period beginning on December 21,
2013, and ending on the date of preliminary approval or forty-five
(45) days from the execution of the Amended Settlement, whichever
is earlier. The Settlement seeks appointment of Class Counsel,
Class Representative, and ILYM Group, Inc. as the Settlement
Administrator.

Discovery established that there are at least 68 members in the
proposed class.

The Settlement provides for a non-reversionary Gross Maximum
Settlement Amount (Settlement Fund) of $420,000.00, to resolve the
claims on a class basis. This amount includes all shares of class
members who do not request exclusion (Participating Class Members),
as well as other costs and expenses.

Denali will provide the Administrator with the names, addresses and
phone numbers (if available in Denali's records), social security
numbers, hire dates, and if applicable, termination dates of
potential class members from its employment records. The Settlement
details the Administrator's method of updating addresses, mailing
the Notice, and managing mail returned as undeliverable. The
Administrator's obligation to trace addresses and re-mail
undeliverable notices ends after two mailings or 45 calendar days.


The Court is satisfied that settlement was the product of serious,
informed, non-collusive negotiations. The parties thoroughly
investigated their claims and engaged in discovery before
completing a full day of mediation with Hon. Michael D. Marcus
(Ret.) on May 30, 2018. Although they were unable to reach
agreement at that time, parties subsequently agreed to the terms of
the mediator's proposal. On June 13, 2018, the parties filed a
Notice of Settlement. Verdugo asserts that the parties' settlement
negotiations have been non-collusive, adversarial, and at arm's
length at all times, while recognizing the uncertainty, risk,
expense, and delay that continuing litigation would entail.  Under
these circumstances, the Court accepts that the negotiations were
adequate.

After carefully reviewing the terms of the settlement, the Court
finds that the settlement does not unfairly give preferential
treatment to any party and falls within the range of possible
approval.

Here, as with most class actions, there is risk to both parties in
continuing towards trial. The parties reached settlement only with
the help of a mediator and after thoroughly evaluating the
strengths and risks to both sides. The settlement treats all
members of a uniform class equally, awarding shares based on number
of workweeks. Accordingly, the settlement does not unfairly favor
any member, represents a compromise, and avoids uncertainty for all
parties involved.
Incentive Award

The Settlement provides that Class Counsel will seek approval of an
incentive award of $7,500 for Verdugo as Class Representative.

Verdugo, as the lead plaintiff, assisted "with investigation and
evaluation of the class claims, including producing documents and
attending multiple telephonic conferences and meetings with
counsel. Yet the Court finds little support for the upward
departure from the presumed-reasonable award of $5,000. Further, an
award of $7,500 is more than double the expected average class
member recovery. However, at the preliminary approval stage, the
question is whether the requested award falls within the range of
possible approval. At this time, the Court finds that it does. The
Court reiterates that final approval will depend on adequate
support for the requested award.

The Settlement provides that Class Counsel may seek attorneys' fees
in an amount not to exceed $140,000, or roughly one-third of the
settlement fund. While attorneys' fees and costs may be awarded in
a certified class action where so authorized by law or the parties'
agreement courts have an independent obligation to ensure that the
award, like the settlement itself, is reasonable, even if the
parties have already agreed to an amount. Twenty-five percent
recovery is the benchmark for attorneys' fees, although courts in
the Ninth Circuit have found upward departures to fall within the
acceptable range.  

Counsel is experienced in wage-and-hour class action litigation and
the fee request, while high, falls within the range identified as
potentially acceptable in the Ninth Circuit. Accordingly,
preliminary approval is appropriate, though the Court reiterates
that final approval will depend on counsel providing sufficient
information to support the requested award.

Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiff's Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Amended Class Action Settlement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 6, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y4dwoq8u from Leagle.com.

Enrique Verdugo, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alvin B. Lindsay --
alvin@yeremianlaw.com -- David Yeremian & Associates, Inc. & David
Yeremian -- david@yeremianlaw.com -- David Yeremian and Associates
Inc.

Denali Water Solutions, LLC, a Delaware limited liablity company,
Defendant, represented by Kimberly Marie Shappley --
kshappley@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC & Alaya B. Meyers --
ameyers@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC.


DHI GROUP: Final Approval Hearing of Douglas Settlement in Aug.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on final approval of the settlement for the re-filed
class action lawsuit by Ian Douglas has been set for August 2019,
according to DHI Group, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2019.

During the first quarter of 2018, the Company recorded a US$1.0
million liability related to a class action lawsuit regarding the
applicability of provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (the
"FCRA") to one of the Company's products.  The recorded liability
reflects a tentative settlement, which upon final approval by the
court, will resolve all remaining claims subject to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit was brought by Ian Douglas, individually, as a
representative of the class and on behalf of the general public,
against DHI Group, Inc. and Dice Inc. asserting six claims under
the FCRA that the Company's Open Web profiles are "consumer
reports" and Dice is a "consumer reporting agency" under the FCRA,
including claims pursuant to the private right of action in 15
U.S.C. Section 1681n for alleged willful violations of the FCRA.

The action was originally filed in a federal district court on July
26, 2017, but as a part of the settlement process, the action has
been re-filed and is pending in the Superior Court of Santa Clara
County, California (Case No. 18CV331732).  The court has given
preliminary approval of the settlement, and has directed that
notice be given to the class.  A hearing on final approval of the
settlement for August 2019.

DHI Group, Inc. provides data, insights, and employment connections
through specialized services for technology professionals in the
United States and internationally. The company was formerly known
as Dice Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to DHI Group, Inc. in
April 2015. DHI Group, Inc. was founded in 1991 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: B&R Suit Briefing, Discovery to End in July
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discover Financial Services disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2019, that briefing and expert discovery
related to class certification in the case, B&R Supermarket, Inc.,
d/b/a Milam's Market, et al. v. Visa, Inc. et al., will close in
July 2019 with a hearing date on class certification to be
scheduled.

On March 8, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company, other credit card networks, other issuing banks, and EMVCo
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(B&R Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Milam's Market, et al. v. Visa, Inc.
et al.) alleging violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act,
California's Cartwright Act, and unjust enrichment.

Plaintiffs allege a conspiracy by defendants to shift fraud
liability to merchants with the migration to the EMV security
standard and chip technology.  Plaintiffs assert joint and several
liability among the defendants and seek unspecified damages,
including treble damages, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive
relief.

On July 15, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
includes additional named plaintiffs, reasserts the original
claims, and includes additional state law causes of action.  On
September 30, 2016, the court granted the motions to dismiss for
certain issuing banks and EMVCo but denied the motions to dismiss
filed by the networks, including the Company.

In May 2017, the Court entered an order transferring the entire
action to a federal court in New York that is presiding over
certain related claims that are pending in the actions consolidated
as MDL 1720.  On March 11, 2018, the Court entered an order denying
the plaintiffs' motion for class certification without prejudice to
filing a renewed motion.

Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification on July
16, 2018 and opening merits expert reports on October 5, 2018.
Defendants filed their Opposition to Class Certification on March
15, 2019.  Briefing and expert discovery related to class
certification will close in July 2019 with a hearing date on class
certification to be scheduled.

Discover Financial said, "The Company is not in a position at this
time to assess the likely outcome or its exposure, if any, with
respect to this matter, but will seek to vigorously defend against
all claims asserted by the plaintiffs."

Discover Financial Services, through its subsidiaries, operates as
a direct banking and payment services company in the United States.
The company was incorporated in 1960 and is based in Riverwoods,
Illinois.


DRK THIRD AVENUE: JC Contracting Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DRK THIRD AVENUE,
LLC. The case is styled as JC CONTRACTING OF WOODSIDE CORP.,
INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS REPRESENTATIVES OF ALL TRUST BENEFICIARIES
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. DRK THIRD AVENUE, LLC ET AL,
Defendant, Case No. 154792/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., May
10, 2019).

DRK THIRD AVENUE LLC (DOS ID 4143817) is a corporation registered
with New York State Department of State (NYSDOS).[BN]


EFUEGO CORP: Faces Traynor ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
YASEEN TRAYNOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EFUEGO CORP., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-03418-RA (S.D.N.Y., April 17, 2019) alleges violation of
The Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Judge
Ronnie Abrams.

Efuego Corp. operates a retail store services and computerized
online retail store services in the field of sporting goods,
equipment and apparel. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dov Michael Mittelman, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          E-mail: mittelmandov@yahoo.com


EHEALTHINSURANCE: Dennis Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
Derrick U Dennis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. EHEALTHINSURANCE SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04343-LGS (S.D. N.Y., May 13, 2019) is
a civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

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

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

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

Defendant operates a commercial website, www.ehealthinsurance.com,
which markets and sells health insurance for individuals and
families.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ENVOY AIR INC: Hinkley Suit Removed to N.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------
The class action styled as John Hinkley, Steve Rice, Plaintiff v.
Envoy Air Inc., Respondent, Envoy Air Inc., Counter Claimant, John
Hinkley, Steve Rice, Counter Defendant, Case No. 18-656 filed in
state court was removed from 451st District Court, Kendall County,
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on
May 10, 2019, and assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-00389-A.

The nature of suit is stated as Employment Civil Rights.

Envoy Air Inc. is an air carrier headquartered in Irving, Texas, in
the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of
American Airlines Group that, along with several carriers outside
the group, feeds the American Airlines route network under the
American Eagle brand.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Kirk Matthew Claunch, Esq.
     The Claunch Law Office
     2912 W Sixth Street
     Fort Worth, TX 76107
     Phone: (817) 335-4003
     Fax: (817) 335-7112
     Email: claunchlaw3@earthlink.net

          - and -

     Joshua Howard Sisam, Esq.
     Stuart Andrew Shaffer, Esq.
     Sisam & Associates LLP
     110 Industrial Dr
     Boerne, TX 78006
     Phone: (830) 428-0333
     Fax: (830) 331-4044
     Email: josh@sisam.com
            sshaffer@sisam.com

The Respondent is represented by:

     Brian M Jorgensen, Esq.
     Lindsay A Hedrick, Esq.
     Jones Day
     PO Box 660623
     2727 N Harwood St
     Dallas, TX 75266-0623
     Phone: (214) 220-3939
     Fax: (214) 969-5100
     Email: bmjorgensen@jonesday.com
            lahedrick@jonesday.com


ENVOY AIR: Hinckley Suit Asserts Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------
Steve Rice, and John Hinckley on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Envoy Air, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00389-A (451th
Judicial District, Kendall Cty., Tex., May 10, 2019) alleges that
Defendant Envoy, through its hiring and employment practices,
violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, ("ADEA"). In
addition, Defendant Envoy, has violated the Texas Labor Code.

The Defendant's training policies and practices with respect to
Plaintiffs and similarly situated worker age 40 or older are
disadvantageous as compared to those with workers under 40 years
old, who Defendants treat preferentially and hire in significantly
greater numbers, says the complaint. The Defendant actively
encouraged their older employees to quit and a disproportionate
higher percentage of older people are terminated or forced to quit
after receiving conditional employment.

On information and belief, says the complaint, Envoy failed to
train plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals in favor
of younger applicants under the age of 40. The Defendant has
discriminated against job applicants and workers who are 40 years
old and older, with respect to its training decisions and other
terms and conditions of employment. Plaintiffs took the new hire
bonuses with the understanding that they were already had been
hired by the Defendant, and that their employment would only be
terminated for cause. This was not the case. Plaintiffs did not
know that a disproportionate percentage of older employees are
forced to resign in lieu of termination. In effect, Plaintiffs were
constructively terminated, the complaint relates.

The Defendant's managers and executives with control and/or
responsibility for training, practices, and decisions (including
those for plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals) have
promoted and/or implemented negative and discriminatory training
procedures with regard to older workers who are 40 years and older,
says the complaint.

Plaintiffs applied with Envoy in 2017. Plaintiffs already had their
commercial pilot's license.

Envoy Air, LLC, is a company from Irving Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joshua 11. Sisam, Esq.
     Sisam & Associates LLP
     110 Industrial Dr.
     Boerne, TX 78.006
     Phone: (830) 428-0333
     Fax: (830) 331-4044


ETHOS DATA: Newell Sues Over Unauthorized Voice Messages
--------------------------------------------------------
JOUREY NEWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ETHOS DATA MANAGEMENT, INC., a Florida
company, Defendant, Case No. 9:19-cv-80627-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 10,
2019) is a class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
against Defendant to stop Ethos Data from making unauthorized
pre-recorded voice message calls promoting its search engine
optimization services and to obtain redress for all persons
similarly injured by its conduct.

The Defendant's unsolicited pre-recorded voice message calls
violated the TCPA causing Plaintiff and putative members of the
Classes to suffer actual harm, including aggravation, nuisance, and
invasions of privacy. says the complaint.  Plaintiff Mr. Newell
also alleges that the Defendant violated the Pennsylvania's Unfair
Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, ("UTPCPL") due to
their violation of Pennsylvania's Telemarketer Registration Act, 73
P.S. § 2241 et seq. ("PTRA").

Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring Defendant to
cease making unsolicited pre-recorded voice message calls to
consumers, as well as an award of actual and/or statutory damages
and costs.

Plaintiff Newell is, and at all times relevant to the allegations
in the complaint was, a Pennsylvania resident.

Ethos Data is a company that provides search engine optimization
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FCA US: Yost Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. for Breach of Contract
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FCA US, LLC. The case
is styled as Robert Yost, Jerry Yost and All other individuals
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FCA US, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, Crown Dodge, a California Corporation, Lithia of
Santa Rosa, Inc., a California Corporation, Defendants, Case No.
SCV-264439 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sonoma Cty., May 15, 2019).

The case type is stated as "Unlimited Breach of
Contract/Warranty".

FCA US LLC, together with its subsidiaries, designs, engineers,
manufactures, distributes, and sells vehicles primarily in the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by John Hendrickson, Esq.



FIFTH THIRD: Lindauer Sues over Excessive Overdraft Fees
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Fifth Third Bancorp
for its illegal and unconscionable assessment and collection of
excessive overdraft fees that violates the terms of its own
agreement. The case is captioned DAVID LINDAUER, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Fifth Third
Bancorp d/b/a Fifth Third Bank, Defendant, Case No.
6:19-cv-00775-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla., April 24, 2019). Plaintiff David
Lindauer alleges that Fifth Third has manipulated and altered
customers' transaction records that it maximizes overdraft
penalties imposed on customers. On behalf of himself and all
persons similarly situated, Lindauer seeks monetary damages,
restitution and declaratory relief from Defendant.

Fifth Third is a national bank incorporated in the state of Ohio
with its principal place of business in Cincinnati, Ohio. Among
other things, Fifth Third is engaged in the business of providing
retail banking services to millions of consumers, which include the
issuance of debit cards for use by its customers in conjunction
with their checking accounts. Fifth Third and its subsidiaries have
an extensive branch network, with more than 1,300 branches
primarily in Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri,
Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Georgia.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
     GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
     1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Telephone: 215-985-9177
     Facsimile: 215-985-4169
     E-mail: kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com

             - and -

     Jacob Phillips, Esq.
     Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
     NORMAND PLLC
     3165 McCrory Place, Ste. 175
     Orlando, FL 32803
     E-mail: Jacob.phillips@normandpllc.com
             Ed@ednormand.com


GC SERVICES: Yang Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GC Services Limited
Partnership. The case is styled as Moon J. Yang individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GC Services
Limited Partnership, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02869 (E.D. N.Y.,
May 15, 2019).

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

GC Services Limited Partnership provides accounts receivable and
customer care solutions to public and private sector
organizations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GENERAL REVENUE: Higgins Sues over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
ABREYA HIGGINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL REVENUE CORPORATION; and JOHN DOES
1-25, Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-01135-GJH (D. Md., April 17,
2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means
to collect a debt.

General Revenue Corporation provides debt collection services for
the education, government, utility, automotive, telecommunication,
retail, and shipping industries. It collects student loan, state,
federal, tax, and other consumer debts. General Revenue Corporation
was formerly known as General Revenue Incorporated and changed its
name to General Revenue Corporation in March 1983. The company was
founded in 1981 and is based in Mason, Ohio with additional office
in Horseheads, New York. As of January 2002, General Revenue
Corporation operates as a subsidiary of Navient Corporation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aryeh E. Stein, Esq.
          MERIDIAN LAW LLC
          600 Reisterstown Road, Suite 700
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Telephone: (443) 326-6011
          Facsimile: (410) 653-9061
          E-mail: astein@meridianlawfirm.com


GEORGIA: Court Approves Settlement in SMU Prisoners' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Georgia, Macon Division, issued an Order granting Final Approval of
Class Certification and Settlement Agreement in the case captioned
TIMOTHY GUMM, ROBERT WATKINS, Plaintiffs, v. BENJAMIN FORD et al.,
Defendants. Civil Action No. 5:15-cv-41 (MTT). (M.D. Ga.)

Plaintiff Timothy Gumm brought this action under 42 U.S.C. Section
1983 challenging conditions and practices at the Special Management
Unit (SMU) at Georgia Diagnostic & Classification Prison (Georgia
Diagnostic). The Court appointed attorney Sarah Geraghty of the
Southern Center for Human Rights to represent Plaintiff Gumm.  

The Court concludes that the settlement class preliminarily
certified should be finally certified for settlement purposes under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), for the reasons set forth
in the Court's preliminary approval order.

This class is defined as all persons who are or in the future will
be assigned to the facility currently known as the Special
Management Unit at Georgia Diagnostic & Classification Prison, or
who are or in the future will be assigned to the Tier III Program.

The Court finds that the prospective relief provided in the
Settlement Agreement is necessary to prevent violations of
prisoners' constitutional rights in this case, is narrowly tailored
and extends no further than necessary to correct those violations,
and constitutes the least intrusive means of ensuring compliance
with minimal constitutional requirements.  

Therefore, the Court concludes that it need not hold an evidentiary
hearing or require the parties to expend time and resources on
presenting evidence. The Court will instead make findings as
specific to the case as the circumstances permit, recognizing that
there may not be much to say about certain matters in light of the
limited record available to the Court.  

Per the Court's preliminary approval order, the parties were
required to provide notice and a copy of the Settlement Agreement
directly to every current class member that is, every person
currently assigned to the Tier III Program and confined in the SMU.


Such individual delivery clearly constitutes adequate notice under
Rule 23(e)(1). Defendants have filed forms with the Court
indicating whether each class member acknowledged or refused to
acknowledge receipt of the settlement documents. The parties agree
that the class notice process was carried out as set forth in the
Court's Preliminary Approval Order.

The Court concludes that notice to the class members satisfies the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2) and
23(e)(1).

The Court received objections or comments from 14 individual class
members. As the parties point out, the class members almost
entirely address concerns with the Defendants' alleged failures so
far to implement some of the Settlement Agreement's terms
particularly those regarding out-of-cell time (and the staffing
required to facilitate it), certain conditions of confinement, and
procedures for placement and retention in the SMU. The objectors do
not take issue with the terms themselves; they simply ask that they
be complied with.

Some objectors argue the Agreement could have done more for class
members. For instance, Waseem Daker and Jeffrey Bourassa9 both
argue the agreement is inadequate unless it provides for access to
the law library.   Class counsel responded by noting that the
objection does not fall within the scope of the substance of this
lawsuit, and both Class counsel and Defendants' counsel agreed
there is nothing in the Settlement Agreement which would preclude a
Tier III inmate from pursuing a remedy based upon insufficient or
inadequate access to legal materials. The Court finds that the
provisions limiting the circumstances in which a class member may
be held in the SMU for longer than 24 months are a fair, adequate,
and reasonable outcome for the class members.

Bourassa also objects to Paragraph 40, which requires the sliding
covers attached to cell-door windows to remain open at all times,
unless articulable security or safety considerations dictate
otherwise. Bourassa argues that closed covers further no legitimate
penological interest. Again, on this point the Agreement represents
a negotiated compromise after a protracted back and forth between
the parties. It represents a considered balance between the Class's
interests and the Defendants' interest in security, and the
Settlement Agreement itself prohibits closed covers in the absence
of any security interest.

Other objections challenging the terms of the Settlement Agreement
similarly discuss how the Agreement could theoretically have been
drafted to provide even more benefits to class members; however,
none of the objections in any way undermine the Court's conclusion
that Class counsel, through hard-fought negotiation, procured a
Settlement Agreement which provides adequate substantive relief for
the class members and treats class members equitably.

The parties contend that the objectors' concerns do not detract
from the fairness or adequacy of the Settlement Agreement. Indeed,
the fact that class members seek effectuation of the Settlement
Agreement's terms shows that they understand the terms to provide
significant benefits. The agreement contemplates that its terms
will be incorporated into an order of this Court, will remain in
effect for three years, and will be monitored and, if necessary,
enforced through motions practice by class counsel.

The Court understands that the parties have been in communication
regarding the objections, and that some instances of alleged
non-compliance have been addressed. Many class members, therefore,
understand the Agreement to provide significant benefits and
emphasize their hope that the Defendants comply with it, and none
of the class members' objections to the terms of the Agreement
undermine the Court's conclusion that the Agreement is a fair,
adequate, and reasonable resolution of the class members' claims.

They reached a negotiated agreement that attorneys' fees and costs
should be paid by Defendants to class counsel in the amount of
$425,000. Plaintiffs thereafter filed an uncontested fee petition
seeking an award of such fees in compliance with Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(h). Because the fee award was negotiated only
following the parties' entry into the Settlement Agreement, and
because the parties agree that the Settlement Agreement stands
regardless of whether or not the Court grants the fee petition, the
Court finds that nothing in Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees
undermines the fairness or adequacy of the Settlement Agreement.The
fee petition will be resolved pursuant to a separate order.

The Court therefore concludes that these monetary agreements do not
undermine the fairness, adequacy, or reasonableness of the
injunctive-relief class Settlement Agreement.

Finally, with these considerations in mind, the court should itself
[finally] assess whether the settlement agreement is fair,
adequate, and reasonable. Based on a review of the Settlement
Agreement and of the entire record in this case, and based on the
analysis of the Rule 23(e) factors set forth in the Court's
preliminary approval Order and in this Order, the Court concludes
that the Settlement Agreement is fair, adequate, and reasonable,
should be approved, and should be adopted as an Order of the Court.


A settlement class is certified, consisting of "all persons who are
or in the future will be assigned to the facility currently known
as the Special Management Unit at Georgia Diagnostic &
Classification Prison, or who are or in the future will be assigned
to the Tier III Program," under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
23(a) and (b)(2).

The objections to the proposed settlement filed by class members in
response to the notice to the class are overruled.

The parties' request to adopt the Settlement Agreement is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 6, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2qpwxvl from Leagle.com.

TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM, Plaintiff, represented by CHRIS WILLIAM HAAF,
RYAN PRIMERANO, SARAH ELISABETH GERAGHTY, AARON MICHAEL LITTMAN, C.
ALLEN GARRETT, Jr., JAMES F. BOGAN, III & TAMARA SERWER CALDAS.

ROBERT JORDAN WATKINS, Plaintiff, represented by AARON MICHAEL
LITTMAN & RYAN PRIMERANO.
RICK JACOBS, Field Operations Manager, GDCP, Warden BRUCE CHAPMAN,
GDCP, RODNEY MCCLOUD, Superintendent, GDCP, WILLIAM POWELL, Deputy
Warden of Security, GDCP, JUNE BISHOP, RUFUS LOGAN, MARGARET
WASHINGTON, TIMOTHY WARD, RICKY MYRICK, STEVE UPTON, RANDY TILLMAN,
ERIC SELLERS & MICHAEL CANNON, Defendants, represented by ELIZABETH
MCRARY CROWDER, LAURA LOUISE LONES, SUSAN ELIZABETH TEASTER, JOHN
Clay DEMOULPIED, Carlock Copeland & Stair, LLP & ROBERT B.
SHAPIRO.

DWAIN WILLIAMS, GEORGE BALL & THOMAS SUMPTER, Defendants,
represented by ELIZABETH MCRARY CROWDER, SUSAN ELIZABETH TEASTER &
ROBERT B. SHAPIRO.

GNC HOLDINGS: Appeal on Workweek Suit Judgment Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. is awaiting the Court's ruling regarding its
appeal from the "adverse judgment" in a Pennsylvania Fluctuating
Workweek related suit, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.  Oral argument
occurred in April 2019.

On September 18, 2013, Tawny Chevalier and Andrew Hiller commenced
a class action in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania.  Plaintiff asserted a claim against the Company for a
purported violation of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"),
challenging the Company's utilization of the "fluctuating workweek"
method to calculate overtime compensation, on behalf of all
employees who worked for the Company in Pennsylvania and who were
paid according to the fluctuating workweek method.

In October 2014, the Court entered an order holding that the use of
the fluctuating workweek method violated the PMWA.  In September
2016, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and the
class in an immaterial amount, which has been recorded as a charge
in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements.  Plaintiffs
subsequently filed a petition for an award of attorney's fees,
costs and incentive payment.  The court awarded an immaterial
amount in legal fees.

The Company appealed the adverse judgment and the award of
attorney's fees.  On December 22, 2017, the Pennsylvania Superior
Court held that the Company correctly determined the "regular rate"
by dividing weekly compensation by all hours worked (rather than
40), but held that the regular rate must be multiplied by 1.5
(rather than 0.5) to determine the amount of overtime owed.

Taking accumulated interest into account, the net result of the
Superior Court's decision was to reduce the Company's liability by
an immaterial amount, which has been reflected in the accompanying
Consolidated Financial Statements.  The Company filed a petition
for appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on January 22, 2018.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court accepted the Company's petition for
appeal and the Company filed its appellant's brief on August 27,
2018.  Oral argument occurred in April 2019 and the Company awaits
the Court's ruling.

GNC Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
specialty retailer of health, wellness, and performance products.
The company operates through three segments: U.S. and Canada,
International, and Manufacturing/Wholesale. The company was founded
in 1935 and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


GOLDEN CIRCLE: Sundermann Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CARL SUNDERMANN on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. GOLDEN CIRCLE REAL ESTATE GROUP, L.L.C. D/B/A
KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, GREATER DES MOINES, the Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-00140-RP-CFB (S.D. Iowa, May 2, 2019), seeks to enforce the
consumer-privacy provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, a federal statute enacted in 1991 in response to widespread
public outrage about the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance
telemarketing practices.

Golden Circle Real Estate Group made automated and pre-recorded
telemarketing calls to cellular telephone numbers, including the
Plaintiff, which is prohibited by the TCPA. Furthermore, Keller
Wiiliams made telemarketing calls to numbers that has been listed
on the National Do Not Call Registry.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff never consented to
receive the calls, which were placed to him for telemarketing
purposes. Because telemarketing campaigns generally place calls to
hundreds of thousands or even millions of potential customers en
masse, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a proposed
class of other persons who received illegal telemarketing calls
from or on behalf of Defendant.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Timothy M. Hansen, Esq.
          HANSEN REYNOLDS LLC
          301 N Broadway, Suite 400
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: 414-455-7676
          Facsimile: 414-273-8476
          E-mail: thansen@hansenreynolds.com

               - and -

          Michael C. Lueder, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          E-mail: mlueder@hansenreynolds.com
          301 N Broadway, Suite 400
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: 414 273-7676
          Facsimile: 414 273-8476

               - and -

          Anthony Paronich, Esq.
          350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Telephone: 617 485-0018
          Facsimile: 508 318-8100
          E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com

HAWAIIAN GARDENS: Benavidez Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Employees
------------------------------------------------------------------
RUDY JOSE BENAVIDEZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HAWAIIAN GARDENS CASINO, a California
Corporation; THE GARDENS CASINO, a business entity of unknown form;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
19STCV15406 (Cal. Super., May 2, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the California Labor Code
and the Industrial Welfare Commission.

According to the complaint, the Defendants had a common policy
and/or practice of failing to pay Aggrieved Employees minimum wages
for all hours worked. More specifically, Defendants required
Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees to perform work while
remaining under Defendants' control during their statutorily
required meal and rest breaks, and before being on the clock for
their daily work shift.

The Defendants further failed to accurately record time worked by
Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees by rounding hours worked to
their detriment. The Defendants thus failed to pay Plaintiff and
the Aggrieved Employees for all hours worked, and provided them
with inaccurate wage statements that prevented Plaintiff and the
Aggrieved Employees from learning of these unlawful pay practices.
Defendants also failed to provide Plaintiff and the Aggrieved
Employees with lawful meal and rest periods, as employees were not
provided with the opportunity to take timely, uninterrupted, and
duty-free meal and rest periods as required by the Labor Code.

The Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees were either not paid by
Defendants for all hours worked or were not paid at the appropriate
minimum, regular and overtime rates. In addition, Defendants failed
to pay the Employees all wages due, by unlawfully rounding the
hours worked to the detriment of the Employees, under-recording of
hours worked, requiring them to work off the clock, failing to
provide meal and rest breaks, failing to furnish accurate wage
statements, and failing to pay all wages due at the time of
termination or within 72 hours of resignation, all in violation of
various provisions of the California Labor Code, thwe lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for Rudy Jose Benavidez, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated:

          David Yeremian, Esq.
          DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
          535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230-8380
          Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
          E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com

               - and -

          Walter Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, PC
          5500 Bolsa Ave., Suite 201
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: (310) 652-2242
          E-mail: whaines@uelg.com

HOT TOPIC: Mullen Files ADA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HOT TOPIC, INC. The
case is styled as BARTLEY M. MULLEN, JR. individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOT TOPIC, INC.
doing business as: HOT TOPIC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00554-JFC
(W.D. Pa., May 10, 2019).

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

Hot Topic is an American retail chain specializing in
counterculture-related clothing and accessories, as well as
licensed music.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HOWARD L. NATIONS: Gaudet Asserts Breach of Contract, Malpractice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DEBORAH A. GAUDET AND RAY GAUDET, Individually and on Behalf of a
Class of All Other Similarly Situated Persons Plaintiffs; v. HOWARD
L. NATIONS, APC; THE NICKS LAW FIRM, LLC; RUEB & MOTTA, APLC;
JOSEPH A. MOTTA, ATTORNEY AT LAW, APLC; and, THE RUEB LAW FIRM,
APLC; Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-10356-MLCF-JVM (E.D. La., May
13, 2019) seeks to recover damages for breach of contract,
professional malpractice, and fraud arising from the Defendants'
actions and inactions committed while representing the interests of
the proposed class members in the Deepwater Horizon Economic and
Property Damage Class Action Settlement in which claims were made
against BP, its affiliates, subsidiaries, and other entities, for
damages caused by the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe that occurred
on April 20, 2010 and the resulting oil spill.

On April 10, 2010, a catastrophic oil spill occurred in the Gulf of
Mexico resulting in damages and losses to individuals, businesses,
and governmental entities in certain coastal states, namely,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, and Texas. After the
incident, BP Exploration & Petroleum, Inc. ("BP") established a
facility for resolution of certain claims under the management and
direction of Ken Feinberg. Subsequently, Judge Barbier, in the
Eastern District of Louisiana, approved a settlement intended to
provide recovery for a broad class of claimants to compensate for
the losses sustained. Deborah and Ray Gaudet ("Gaudets") were among
many people who resided along the coast and sustained damages
resulting from the spill. They did not file suit against BP nor did
they engage attorneys until June 1, 2015, when they were advised
that out of-state lawyers were hosting meetings in various
locations. The meetings were designed by the Defendant law firms to
solicit clients in order for the Defendant law firms to submit
claims in the BP settlement program.

The Gaudets attended one of the meetings at the Lil Caillou School
in Chauvin, Louisiana. At that meeting, the Defendants'
representatives advised the Gaudets to fill out forms to identify
their losses, which were primarily subsistence claims. At the
meeting at the Lil Caillou School, the Gaudets engaged the
Defendant law firms to file a claim for them as a result of damages
they sustained. They signed a fee agreement with the Defendant law
firms and fully expected their claim would be handled pursuant to
the terms of the overall BP settlement that allowed for recovery
for specified losses. Subsequent to the Defendants' legal
representation of the Gaudets, numerous phone calls were initiated
by the Gaudets to the Defendant law firms in order to determine the
status of their claim. Each of those phone calls essentially
involved the same messaging from the Defendant law firms--the claim
by the Gaudets was still pending and BP had not acted on their
particular claim.

It was not until May of 2019 when the Gaudets were advised by the
Defendants that BP had denied their claim. In truth and in fact,
the Defendants had never filed a claim for their losses. Yet, this
disclosure, fundamental to the fiduciary relationship between
attorneys and their clients, had never been made known to them,
says the complaint.

This class action litigation is intended to protect the rights of
all clients, represented by the Defendants, who lost the
opportunity to participate in the BP Settlement due to the
Defendants' breach of contract, professional malpractice, and
fraud, says the complaint.

Deborah A. Gaudet and Ray Gaudet are natural persons of the full
age of majority, domiciled in, and citizens of, the State of
Louisiana, Parish of Terrebonne.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     JERALD P. BLOCK, ESQ.
     RICHARD C. BREAUX, ESQ.
     KENDALL J. KRIELOW, ESQ.
     BLOCK LAW FIRM, APLC
     422 East First Street
     Post Office Box 108
     Thibodaux, LA 70302
     Phone: (985) 446-0418
     Facsimile: (985) 446-0422


HYATT HOTELS: Still Defends Suits over Alleged Antitrust Matters
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hyatt Hotels Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019, that it disputes the allegations in the lawsuits
filed against the Company related to alleged violations in federal
antitrust laws.

In March 2018, a putative class action was filed against the
Company and several other hotel companies in federal district court
in Illinois, Case No. 1:18-cv-01959, seeking an unspecified amount
of damages and equitable relief for an alleged violation of the
federal antitrust laws.

In December 2018, a second lawsuit was filed against the Company by
TravelPass Group, LLC, Partner Fusion, Inc., and Reservation
Counter, LLC in federal district court in Texas, Case No.
5:18-cv-00153, for an alleged violation of federal antitrust laws
arising from similar conduct alleged in the Illinois case and
seeking an unspecified amount of monetary damages.

Hyatt Hotels said, "The Company disputes the allegations in these
lawsuits and will defend its interests vigorously.  We currently do
not believe the ultimate outcome of this litigation will have a
material effect on our consolidated financial position, results of
operation, or liquidity."

Hyatt Hotels Corporation, a hospitality company, develops, owns,
operates, manages, franchises, licenses, or provides services to
hotels, resorts, residential, and other properties. It operates
through four segments: Owned and Leased Hotels, Americas Management
and Franchising, ASPAC Management and Franchising, and EAME/SW Asia
Management and Franchising. The company was formerly known as
Global Hyatt Corporation and changed its name to Hyatt Hotels
Corporation in June 2009. Hyatt Hotels Corporation was founded in
1957 and is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


ICON ENTERTAINMENT: Court Won't Consolidate De Angelis Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Algenon L. Marbley of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, refuses to
consolidate the cases captioned STEPHANIE DE ANGELIS, Plaintiff, v.
NATIONAL ENTERTAINMENT GROUP LLC., Defendant, STEPHANIE DE ANGELIS,
Plaintiff, v. NOLAN ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant, STEPHANIE DE
ANGELIS, Plaintiff, v. ICON ENTERTAINMENT GROUP INC., et al.,
Defendants, DOE 1, et al., Plaintiffs, v. VM3015, Inc., et al.,
Defendants, Case Nos. 2:17-CV-924, 2:17-CV-926, 2:17-CV-927,
2:18-CV-443 (S.D. Ohio).

According to Judge Marbley, any discussion of consolidation would
be incomplete without considering the Hogan litigation, a related
case alleging the same statewide conspiracy as the VM3015
litigation but in which no motion to consolidate is pending.

The Hogan Plaintiffs and VM3015 Plaintiffs allege the same claims
against the same defendants. The resolution of class and collective
action certification in Hogan could be binding on the VM3015
Plaintiffs' class and collective action claims against the BACE
Defendants. Dismissal here, however, would be premature because the
Hogan class and collective actions have yet to be certified. This
Court therefore finds that staying the conspiracy claims is more
appropriate than dismissing them. Therefore, this Court hereby
STAYS briefing on the conspiracy allegations in the VM3015
litigation pending resolution of class and collective action
certification in the Hogan litigation.

A full-text copy of the Opinion & Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y67svprd from Leagle.com.

Stephanie De Angelis, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Charles
Babin, Jr., Babin Law, LLC, Courtney Werning, Meyer Wilson Co, LPA,
Matthew R. Wilson, Meyer Wilson Co., LPA & Michael J. Boyle, Jr.,
Meyer Wilson, LPA.

National Entertainment Group LLC, Defendant, represented by Robert
G. Cohen, Esq. -- rcohen@keglerbrown.com -- Kegler Brown Hill &
Ritter & John Paul Brody, Esq. -- jbrody@keglerbrown.com -- Kegler
Brown Hill & Ritter.


ICON ENTERTAINMENT: De Angelis Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Algenon L. Marbley of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, stayed the case
captioned STEPHANIE DE ANGELIS, Plaintiff, v. ICON ENTERTAINMENT
GROUP INC. d/b/a KAHOOTS GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 2:17-CV-927 (S.D. Ohio) pending arbitration after finding that
the Plaintiff's claims are issues for an arbitrator to decide.

ICON Entertainment Group Inc. operates Kahoots Gentlemen's Club, an
adult entertainment club in Columbus, Ohio.  Stephanie De Angelis
has brought suit against ICON, its individual owners, and 4522
Kenny Road, LLC, an Ohio Limited Liability Company sharing its
principal place of business with Kahoots.  Ms. De Angelis alleges
that she performed at Kahoots as a dancer from April 2016 to
February 2017.  Ms. De Angelis alleges that Kahoots did not pay its
dancers any wages.  She avers that, instead, Kahoots misclassified
all of its dancers as independent contractors, rather than
employees, and that the dancers are only compensated through tips
from customers.  She further alleges that at the end of each night,
Kahoots took a cut from all tips made by the dancers, and the
dancers were required to divide their tips with other employees.

A full-text copy of the Opinion & Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yxa52suu from Leagle.com.

Stephanie De Angelis, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Charles
Babin, Jr., Babin Law, LLC, Courtney Werning, Esq. --
cwerning@meyerwilson.com -- Meyer Wilson Co, LPA, Matthew R.
Wilson, Esq. -- mwilson@meyerwilson.com -- Meyer Wilson Co., LPA &
Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Esq. -- mboyle@meyerwilson.com -- Meyer
Wilson, LPA.

ICON Entertainment Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey
James Patter, Esq. -- jpatter@cpmlaw.com -- Carlile Patchen &
Murphy LLP & Matthew J. Hoffer, Shafer & Associates, P.C., pro hac
vice.

Joseph Sullo, Daniel Quinn & 4522 Kenny Road LLC, Defendants,
represented by Matthew J. Hoffer, Shafer & Associates, P.C..


INDIVIOR PLC: Rosen Law Files Securities Suit Over Suboxone Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Indivior PLC (OTC: INVVY) from March 10, 2015 through
April 9, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for Indivior investors under the federal securities
laws.

To join the Indivior class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1546.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Indivior and its executives engaged in an illicit
nationwide scheme to increase prescriptions of Suboxone Film; (2)
Indivior illegally obtained billions of dollars in revenue from
Suboxone Film prescriptions by deceiving health care providers and
health care benefit programs; (3) as a result of the aforementioned
misconduct, Indivior would face felony charges; and (4) due to the
foregoing, Defendants' statements about its business, operations,
and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 24,
2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1546.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Contact:

         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com
         Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                cases@rosenlegal.com [GN]


INSTITUTE OF HUMAN: Unsolicited Marketing Violates TCPA, Says Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL KIRSCHNER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. INSTITUTE OF HUMAN PERFORMANCE,
INC a Florida corporation, Defendant, Case No. 9:19-cv-80652-XXXX
(S.D. Fla., May 15, 2019) seeks to secure redress for violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

To promote its services, Defendant engages in unsolicited
marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process, notes the
complaint. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief
to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the
invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the
daily life of thousands of individuals. Plaintiff also seeks
statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the class,
and any other available legal or equitable remedies.

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

Defendant is functional training facility, gym, and headquarter for
personal trainer certifications.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Carr et al. Suit Moved to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
JERRY CARR, an individual, ALINE VICTOR, an individual and as
Successor in Interest for WILLIE MAE VICTOR, the Plaintiff, vs.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in
California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business
in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation
with its principal place of business in the State of California;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
BC641978 (Nov. 23, 2016), was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles, to U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on May 1, 2019. The Central District
of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03714 to the
proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the 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 Plaintiffs:

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

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Carroll Suit Moved to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
ROY CARROLL, an individual and as Successor in Interest for KERRY
CARROLL, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey
corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a
New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of
business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. CIVDS1719428 (Oct. 5, 2017),
was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San
Bernardino, to U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on May 1, 2019. The Central District of California Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03733 to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the 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 Plaintiff:

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

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Dorman Suit Moved to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
CYNTHIA DORMAN, Individually and as Special Administrator of the
Estate of LINDA MCQUOWN, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a
New Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON &
JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES,
INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS
TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place
of business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 37-2018-00038363-CU-PL-CTL
(Oct. 5, 2017), was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of San Diego, to U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on May 1, 2019. The Central District of
California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03712 to the
proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the 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 Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

          Ted G. Meadows, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN,
          PORTIS & MILES, PC
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (800) 898 2034

               - and -

          R. Allen Smith, Jr., Esq.
          THE SMITH LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C.
          681 Towne Center Boulevard, Suite B
          Ridgeland, MS 39157
          Telephone: (601) 952-1422

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Morris Suit Moved to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
FRANCES MORRIS, an individual and as Successor in Interest for
KIMBERLY MORRIS, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey
corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a
New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of
business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RIC1800043 (Dec. 21, 2017), was
removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside,
to U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
May 1, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03707 the proceeding.

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 Plaintiff:

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

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Murillo Suit Moved to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
REBECCA MURILLO, an individual and as Successor in Interest for
KIMBERLY MORRIS, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey
corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a
New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of
business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 37-2018-00038085-CU-PL-CTL
(July 27, 2018), was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of San Diego, to U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on May 1, 2019. The Central District of
California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03715 the
proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the 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 Plaintiff:

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


          Helen Zukin, Esq.
          Melanie Meneses Palmer, Esq.
          Cherisse H. Cleofe, Esq
          KIESEL LAW LLP
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
          Telephone: 310-854-4444
          Facsimile: 310-854-0812
          E-mail: zukin@kiesel.law
                  pahner@kiesel.law
                  eleofe@kieset law

               - and -

          Ted G. Meadows, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN,
          PORTIS & MILES, PC
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (800) 898 2034

               - and -

          R. Allen Smith, Jr., Esq.
          THE SMITH LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C.
          681 Towne Center Boulevard, Suite B
          Ridgeland, MS 39157
          Telephone: (601) 952-1422

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removed Dayton Suit to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson removed case, PAMELA DAYTON, as Anticipated
Representative of the Estate of DANA HARRISON, Deceased, and ROSLYN
HARRISON, the Plaintiffs, vs. CYPRUS AMAX MINERALS COMPANY (sued
individually, doing business as, and as successor to AMERICAN TALC
COMPANY), et al., the Defendants, Case No. RG18923977, from the
Superior Court of the State of California, Alameda 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-02303 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 U.S.C. sections 1107 and 1108.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the 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 Defendants:

          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

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removed Gibson Suit to S.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson removed case, DAVID GIBSON, Individually and as
Anticipated Personal Representative of the Estate of SYLVIA GIBSON,
Deceased, TRACEY FIELDS, and TRISHA WHITEEAGLE, the Plaintiffs, vs.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON, and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 2018-70231, from the District Court of Harris
County, Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas on April 29, 2019. The Southern District of Texas Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-01561 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 U.S.C. sections 1107 and 1108.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the 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 Plaintiffs:

          Heather Davis, Esq.
          Jeffrey B. Simon, Esq.
          SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER, PC
          1201 Elm Street, Suite 3400
          Dallas, TX 75270
          Telephone: 214-276-7680
          Facsimile: 214-276-7699
          E-mail: hdavis@sgptrial.com
                  jsimon@sgptrial.com

Counsel for Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer,
Inc.:

          Heleina L. Formoso, Esq.
          Cori C. Steinman, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1100 Louisiana, Suite 4000
          Houston, TX 77002-5219
          Telephone: (713) 276-7441
          Facsimile: (713) 751-3290
          E-mail: hformoso@kslaw.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removed Gruder Suit to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson removed case, ILENE GRUDER, an individual, the
Plaintiffs, vs. 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, the Defendants, from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles to U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on April 29, 2019. The Central
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03564
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 U.S.C. sections 1107 and 1108.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the 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]

Counsel for Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer,
Inc.:

          Michael C. Zellers, Esq.
          Amanda Villalobos, Esq.
          Nicholas Janizeh, Esq.
          Caroline Toole, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          515 South Flower Street, 42nd 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, 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: Santana Suit Moved to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
MARIA AVELAR SANTANA, Individually, and as Successor-in-Interest on
behalf of the ESTATE OF MARIE ANN TAYLOR, the Plaintiff, vs.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC. P/N/A JOHNSON &
JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; and IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC.
F/K/A LUZENAC AMERICA, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 17CV321212
(Dec. 29, 2017), was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of Santa Clara, to U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on May 1, 2019. The Central District of
California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03705 to the
proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the 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 Plaintiff:

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

KIMBERLY HASTIE: Court Denies A. Diamond's Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Alabama, Southern Division, issued an Order granting Plaintiffs’
Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned ANITRA
DIAMOND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. KIMBERLY HASTIE, in her individual
capacity, Defendant. Civil Action No. 1:15-00204-KD-C. (S.D.
Ala.).

On April 14, 2015 (amended on August 18, 2017 and September 22,
2017), Named Plaintiff Anitra Diamond -- individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated -- filed a class action complaint
alleging that Defendant Kimberly Hastie, formerly license
commissioner, unlawfully obtained, used and/or disclosed personal
information of Mobile, Alabama citizens (email addresses) from
motor vehicle records in violation of the Drivers' Privacy
Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2721, et. seq. (DPPA) (Count I)
and in violation of their privacy rights under Title 42 U.S.C. §
1983 (Count II).

Diamond contends that certification under Rule 23(a) is proper
because: 1) the class of over 30,000 plaintiffs is sufficiently
numerous to render joinder impracticable 2) defendant Hastie
obtained, used, and/or disclosed DPPA protected personal
information of each class member in an identical manner and
therefore there are numerous issues of law and facts common to each
class member 3) the claims of the class representatives are typical
of, if not identical to, the claims of the class as a whole and 4)
the class representative will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class.

Hastie opposes the motion, asserting in part  that: 1) the proposed
class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical 2)
questions of law and fact are not common to class members 3) the
named plaintiffs are not typical of claims of the proposed class
and 4) Plaintiffs assert a Section 1983 claim as to which there is
no statutory liquidated damages amount and class certification is
not superior.

Numerosity

Hastie alleges there is no reliable evidence of over 30,000
citizens constituting plaintiffs in this case. Hastie primarily
takes issue with the fact that the actual thumb drive, which
contained the improperly disclosed emails, has not been found.

Hastie's argument fails. First, Bray has testified that the email
list totaled about 30,000 emails that were compiled from the
License Commissioner's database. Moreover, there does not appear to
be any disputed fact that the thumb drive given to the campaign by
Hastie contained a very large number of emails taken from the
License Commissioner's database. This is sufficient for the purpose
of establishing numerosity at this preliminary stage.

The FBI currently has custody of the re-created list of emails.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Darryl Atchison was present at the hearing
to verify this fact and also to inform the Court that the email
list would not be released by the FBI, unless the Court so
ordered.8 The Court requested, and was granted, an in camera review
of the email list. Based on this cursory review, and the testimony
of Bray, the Court is satisfied that the proposed class is so
numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.

Commonality

Diamond's purported class also excludes all persons who make a
timely election to be excluded from the class such that any
individuals suggested by Hastie as supporting a denial of class
certification could self-exclude from the class. From this, Diamond
contends that class members have suffered the same alleged injury:
violation of their DPPA right to privacy via Hastie's actions in
disclosing their DPPA protected personal information.

The Court finds that, as delineated by Diamond, there are questions
of law and fact common to the proposed class that are susceptible
to class-wide proof.

Typicality

Diamond asserts that her claims are identical to those of the
proposed class and that Hastie engaged in the same conduct as to
all class members, i.e., there exists the same events, practices
and/or course of conduct giving rise to the claims of the other
class members as well as the same legal theories.  

In contrast, per Hastie, each and every claim of the purported
class members is not typical for a variety of reasons. These
include: Diamond has no proof that her email address is on the
flash drive; Diamond had a public email address already disclosed
via her official Mobile Community Action public letterhead.

Diamond asserts that her email address was disclosed by Hastie at
the same time and in the same manner as the email addresses of
other class members. As evidentiary support, Diamond points to a
copy of the email she received from the campaign as a result of the
unauthorized disclosure of her email by Hastie. Diamond adds
whether her email was public, or she was associated with the
opposing mayoral campaign, is irrelevant.

For purposes of the proposed class action, Diamond meets the
typicality requirement because her claim arises from the same event
and is based on the same legal theory. The Court agrees that
Diamond's association with the opposing mayoral candidate does not
affect the fact that her claim typifies the class.
  
Adequacy

Hastie does not dispute counsel's ability or resources to represent
the proposed class members in the litigation. Hastie, however,
disputes whether Diamond can adequately represent the class due to
her political associations. Hastie cites no authority for this
proposition. The Court does not find Diamond's political
associations to be relevant. Hastie has cited no conflict between
Diamond and the purported class. Accordingly, the Court finds that
Diamond could adequately represent the proposed class.

Rule 23(b)(3) Requirements

Diamond seeks Rule 23(b)(3) class certification for the DPPA claims
and the Section 1983 claims. Under Rule 23(b)(3), a class action
may be maintained if Rule 23(a) is satisfied and if the court finds
that the questions of law or fact common to class members
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members,
and that a class action is superior to other available methods for
fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.

Predominance

The Court agrees that common issues of fact and law predominate as
it relates to the DPPA claim, but only if Diamond is able to obtain
the list of the emails that were disclosed. If Diamond is unable to
obtain the list, although the legal questions are the same, the
evidence that a plaintiff was on the list and thus able to prove a
violation will be individualized and circumstantial. Thus, the
court is unable to find at this point that the addition of more
plaintiffs would leave the quantum of evidence introduced by the
plaintiffs as a whole relatively undisturbed.

Superiority

Diamond contends that the class action would be the most fair and
efficient procedure because: No class member other than the  named
plaintiff][ herein ha[s] filed a lawsuit against defendant Hastie
arising out of the events that give rise to the claims in this
case.Without question, all claims for defendant Hastie's violations
of the DPPA pertaining to the putative class should be tried in
this court.

In contrast, Hastie asserts that: there is no superiority in
proceeding as a class. If Plaintiffs were successfully to bring
individual actions, they would be able to recover attorney's fees
and costs. Thus, there is no disincentive to bring individual
claims. Further, a class action claim may result in an astronomical
amount of statutory damages more than $75 million.  

In reply, Diamond cites case law supporting certification of class
actions with the ability to collect statutory damages and
attorneys' fees, citing Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 700
(1979) as holding that class relief is available for all claims
including statutory damage claims providing for attorneys' fees
assuming no clear expression of congressional intent to exempt such
claims from Rule 23 which does not exist under the DPPA.  

There is no evidence that any other putative class members have
initiated litigation concerning the same controversy. While Diamond
has invested time and resources into litigating this action, there
are no other related class actions either ongoing (already begun)
or completed. In fact, in the five (5) years since the alleged DPPA
violation only one (1) other plaintiff other than Diamond has been
added as a plaintiff and he has since withdrawn, leaving only
Diamond.

Manageability

The problem that Diamond does not address, is how the email
addresses will be obtained. The thumb drive is missing. The
re-created list is in the hands of the FBI and was re-created
through a criminal investigation. Evidence from a criminal
investigation that is not made public through trial or plea is not
normally subject to being turned over for a civil trial. Therefore,
at present, it appears the way that each plaintiff will be able to
prove that their email was disclosed by Hastie is through
individual circumstantial evidence, e.g., an email received from
the campaign with an endorsement by Hastie. This creates a
management problem that would be better handled through individual
claims.

The potential liability here, assuming 30,000 plaintiffs, is at
least $75 million (assuming only minimum statutory damages). Such
would be completely disproportionate to any harm suffered by
Diamond (or other plaintiffs). This fact also undermines a finding
that a class action is superior to individual claims.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Motion and Incorporated Memorandum in
Support of Class Certification is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 6, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y3qm2v2j from Leagle.com.

Anitra Diamond, Plaintiff, represented by:

     D. Brian Murphy, Esq.
     Kasie M. Braswell, Esq.
     Braswell Murphy, LLC
     105 N. Conception Street #100
     Mobile, Alabama 36602

        -- and --

     Archibald I. Grubb, II, Esq.
     Wilson Daniel Miles, III, Esq.
     Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin
     4200 Northside Pkwy NW
     Building One, Suite 100
     Atlanta, GA 30327

Kimberly Hastie, Individual, Defendant, represented by J. Burruss
Riis -- briis@handarendall.com -- Hand Arendall, L.L.C.,Christopher
Scott Williams & Joe Carl Jordan, Ross & Jordan, P.C.

Nick Matranga, Non-Party, represented by Christopher Scott
Williams.


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Glover Files Class Suit in S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Liberty Mutual
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Lessie Glover individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company a Massachusetts Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-21900-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 10, 2019).

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

Liberty Mutual Group, more commonly known by the name of its
primary line of business, Liberty Mutual Insurance, is an American
diversified global insurer, and the fourth-largest property and
casualty insurer in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LIFE STORAGE: Faces Peterson Labor Suit in Sacramento
-----------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
Life Storage LP. The case is captioned as CINDY PETERSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. LIFE STORAGE LP, DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No.
34-2019-00254648-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., April 17,
2019).

Life Storage LP operates as a real estate investment trust. The
Company acquires, owns, and manages self-storage properties. Life
Storage serves clients in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
         LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE,PC
         410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
         Glendale, CA 91203
         Telephone: (818) 265-1020
         Facsimile: (818) 265-1021


LOEWS HOTELS: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Loews Hotels Holding
Corporation. The case is styled as Victor Lopez, On Behalf of
Himself And All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v.
Loews Hotels Holding Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04296
(S.D. N.Y., May 10, 2019).

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

Loews Hotels Holding Corporation operates as a holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, provides space for meetings,
weddings, events, and occasions, as well as fitness room, spa,
dining, and gateway services.[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


LOOT CRATE: Olsen Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS J. OLSEN, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LOOT CRATE INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-02751 (E.D. N.Y., May 10, 2019) is a civil rights
action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, www.lootcrate.com (the
"Website"), to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff Olsen and other blind or visually impaired people.

The Defendant denies full and equal access to its Website, asserts
the complaint. Plaintiff Olsen asserts claims under the Americans
with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), New York State Human Rights Law
("NYSHRL"), and New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL") against
Defendant. Plaintiff Olsen seeks a permanent injunction to cause
Defendant to change its corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its Website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.

Plaintiff Olsen is blind, visually-impaired handicapped person.

Defendant is an online subscription service that offers
personalized boxes of pop culture paraphernalia. Typical products
include action figures, t-shirts, stickers, accessories, home
goods, and similar items.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
     Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
     LIPSKY LOWE LLP
     630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
     New York, NY 10017-6705
     Phone: 212.392.4772
     Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
            chris@lipskylowe.com


LPL FINANCIAL: Class Action Dismissed with Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------
LPL Financial Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2019, that a putative class action lawsuit
filed against the Company and certain of its executive officers in
federal district court has been dismissed with prejudice.

The dismissal order was entered on April 22, 2019.

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

LPL Financial Holdings Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
provides an integrated platform of brokerage and investment
advisory services to independent financial advisors and financial
advisors at financial institutions in the United States. LPL
Financial Holdings Inc. was founded in 1968 and is based in Boston,
Massachusetts.


M&E CONSTRUCTION: Maldonado Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
OSCAR MALDONADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. M&E CONSTRUCTION, LLC; MARLON ALCIDES
CARRASCO; and ERIC CORTES, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-10332 (E.D.
La., May 10, 2019) is a civil action for unpaid overtime wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA").

The complaint alleges that Defendants had, and continue to have, an
avowed, express, and intentional policy of refusing to pay overtime
wages. The Defendants knew they should have paid overtime, but they
adamantly refused to pay the Plaintiff overtime wages, even though
the Plaintiff often worked fifty or sixty hours per workweek.
Further, the Defendants mis-classify the Plaintiff and others as
"independent contractors," so-called, despite the Plaintiff and
others actually being employees under the law. By doing so, the
Defendants violated the FLSA, and the Plaintiff makes a claim under
the FLSA for his unpaid overtime wages, says the complaint.

Plaintiff OSCAR MALDONADO was employed by Defendants as a
non-exempt construction worker during 2018 and 2019.

M&E CONSTRUCTION, LLC,is  a limited liability company whose members
are citizens of Louisiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Stephen J. Austin, Esq.
     STEPHEN J. AUSTIN, LLC
     1 Galleria Boulevard, Suite 1900
     Metairie, LA 70001
     Phone: (504) 377-5200
     Facsimile: (504) 324-0152
     Email: stephen@stephenjaustin.com


MAKEHAUS LLC: Reyes Seeks Overtime Pay for Welders
--------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
MakeHaus, LLC and Matthew Conklin for violation of the overtime
provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The case is
captioned VINCENTE REYES, and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216 (b), Plaintiff, v. Makehaus, LLC and Matthew Conklin,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00989-N (N.D. Tex., April 24, 2019).

Plaintiff Vincente Reyes, who worked as a welder/fabricator from on
or about 2013 through on or about March 22, 2019, alleges that
Makehaus has employed several other similarly situated employees
like him who have not been paid overtime for work performed in
excess of 40 hours weekly.

Founded in 2010, Makehaus, LLC is a domestic limited liability
company based in Rockwall Texas. The company specializes in
architectural metalworks. Owner Matthew Conklin runs the day-today
operations of the Makehaus. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J.H. Zidell, Esq.
     Robert L. Manteuffel, Esq.
     Joshua A. Petersen, Esq.
     J.H. ZIDELL, P.C.
     6310 LBJ Freeway, Ste. 112
     Dallas, TX 75240
     Telephone: 972-233-2264
     Facsimile: 972-386-7610
     E-mail: zabogado@aol.com
             rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net
             josh.a.petersen@gmail.com


MANHATTAN CRYOBANK: Frankiewicz Files Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Manhattan Cryobank,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Andrea Frankiewicz, Ruth Perez
individually and on Behalf of a Class of Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs v. Manhattan Cryobank, Inc., CNTP MCB, Inc., LifePrint
Group, Inc., LifePrint Group, Inc., CCB-MCB, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-04258 (S.D. N.Y., May 10, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Manhattan CryoBank is a tissue bank with a large and diverse
selection of rigorously screened tissue donors.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Bruce W. Steckler, Esq.
     Steckler, LLP
     12720 Hillcrest Road
     Dallas, TX 75230
     Phone: (972) 387-4040
     Fax: (972) 387-4041
     Email: ruce@stecklerlaw.com


MCDERMOTT INT'L: Class Cert. Bid in Chicago Bridge Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
McDermott International, 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 motion for
class certification and appointment as class representatives in the
case entitled, In re Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. Securities
Litigation, remains pending.

On March 2, 2017, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking class
action status on behalf of purchasers of CB&I common stock and
alleging damages on their behalf arising from alleged false and
misleading statements made during the class period from October 30,
2013 to June 23, 2015.

The case is captioned: In re Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V.
Securities Litigation, No. 1:17-cv-01580-LGS (the "Securities
Litigation").

The defendants in the case are: CB&I; a former chief executive
officer of CB&I; a former chief financial officer of CB&I; and a
former controller and chief accounting officer of CB&I.

On June 14, 2017, the court named ALSAR Partnership Ltd. as lead
plaintiff. On August 14, 2017, a consolidated amended complaint was
filed alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, arising out of alleged
misrepresentations about CB&I's accounting for the acquisition of
The Shaw Group, CB&I's accounting with respect to the two nuclear
projects being constructed by The Shaw Group, and CB&I's financial
reporting and public statements with respect to those two projects.


On May 24, 2018, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss and
the parties are currently engaged in the discovery process. On
February 4, 2019, lead plaintiff ALSAR Partnership Ltd. and
additional plaintiffs Iron Workers Local 40, 361, & 417, Union
Security Funds and Iron Workers Local 580, Joint Funds moved for
class certification and appointment as class representatives. That
motion remains pending.

McDermott said, "We are not able at this time to determine the
likelihood of loss, if any, arising from this matter and,
accordingly, no amounts have been accrued as of March 31, 2019. We
believe the claims are without merit and intend to defend against
them vigorously."

McDermott International, Inc. provides engineering, procurement,
construction and installation, and technology solutions to the
energy industry worldwide. It operates through five segments:
North, Central and South America; Europe, Africa, Russia and
Caspian; the Middle East and North Africa; Asia Pacific; and
Technology. McDermott International, Inc. was founded in 1923 and
is headquartered in Houston, Texas.


MCDERMOTT INT'L: Named as Defendant in Curti and Stremcha Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
McDermott International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company is
facing two class action lawsuits entitled, Curti v. McDermott
International, Inc., et al., Case No. 2019-15780 and Stremcha v.
McDermott International, Inc., et al., Case No. 2019-15473.

On March 1, 2019 and March 4, 2019, two essentially identical class
action lawsuits were filed in the Harris County (Texas) District
Court alleging violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of CB&I shareholders who acquired
McDermott common stock pursuant or traceable to the Registration
Statement on Form S-4 and the related Prospectus we issued in
connection with the Combination.

These actions are captioned Curti v. McDermott International, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 2019-15780 and Stremcha v. McDermott
International, Inc., et al., Case No. 2019-15473.

The defendants, besides McDermott International, Inc., include
present officers of McDermott and current and past members of
McDermott's board of directors.

McDermott said, "We are not able at this time to determine the
likelihood of loss, if any, arising from these matters and,
accordingly, no amounts have been accrued as of March 31, 2019. We
believe the claims are without merit and we intend to defend
against them vigorously."

McDermott International, Inc. provides engineering, procurement,
construction and installation, and technology solutions to the
energy industry worldwide. It operates through five segments:
North, Central and South America; Europe, Africa, Russia and
Caspian; the Middle East and North Africa; Asia Pacific; and
Technology. McDermott International, Inc. was founded in 1923 and
is headquartered in Houston, Texas.


MDL 2672: Court Enjoins J. Feinman from Pursuing Lien Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting Volkwagen's Motion to Enforce
Settlement Approval Order in the case captioned IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN
"CLEAN DIESEL" MDL MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION This Order Relates To: Dkt. No. 5824, No. 2672
CRB (JSC)(N.D. Calif.).

When a lawyer is hired to file a lawsuit, state law often provides
the lawyer with a charging lien.  The charging lien attaches to any
money awarded to the plaintiff in the case.  If the plaintiff, upon
receiving an award, refuses to pay his attorney's fees and costs,
the attorney can seek to enforce the lien in court.  

A charging lien can also protect a lawyer who is released and
replaced.  If the plaintiff hires a new lawyer who later obtains a
monetary award, the original lawyer may be able to rely on the
charging lien to get paid for work performed prior to the change in
counsel.

In some circumstances, a plaintiff's attorney can also use a
charging lien to recover fees from the defendant.  When the
plaintiff's lawyer provides the defendant with notice of the lien,
and the defendant later settles with the plaintiff without
notifying the plaintiff's lawyer, some courts have required the
defendant to pay the plaintiff's lawyer's fees.

With respect to the clean diesel litigation, when the public
learned that Volkswagen (or VW) had installed defeat devices in
hundreds of thousands of its diesel cars, lawyers nationwide raced
to file lawsuits against the company on behalf of consumers who had
bought or leased the cars. Some of those lawyers gave VW notice
that, pursuant to state law, they were placing charging liens on
their clients' claims.

A different set of lawyers, which this Court appointed, thereafter
negotiated class settlements with VW on behalf of consumers who had
bought or leased the affected cars. The EPA, the FTC, and the
California Air Resources Board, all of which were simultaneously
negotiating consent decrees with VW, participated in the
negotiations and supported the settlements.

A substantial number of consumers who had retained their own
lawyers left those lawyers (and the cases they had filed) and
accepted the class settlements. The consumers who accepted the
settlements released "on behalf of themselves and their attorneys,
any claims for liens or attorneys' fees or costs other than fees
and costs awarded by the Court in connection with this Settlement.

Despite the release of lien claims, James Feinman, a lawyer who
filed lawsuits against VW on behalf of some consumers who later
accepted the 2.0-liter settlement, filed an action in Virginia
state court, late last year, to enforce charging liens against VW.
He asserts that he gave VW notice of the liens before the
settlement, and he argues that the liens entitle him to recover
reasonable fees and costs from VW for work that he did for his
clients before they accepted the settlement. In response to
Feinman's lien action, VW filed a motion in this Court to enforce
the settlement's release of lien claims.

The 2.0-liter settlement's release covers Feinman's lien claims. It
not only applies to class members, but also to their attorneys, and
it releases any claims by class members or their attorneys for
liens or attorneys' fees. Feinman has not offered any reading of
the release that would leave his liens against VW intact. He urges,
though, that because the liens were his own, not his clients', and
because he was not a class member and was not represented by anyone
whose interests were aligned with his the release cannot be
construed as releasing his liens without violating his due process
rights.

Feinman had notice of the 2.0-liter settlement and its precise
terms before the Court approved it. In a motion for attorneys' fees
that he filed after settlement approval, he requested fees for,
among other things, time that he spent reviewing the settlement and
advising his clients on whether to accept it. Indeed, before
settlement approval, Feinman even objected to the settlement on
behalf of one of his clients. But he never objected to paragraph
9.3 of the settlement, which is the release.

Because Feinman had notice of the 2.0-liter settlement, the Court
construes his opposition to VW's motion to enforce the release as a
belated attempt to object to the settlement; a settlement that this
Court approved over two years ago and that the Ninth Circuit agreed
was fair and reasonable.  

The Court also notes that the release of attorneys' lien claims
against VW was essential to the settlement's success. When this MDL
began there was an ongoing harm that needed to be remedied:
approximately 600,000 cars were emitting dangerous pollutants in
the United States at levels that greatly exceeded legal limits. To
incentivize consumers to stop driving the cars, VW offered to buy
the cars back at pre-scandal prices. The expectation was that
consumers would then use those funds to buy or lease replacement
cars.

The incentive worked. Within four months of approval, VW had taken
possession of 137,979 2.0-liter TDI cars, 28 percent of the total
number.  

If class members had not released their lawyers' lien claims, it is
unlikely that these results would have been achieved. Without the
release, VW likely would have been unable to disburse the
settlement funds directly to consumers. If it had nonetheless done
so, it would have risked later court orders requiring it to pay
additional money (above what it had paid class members) to satisfy
the liens. Without VW disbursing the settlement funds directly to
consumers, it is probable that consumers would have hesitated to
return their polluting cars, which would have left the cars on the
road and their emissions in the air.

Even if VW had made partial payments to class members, but held
back the remaining funds until it knew for certain whether it would
be required to satisfy charging liens, harmful ripple effects could
have resulted. In such a scenario, consumers wouldn't have known
the exact amounts that they stood to gain by participating in the
settlement. And with that uncertainty, they may have refused to
participate in the settlement and may have kept driving their VW
cars.

VW's prompt payment of the settlement funds directly to affected
consumers was needed to quickly remove the polluting cars from the
road. The release gave VW assurances that it could distribute the
funds to consumers without penalty. It was instrumental to the
success of the settlement and, indeed, VW's counsel has represented
that without it a settlement would not have been achieved.

While the 2.0-liter settlement released Feinman's liens against VW,
the Court notes that his liens against the res itself were not
affected by the settlement. VW has disbursed the settlement funds
to class members, and if Feinman believes he has a right to a
portion of those funds, he may seek to recover against his clients.
Whether such a recovery is warranted is a matter that is not before
this Court.

The lien claims that Feinman is currently pursuing against VW in
Virginia state court are released claims. In the 2.0-liter
settlement approval order, this Court enjoined releasing parties
from commencing, filing, initiating, instituting, pursuing,
maintaining, enforcing or prosecuting, either directly or
indirectly, any Released Claims in any jurisdiction or forum,
against any of the Released Parties. Pursuant to that Order,
Feinman is enjoined from pursuing his lien claims against VW.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 6, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2uggm8b 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 -- cbaker@wcsr.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice,
Colin Hampton Tucker -- ctucker@rhodesokla.com -- Rhodes Hieronymus
Jones Tucker & Gable, Dana Woodrum Lang -- wlang@wcsr.com -- Womble
Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, David M. Eisenberg --
eisenberg@bscr-law.com -- Baker, Sterchi, Cowden & Rice, LLC, Henry
Buist Smythe, Jr., -- hsmythe@wcsr.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge
and Rice, Howard Feller -- hfeller@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods
LLP, William R. Scherer, 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.


MDL 2700: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment Granted to Genentech
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal for a granted summary judgment has been filed on April
19, 2019 by all

Plaintiffs of Herceptin-related class actions against Genentech,
Inc. have taken an appeal before the United States Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit, from the district court decision granting
summary judgment in the case styled as, In Re: GENENTECH HERCEPTIN
(TRASTUZUMAB) MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION, MDL No.
2700 (N.D. Okla., April 19, 2019).

In the lawsuit, Plaintiffs contend that Genentech could have
changed its label to state the accurate concentration for
reconstituted Herceptin solution. Changing the concentration stated
on the label, however, would require FDA approval. Similarly,
changing the concentration of the reconstituted drug product would
also require FDA approval because it would have a substantial
potential to have an adverse effect on the strength and potency of
Herceptin and affect the safety or effectiveness of the product.
Plaintiffs also argue that Genentech could comply with state law by
keeping its manufacturing process the same, but selling only those
vials that contain at least 440 mg of trastuzumab.

On March 20, 2019, Judge Terence C. Kern granted Genentech's motion
for summary judgment that was based on federal preemption. Judge
Kern noted that Genentech cannot be forced to stop selling vials
that comply with FDA requirements in order to avoid liability under
state law claims. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     David L. Bryant, Esq.
     Steven J. Adams, Esq.
     Amelia A. Fogleman, Esq.
     Adam C. Doverspike, Esq.
     James Wesley Scott Pebsworth, Esq.
     GABLEGOTWALS
     1100 ONEOK PLAZA
     100 West 5th Street, Suite 1100
     Tulsa, OK 74103
     Telephone: (918) 595-4800
     Facsimile: (918) 595-4990
     E-mail: dbryant@gablelaw.com
             sadams@gablelaw.com
             afogleman@gablelaw.com
             adoverspike@gablelaw.com
             wpebsworth@gablelaw.com

             - and -

     James D. Sill, Esq.
     Matthew J. Sill, Esq.
     Kathryn Eidson Griffin, Esq.
     Tara Tabatabaie, Esq.
     Christopher J. Bergin, Esq.
     Simone Fulmer, Esq.
     FULMER SILL PLLC
     1101 N. Broadway, Suite 102
     Oklahoma City, OK 73103
     Telephone: (405) 509-6300
     Facsimile: (405) 509-6268
     E-mail: jsill@fulmersill.com
             msill@fulmersill.com
             kgriffin@fulmersill.com
             ttabatabaie@fulmersill.com
             cbergin@fulmersill.com
             sfulmer@fulmersill.com

             - and -

     Janaki Hannah Nair, Esq.
     ELIAS MEGINNES & SEGHETTI, P.C.
     416 Main Street, Suite 1400
     Peoria, IL 61602
     Telephone: (309) 637-6000
     Facsimile: (309) 637-8514
     E-mail: nair@emrslaw.com


MDL 2741: Snyder v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
EDGAR W. SNYDER and BARBARA L. SNYDER, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00291 (Filed Feb. 22,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco) on May 2, 2019. The Northern
District of California assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02373-VC to the
proceeding.

The suit 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. Edgar W.
Snyder'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 Snyder case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The
Plaintiff alleges that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. Plaintiff also alleges that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MDL 2741: Swain v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
GARY D. SWAIN and SHANNON SWAIN, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00294 (Filed Feb. 22,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco) on May 2, 2019. The Northern
District of California assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02374-VC to the
proceeding.

The suit 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. Edgar W.
Snyder'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 Swain case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The
Plaintiff alleges that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. Plaintiff also alleges that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MDL 2741: Wooderson v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
WALLACE M. WOODERSON and LORETTA WOODERSON, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00377 (Filed
March 1, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on May 2, 2019.
The Northern District of California assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02383-VC to the proceeding.

The suit 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. Wallace M.
Wooderson'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 Wooderson case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re:
Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order
of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on
October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions
arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide,
particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The Plaintiff alleges that they or their
decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over
the course of several or more years. Plaintiff also alleges that
the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in
particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA),
renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues
concerning general causation, the background science, and
regulatory history will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MELBOURNE POLICE: Faces Johnson Suit in M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Melbourne City. The
case is captioned as TRAVIS JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAYOR OF CITY;
MELBOURNE CITY; MELBOURNE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; CHIEF OF POLICE
MELBOURNE CITY POLICE; OFFICER JONES; OFFICER DUMMER; OFFICER
MELVIN; OFFICER DAVIS; and OFFICER SMITH, Defendants, Case No.
6:19-cv-00729-PGB-GJK (M.D. Fla., April 17, 2019). The case is
assigned to Judge Paul G. Byron, and referred to Magistrate Judge
Gregory J. Kelly.

Melbourne is the capital and most populous city of the Australian
state of Victoria, and the second most populous city in Australia
and Oceania. [BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Thornton Balks at Merger Deal with NVIDIA
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID THORNTON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES LTD., IRWIN B.
FEDERMAN, EYAL WALDMAN, STEVE SANGHI, AMAL M. JOHNSON, UMESH
PADVAL, GLENDA MARY DORCHAK, JACK R. LAZAR, DR. DAVID PERLMUTTER,
GREGORY L. WATERS and JON A. OLSEN, the Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-02406 (N.D. Cal., May 2, 2019), seeks to enjoin the
Defendants from holding a shareholder vote on a proposed merger
transaction and taking any steps to consummate the Proposed
Transaction unless, and until, the material information is
disclosed to Mellanox stockholders sufficiently in advance of the
vote on the Proposed Transaction or, in the event the Proposed
Transaction is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the
Defendants’ violations of the Exchange Act.

The action is brought as a class action by Plaintiff on behalf of
himself and the other public holders of the common stock of
Mellanox Technologies, Ltd. against the Company and the members of
the Company's board of directors for their violations of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in
connection with the proposed acquisition of Mellanox by NVIDIA
International Holdings Inc.

On March 11, 2019, the Board caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which Mellanox
stockholders will receive $125.00 in cash for each share of
Mellanox common stock they hold.

On April 22, 2019, to convince Mellanox shareholders to vote in
favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Board authorized the filing
of a materially incomplete and misleading Proxy Statement on
Schedule 14A with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in
violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

While Defendants are touting the fairness of the Merger
Consideration to the Company's shareholders in the Proxy, they have
failed to disclose certain material information that is necessary
for stockholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed
Transaction, thereby rendering certain statements in the Proxy
false and/or misleading.

In particular, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning the financial projections for the
Company that were prepared by the Company and relied on by
Defendants in recommending that Mellanox shareholders vote in favor
of the Proposed Transaction. The financial projections were also
utilized by Mellanox’s financial advisors, J.P. Morgan Securities
LLC and Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, in conducting certain
valuation analyses in support of their fairness opinions, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff:

          Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 256-2884
          Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
          E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com
                  nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                  jwilson@faruqilaw.com

MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Unger Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mercantile Adjustment
Bureau LLC et al. The case is styled as Hindy Unger individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Mercantile Adjustment Bureau LLC, John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case
No. 7:19-cv-04447 (S.D. N.Y., May 15, 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, debt purchasers, and
universities in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MIDLAND CREDIT: Cirruzzo Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Barbara Cirruzzo
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-02881 (E.D. N.Y., May 15, 2019).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MOMO INC: Marchand Files Suit Over False, Misleading Reports
------------------------------------------------------------
ALAIN MARCHAND, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. MOMO INC., YAN TANG, and JONATHAN XIAOSONG
ZHANG, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04433 (S.D. N.Y., May 15, 2019)
is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired Momo securities between April 21, 2015 and April
29, 2019, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused
by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the
Company and certain of its top officials.

Momo was founded in 2011 and is headquartered in Beijing, the
People's Republic of China ("PRC" or "China"). The Company was
formerly known as Momo Technology Company Limited and changed its
name to Momo Inc. in July 2014. On February 23, 2018, Momo
announced that it had reached a definitive agreement with Tantan
Limited ("Tantan"), a social and dating app in China, and all of
its shareholders, under which Momo agreed to acquire a 100% fully
diluted equity stake in Tantan for a combination of share
consideration and cash, including approximately 5.3 million newly
issued Class A ordinary shares of the Company and US$600.9 million
in cash. Momo announced the successful closing of its acquisition
of Tantan on May 11, 2018.

However, the complaint asserts that the Defendants made materially
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) Momo's compliance procedures and controls were inadequate to
prevent, inter alia, illicit financial reporting activity; (ii)
Momo's social and dating app, Tantan, was materially noncompliant
with PRC law and/or regulations; (iii) Tantan was consequently at
an increased risk of being removed from Chinese app stores at the
direction of Chinese governmental authorities; and (iv) as a
result, Momo's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.

Plaintiff acquired Momo securities at artificially inflated prices
during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of the
alleged corrective disclosures.

Momo operates a mobile-based social and entertainment platform in
the PRC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Ramirez Sues over Unsafe Weed Killer Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Monsanto Company
for violations of state consumer laws, false advertising law, and
product liability laws, citing a link between Non-Hodgkin's
Lymphoma and the company's Roundup weed killer products' active
ingredient, glyphosate. The case is captioned ROBERT RAMIREZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-02224-DMR (N.D. Cal., April 24, 2019). Plaintiff Robert
Ramirez seeks declaratory, injunctive and equitable relief for the
Defendant's fraudulent concealment of a product design's defect and
for breaches of implied and express contracts.

Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation, with its headquarters
and principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. It
discovered and sold the herbicidal properties of glyphosate and is
the manufacturer of Roundup. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     William M. Audet, Esq.
     Ling Y. Kuang, Esq.
     AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
     711 Van Ness, Suite 500
     San Francisco, CA 94102-3229
     Telephone: (415) 568-2555
     Facsimile: (415) 568-2556
     E-mail: waudet@audetlaw.com
             lkuang@audetlaw.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Van Hortman Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------------
George Van Hortman, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01166 (E.D. Mo., May 2, 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]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

MOPHIE, INC: Power Bank Capacity Deceptive, Young Says
------------------------------------------------------
The case, MICHAEL YOUNG, individually and on behalf of other
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. MOPHIE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-00827 (C.D. Cal., May 2, 2019),
contends that the defendant has misrepresented the capacity of its
power bank products in violation of state law.

In recent years consumers have become increasingly dependent on
portable electronic devices like smart phones, tablets and laptop
computers (PED). To address the needs of consumers to use PEDs
during travel, or when the consumer otherwise lacks access to an
electrical outlet, the portable charger industry emerged.

A portable charger, often called a power bank, is a small, portable
power source consumers can use to recharge their PEDs during
travel. A power bank with a higher capacity, as is expressed in
milliampere-hours ("mAh"), has a greater ability to recharge PEDs
compared to a power bank with a lower capacity. The primary value
and main differentiator is the power bank's capacity as compared to
other power banks. Thus, consumers prefer and are willing to pay a
premium for power banks with higher mAh ratings.

Mophie manufactures, markets, and distributes for sale to consumers
nationwide a number of Power Banks under the Powerstation and Juice
Pack labels. It represents the Products' capacities as measured in
mAh on the products' packaging. Unfortunately for consumers,
testing has shown the Products' actual capacity is substantially
lower than what Mophie represents.

By deceiving consumers about the Products' capacity, Mophie is able
to sell more of, and charge more for, the Products, than it could
if they were labeled accurately. Further, Mophie was also motivated
to mislead consumers to take away market share from competing
products, thereby increasing its own sales and profits.

The Defendant has profited enormously from its false and misleading
representations about the Products. The purpose of this action is
to put an end to Defendant's deceptive marketing of the Products
and to provide consumers with monetary relie, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Nathan M. Smith, Esq.
          Nona Yegazarian, Esq
          BROWN, NERI, SMITH & KHAN, LLP
          11601 Wilshire Blvd, Suite
          2080 Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 593-9890
          Facsimile: (310) 593-9980
          E-mail: nate@bnsklaw.com
                  nona@bnsklaw.com

               - and -

          D. Greg Blankinship, Esq.
          Sara K. Bonaiuto, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP,
             FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          445 Hamilton Ave, Suite 605 White
          Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 298-3290
          E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
                  sbonaiuto@fbfglaw.com

               - and -

          E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
          Joseph C. Hashmall, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          43 SE Main Street, Suite 505
          Minneapolis, MN 55414
          Telephone: (612) 594-5999
          Facsimile: (612) 584-4470
          E-mail: emdrake@bm.net
                  jhashmall@bm.net

MOSHI MOSHI: Sanchez Seeks Unpaid OT Wages for Employees
--------------------------------------------------------
MARIA A. SANCHEZ, and other similarly-situated individuals, the
Plaintiff, vs. MOSHI MOSHI PALM GROVE LLC, d/b/a MOSHI MOSHI PALM
GROVE LLC, and TOSHIO FURIHATA, individually, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-21741-RNS (S.D. Fla., May 2, 2019), seeks to recover
money damages for unpaid regular overtime wages, and retaliation,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and all other current and
former employees similarly situated to Plaintiff worked in excess
of 40 hours during one or more weeks on or after March 2016,
without being properly compensated.

The Plaintiff was hired as a server and during her employment with
Defendants she had different payment plans, but she always worked
the same schedule. As a tipped employee, the Plaintiff was supposed
to receive the minimum wages established for tipped employees plus
tips received from customers. While employed by Defendants, the
Plaintiff worked always the same schedule, but she was paid at
different wage rates, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff:

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

NEW YORK: Court Excludes City's Expert in ADA Suit vs. Police
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Disabled in Action of Metropolitan New York and Brooklyn Center
for Independence of the Disabled, two nonprofit organizations that
provide services and advocacy for people with disabilities, along
with Paula Wolff, Jean Ryan, Edith Prentiss, and Dustin Jones, New
York City residents with mobility disabilities filed the putative
class action styled DISABLED IN ACTION, a nonprofit organization,
BROOKLYN CENTER FOR INDEPENDENCE OF THE DISABLED, a nonprofit
organization, PAULA WOLFF, an individual, JEAN RYAN, an individual,
EDITH PRENTISS, an individual, and DUSTIN JONES, an individual, on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, and JAMES
O'NEILL, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the New York
City Police Department, Defendants, No. 16-CV-08354
(VEC)(S.D.N.Y.), against the City of New York, the New York City
Police Department, and the Department's Commissioner.

The Plaintiffs allege that the majority of the Defendants' 77
police stations throughout New York City contain significant
architectural barriers to people using wheelchairs, walkers, and
other mobility devices.  They claim that these barriers exclude
people with mobility disabilities from critical public-safety
services, programs, and activities in violation of Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. Section 12132;
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. Section 794; and the New
York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code Section
8-107(4)(a).

Now before Judge Valerie Caproni of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York are (1) the Plaintiffs'
motion in limine to exclude the testimony of the Defendants'
proposed expert, architect Antonio Pinto, and (2) the Defendants'
renewed motion in limine to exclude the testimony of the
Plaintiffs' expert, accessibility inspector Kelly Hang, under Fed.
R. Evid. 702.

The parties retained these proposed experts to survey the
architectural features of a sample of the Defendants' stationhouses
and opine whether those features comply with the U.S. Department of
Justice's 1991 and 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design -- a
prerequisite to assessing whether the condition of the
stationhouses causes persons with mobility disabilities to "be
excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the
services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be
subjected to discrimination by any such entity," 42 U.S.C. Section
12132; see also 28 C.F.R. pt. 36, app. D (1991 Standards for
Accessible Design as Originally Published on July 26, 1991); 28
C.F.R. Section 35.151 (first portion of 2010 Standards for
Accessible Design for State and Local Government Entities); 36
C.F.R. pt. 1191 apps. B, D (remaining portion of 2010 Standards for
Accessible Design for State and Local Government Entities).

The Plaintiffs' motion is granted.  The Court finds that Pinto
failed to substantiate the assumptions underlying the particular
compliance opinion and the Court is unable to conclude that his
other opinions are "based on sufficient facts or data," as Rule
702(b) requires.

The Defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part.  Hang
may offer opinions regarding the compliance (vel non) of the
Defendants' stationhouses with the 1991 and 2010 ADA accessibility
standards -- the principal subject of her reports and testimony.
To the extent, however, that Hang has offered (or intends to offer)
any opinion on whether the conditions of the Defendants'
stationhouses causes individuals with mobility disabilities to "be
excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the
services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be
subjected to discrimination by [that] entity," 42 U.S.C. Section
12132 -- the ultimate liability issue in this case -- that opinion
must be excluded.

A full-text copy of the Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y38hguo7 from Leagle.com.

Disabled in Action, a nonprofit organization, Brooklyn Center for
Independence of the Disabled, a nonprofit organization, Paula
Wolff, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Jean Ryan, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Edith Prentiss, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated & Dustin Jones, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Darin P.
McAtee, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Meredith Weaver, Disability
Rights Advocates, Michelle Anne Caiola, Disabilities Right
Advocates, Seth Emmanuel Packrone, Disability Rights Advocates &
Rebecca Juliet Rodgers, Disability Rights Advocates.

City Of New York, New York City Police Department & James O'Neill,
in his official capacity as Commissioner of the New York City
Police Department, Defendants, represented by Stephen Edward
Kitzinger, New York City Law Depart. Office of the Corporation
Counsel, Carolyn Elizabeth Kruk, NYC Law Department & Mark Galen
Toews, NYC Law Department.


NORTHWESTERN LAKE: Mazya Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned YANA MAZYA and TIKI TAYLOR, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
NORTHWESTERN LAKE FOREST HOSPITAL, NORTHWESTERN MEMORIAL
HEALTHCARE, NORTHWESTERN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, OMNICELL, INC., and
BECTON DICKINSON, Defendants, Case No. 2018-CH-07161 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 10, 2019, and assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-03191.

Plaintiffs allege that Northwestern, Omnicell, and Becton violated
the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), through
the use of finger-scan technology. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege
that Defendants collect, store, use, and disseminate employees'
allegedly biometric information (finger-scans) when the employees
gain authorized access to stored materials without first obtaining
informed written consent or publishing a retention policy.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
     James B. Zouras, Esq.
     Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq.
     STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
     100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
            jzouras@stephanzouras.com
            cmitchell@stephanzouras.com

The Defendants are represented by:

     Jeffrey T. Norberg, Esq.
     NEAL & MCDEVITT LLC
     1776 Ash Street
     Northfield, IL 60093
     Email: jnorberg@nealmcdevitt.com

          - and -

     Michael G. Rhodes, Esq.
     Kristine A. Forderer, Esq.
     COOLEY LLP
     101 California Street, Fifth Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
     Email: rhodesmg@cooley.com
            kforderer@cooley.com

          - and -

     Gary M. Miller, Esq.
     Matthew C. Wolfe, Esq.
     SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
     111 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 5100
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Email: gmiller@shb.com
            mwolfe@shb.com


NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Court Junks Walfish Misclassification Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued an Opinion granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
in the case captioned FRED WALFISH, Plaintiff, v. NORTHWESTERN
MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL INVESTMENT
SERVICES, LLC, Defendants. Civ. No. 2:16-cv-4981 (WJM). (D.N.J.).

Plaintiff Fred Walfish is an insurance agent who was associated
with the Defendants. The Plaintiff filed a one-count putative class
action complaint alleging that Northwestern's method of
compensating agents violates the New Jersey Wage Payment Law
(NJWPL). According to the complaint, the Defendants misclassified
him and other insurance agents as independent contractors and
deducted certain expenses from their commissions in violation of
the NJWPL.

Because the Court holds that the undisputed facts support a finding
that the Defendants have met their burden on each of the three
requirements of the ABC Test, the Court need not address the
Defendants' statutory argument regarding the incorporation of the
NJUCA into the NJWPL nor the Defendants' argument regarding the
Plaintiff's consent to the deductions he claims were impermissible
under New Jersey law.

Accordingly, the Court first sets forth the ABC Test applicable to
NJWPL claims in this District and then addresses each prong of that
test in turn.

The ABC Test

To determine whether an individual is an employee or an independent
contractor under the NJWPL, the district court must apply the ABC
Test.  

The ABC Test presumes an individual is an employee unless the
employer can make a showing that: (A) Such individual has been and
will continue to be free from control or direction over the
performance of such service, both under his contract of service and
in fact and (B) Such service is either outside the usual course of
the business for which such service is performed, or that such
service is performed outside of all the places of business of the
enterprise for which such service is performed and (C) Such
individual is customarily engaged in an independently established
trade, occupation, profession or business.

Part A: Control

The Defendants have satisfied the control prong because the
Plaintiff was both contractually and actually free from control.
First, the Plaintiff's employment contract explicitly defines his
relationship with Seery Agency and the cashiership as one of an
independent contractor and notes that the agent shall be free to
exercise his own judgment as to the persons from whom he will
solicit Applications and the time, place, and manner of
solicitation, but Northwestern from time to time may adopt
regulations respecting the conduct of the business covered hereby,
not interfering with such freedom of the action of Agent.

As to actual control, the Plaintiff testified that Defendants
exerted little control over his work. Plaintiff was not required to
follow up with any particular client leads and was never directed
what to sell or to whom to sell it. He could perform such services
at any time of day, at any location. Plaintiff testified that,
while he had an annual compliance meeting with the general agency's
management, he considered any feedback at such meeting mere
suggestions, and declined numerous requests to keep certain records
or update certain marketing material including business cards,
letterhead, and his voicemail greeting.  

The Plaintiff urges the Court to find the he was not free from
control or direction because he was subject to rules promulgated by
Defendants' in response to regulatory guidance and state and
federal law. In support, the Plaintiff cites to evidence that he
was required to keep current and accurate records, provide accurate
marketing materials to his clients, maintain proper licensing,
submit to compliance reviews, make electronic devices are available
for inspection, use company email accounts, and seek approval for
outside business activities. The Plaintiff argues that these
requirements are sufficient to demonstrate that Northwestern
directed and controlled his insurance business.
  
The Court is unwilling to find that, by promulgating certain rules
to ensure regulatory compliance, Northwestern exercised control and
direction sufficient to fail the Part A of the ABC test. Were that
so, any business operating in a regulated industry would
necessarily no longer be able hire workers under an independent
contractor relationship unless it was willing to risk regulatory
non-compliance.  

Accordingly, as a matter of law in analyzing the undisputed facts
under Part A, the Court finds that it need not consider those
policies set forth by Defendants for the purpose of regulatory
compliance.  

The Defendants have met their burden under the control prong of the
ABC Test.

Part B: Course-of-Business or Location-of-Work

The Defendants have also met their burden under Part B under either
of the alternative methods of satisfying that prong. As to the
course-of-business method, the uncontroverted testimony
demonstrates that Northwestern does not sell insurance.  

The Plaintiff argues that because Chief Operating Officer Daniel A.
Riedl testified that Northwestern sells insurance, that Defendant
fails on Part B.  

The Defendants have  met their burden under the location-of-work
method of fulfilling Part B. There is no evidence in the record
that the Plaintiff spent time at Northwestern's place of business
in Wisconsin. Nor is there any evidence that he regularly reported
to any Northwestern office. Rather, the Plaintiff testified that he
had no regular hours and sold insurance for Northwestern and
approximately twenty other companies from the Seery Agency, from
his own home, and from the homes or offices of his clients. Under
the ABC Test, these facts establish that the Plaintiff's sale of
insurance products was outside Defendants' normal course of
business and that he performed such services outside of
Northwestern's place of business.

Part C: Independent Business

In his moving brief, the Plaintiff does not contest the Defendants'
argument that they have met the independent business requirement of
Part C. Even assuming that the Plaintiff has not waived this
argument, the Court finds that the Defendants have met their burden
here as well. From at least 2010 to 2016, Plaintiff operated a
business, Fred Walfish Insurance as a sole proprietor, claiming
income from at least twenty different insurance companies and
submitting a Schedule C for tax deductible expenses related to the
operation of that business as an independent contractor. After
termination of his Northwestern association, Fred Walfish Insurance
continued to exist independently of and apart from the particular
service relationship and Plaintiff continued selling insurance to
his clients. That is sufficient to fulfill Part C of the ABC Test.

The undisputed facts demonstrate that Plaintiff was free from
control and direction in the sale of their insurance products,
performed his services outside the normal place and course of
Defendants' business, and continued Fred Walfish Insurance after
the termination of his association with Defendants. The Court thus
finds that Plaintiff was an independent contractor.

Because the NJWPL does not apply independent contractors,
Plaintiff's motion must be denied and Defendants' motion must be
granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 6, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yxuxkxym from Leagle.com.

FRED WALFISH, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by:

     LUCAS COLIN BUZZARD, Esq.
     JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
     32 Broadway, Suite 601
     New York, New York 10004

NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. & NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL
INVESTMENT SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, represented by SEAN PATRICK
LYNCH -- sean.lynch@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP &
TERRY DAVON JOHNSON -- terry.johnson@morganlewis.com -- Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius LLP.


NVIDIA CORP: LeBoeuf Sues Over Graphic Card's False, Deceptive Ads
------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew LeBoeuf, individually on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, and Does (1-100) on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NVIDIA Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-02543 (N.D. Cal., May 10, 2019) is a
nationwide class action brought on behalf of all consumers who
purchased graphics cards incorporating the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080
Ti graphics processing units ("GPU") (hereinafter "RTX 2080
graphics cards").

The complaint asserts that Defendant sold the RTX 2080 graphics
cards based on the misleading representations that the RTX 2080: 1)
provides "6X the performance of previous-generation graphics
cards"; 2) is "light years ahead" of other cards; 3) provides
"ultra-cool and quiet performance"; and 4) that "powerful NVIDIA
Turing GPU architecture, breakthrough technologies, and 11 GB of
next-gen, ultra-fast GDDR6 memory make it the world's ultimate
gaming GPU."

However, the complaint asserts that the Defendant's advertising and
marketing campaign is false, deceptive, and misleading. The RTX
2080 graphics cards do not deliver "up to 6X the performance of
previous-generation graphics cards," and suffer from an undisclosed
flaw that causes the graphics cards to fail at an alarming rate. As
a result, consumers paid from $799 to $1199 for the 2080 series of
graphics cards that suffer from a variety of issues ranging from
lack of promised performance, visual anomalies on the user's
computer screen, the user's computer crashing entirely, and, in one
case, even catching fire.

Having purchased graphics cards that suffer from this defect,
Plaintiff and Class members suffered injury in fact, and a loss of
money or property as a result of Defendant's conduct in designing,
manufacturing, distributing, and selling defective graphics cards.
NVIDIA has failed to remedy this harm and has earned, and continues
to earn, substantial profit from selling the defective RTX 2080
graphics cards. Defendant's conduct violated and continues to
violate, inter alia, consumer protection statutes and its express
and implied warranties. Defendant has been and continues to be
unjustly enriched, says the complaint.

Plaintiff purchased the card on or about September 20, 2018 at Best
Buy in Garland, Texas.

NVIDIA researched, designed, developed, and marketed the RTX
2080.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan D. Miller, Esq.
     Alison M. Bernal, Esq.
     NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER, LLP
     33 West Mission Street, Suite 201
     Santa Barbara, CA 93101
     Phone: (805) 963-2345
     Facsimile: (805) 284-9590
     Email: jonathan@nshmlaw.com
            alison@nshmlaw.com


OHIO BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES: Stifel Sues over Lamination Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against the Ohio Department
of Public Safety - Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles Division (BMV) and
the State Treasurer of Ohio for violations of the Ohio Revised Code
and the Ohio Administrative Code. The case is captioned the MARILYN
STIFEL, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY - OHIO
BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES DIVISION and TREASURER, STATE OF OHIO,
Defendants, Case No. CV 19 914418 (Ohio Com. Pleas, Cuyahoga Cty.,
April 24, 2019). Plaintiff Marilyn Stifel alleges that the
Defendants have violated the laws by charging and collecting a
lamination fee to all Ohioans applying for licenses, permits and/or
identification cards since approximately July 2, 2018, even though
the BMV discontinued the lamination of such items. The case is
assigned to Hon. Judge Nancy Margaret Russo.

BMV is the government agency responsible for the issuance of
driver's licenses and permits and identification cards pursuant to
Ohio Revised Code Chap. 4507. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Glenn D. Feagan, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF GLENN D. FEAGAN, PSC
     101 W. Prospect Ave., Suite 1600
     The Midland Building
     Cleveland, OH 44115
     Telephone: 216-926-75555
     E-mail: gfeagan@feaganlaw.com


OHR PHARMACEUTICAL: Lowinger Files Suit Over NeuBase Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Lowinger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Ohr Pharmaceutical Inc., Mike Ferguson, Jason Slakter,
Orin Hirschman, Thomas M. Riedhammer, and June S. Almenoff, Case
No. 2019-0221 (Del. Ch., March 20, 2019), is brought against the
Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty.

On January 3, 2019, Ohr and NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. issued a
press release announcing that the two entities had entered into a
definitive agreement, specifically, a merger agreement.  On March 8
2019, the Defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection
with the Proposed Transaction.

The complaint asserts that theRegistration Statement omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders
the Registration Statement false and misleading. The Proxy
Statement fails to disclose the Company's own financial
projections, and the financial analyses performed by the Company's
financial advisor.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants has concealed, omitted,
and failed to disclose crucial material information concerning Ohr
Pharmaceutical, its financial and operational results, and the
merger, thereby preventing Plaintiff from making a fully informed
decision as to whether or not to exercise their appraisal rights
under Delaware law.

The Plaintiff is the owner of shares of Ohr common stock.

The Defendant Ohr Pharmaceutical is a clinical-stage pharmaceutical
company developing novel therapies for ophthalmic diseases. Its
principal executive offices are at 800 Third Avenue, 11th Floor,
New York, NY 10022.

The Individual Defendants are Ohr's directors. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
       O'KELLY ERNST & JOYCE, LLC
       901 N. Market St., Suite 1000
       Wilmington, DE 19801
       Tel: (302) 778-4000
       Fax: (302) 295-2873
       E-mail: rernst@oelegal.com


PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT: Casino Employees Suit Removed to W.D. Mo.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Krystal Lockett, Amber L. Caswell, Jacqueline
Davis, David C. Devun Jr., Tabatha K. Dozier, Seth B. Istre, Racal
Johnson, Cynthia J. Kofron, Tonisha S. Lonzo, Nathan J. McDermott,
Jeremy Mitchell, Laura Perez, Wayne Sheffield and Jamaica S. Young,
Plaintiff, v. Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc., Ameristar Casino
Council Bluffs, LLC, Ameristar Casino East Chicago, LLC, Catcus
Pete's, LLC, Louisiana-I Gaming, PNK (Bossier City), LLC, PNK (Lake
Charles), LLC, PNK (River City), LLC, PNK Vicksburg, LLC,
Washington Trotting Association, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-00358 (D. Nev., February 21, 2019), was transferred to the
United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri
on May 3, 2019 under Case No. 17-cv-00374.

Defendants operate casinos in Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri,
Mississippi, Nevada and Pennsylvania where Plaintiffs are casino
employees working in these various locations. They claim that they
were denied the mandated federal minimum wage and that Defendants
operated an illegal tip pool for tipped employees. They seek full
minimum wage for each hour worked, all wrongfully withheld tips, an
equal amount of liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs
under the Fair Labor Standards Act. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Jenny Foley, Esq.
      Marta D. Kurshumova, Esq.
      HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
      1785 East Sahara, Suite 300
      Las Vegas, NV 89104
      Tel: (702) 805-8340
      Fax: (702) 625-3893
      E-mail:jfoley@hkm.com
             mkurshumova@hkm.com

             - and -

      George A. Hanson, Esq.
      Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
      STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
      460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
      Kansas City, MO 64112
      Tel: (816) 714-7100
      Fax: (816) 714-7101
      E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
              ricke@stuevesiegel.com

              - and -

      Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
      Michael J. Rahmberg, Esq.
      McCLELLAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
      The Flagship Building
      200 Westwoods Drive
      Liberty, MO 64068-1170
      Tel: (816) 781-0002
      Fax: (816) 781-1984
      E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com
              mrahmberg@mcclellandlawfirm.com

              - and -

      Matthew E. Osman, Esq.
      Kathryn S. Rickley, Esq.*
      OSMAN & SMAY LLP
      8500 W. 110th Street, Suite 330
      Overland Park, KS 66210
      Tel: (913) 667-9243
      Fax: (866) 470-9243
      E-mail: mosman@workerwagerights.com
              krickley@workerwagerights.com

Defendants are represented by:

      Denise Drake, Esq.
      Jason N. W. Plowman, Esq.
      Travis Salmon, Esq.
      POLSINELLI
      900 W. 48th Place, Suite 900
      Kansas City, MO 64112
      Tel: (816) 395-0600, 360-4192, 753-1000
      Fax: (816) 222-0847, 753-1536
      Email: ddrake@polsinelli.com
             jplowman@polsinelli.com
             tsalmon@polsinelli.com

             - and -

      Mark E. Ferrario, Esq.
      GREENBERG TRAURIG, Esq.
      10845 Griffith Peak, Suite 600
      Las Vegas, NV 89135
      Tel: (702) 792-3773
      Fax: (702) 792-9002
      Email: ferrariom@gtlaw.com


PPL CORP: Bid to Remand Talen Suit to State Court Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Limited discovery is ongoing regarding the motion to remand the
Talen Putative Class Action back to state court, according to PPL
Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

The case is styled, Talen Montana Retirement Plan and Talen Energy
Marketing, LLC, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. PPL Corporation et al."

On October 29, 2018, Talen Montana Retirement Plan and Talen Energy
Marketing filed a putative class action complaint on behalf of
current and contingent creditors of Talen Montana who allegedly
suffered harm or allegedly will suffer reasonably foreseeable harm
as a result of the November 2014 distribution.  The action was
filed in the Sixteenth Judicial District of the State of Montana,
Rosebud County, against PPL and certain of its affiliates and
current and former officers and directors (Talen Putative Class
Action).

The plaintiffs assert claims for, among other things, fraudulent
transfer, both actual and constructive; recovery against subsequent
transferees; civil conspiracy; aiding and abetting tortious
conduct; and unjust enrichment.  They are seeking avoidance of the
purportedly fraudulent transfer, unspecified damages, including
punitive damages, the imposition of a constructive trust, and other
relief.

In December 2018, PPL removed the Talen Putative Class Action from
the Sixteenth Judicial District of the State of Montana to the
United States District Court for the District of Montana, Billings
Division.

In January 2019, the plaintiffs moved to remand the Talen Putative
Class Action back to state court, and dismissed without prejudice
all current and former PPL Corporation directors from the case.
The parties are proceeding with limited discovery in connection
with the motion to remand.

PPL Corporation, a utility company, delivers electricity and
natural gas in the United States and the United Kingdom.  The
Company operates in three segments: U.K. Regulated, Kentucky
Regulated, and Pennsylvania Regulated.  It was founded in 1920 and
is headquartered in Allentown, Pennsylvania.


PPL CORP: Cane Run Environmental Claims Still Ongoing vs. LG&E
--------------------------------------------------------------
Proceedings are currently underway regarding potential class
certification in a class action complaint filed in Jefferson
County, Kentucky Circuit Court, against Louisville Gas and Electric
Company (LG&E) in June 2017, according to PPL Corporation's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

In December 2013, six residents, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against LG&E and
PPL in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
(U.S. District Court) alleging violations of the Clean Air Act,
RCRA, and common law claims of nuisance, trespass and negligence.
These plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and civil penalties, plus
costs and attorney fees, for the alleged statutory violations.
Under the common law claims, these plaintiffs seek monetary
compensation and punitive damages for property damage and
diminished property values for a class consisting of residents
within four miles of the Cane Run plant, which retired three
coal-fired units in 2015.  In their individual capacities, these
plaintiffs sought compensation for alleged adverse health effects.

In July 2014, the court dismissed the RCRA claims and all but one
Clean Air Act claim, but declined to dismiss the common law tort
claims.  In November 2016, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint removing the personal injury claims and removing certain
previously named plaintiffs.

In February 2017, the U.S. District Court issued an Order
dismissing PPL as a defendant and dismissing the final federal
claim against LG&E.

In April 2017, the U.S. District Court issued an Order declining to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction on the state law claims and
dismissed the case in its entirety.

In June 2017, the plaintiffs filed a class action complaint in
Jefferson County, Kentucky Circuit Court, against LG&E alleging
state law nuisance, negligence and trespass tort claims.  The
plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages for alleged
property damage due to purported plant emissions on behalf of a
class of residents within one to three miles of the plant.  

The Company said, "Proceedings are currently underway regarding
potential class certification, for which a decision may be rendered
in 2019.  PPL, LKE and LG&E cannot predict the outcome of this
matter and an estimate or range of possible losses cannot be
determined."

PPL Corporation, a utility company, delivers electricity and
natural gas in the United States and the United Kingdom.  The
Company operates in three segments: U.K. Regulated, Kentucky
Regulated, and Pennsylvania Regulated.  It was founded in 1920 and
is headquartered in Allentown, Pennsylvania.


PPL CORP: Defendants Seek to Nix PPL's Suit vs. Riverstone, et al.
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PPL Corporation et al. vs. Riverstone Holdings LLC,
Talen Energy Corporation et al., defendants have filed motions to
dismiss the complaint as amended, according to PPL Corporation's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

On October 29, 2018, Talen Montana filed a complaint against PPL
and certain of its affiliates and current and former officers and
directors in the First Judicial District of the State of Montana,
Lewis & Clark County (Talen Direct Action).

Also on October 29, 2018, Talen Montana Retirement Plan and Talen
Energy Marketing filed a putative class action complaint on behalf
of current and contingent creditors of Talen Montana who allegedly
suffered harm or allegedly will suffer reasonably foreseeable harm
as a result of the November 2014 distribution.  The action was
filed in the Sixteenth Judicial District of the State of Montana,
Rosebud County, against PPL and certain of its affiliates and
current and former officers and directors (Talen Putative Class
Action).

On November 30, 2018, PPL, certain PPL affiliates, and certain
current and former officers and directors (PPL plaintiffs) filed a
complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware seeking
various forms of relief against Riverstone, Talen Energy and
certain of their affiliates (Delaware Action).

In the complaint, the PPL plaintiffs ask the Delaware Court of
Chancery for declaratory and injunctive relief.  This includes a
declaratory judgment that, under the separation agreement governing
the spinoff of PPL Energy Supply, all related claims that arise
must be heard in Delaware; that the statute of limitations in
Delaware and the spinoff agreement bar these claims at this point;
that PPL is not liable for the claims in either the Talen Direct
Action or the Talen Putative Class Action as PPL Montana was
solvent at all relevant times; and that the separation agreement
requires that Talen Energy indemnify PPL for all losses arising
from the debts of Talen Montana, among other things.  PPL's
complaint also seeks damages against Riverstone for interfering
with the separation agreement and against Riverstone affiliates for
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

The complaint was subsequently amended on January 11, 2019 and
March 20, 2019, including to add claims related to indemnification
with respect to the Talen Direct Action and the Talen Putative
Class Action (together, the Montana Actions), request a declaration
that the Montana Actions are time-barred under the spinoff
agreements, and allege additional facts to support the tortious
interference claim.  On April 19, 2019, the defendants filed
motions to dismiss the amended complaint.

PPL Corporation, a utility company, delivers electricity and
natural gas in the United States and the United Kingdom.  The
Company operates in three segments: U.K. Regulated, Kentucky
Regulated, and Pennsylvania Regulated.  It was founded in 1920 and
is headquartered in Allentown, Pennsylvania.


QUANTENNA COMMUNICATIONS: Kerry Files Suit Over ON Merger Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARK KERRY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. QUANTENNA COMMUNICATIONS, INC., DR. SAM
HEIDARI, MARK A. STEVENS, GLENDA MARY DORCHAK, JACK R. LAZAR, EDWIN
B. HOOPER III, HAROLD E. HUGHES JR., and JOHN SCULL, Defendants,
Case No. 3:19-cv-02535 (N.D. Cal., May 10, 2019) is an action
brought as a class action by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the
other public holders of the common stock of Quantenna
Communications, Inc.  against the Company and the members of the
Company's board of directors for their violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), in connection with the
proposed merger (the "Proposed Transaction") between Quantenna and
ON Semiconductor Corporation ("ON Semiconductor").

On March 27, 2019, the Board caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger ("Merger Agreement"), pursuant to
which the Company's shareholders stand to receive $24.50 in cash
for each share of Quantenna stock they own (the "Merger
Consideration"). On May 3, 2019, in order to convince Quantenna
shareholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the
Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and
misleading Form PREM14A Preliminary Proxy Statement (the "Proxy")
with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), in violation
of the Exchange Act. The materially incomplete and misleading Proxy
violates the Exchange Act, asserts the complaint.

The complaint relates that while touting the fairness of the Merger
Consideration to the Company's shareholders in the Proxy,
Defendants have failed to disclose certain material information
that is necessary for shareholders to properly assess the fairness
of the Proposed Transaction, thereby violating SEC rules and
regulations and rendering certain statements in the Proxy
materially incomplete and misleading. In particular, the Proxy
contains materially incomplete and misleading information
concerning: (i) the financial projections for the Company that were
prepared by the Company and relied on by Defendants in recommending
that Quantenna shareholders vote in favor of the Proposed
Transaction; and (ii) the summary of certain valuation analyses
conducted by Quantenna's financial advisor, Qatalyst Partners LP
("Qatalyst") in support of its opinion that the Merger
Consideration is fair to shareholders on which the Board relied.

Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times has been, a holder of
Quantenna common stock.

Quantenna designs, develops and markets advanced high-speed
wireless communication solutions enabling wireless local area
networking.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
     Los Angeles, CA 90024
     Phone: (424) 256-2884
     Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
     Email: bheikali@faruqilaw.com


QVC INC: Thompson Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
The case captioned KIM THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. QVC, INC.; QVC ONTARIO,
LLC; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CIVDS
1909884 was removed from the Superior Court for the County of San
Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on May 15, 2019, and assigned Case No.
5:19-cv-00908.

The Complaint asserts six causes of action against Defendants: (1)
Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; (2) Failure to Provide Meal Periods;
(3) Failure to Permit Rest Breaks; (4) Failure to Provide Accurate
Itemized Wage Statements; (5) Failure to Pay All Wages Due Upon
Separation of Employment; and (6) Violation of Business &
Professions Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     Timothy L. Hix, Esq.
     Seyfarth Shaw LLP
     601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300
     Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793
     Phone: (213) 270-9600
     Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
     Email: thix@seyfarth.com

          - and -

     Daniel Whang, Esq.
     Monica Rodriguez, Esq.
     Lara A. Levine, Esq.
     Seyfarth Shaw LLP
     2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
     Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
     Phone: (310) 277-7200
     Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
     Email: dwhang@seyfarth.com
            morodriguez@seyfarth.com
            llevine@seyfarth.com


RADIUS GLOBAL: Kruse Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Radius Global
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Jill M. Kruse on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Radius
Global Solutions, LLC formerly known as: Central Credit Services,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00909 (C.D. Cal., May 15, 2019).

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

Radius Global Solutions LLC provides accounts receivable and
customer relations management solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Nicholas M Wajda, Esq.
     Wajda Law Group APC
     11400 West Olympic Boulevard Suite 200M
     Los Angeles, CA 90064
     Phone: (310) 997-0471
     Fax: (866) 286-8433
     Email: nick@wajdalawgroup.com



RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT: Magistrate Narrows Claims in M. Reilly Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In MARTHA REILLY, Plaintiff, v. RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-07385-LB (N.D. Calif.), Plaintiff Martha
Reilly brings this putative class action for wage-and-hour
violations against her former employer Recreational Equipment,
Inc.

Ms. Reilly brings seven claims:

   1. a claim under California Labor Code Section 226(a) for not
providing accurate itemized wage statements;

   2. a claim under California Labor Code Sections 558, 1194, 1197,
and 1197.1 for failing to pay minimum wage by requiring employees
to undergo security checks after they had clocked out at the ends
of their shift without compensating them for that time;

   3. a claim under California Labor Code Sections 510, 558, 1194,
and 1197.1 for failing to pay overtime wages for the time employees
spent undergoing security checks at the ends of their shifts and
for not factoring in non-discretionary incentive pay such as
bonuses into employees' rates of pay for the purposes of
calculating their overtime pay,

   4. a claim under California Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512
for failing to provide statutorily required meal breaks by
requiring employees to undergo security checks after they had
clocked out for their meal breaks;

   5. a claim under California Labor Code Section 226.7 for failing
to provide statutorily required rest periods by requiring employees
to undergo security checks after they had clocked out for their
rest periods;

   6. a claim under the California Unfair Competition Law (Business
and Professions Code Section 17200) based on her minimum-wage,
overtime, meal-break, and rest-period allegations; and

   7. a claim under the California Private Attorneys General Act
(PAGA).

REI moves to dismiss claims 2 through 6 on the grounds that Ms.
Reilly does not actually plead any instances when she was forced to
undergo a security check off the clock.

Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division,
grants REI's motion, dismissing claims 2 through 6. The court
grants Ms. Reilly leave to amend.

A full-text copy of the Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y2jvdqvf from Leagle.com.

Martha Reilly, Plaintiff, represented by Larry W. Lee, Diversity
Law Group, P.C., Kwanporn Tulyathan, Diversity Law Group & William
Lucas Marder, Esq. -- bill@polarislawgroup.com -- Polaris Law
Group, LLP.

Martha Reilly, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Dennis Sangwon Hyun, Esq.
     Hyun Legal, APC
     515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Telephone: (213) 488-6555
     Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
     Email: info@hyunlegal.com

Recreational Equipment, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mia Farber,
Esq. -- Mia.Farber@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C., Atticus
Shouyu Lee, Esq. -- Atticus.Lee@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis
P.C. & Damien Paul DeLaney, Esq. -- Damien.DeLaney@jacksonlewis.com
-- Jackson Lewis P.C..


REVMD PARTNERS: Espinosa Suit Asserts BIPA Breach
-------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE ESPINOSA, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. REVMD
PARTNERS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2019L000523 filed in the 18th
Judicial Circuit Court of Dupage County in Illinois on May 10,
2019, is a Class Action Complaint against Defendant for violations
of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Throughout Plaintiff's employment, Defendant required employees to
use a biometric time clock system to record their time worked. The
Defendant required Plaintiff and other employees to scan their
fingerprints in Defendant's biometric time clock each time they
started and finished working a shift, and when they clocked in and
out for lunch breaks.

The Defendant collected, stored, used, and transferred the unique
biometric fingerprint identifiers, or information derived from
those identifiers, of Plaintiff and others similarly situated
without following the detailed requirements of the Biometric
Information Privacy Act. As a result, Defendant violated the
Biometric Information Privacy Act and compromised the privacy and
security of the biometric identifiers and information of Plaintiff
and other similarly-situated employees, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Espinosa was employed by Defendant as a patient account
specialist from approximately February 2018 to July 2018.

Defendant provides healthcare accounts receivable management
services in Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SAKS INCORPORATED: Sacklow Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee, Nashville Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion granting
Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue the case captioned JEANNE
SACKLOW, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. SAKS INCORPORATED, Defendant. No.
3:18-cv-00360. (M.D. Tenn.), to the Southern District of New York
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a).

This putative class action arises out of a data breach concerning
payment cards used at Saks' stores. Fourteen named plaintiffs have
brought claims for negligence; negligence per se; breach of implied
contract; unjust enrichment; and violation of various state unfair
competition, data breach, consumer protection, and consumer fraud
statutes.  

Saks seeks transfer of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1404(a), which provides that, for the convenience of parties and
witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may
transfer any civil action to any other district or division where
it might have been brought.

In short, Saks contends the Plaintiffs' choice of the Middle
District of Tennessee is entitled to little deference; that this
forum lacks any real connection to the events at issue; and that
most, if not all, of the potential witnesses and evidence is
located in the Southern District of New York. It further argues
that, for the sake of efficiency and consistency, this case should
be litigated where two other class actions concerning the data
breach are now pending.

The Plaintiffs respond that Saks elected to be incorporated in
Tennessee and that they are entitled to deference of their choice
of that valid forum for a national class action. Plaintiffs do not
argue that this case could not have been brought in the Southern
District of New York, which is a prerequisite for transfer under
Section 1404(a).

Here, none of the named plaintiffs reside in Tennessee, none of the
alleged events relevant to the data breach took place in Tennessee,
and this is a putative class action in which the named plaintiffs
seek to represent a national class of persons or sub-classes of
persons across states that do not include Tennessee. Furthermore,
there is no store in Tennessee owned or operated directly by Saks,
making it likely that extremely few putative class members would
even reside in Tennessee.

The choice of the Middle District of Tennessee as the forum for
this litigation is therefore entitled to less weight than in usual
circumstances.

The convenience of witnesses, especially non-party witnesses, is
perhaps the most important factor in the transfer analysis. Saks
has established through declarations that its witnesses are located
in the New York City area. These witnesses include all Saks
executives; all Saks employees with knowledge of information
security policies and procedures; all Saks employees relevant to
the data breach and Saks' response; and all third-party consultants
and information security experts who discovered, analyzed, and
managed the data breach for Saks.   

The Court therefore concludes that this factor weighs in favor of
transfer.

A transfer at the behest of a defendant is disfavored where it
merely shifts the burden of litigating in an inconvenient forum to
the plaintiff. Plaintiff have not established that it is any more
inconvenient for them to litigate in New York. Five of the named
plaintiffs live in New York and two live in adjacent New Jersey,
and eight of them originally filed suit against Saks in New York.
Again, it is important that none of the named plaintiffs lives in
Tennessee. Any inconvenience that plaintiffs' counsel who are
spread throughout the country and have represented that they are
willing to travel to New York for discovery in any event might
encounter in litigating in New York as opposed to Nashville is
minimal.  

This factor therefore favors transfer to New York.

This case involves a high-level breach of corporate systems and
attendant relevant corporate policies and practices. Most of the
evidence will therefore likely be derived from Saks' computer
systems and corporate records, some of which may be difficult or
expensive to duplicate or transfer. Saks has established that all
such evidence is located in New York. Thus, this factor favors
transfer.  

This case involves basic tort law as well as analogous state
consumer protection laws. These are the types of claims that
federal courts routinely and skillfully consider. The courts of the
Southern District of New York are no less capable of applying the
laws of Tennessee or the eight other states invoked in the Amended
Complaint.  

Accordingly, this factor is neutral.

The Plaintiffs focus on their allegations that the putative class
members made purchases throughout the United States and the
cyberthieves made illicit purchases throughout the United States,
in contending that the scope of the case is nationwide. However,
while it may be true that the data breach drew from nationwide
transactions and its aftereffects were felt nationwide, the core of
this case is about the data breach itself, what at Saks led to it,
and what at Saks happened after it.  The allegations in the Amended
Complaint case therefore revolve around the data breach itself
(resulting from a penetration of Saks' cyber infrastructure), the
degree to which Saks's corporate policies and practices enabled the
theft of purportedly protected data, and how Saks responded to the
breach.   
Accordingly, because the "center of gravity" of this case is in New
York, this factor favors transfer.

When a company is incorporated in a state, there can sometimes be a
compelling public interest in deciding a controversy at home.
Plaintiffs argue that point here by emphasizing that Saks
incorporated in Tennessee in 1919. But Plaintiffs do not explain
any benefits that Saks currently receives from its incorporation or
any public or local interest that is implicated by this action.
While Saks is indeed a Tennessee corporation, it does not pretend
to do any measurable business here that would trigger a persuasive
local interest in deciding this controversy.

This factor is therefore not outcome determinative.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 6, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y572oycm from Leagle.com.

Jeanne Sacklow, Erika Targum, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated, Margo Kyler Knight, Latusha Vains, Jane
Lefkowitz, Greta Moss, Hope Tafet, Debbie Carthan, Leslie
Levitt-Raschella, John Cona, Cassondra Joseph, Kelly McGurn, Wendy
Haggerty & Mark Wade, Plaintiffs, represented by Anthony Parkhill,
Barnow and Associates, P.C., Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates,
P.C., 1 North Lasalle Street Suite 4600, Chicago, IL 60602- 4009,
Charles E. Schaffer -- cschaffer@lfsblaw.com -- Levin Fishbein
Sedran & Berman, Daniel Tepper -- tepper@whafh.com -- Wolf,
Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, David A. Straite --
dstraite@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Kilsheimer & Fox, LLP, Erich P.
Schork, Barnow and Associates, P.C., 1 North Lasalle Street Suite
4600, Chicago, IL 60602- 4009, Gary E. Mason -- gmason@wbmllp.com
-- Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, Howard T. Longman, Stull, Stull &
Brody, 6 East 45th Street New York, NY 10017

Saks Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth O. Gonser --
egonser@rwjplc.com --  Riley Warnock & Jacobson, PLC, Ezra Church
-- ezra.church@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Gregory
T. Parks -- gregory.parks@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP,Keane A. Barger -- kbarger@rwjplc.com -- Riley Warnock
& Jacobson, Plc & Kristin Hadgis -- kristin.hadgis@morganlewis.com
-- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius.


SALLIE MAE BANK: Licznerski Suit Asserts TCPA Breach
----------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER D. LICZNERSKI, Plaintiff, v. SALLIE MAE BANK, Defendant,
Case No. 8:19-cv-01179 (M.D. Fla., May 15, 2019) is a class action
for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA")
and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ("FCCPA").

The Defendant, in the conduct of its business, uses one or more
instrumentalities of interstate commerce or the mails, including
without limitation to, electronic communication with Plaintiff.
Plaintiff explicitly told Defendant to stop calling and that its
communications were in violation of the TCPA and FCCPA. Despite
Plaintiff's notice, Defendant continued calling Plaintiff.
Therefore, Defendant knowingly violated the TCPA and FCCPA.
Plaintiff, therefore, seeks damages, costs and attorney's fees from
Defendant for these violations.

Plaintiff, Alexander D. Licznerski, is a natural person residing in
Hillsborough County, Florida.

Sallie Mae Bank is headquartered in Utah, and does business in the
State of Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     BRIAN L. SHRADER, ESQ.
     GUS M. CENTRONE, ESQ.
     CENTRONE & SHRADER, PLLC
     612 W. Bay Street
     Tampa, FL 33606
     Phone: (813) 360-1529
     Fax: (813) 336-0832
     Email: bshrader@centroneshrader.com
            gcentrone@centroneshrader.com


SCHLUMBERGER LIFT: Magistrate OKs Protective Order in Garcia Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California granted a stipulated
protective order and confidentiality agreement in the case
captioned CRISTOBAL GARCIA, an individual, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. SCHLUMBERGER LIFT
SOLUTIONS, LLC, SCHLUMBERGER ROD LIFT, INC., and SCHLUMBERGER
TECHNOLOGY CORP., Case No. 1:18-cv-01261-DAD-JLT (E.D. Calif.).

A full-text copy of the Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y6haxcaz from Leagle.com.

Cristobal Garcia, an individual, o behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff Holmes, Jeff
Holmes, Esq., Lonnie C. Blanchard, III, The Blanchard Law Group,
APC & Peter R. Dion-Kindem, Peter R. Dion-Kindem, P.C.

Schlumberger Lift Solutions, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company & Schlumberger Rod Lift, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
Defendants, represented by Heather Dawn Hearne, Esq. --
hdh@kullmanlaw.com -- The Kullman Firm & William H. Payne, The
Kullman Firm, pro hac vice.


SELECTIVE SERVICE: Claims in Suit Over Male-Only Draft Narrowed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ELIZABETH KYLE-LABELL, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SELECTIVE SERVICE
SYSTEM, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-5193 (ES)
(JAD)(D.N.J.), Judge Esther Salas of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey granted in part and denied in
part Defendants Selective Service System and Donald M. Benton's
motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

Plaintiff Elizabeth Kyle-LaBell is a 21-year-old female who wants
to register for the military draft.  She believes it is her right
and duty as a United States citizen to do so, but because she is a
woman, she is prohibited from registering.  She brings this
putative class action to challenge the constitutionality of the
draft's male-only requirement.

A motion to dismiss for lack of ripeness is properly brought
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) because
ripeness is a jurisdictional matter.  To withstand a motion to
dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), "a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to `state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face.'"

The Court finds that (A) the Plaintiff's claims are prudentially
ripe; (B) the substantive due process claim is subsumed by the
equal protection claim; and (C) Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57,
75 (1981) does not bar the Plaintiff's equal protection claim.

Accordingly, the Court ordered that the Plaintiff's substantive due
process claim is dismissed with prejudice. The Defendants' motion
is denied in all other respects.

A full-text copy of the Opinion is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y2lo9l8k from Leagle.com.

ELIZABETH KYLE-LABELL, as plaintiff suing on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated & MONICA PATRICIA PINTO, also suing
as a plaintiff on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by MICHAEL JOHN DAHER.

SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM & LAWRENCE G. ROMO, DIRECTOR OF SELECTIVE
SERVICE, in his official capacity, Defendants, represented by
ANDREW EVAN CARMICHAEL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTSICE CIVIL DIVISION
& MEGAN ANNE CROWLEY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION.


SHARP ELECTRONICS: Lammey Sues Over Defective Microwaves
--------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN LAMMEY, individually and on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SHARP ELECTRONICS
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00048-CAR (M.D. Ga., May
13, 2019) is a class action complaint against Defendant for failing
to disclose a known defect of their product, or provide the
customer with a non-defective replacement product.

Sharp's kitchen appliance portfolio includes multiple different
types of microwaves, including microwave drawers (the "Microwaves"
or the "Products"), which are the subject of this action. On its
website, Sharp boasts that it has been innovating microwave cooking
for decades and holds 11 patents on the Microwave Drawer platform
alone. Engineered for consistency and built with the finest quality
materials, great cooks trust the Microwave Drawer to deliver great
results every time. Over the course of several decades, Sharp has
gained the trust of consumers, who reasonably believe that Sharp
products are made with quality materials, and that the Sharp
products can be used safely, as intended.

Sharp has offered six models for its microwave drawers, and
currently offers five of those six: SMD2470AH, SMD2470AS,
SMD3070AS, SMD2480CS, KB6524PS, and KB6525PS (collectively, the
"Microwaves").  

The complaint asserts that the Microwaves all contain a defect that
makes them unreasonably dangerous, as they are susceptible to
catching fire, and unsuitable for their intended use. More
specifically, the Microwaves are defectively designed and/or
manufactured such that, under normal and intended use, the
electromagnetic waves generated by the magnetron tube are unable to
properly move through the waveguide into the cooking cavity,
resulting in buzzing, smoking, overheating, and eventual
destruction of the magnetron, leading to scorching of the
waveguide. Accordingly, the Microwaves are unreasonably dangerous
and not fit for household use.

However, Sharp has undertaken a deliberate and willful pattern of
conduct (including taking active measures) aimed at concealing the
Microwave defect from its consumers, including the Plaintiff,
asserts the complaint. Sharp knew or should have known about the
defect but nevertheless marketed, advertised, and sold the
Microwaves without warning consumers that the Microwaves are likely
to overheat and could result in buzzing, overheating of the
magnetron, scorching of the waveguide, smoking, and ultimate
failure. Indeed, rather than providing consumers with new,
non-defective Microwaves after their Microwaves overheated, Sharp
either replaced each defective Microwave with another defective
Microwave, improperly denied the warranty claim, and/or forced the
consumer to sign a waiver or buy an extended warranty as a remedy.

As a result, Plaintiff and other similarly situated customers
purchased and used Sharp's defective Microwaves when they otherwise
would not have made such purchases or would not have paid as much
for the defective Microwaves, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Lammey is a resident and citizen of Monroe, Walton
County, Georgia.

Sharp is one of the largest technology companies in the world. It
designs, manufactures and sells a variety of technological
products, including kitchen appliances such as microwaves.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Harper T. Segui, Esq.
     Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
     WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP
     900 W. Morgan Street
     Raleigh, NC 27603
     Phone: 919-600-5000
     Email: dan@wbmllp.com
            harper@wbmllp.com

          - and -

     Jonathan K. Tycko, Esq.
     Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
     Andrea Gold, Esq.
     TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
     1828 L. Street, NW, Suite 1000
     Washington, DC 20036
     Phone: (202) 973-0900
     Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
     Email: jtycko@tzlegal.com
            hzavareei@tzlegal.com
            agold@tzlegal.com

          - and -

     Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
     Rachel Soffin, Esq.
     Lisa A. White, Esq.
     Adam A. Edwards, Esq.
     GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
     800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
     Knoxville, TN 37929
     Phone: 865-247-0080
     Fax: 865-522-0049
     Email: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
            rachel@gregcolemanlaw.com
            lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com
            adam@gregcolemanlaw.com


SHEARER'S FOODS: Miller, Dingey Seek Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Shearer's Foods LLC
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act (OMFWSA), and the Ohio Constitution
Art. II, Sect. 34a. The case is captioned CHRISTOPHER MILLER and
DEANA DINGEY, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiffs, vs. SHEARER'S FOODS LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00924-JRA (N.D. Ohio, April 24, 2019).

Plaintiff Christopher Miller and Deana Dingey allege that Shearer's
Foods is engaged in the underpayment of overtime to non-exempt,
hourly employees. The company has allegedly failed to account for
all hours worked for the purposes of calculating overtime hours in
a workweek.

Shearer's Foods LLC is an Ohio limited liability company that is
registered to conduct business in Ohio. The company holds itself
out as a leading contract manufacturer and private label supplier
for the snack industries in North America, Australia, Asia, Central
and South America. It has eleven Global Food Safety
Initiative-certified, state-of-the-art, geographically diverse
production facilities operating in Ohio, Texas, Arkansas, Oregon,
Virginia, Iowa, Minnesota, Arizona, Pennsylvania and Ontario,
Canada. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


SPENCER GIFTS: Mullen Files ADA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SPENCER GIFTS LLC.
The case is styled as BARTLEY M. MULLEN, JR. individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SPENCER GIFTS
LLC doing business as: SPENCER'S, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-00555-MJH (W.D. Pa., May 10, 2019).

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

Spencer Gifts LLC, doing business as Spencer's, is a North American
mall retailer with over 600 stores in the United States, Canada and
Puerto Rico.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SPRINT CORP: Falsified New Customer Data, Meneses Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
A federal securities class action complaint has been filed against
Sprint Corporation, CEO Michel Combes, and CFO Andrew Davies. The
case is captioned ERICK MENESES, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SPRINT CORPORATION, MICHEL
COMBES, ANDREW DAVIES, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03549
(S.D.N.Y., April 22, 2019). Plaintiff Erick Meneses brings this
class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Sprint's common stock between Jan. 31, 2019 and April 16,
2019.

Plaintiff Meneses accuses Sprint of misleading investors by
highlighting that it had 309,000 total postpaid net additions, a
widely-watched metric by Wall Street analysts, while failing to
disclose that these additions were not new customers, but instead
driven by free lines offered to Sprint customers and the inclusion
of less valuable tablet and other non-phone devices, as well as
pre- to post-paid migrations that do not represent new Sprint
customers.

Sprint Corporation was incorporated pursuant to the laws of
Delaware and maintains its principal executive offices in Overland,
Park, Kansas. It is a communications company offering a
comprehensive range of wireless and wireline communications
products and services that are designed to meet the needs of
individual consumers, businesses, government subscribers and
resellers. The company's stock trades on the NYSE under the ticker
symbol "S". [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     D. Greg Blankinship, Esq.
     FINKELSTEIN BLANKINSHIP FREI-PEARSON & GARBER LLP
     445 Hamilton Ave, Suite 605
     White Plains, NY 10601
     Telephone: 914-298-3281
     Facsimile: 914-824-1561
     E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com

             - and -

     Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
     Jacob A. Walker, Esq.
     BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
     260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
     Boston, MA 02110
     Telephone: (617) 398-5600
     Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
     E-mail: jeff@blockesq.com
             jake@blockesq.com


SPROUTS FARMERS: Faces Arbitration Demands on Phishing Scam Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. is facing arbitration demands from "a
number of individual plaintiffs" related to the "Phishing" Scam
Class Action Suits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2019.

The Company said, "In April 2016, four complaints were filed, two
in the federal courts of California, one in the Superior Court of
California and one in the federal court in the District of
Colorado, each on behalf of a purported class of our current and
former team members whose personally identifiable information
("PII") was inadvertently disclosed to an unauthorized third party
that perpetrated an email "phishing" scam against one of our team
members.

"The complaints allege we failed to properly safeguard the PII in
accordance with applicable law.  The complaints seek damages on
behalf of the purported class in unspecified amounts, attorneys'
fees and litigation expenses.

"In June 2016, a motion was filed before the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") to transfer and consolidate all
four of the cases to the federal court in the District of Arizona.
The JPML granted the motion on October 6, 2016.  On May 24, 2017,
the JPML granted our motion to stay proceedings in the case pending
a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the question of whether arbitration
agreements like those signed by each of the named plaintiffs are
enforceable.

"On May 21, 2018, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Epic
Systems Corp.  v. Lewis and upheld enforceability of arbitration
agreements containing class action waivers, like the ones the named
plaintiffs signed in this matter.

"On March 1, 2019, a number of individual plaintiffs filed
arbitration demands, and we expect to file our response to these
arbitration demands in the second quarter of 2019.

"We intend to defend these cases vigorously, but it is not possible
at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of, or any
potential liability from, the cases."

Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., a healthy grocery store, provides
fresh, natural, and organic food products in the United States. Its
stores offer fresh produce, meat and seafood, deli and baked goods,
packaged groceries, vitamins and supplements, bulk foods, dairy and
dairy alternatives, frozen foods, beer and wine, and natural body
care and household items. Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. was founded
in 2002 and is based in Phoenix, Arizona.


SPROUTS FARMERS: May 31 Final Hearing for Securities Suit Accord
----------------------------------------------------------------
The final approval hearing for the settlement of the Arizona
securities action is scheduled for May 31, 2019, according to
Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019.

The Company said, "On March 4, 2016, a complaint was filed in the
Superior Court for the State of Arizona against our company and
certain of our directors and officers on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of shares of our common stock in our
underwritten secondary public offering which closed on March 10,
2015 (the "March 2015 Offering").

"The complaint purports to state claims under Sections 11, 12 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, based on an alleged
failure by our company to disclose adequate information about
produce price deflation in the March 2015 Offering documents.

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

"After removal to federal court, the plaintiff sought remand, which
the court granted in March 2017.  On May 25, 2017, our company
filed a Motion to Dismiss in the Superior Court for the State of
Arizona, which the court granted in part and denied in part by
order entered August 30, 2017.

"On August 4, 2018, we reached an agreement in principle to settle
these claims.  The parties' settlement agreement was granted
preliminary approval by the court on January 30, 2019, with a
hearing for final approval scheduled for May 31, 2019.

"If approved by the court, the settlement will be funded from our
directors and officer's liability insurance policy and will not
have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements."

Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., a healthy grocery store, provides
fresh, natural, and organic food products in the United States. Its
stores offer fresh produce, meat and seafood, deli and baked goods,
packaged groceries, vitamins and supplements, bulk foods, dairy and
dairy alternatives, frozen foods, beer and wine, and natural body
care and household items. Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. was founded
in 2002 and is based in Phoenix, Arizona.


STARKIST CO: Tuna Product not "Dolphin-Safe", Says Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Warren Gardner, Lori Myers, Angela Cosgrove, Autumn Hessong, Robert
McQuade, Colleen McQuade, James Borruso, Fidel Jamelo, Jocelyn
Jamelo, Anthony Luciano, Lori Luciano, Robert Nugent, Avraham Isac
Zelig, Ken Petrovcik, Megan Kiihne, and Kathleen Miller, On Behalf
of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v.
STARKIST CO., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-02561-KAW (N.D. Cal., May 13, 2019) alleges unjust
enrichment and violations of: the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO"), (2) California's Unfair Competition
Law, (3) California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, (4) the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, (5) the New York General
Business Law, (6) the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, (7) the
Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, Minn. Stat., (8) the
Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Minn. Stat., and
(9) the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act.

StarKist tuna has been marketed, sold, and distributed throughout
the United States, including in California, since 1942. Today,
StarKist is the No. 1 selling prepackaged tuna brand in the United
States. Since 1990, StarKist has promised consumers that its tuna
is "Dolphin- Safe." Since the introduction of the dolphin-safe
policy in 1990, including the last 4 years (the "Class Period"),
however, StarKist's tuna has not been "Dolphin-Safe", asserts the
complaint.

Unknown to consumers, substantial numbers 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 canned tuna products many times throughout
the relevant period.

StarKist Co. is corporation organized, existing, and doing business
under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania[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


STATE COLLECTION: Bahr Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed against State Collection Service, Inc.
was transferred from Indiana Southern on May 10, 2019.

The case is styled as Matthew Bahr on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. State Collection Service,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03162 (N.D. Ill., May 10, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract.

State Collection Service, Inc. provides collection services, such
as third-party payer follow up, self-pay follow up, financial
assistance, and bad debt collection to healthcare industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bryan Paul Thompson, Esq.
     Robert W. Harrer, Esq.
     Chicago Consumer Law Center, P.C.
     111 W. Washington St., Suite 1360
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 858-3239
     Email: bryan.thompson@cclc-law.com
            rob.harrer@cclc-law.com

          - and -

     Stacy M. Bardo, Esq.
     BARDO LAW, P.C.
     22 West Waashington Street, Suite 1500
     Chicago, IL 60602

The Defendant is represented by:

     Patrick D. Newman, Esq.
     BASSFORD REMELE, P.A.
     100 South 5th Street, Suite 1500
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Phone: (612) 333-3000
     Email: pnewman@bassford.com


STATE IMPOUND: Baumert Appeals Fulton Cty. State Ct. Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
State Impound Authority appealed an April 9, 2019 order entered by
Fulton County State Court Judge Hon. Eric A. Richardson, in the
case captioned ANDREW BAUMERT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A
CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, v. STATE IMPOUND AUTHORITY,
LLC D/B/A VISE PARKING ENFORCEMENT, LLC, Case No. 17EV004470.

The case in the Court of Appeals, State of Georgia is captioned
STATE IMPOUND AUTHORITY, LLC D/B/A VISE PARKING ENFORCEMENT, LLC,
Appellant v. ANDREW BAUMERT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS
OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, Appellee, Case No. A19I0233.[BN]

The Appellant is represented by:

     Ms LeRyan Paige Lambert, Esq.
     Mr. Willie C. Ellis Jr., Esq.
     Ms Kimberly D. Stevens, Esq.

The Appellee is represented by:

     Mr. ROBERT NEIL FRIEDMAN, Esq.

STEEL PARTNERS: Still Faces Del. Stockholder Class Suit at Mar. 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
Steel Partners Holdings L.P. still defends itself against a
stockholder class action in Delaware, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

On December 8, 2017, a stockholder class action, captioned
Sciabacucchi v. DeMarco, et al., was filed in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware by a purported former stockholder of HNH
challenging the Company's acquisition, through a subsidiary, of all
of the outstanding shares of common stock of HNH not already owned
by the Company or any of its affiliates.

The action names as defendants the former members of the HNH board
of directors, the Company and SPH GP, and alleges, among other
things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the
former public stockholders of HNH in connection with the
aforementioned acquisition.  The complaint seeks, among other
relief, unspecified monetary damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

Steel Partners said, "The Company is vigorously defending itself
against these claims; however, the outcome of this matter is
uncertain."

Steel Partners Holdings L.P., through its subsidiaries, engages in
industrial products, energy, defense, supply chain management,
logistics, banking, and sports businesses worldwide.  It operates
through Diversified Industrial, Energy, and Financial Services
segments.  Steel Partners Holdings GP Inc. serves as the general
partner of the company. The company was founded in 1990 and is
based in New York, New York.


TARGET CORPORATION: Faces Garcia Labor Suit in Sacramento
---------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
Target Corporation. The case is captioned as SERGIO GARCIA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. TARGET CORPORATION; and DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case
No. 34-2019-00254638-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., April
17, 2019).

Target Corporation operates as a general merchandise retailer in
the United States. As of February 2, 2019, the company operated
1,844 stores. Target was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
Minneapolis, Minnesota. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Isandra Fernandez, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387-7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387-6676


TASKUS USA: Moreno Seeks Damages for FLSA Violations
----------------------------------------------------
SERGIO MORENO AND RYAN MOSEL, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TASKUS USA, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00504 (W.D. Tex., May 10, 2019) seeks
damages against TaskUs for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA").

Plaintiffs allege that TaskUs violated the FLSA by failing to pay
Team Leads minimum wage for all hours worked, and by failing to pay
Team Leads time-and-one-half of their regular rate for all hours
worked over forty in a workweek.

Plaintiffs are former Team Leads for TaskUs.

TaskUs USA, LLC is a limited liability company organized under the
laws of Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     LAWRENCE MORALES II, ESQ.
     ALLISON S. HARTRY, ESQ.
     THE MORALES FIRM, P.C.
     6243 IH-10 West, Suite 132
     San Antonio, TX 78201
     Phone: (210) 225-0811
     Facsimile: (210) 225-0821
     Email: lawrence@themoralesfirm.com
            ahartry@themoralesfirm.com


THOR MOTOR: Underpaid Workers' Overtime Wages, Hayes Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER HAYES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. THOR MOTOR COACH, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:19-cv-00375 (N.D. Ind., May 10, 2019) is brought individually
and on behalf of a putative class and collective action members and
seeks all damages available under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), and the Indiana Wage Payment Statute, including unpaid
wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, legal fees, costs
and expenses, and post-judgment interest.

In connection with its operations, Defendant employs non-exempt
manufacturing employees. Hayes was employed by Defendant as a
non-exempt manufacturing employee in this District and Division.
Plaintiff and the putative class and collective action members
regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek as employees of
Defendant but were not paid all overtime premium compensation owed
to them under the FLSA by Defendant, asserts the complaint.

The complaint relates that Defendant improperly calculated
Plaintiff's and the putative class and collective action members'
regular rate for purposes of computing overtime compensation by
including both productive and unpaid non-productive hours in the
regular rate calculation in violation of the FLSA. This improper
calculation resulted in the dilution of Plaintiff's and the
putative class and collective action members' overtime rate, which
ultimately resulted in the underpayment of overtime compensation,
adds the complaint.

Hayes is a former employee of Defendant with dates of employment
being approximately March 2015 through December 2017.

Defendant is in the business of manufacturing motorhomes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert P. Kondras, Jr., Esq.
     HASSLER KONDRAS MILLER LLP
     100 Cherry St.
     Terre Haute, IN 47807
     Phone: (812) 232-9691
     Facsimile: (812) 234-2881
     Email: kodras@hkmlawfirm.com

          - and -

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


TOKYO ELECTRIC: Court Junks Navy Crew's Claims Under Int'l Comity
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LINDSAY R. COOPER; et al., Plaintiffs, v.
TOKYO ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, INC.; et al., Defendants, Case No.
12cv3032-JLS (JLB)(S.D.Calif.), Judge Janis Samartino of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California
issued an order granting the motions to dismiss filed by Defendants
General Electric and Tokyo Electric Power Company.

Under California's choice-of-law governmental interest test, the
Court finds that Japanese law applies to this case.  Further, the
Court interprets the Japanese Compensation Act to channel all
liability from third parties to the Nuclear Operator.
Because GE is not an Operator and no exception applies, the
Compensation Act precludes all liability against GE.  Thus, the
Court grants GE's Motion to Dismiss and dismisses all of the
Plaintiffs' claims against GE pursuant to the Compensation Act.

As the Ninth Circuit previously made clear, this is a "close case"
with competing interests pointing in both directions.  After
further developments, and with the benefit of the Ninth Circuit's
guidance, the Court has now reweighed its prior ruling on
international comity.  The location of the conduct in question, as
well as the nationality of the parties, continues to weigh against
dismissal; the nature of the conduct and public policy interests
remains neutral.  Now, however, after considering the Japanese and
United States governments' views, the Court finds that the foreign
and public policy interests weigh toward dismissal.  And having
conducted a choice-of-law analysis and having determined that
Japanese law applies, this factor also weighs in favor of
dismissal.

On balance, the Court concludes that the factors now weigh in favor
of dismissal. Accordingly, the Court grants TEPCO's Motion to
Dismiss and dismisses without prejudice the Plaintiffs' case
against TEPCO under international comity.

A full-text copy of the Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y44gf34r from Leagle.com.

Lindsay R. Cooper, James R. Sutton, Kim Gieseking, Charles A.
Yarris, Robert M. Miller, Christopher G. Bittner, Eric Membrila,
Judy Goodwin, Jennifer L. Micke, John W. Seelbach, Maurice D. Enis,
Jaime L. Plym, Nathan J. Piekutowski, Carolyn A. White, Louie
Viernes, Michael L. Sebourn, K.S., an infant by his father and
natural guardian Michael L. Sebourn, Christian M. Ebueng, Paul J.
Encinias, Daniel E. Hair, Adam W. Krutzler, David K. Malone, Robert
Seligman, Eloi A. Whiteman, Jason D. Henry, Nellie Allen-Logan,
Jami Beschorner, Nathan Canche, Nathan Criswell, Jason Troy Friel,
Oscar Gonzalez, David Hahn, James Jackson, Jarrett Brady Johnston,
Jonathan Medina, Adam Mintz, Mallory K. Morrow, William Netherton,
Michelle Oden, Donald Rairigh, Christopher Rickard, Andrew Rivera,
Steven Ray Simmons, Akeem Smith, Justin Spencer, Alan Spurling,
Angel Torres, Anthony Garcia & Chad Yarbrough, Plaintiffs,
represented by Adam Cabral Bonner, Law Offices of Bonner & Bonner,
Catharine Elizabeth Edwards, Edwards Kirby LLP, Charles A. Bonner,
Law Offices of Bonner & Bonner, John Reid Edwards, Edwards Kirby
LLP, pro hac vice & Paul C. Garner, c/o Brooks & Associates.

John & Jane Does 1-70,000, Plaintiff, represented by Catharine
Elizabeth Edwards, Edwards Kirby LLP, Charles A. Bonner, Law
Offices of Bonner & Bonner, John Reid Edwards, Edwards Kirby LLP,
pro hac vice & Adam Cabral Bonner, Law Offices of Bonner & Bonner.

Jasmine Allen, Rhonda Anbert, Susan Ash, Jinky M.A., individually
and as the Administrator of the Estate of Charliemagne T.A.,
J.C.A., a minor by his mother as guardian ad litem Jinky M.A.,
J.A., a minor by his mother as guardian ad litem Jinky M.A., Dana
Austin, Renar Awa, Josh Bane, Aramis Barrios, Trevor Beck, Markus
Begay, Jordan Benoit, Jordan Bettencourt, Brett A. Bingham, Gunnar
Borthick, Kenneth Cleo Boswell, James P. Bowen, Matthew Bradley,
Nicolas Brewton, Nicolaus Brooks, Casey Brucklacher, Rebecca
Brunet, Gerardo Bruing, Robin Calcaterra, Carlisi, Courtney
Carmichael, Matthew Cartwright, Wayne Cassar, Fabian Cervantes,
Melvin A. Chamberlain, Terance Chapman, William Chapman, Jr.,
Annmarie Chessari, David Chitwood, George Cobb, Lori Lynn Cody,
Keondice W Cook, Angela Crabtree, Chad Croft, Brian Cross, Nicolas
Crouch, Thomas Culberson, Vicent Curci, Honda Dagan, James Darnell,
Janelle Darnell, Jason Dasilva, John Davis, Mark Decasa, Nichole M.
Decatur, Martin Delgardillo, Tina Dibernardo, Brandon Dockery, J.
D., a minor by his father as guardian ad litem Jeremy D., Jeremy
D., Christian Doerr, Ian W. Dove, Jesse Dunn, Christina Duvall,
Christian Joy Nagui Ebueng, Angel Escribano, Seth Eslin, Nicholas
J. Feller, Kyle E. Felt, Teri Forza, Joel Fudge, Paul Gabby, Shane
Gallagher, Zach Garner, John Oliver Gooch, IV, Kate Grace, Jennifer
Guana, M. H., a minor by Allison D. Eyring her mother as guardian
ad litem, Andrew Hajny, Robert Harewood, Daniel Patrick Harren,
Chad Harris, Robert C. Hartage, Tiffany Hartman, Nicholas
Helmstadt, Ashton Hemphill, Erin Herring, Cora E. Hill, Chad Holt,
Neil Hopkins, Dylan Imgram, Nick Inca, Jedidiah Irons, Gerardo
Irving, Blake Isaacs, Theodore H., The Estate of, by Manuel Leslie
as the administrator of the estate of Theodore H., Joanna Iloilo,
Darius Jackson, Jessica Jackson, Christian A. Jessup, William
Jones, Winston Jones, Leon Julian, Charles D. Kaiser, Daniel
Kregstein, Zackary Kube, Shane M. Langnes, Daniel Lawvier, Julian
Leon, Mary Lokka, Alyssa Lopez, Zackery Louvers, Christopher Lowe,
Alejandro Lusk, Cora Mae, Billy Markham, Alex Matin, Alfred
Mcallister, Dianna Mccants, Thomas Mccants, Cheneil Mccarter, Tyler
Mcdonald, Petina Mcintosh, Ryan Menendez, Michael Mesigh, Samy
Mohanie, Joel Monsalud, Leticia Morales, Kevin Morris, Colin
Morrison, Timothy Muis, Mark Newman, Officer Daniel Olsen, Anthony
J. Yovanovic, Jonathan Zavitz, William Zeller, Michael Zitella,
Mike Tisoy Orman, Christopher Peterson, Matthew Peterson, Alyssa
Petterway, Keith Pottratz, Daniel Pretto, Ashley Ramirez, Tyler Ray
Randrup, Susan Rodriquez, Branden Rucker, W. Rushby, Erica Ryan,
David Sanchez, Dane Santo, Daisy M. Sarslow, Robert Seeligman,
Benito G. Serentas, Jr., Kelli Serio, Christopher Shamrell, Michael
B. Shannon, Ryan Sivels, Joshua C. Smiley, Brandon Smith, Frances
Fister Stoga, Byron Sy, Kelly Tannehill, Nigel Thompson, Chad
Thorton, Michael Timko, Patricia Totemeier, James Trice, Darrel
Usry, Mark Valdez, Osvaldo Vera, Kailee Victrum, Andrew Vodopija,
Andrew Vrooman, Skyler Steven Warnock, Tawny Watson, Timothy J.
Wendal, Ian Lee Wheaton, Tim White, Edward Joseph Wickle, Patrick
Wight, Kristian William, Tim Woelky, Justin Wommack, Ronald Wright
& Kiochi Yamazaki, Plaintiffs, represented by Catharine Elizabeth
Edwards, Edwards Kirby LLP, Charles A. Bonner, Law Offices of
Bonner & Bonner & John Reid Edwards, Edwards Kirby LLP, pro hac
vice.

Adam Armenta, Plaintiff, represented by Catharine Elizabeth
Edwards, Edwards Kirby LLP, John Reid Edwards, Edwards Kirby LLP,
pro hac vice & Paul C. Garner, c/o Brooks & Associates.

Ryan S. Brown, Robby Canlas, Joshua Harrigan, Robert Lehrman,
Nicole Look Fang & Jon Neumann, Plaintiffs, represented by Charles
A. Bonner, Law Offices of Bonner & Bonner.

A.G., an infant by her mother and natural guardian Kim Gieseking,
Plaintiff, represented by Adam Cabral Bonner, Law Offices of Bonner
& Bonner, Charles A. Bonner, Law Offices of Bonner & Bonner & Paul
C. Garner, c/o Brooks & Associates.

Toshiba, Defendant, represented by Catharine Elizabeth Edwards,
Edwards Kirby LLP & John Reid Edwards, Edwards Kirby LLP, pro hac
vice.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Loo Sues over Transmission Defects in 2018 Camry
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Toyota Motor Sales,
USA, Inc. for violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies
Act and Unfair Competition Law. The case is captioned JAIME LOO,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, USA, INC., a California
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-00750 (C.D. Cal., April
24, 2019). On behalf of all similarly situated persons in the
United States who purchased or leased a 2018 Toyota Camry that was
designed, manufactured, distributed, marketed, sold, and leased by
Toyota, Loo also brings this action against Toyota for breaches of
express warranty, written warranty and implied warranties pursuant
to California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act.

The 2018 Toyota Camry contains one or more transmission defects
that cause, among other things, rough or delayed shifting,
significantly delayed acceleration, hesitation, loss of power,
and/or jerking. The defects have been documented to occur without
warning during vehicle operation and pose an extreme and
unreasonable safety hazard to drivers, passengers, and
pedestrians.

Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. is a California corporation with its
principal place of business located at 6565 Headquarters Dr. Plano,
Texas and doing business in California and throughout the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
     Marc L. Godino, Esq.
     Danielle L. Manning, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Telephone: (310) 201-9150
     Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
     E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

             - and -

     Mark S. Greenstone, Esq.
     GREENSTONE LAW APC
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Telephone: (310) 201-9156
     Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
     E-mail: mgreenstone@greenstonelaw.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Glasgo Files Suit in N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Uber Technologies,
Inc. The case is styled as MICHAEL GLASGO individually, and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Uber
Technologies, Inc. a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-02486-KAW (N.D. Cal., May 10, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.

Uber Technologies Inc. is an American multinational transportation
network company offering services that include peer-to-peer
ridesharing, ride service hailing, food delivery, and a
bicycle-sharing system.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Leo Wassner Desmond, Esq.
     Desmond Law Firm
     5070 Highway A1A Ste D
     Vero Beach, FL 32963-1229
     Phone: (772) 234-5150
     Fax: (772) 231-0300
     Email: ld@desmondlawfirm.com

          - and -

     Sean Martin Holas, Esq.
     Scott David Owens, Esq.
     Scott D. Owens, P.A.
     3800 S Ocean Dr Ste 235
     Hollywood, FL 33019-2930
     Phone: (954) 589-0588
     Fax: (954) 337-0666
     Email: sean@scottdowens.com
            scott@scottdowens.com

The Defendant is represented by:

     Adam J. Hunt, Esq.
     Morrison & Foerster, LLP-New York
     250 West 55th Street
     New York, NY 10019-9601
     Phone: (212) 336-4341
     Fax: (212) 468-7900
     Email: adamhunt@mofo.com

          - and -

     Brandon T. White, Esq.
     Edward M. Mullins, Esq.
     Reed Smith, LLP
     1001 Brickell Bay Dr Suite 900
     Miami, FL 33131
     Phone: (786) 747-0200
     Fax: (786) 747-0299
     Email: bwhite@reedsmith.com
            emullins@reedsmith.com

          - and -

     Tiffany Cheung, Esq.
     Morrison & Foerster LLP
     425 Market Street
     San Francisco, CA 94105
     Phone: (415) 268-7000
     Fax: (415) 268-7522
     Email: tcheung@mofo.com


UNIFIN INC: Pfeiffer Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unifin, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Yaakov Pfeiffer individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Unifin, Inc., Cach LLC,
John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02775 (E.D. N.Y., May
10, 2019).

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

Unifin Inc is a debt collection agency and is a full service BPO
and Accounts Receivable Management firm licensed and bonded
nationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNITED AMERICAN: Faces Miholich Suit for Invasion of Privacy
------------------------------------------------------------
KYLE MIHOLICH, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00915-JLS-MSB (S.D. Cal., May 15, 2019)
seeks damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant
in negligently and/or intentionally contacting Plaintiff on her
cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"), thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

At all times relevant, Plaintiff did not have a business
relationship with UAIC and Plaintiff's telephone number was on the
National Do-Not-Call Registry. On April 26, 2019, at approximately
1:55 p.m., UAIC called Plaintiff on his cellular telephone. The
prerecorded voice call was impersonal in nature, seeking insurance
agents to sell insurance products, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Mr. Miholich is a citizen and resident of the State of
California, County of San Diego.

UAIC is a health insurance company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
     Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
     Nicholas R. Barthel, Esq.
     KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
     245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626
     Phone: (800) 400-6808
     Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
     Email: ak@kazlg.com
            jason@kazlg.com
            nicholas@kazlg.com

          - and -

     Alex S. Madar, Esq.
     MADAR LAW CORPORATION
     14410 Via Venezia Apt 1404,
     San Diego, CA 92129-1666
     Phone: (925) 548--5322
     Email: alex@madarlaw.net


UNITED STATES: Court Stays Thakkar Suit
---------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
issued a Memorandum and Order staying the case captioned DR. VICKY
INDRAVADAN THAKKAR, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, U.S. CITIZENSHIP
& IMMIGRATION SERVICES, L. FRANCIS CISSNA, DISTRICT DIRECTOR DENIS
RIORDAN, FIELD OFFICER DIR. MIKE McCLEARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE, SECRETARY JAMES M. MATTIS, UNDERSECRETARY ROBERT WILKIE,
Defendants. Civil Action No. 18-cv-11323-MPK. (D. Mass.).

In this case, a non-citizen without permanent residency, who
enlisted in the United States Army and applied for United States
citizenship, alleges that the Department of Defense (the DOD), the
Department of Homeland Security (the DHS), and certain of their
sub-agencies and agency heads breached his enlistment contract and
violated various statutes and constitutional provisions by stalling
the processing of his citizenship application.

The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss or, In the Alternative,
Stay the Case (#14), asserting that Plaintiff's suit is barred
because he is already a member of a previously-filed class action,
Nio v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 17-cv-0998 (ESH) (D.D.C.
filed May 24, 2017.

The Defendants argue that, in addition to being barred by Nio, the
Plaintiff's claims for breach of contract, estoppel, and violation
of the statutory right to naturalize should be dismissed pursuant
to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and/or 12(b)(6).

Although the Plaintiff's claims are not precisely the same as the
claims in Nio, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiff's complaint
should be either dismissed or stayed, pending the District of
Columbia's resolution of Nio, pursuant to the first-to-file rule.


It is undisputed that Nio was the first-filed action. Turning to
the other two factors, the similarity of the parties and the
similarity of the issues, other federal district courts have noted
that the first-to-file rule does not require strict identity of the
parties, but rather substantial similarity. Therefore, when a suit
is related to a class action like Nio, the classes, and not the
class representatives, are compared. Thus, courts will compare the
allegations in the plaintiff's complaint with the class definition
to determine whether the plaintiff meets the class definition's
requirements.  

Applying these principles, the Northern District of California
concluded in Wang that the Nio class definition applied to the
plaintiff, Qi Wang, a Chinese citizen who was part of the MAVNI
program and made claims similar to those of Plaintiff here. Like
members of the Nio class, and Plaintiff in the present case, Wang
alleged that although he had enlisted in the Selected Reserve
through MAVNI before October 13, 2017, served honorably by
participating in at least one Selected Reserve drill period,
received an N-426 certifying his honorable service, and submitted a
Form N-400 naturalization application to USCIS, the processing of
his naturalization application had stalled.    

The parties in the present case are sufficiently similar to the
parties in Nio such that the first-to-file rule applies. The
Plaintiff, like many of the other class members in Nio, along with
the plaintiffs in both Wang (Wang, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157405)
and Gampala, (Gampala v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., No.
18-cv-02303-JSC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168328, at *10 (N.D. Cal.
Sept. 28, 2018)) enlisted in the Selected Reserve through MAVNI
before October 13, 2017; served honorably in the U.S. military by
participating in at least one Selected Reserve drill period;
received an executed Form N-426 certifying his honorable service;
submitted an N-400 Application for Naturalization to USCIS; and
finally, is having the processing or final adjudication of his
naturalization application delayed or denied due to the DOD's
enhanced security screenings.

The DHS, USCIS, the DOD, and their officials are named Defendants
in both cases. While various other field officers are also named as
the Defendants here but not in Nio, their presence as the
Defendants does not affect the character of the present suit. As
the Northern District of California explained in Gampala, USCIS
would be compelled to adjudicate Plaintiff's naturalization
application, regardless of whether he prevailed as a single
plaintiff in the present case or as a class member in Nio.

Like the Nio class action members, Wang brought claims under the
APA and sought to obtain mandamus, an order equitably estopping the
defendants from withholding his naturalization application, and
declaratory, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to compel
and enjoin defendants to comply with their statutory obligations.
Holding that the issues raised in Wang's complaint were
sufficiently similar to the issues raised in Nio, the Northern
District of California reasoned that both Wang and the Nio class
members had the ultimate end goal, namely, the timely processing of
their naturalization applications, and both cases turned on whether
the DHS, the DOD, and various agency heads and field officers
violated their statutory obligations by imposing additional
requirements and holds on their naturalization applications.
  
The Plaintiff and the class members in Nio seek the same relief,
and both cases turn on similar determinations of fact and attempt
to resolve similar legal issues. The Plaintiff does not allege the
same exact claims as the Nio class members. He alleges various
additional claims, including violation of the statutory right to
naturalize, breach of contract, and equitable estoppel. At base,
however, the Plaintiff, like the Nio class members and the
plaintiffs in Wang, Gampala, and Hu (Hu v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland
Sec., No. 4:17-cv-02363-AGF, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39856, at *12
(E.D)), challenges whether the DOD can implement stricter military
security screenings and whether USCIS can hold naturalization
applications pending the outcome of those enhanced security
screenings.  

While Plaintiff maintains he is not sufficiently similar to the
MAVNI enlistees in Nio because he is a medical MAVNI, and the Nio
lawsuit appears to involve language MAVNIs, who are subject to
different background checks than he is, Defendants accurately point
out that the parties in Nio explicitly agreed that the Nio class
included `DTP medical and language Selected Reserve MAVNI soldiers.
Accordingly, the issues both cases raise are "substantially
similar" such that the first-to-file rule applies.

The Court concludes that staying the Plaintiff's claims for
mandamus (Count I); violations of the APA (Count II);
constitutional injury pursuant to the Fifth Amendment (Count III);
deprivation of the statutory right to naturalize (Count IV);
equitable estoppel (Count VI); declaratory relief (Count VII); and
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief (Count VIII) is the
appropriate remedy. Staying these claims is consistent with
Northern District of California's decisions in Wang, Gampala and
Hu.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 6, 2019 Memorandum and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5z3487s from
Leagle.com.

Dr. Vicky Indravadan Thakkar, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Margaret D. Stock, Esq.
     Cascadia Cross Border Law Group, LLC
     4141 B Street Suite 205
     Anchorage, AK 99503

        -- and --

     Laura Murray-Tjan, Esq.
     Federal Immigration Appeals Project

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
Kirstjen Nielsen, Secretary of the United States Department of
Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, L.
Francis Cissna, District Director Denis Riordan, Field Office Dir.
Mike McCleary, U.S. Department of Defense, Secretary James M Mattis
& Under Secretary Robert Wilkie, Defendants, represented by Jessica
P. Driscoll, United States Attorney's Office MA.


UNITED STATES: Hernandez Files Suit v. Homeland Security
--------------------------------------------------------
Jose Alberto Hernandez On behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Petitioner v. Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) and its office of Enforcement and Removal
Operations (ERO), Unit Chief ICE/ERO Law Enforcement Support Center
(LESC), ICE/ERO Director California Field Office, Respondents, Case
No. 3:19-cv-00894-WQH-JLB (S.D. Cal., May 10, 2019)

The nature of suit is stated as Mandamus & Other for Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus.

United States Secretary of Homeland Security is the head of the
United States Department of Homeland Security, the body concerned
with protecting the U.S. and the safety of U.S. citizens.[BN]

The Petitioner appears pro se:

     Jose Alberto Hernandez, Esq.
     827 Forrest Avenue
     Gadsden, AL 35901
     Phone: 094-447-896
     Etowah County Detention Center

The Respondents are represented by:

     US Attorney CV, Esq.
     US Attorneys Office Southern District of California
     880 Front Street, Suite 6253
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 557-5662
     Fax: (619) 557-7122
     Email: Efile.dkt.civ@usdoj.gov


US STEEL: Oklahoma Pension Plan Sues over Falsely Inflated Prices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against United States Steel
Corporation and its senior officers and/or directors for violations
of the Securities and Exchange Act. The case is captioned OKLAHOMA
FIREFIGHTERS PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on Behalf of Itself and
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED STATES STEEL
CORPORATION, MARIO LONGHI, DAVID B. BURRITT, AND DAN LESNAK,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00470-CB (W.D. Pa., April 24, 2019).
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants employed devices, schemes and
artifices to defraud; made untrue statements of material fact
and/or omitted material facts necessary to make the statements made
not misleading; and engaged in acts, practices and a course of
business which operated as a fraud and deceit upon Plaintiff and
the Class, in violation of Sec. 10(b) of the Securities and
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Allegedly, the
market price of U.S. Steel securities had been artificially and
falsely inflated by the misleading statements that were released by
the company and its executives.

Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System is a defined
benefit pension plan based in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. It manages
approximately $2.7 billion in assets on behalf of its retirees. It
has purchased U.S. Steel securities with artificially inflated
prices.

U.S. Steel is a corporation organized and existing under the laws
of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business
located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The company's common stock
trades on the NYSE under the symbol X. U.S. Steel, an integrated
steel producer of flat-rolled and tubular products with major
production operations in North America and Europe, supplies
customers throughout the world primarily in the automotive,
consumer, industrial, and oil country tubular goods markets. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
     Nancy A Kulesa, Esq.
     Stephanie A. Bartone, Esq.
     Gregory M. Potrepka, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
     1111 Summer Street, Suite 403
     Stamford, CT 06905
     Telephone: (203) 992-4523
     Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
     E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com
             nkulesa@zlk.com
            sbartone@zlk.com
            gpotrepka@zlk.com

            - and -

     Vincent Coppola, Esq.
     PRIBANIC & PRIBANIC, LLC
     513 Court Place
     Pittsburgh, PA 15219
     Telephone: (412) 281-8844
     Facsimile: (412) 281-4740


WAL-MART INC: Krauss Suit Removed to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned HOPE KRAUSS, aka, DEONTE KRAUSS, individually
and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
WAL-MART, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 34-2018-00245485 was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento
to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California on May 10, 2019, and assigned Case No. 2:19-at-00369.

Plaintiff alleges that Walmart violated a host of California
employment-related laws, including California Labor Code and
California's Unfair Competition Law (California Business and
Professions Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     Aaron T. Winn, Esq.
     DUANE MORRIS LLP
     750 B Street, Suite 2900
     San Diego, CA 92101-4681
     Phone: 619.744.2200
     Email: atwinn@duanemorris.com


WORLDMARK: Timeshare Buyers Directed to Amend Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California denied, with
leave to amend, the motion to remand to state court the case
captioned TERINA CLARK & BRYAN CLARK, individually and as Private
Attorney Generals on behalf of the general public, Plaintiffs, v.
WORLDMARK, THE CLUB, et al., Defendants, No. 1:18-cv-01661-LJO-JLT
(E.D. Calif.).

This case involves a putative class action initially filed by
Plaintiffs Terina and Bryan Clark on May 10, 2018, in the Superior
Court of the State of California in the County of Kern.  The Class
in this matter consists of all individuals "who have 1) been sold a
timeshare in California by Defendants through individuals or
entities not licensed to sell real estate or arrange financing for
real estate purchases in California and 2) have been told by
Defendants that they have earned 'equity' on the purchase of
timeshare points."

The Plaintiffs may file any amended complaint clarifying the
allegations regarding in-state Defendants' conduct.  The Court held
that while the local controversy exception is non-jurisdictional,
where it applies remand is non-discretionary, citing Visendi v.
Bank of Am., N.A., 733 F.3d 863, 869 (9th Cir. 2013). Therefore, in
the interests of justice and judicial efficiency, the Court will
defer ruling on the motion to dismiss until it determines whether
the exercise of jurisdiction is proper. Accordingly, the
Defendants' motion to dismiss is stayed.  If the Plaintiffs elect
not to amend the complaint, the Court will proceed to rule on the
motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum Decision and Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yynlfy75 from Leagle.com.

Terina Clark, individually and as Private Attorney Generals on
behalf of the general public & Bryan Clark, individually and as
Private Attorney Generals on behalf of the general public,
Plaintiffs, represented by Robert D. Bedinger, US Consumer
Attorneys, P.A.

WorldMark, The Club, a California Corporation, Wyndham Resort
Development Corporation, an Oregon Corporation & Wyndham Vacation
Ownership, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants, represented by
Elizabeth Marie Treckler, Esq. -- etreckler@bakerlaw.com -- Baker &
Hostetler LLP & Michael R. Matthias, Esq. -- mmatthias@bakerlaw.com
-- Baker & Hostetler, LLP.


WPX ENERGY: Appeal Pending on Class Status Denial in Nevada Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeal from the denial of motions for class certification in a
class action in the Nevada District Court remains pending,
according to WPX Energy, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019.

On July 18, 2011, the Nevada district court granted the Company's
joint motions for summary judgment to preclude the plaintiffs'
state law claims because the federal Natural Gas Act gives the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission exclusive jurisdiction to
resolve those issues.

The court also denied the plaintiffs' class certification motion as
moot.  The plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  On April 10, 2013, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in
the In re: Western States Wholesale Antitrust Litigation, holding
that the Natural Gas Act does not preempt the plaintiffs' state
antitrust claims and reversing the summary judgment previously
entered in favor of the defendants.

The U.S. Supreme Court granted Defendants' writ of certiorari.  On
April 21, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the state
antitrust claims are not preempted by the federal Natural Gas Act.
On March 7, 2016, the putative class plaintiffs in several of the
cases filed their motions for class certification.  On March 30,
2017, the court denied the motions for class certification, which
decision was appealed on June 20, 2017.

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

On May 24, 2016, in Reorganized FLI Inc. v. Williams Companies,
Inc., the Court granted Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in
its entirety, and an agreed amended judgment was entered by the
court on January 4, 2017.  Reorganized FLI, Inc. appealed this
decision and on March 27, 2018, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
reversed and remanded the case to the MDL Court.  The parties have
filed numerous motions for summary judgment, reconsideration and
remand.

The Company said, "Because of the uncertainty around pending
unresolved issues, including an insufficient description of the
purported classes and other related matters, we cannot reasonably
estimate a range of potential exposure at this time."

WPX Energy, Inc., an independent oil and natural gas exploration
and production company, engages in the exploitation and development
of unconventional properties in the United States. The company was
founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma.


WPX ENERGY: Continues to Defend Natural Gas Purchasers Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
WPX Energy, Inc. continues to defend itself against civil suits
based on allegations of manipulating published gas price indices,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019.

The Company is currently a defendant in class action litigation and
other litigation originally filed in state court in Colorado,
Kansas, Missouri and Wisconsin and brought on behalf of direct and
indirect purchasers of natural gas in those states.  These cases
were transferred to the federal court in Nevada.

In 2008, the court granted summary judgment in the Colorado case in
favor of the Company and most of the other defendants based on
plaintiffs' lack of standing.  On January 8, 2009, the court denied
the plaintiffs' request for reconsideration of the Colorado
dismissal and entered judgment in the Company's favor. On August 6,
2018, the Ninth Circuit reversed the orders denying class
certification and remanded to the MDL Court.  On September 7, 2018,
those plaintiffs filed a motion seeking remand to the originally
filed district courts of Missouri, Kansas and Wisconsin.

On October 23, 2018, a settlement in principle with the Kansas and
Missouri class claimants was reached.  The written settlement
agreement has been finalized, and a motion for preliminary approval
of the settlement filed with the Court.

In the Wisconsin class action, defendants' motion for entry of
their proposed order denying class certification remains pending,
along with the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to the
originally filed district court.

WPX Energy, Inc., an independent oil and natural gas exploration
and production company, engages in the exploitation and development
of unconventional properties in the United States. The company was
founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma.


WYETH CONSUMER: Engram Files Suit in New York for Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wyeth Consumer
Healthcare LLC. The case is styled as Clinton Engram individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Wyeth
Consumer Healthcare LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02886 (E.D.
N.Y., May 15, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending.

Wyeth Consumer Healthcare Inc. engages in the research and
development, manufacture, and sale of non-prescription
pharmaceutical products in North America, South America, Europe,
Asia, Africa, and Australia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: $1MM Medical Expenses Award Reinstated
-------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reported that a a Louisiana appeals court has reinstated a
$1 million jury award for medical expenses as part of a nearly $3
million verdict in a suit accusing two shipping companies of
causing mesothelioma.

Jerry Craft appealed the jury's award of $1,600,000 in general
damages and the judgment notwithstanding the verdict ("JNOV")
granted by the trial court in favor of Crowley Marine Services,
Inc.'s (formerly known as Delta Steamship Lines, Inc.) and James J.
Flanagan Shipping Corporation's (formerly known as New Orleans
Stevedore), which struck the jury's award of $1,000,000 in future
medical expenses.  The Appellees also appeal the trial court's
judgment denying its JNOV motion as to the jury's finding of
negligence.

The appeals court said that while it acknowledges that Mr. Craft
has substantially suffered since his diagnosis, it did not find the
jury abused its discretion. The jury awarded Mr. Craft $1,600,000
in general damages, which included $1,000,000 in past and future
physical pain and suffering; $250,000 in past and future mental
pain and suffering; $250,000 in past and future physical
disability; $100,000 in past and future loss of enjoyment of life;
and $360,000 in past medical expenses.

The record indicates that Mr. Craft's medical bills at the time of
trial totaled about $360,000.  The record also supports that Mr.
Craft has undergone several procedures and has continually received
chemotherapy treatments since his diagnosis.  In Louisiana, it is a
well-established rule that, "[b]efore a Court of Appeal can disturb
an award made by a [fact finder], the record must clearly reveal
that the trier of fact abused its discretion in making its award.
The jury, as the fact finder in this matter, allocated amounts it
deemed appropriate for damages.

Thus, the appeals court did not find that the jury abused its
discretion when it awarded Mr. Craft $1,6000,000 in general damages
and decline to disturb the jury's award.

The appeals case is JERRY CRAFT, v. PORTS AMERICA GULFPORT, INC.,
ET AL., No. 2018-CA-0814 (La. App.).

A full-text copy of the May 8, 2019 Opinion is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y4lff4gu from Leagle.com.

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT:

     Christopher C. Colley, Esq.
     David Cannella, Esq.
     Jeremiah S. Boling, Esq.
     BARON & BUDD, P.C.
     2600 CitiPlace Drive, Suite 400
     Baton Rouge, LA 70810

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:

     Kevin J. LaVie, Esq.
     Robert John Barbier, Esq.
     Meredith W. Blanque, Esq.
     PHELPS DUNBAR LLP
     365 Canal Street, Suite 2000
     New Orleans, LA 70130-6534
     Email: kevin.lavie@phelps.com
            robert.barbier@phelps.com

        -- and --

     Gus David Oppermann, V, Esq.
     Charles Douglas Wheat, Esq.
     WHEAT OPPERMANN PLLC
     848 Heights Blvd.
     Houston, TX 77007


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 229 Talcum Suits vs. Colgate-Palmolive Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company has 229 individual cases pending against
the Company in state and federal courts throughout the United
States as of March 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "The Company has been named as a defendant in
civil actions alleging that certain talcum powder products that
were sold prior to 1996 were contaminated with asbestos.  Most of
these actions involve a number of co-defendants from a variety of
different industries, including suppliers of asbestos and
manufacturers of products that, unlike the Company's products, were
designed to contain asbestos.

"As of March 31, 2019, there were 229 individual cases pending
against the Company in state and federal courts throughout the
United States, as compared to 239 cases as of December 31, 2018.
During the three months ended March 31, 2019, 37 new cases were
filed and 47 cases were resolved by voluntary dismissal or
settlement.  The value of settlements was not material, either
individually or in the aggregate, to the Company's results of
operations for the quarter ended March 31, 2019."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Q49R2L


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Accrues $28MM Aero-Related Costs at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company, through its Aearo Technologies subsidiary, had accruals
of US$28 million as of March 31, 2019, for product liabilities and
defense costs related to current and future Aearo-related asbestos
and silica-related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "On April 1, 2008, a subsidiary of the Company
purchased the stock of Aearo Holding Corp., the parent of Aearo
Technologies ("Aearo").  Aearo manufactured and sold various
products, including personal protection equipment, such as eye,
ear, head, face, fall and certain respiratory protection products.

"As of March 31, 2019, Aearo and/or other companies that previously
owned and operated Aearo's respirator business (American Optical
Corporation, Warner-Lambert LLC, AO Corp.  and Cabot Corporation
("Cabot")) are named defendants, with multiple co-defendants,
including the Company, in numerous lawsuits in various courts in
which plaintiffs allege use of mask and respirator products and
seek damages from Aearo and other defendants for alleged personal
injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica-related, coal
mine dust, or other occupational dusts found in products
manufactured by other defendants or generally in the workplace.

"As of March 31, 2019, the Company, through its Aearo subsidiary,
had accruals of US$28 million for product liabilities and defense
costs related to current and future Aearo-related asbestos and
silica-related claims.  This accrual represents the Company's best
estimate of Aearo's probable loss and reflects an estimation period
for future claims that may be filed against Aearo approaching the
year 2050.  Responsibility for legal costs, as well as for
settlements and judgments, is currently shared in an informal
arrangement among Aearo, Cabot, American Optical Corporation and a
subsidiary of Warner Lambert and their respective insurers (the
"Payor Group").  Liability is allocated among the parties based on
the number of years each company sold respiratory products under
the "AO Safety" brand and/or owned the AO Safety Division of
American Optical Corporation and the alleged years of exposure of
the individual plaintiff.  Aearo's share of the contingent
liability is further limited by an agreement entered into between
Aearo and Cabot on July 11, 1995.  This agreement provides that, so
long as Aearo pays to Cabot a quarterly fee of US$100,000, Cabot
will retain responsibility and liability for, and indemnify Aearo
against, any product liability claims involving exposure to
asbestos, silica, or silica products for respirators sold prior to
July 11, 1995.  Because of the difficulty in determining how long a
particular respirator remains in the stream of commerce after being
sold, Aearo and Cabot have applied the agreement to claims arising
out of the alleged use of respirators involving exposure to
asbestos, silica or silica products prior to January 1, 1997.  With
these arrangements in place, Aearo's potential liability is limited
to exposures alleged to have arisen from the use of respirators
involving exposure to asbestos, silica, or silica products on or
after January 1, 1997.  To date, Aearo has elected to pay the
quarterly fee.  Aearo could potentially be exposed to additional
claims for some part of the pre-July 11, 1995 period covered by its
agreement with Cabot if Aearo elects to discontinue its
participation in this arrangement, or if Cabot is no longer able to
meet its obligations in these matters."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/2dF1PR


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Accrues $954MM for Respirator Suits at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company had an accrual of US$954 million as of March 31, 2019,
for liabilities associated with respirator mask and asbestos cases
(excluding those related to Aearo Technologies), according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "The Company regularly conducts a comprehensive
legal review of its respirator mask/asbestos liabilities.  The
Company reviews recent and historical claims data, including
without limitation, (i) the number of pending claims filed against
the Company, (ii) the nature and mix of those claims (i.e., the
proportion of claims asserting usage of the Company's mask or
respirator products and alleging exposure to each of asbestos,
silica, coal or other occupational dusts, and claims pleading use
of asbestos-containing products allegedly manufactured by the
Company), (iii) the costs to defend and resolve pending claims, and
(iv) trends in filing rates and in costs to defend and resolve
claims, (collectively, the "Claims Data").  As part of its
comprehensive legal review, the Company regularly provides the
Claims Data to a third party with expertise in determining the
impact of Claims Data on future filing trends and costs.  The third
party assists the Company in estimating the costs to defend and
resolve pending and future claims.  The Company uses these
estimates to develop its best estimate of probable liability.

"Developments may occur that could affect the Company's estimate of
its liabilities.  These developments include, but are not limited
to, significant changes in (i) the key assumptions underlying the
Company's accrual, including, the number of future claims, the
nature and mix of those claims, the average cost of defending and
resolving claims, and in maintaining trial readiness (ii) trial and
appellate outcomes, (iii) the law and procedure applicable to these
claims, and (iv) the financial viability of other co-defendants and
insurers.

"As a result of the settlements-in-principle of the coal mine dust
lawsuits, the Company's assessment of other current and expected
coal mine dust lawsuits (including the costs to resolve all current
and expected coal mine dust lawsuits in Kentucky and West
Virginia), its review of its respirator mask/asbestos liabilities,
and the cost of resolving claims of persons who claim more serious
injuries, including mesothelioma, other malignancies, and black
lung disease, the Company increased its accruals in the first
quarter of 2019 for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities by US$313
million pre-tax, or US$238 million after tax (US$0.40 per diluted
share).  In the first quarter of 2019, the Company made payments
for legal fees and settlements of US$32 million related to the
respirator mask/asbestos litigation.

"As of March 31, 2019, the Company had an accrual for respirator
mask/asbestos liabilities (excluding Aearo accruals) of US$954
million, up US$281 million from the accrual at December 31, 2018.
This accrual represents the Company's best estimate of probable
loss and reflects an estimation period for future claims that may
be filed against the Company approaching the year 2050.  The
Company cannot estimate the amount or upper end of the range of
amounts by which the liability may exceed the accrual the Company
has established because of the (i) inherent difficulty in
projecting the number of claims that have not yet been asserted or
the time period in which future claims may be asserted, (ii) the
complaints nearly always assert claims against multiple defendants
where the damages alleged are typically not attributed to
individual defendants so that a defendant's share of liability may
turn on the law of joint and several liability, which can vary by
state, (iii) the multiple factors that the Company considers in
estimating its liabilities, and (iv) the several possible
developments that may occur that could affect the Company's
estimate of liabilities.

"As of March 31, 2019, the Company's receivable for insurance
recoveries related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation was
US$4 million.  The Company continues to seek coverage under the
policies of certain insolvent and other insurers.  Once those
claims for coverage are resolved, the Company will have collected
substantially all of its remaining insurance coverage for
respirator mask/asbestos claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/2dF1PR


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Still Faces 2,335 Claimants at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company remains a defendant in numerous lawsuits in various
courts that purport to represent approximately 2,335 individual
claimants as of March 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims
resolved by and currently pending against the Company allege use of
some of the Company's mask and respirator products and seek damages
from the Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury
from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or
other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other
defendants or generally in the workplace.  A minority of the
lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the
Company generally allege personal injury from occupational exposure
to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the Company,
which are often unspecified, as well as products manufactured by
other defendants, or occasionally at Company premises.

"The Company's current volume of new and pending matters is
substantially lower than it experienced at the peak of filings in
2003.  The Company expects that filing of claims by unimpaired
claimants in the future will continue to be at much lower levels
than in the past.  Accordingly, the number of claims alleging more
serious injuries, including mesothelioma, other malignancies, and
black lung disease, will represent a greater percentage of total
claims than in the past.  Over the past twenty years, the Company
has prevailed in fourteen of the fifteen cases tried to a jury
(including the lawsuits in 2018).  In 2018, 3M received a jury
verdict in its favor in two lawsuits – one in California state
court in February and the other in Massachusetts state court in
December – both involving allegations that 3M respirators were
defective and failed to protect the plaintiffs against asbestos
fibers.  In April 2018, a jury in state court in Kentucky found
3M's 8710 respirators failed to protect two coal miners from coal
mine dust and awarded compensatory damages of approximately US$2
million and punitive damages totaling US$63 million.  In August
2018, the trial court entered judgment and the Company has
appealed.  During March and April 2019, the Company agreed in
principle to settle a substantial majority of the coal mine dust
lawsuits in Kentucky and West Virginia for US$340 million,
including the US$65 million jury verdict in April 2018 in the
Kentucky case currently on appeal.

"The Company has demonstrated in these past trial proceedings that
its respiratory protection products are effective as claimed when
used in the intended manner and in the intended circumstances.
Consequently, the Company believes that claimants are unable to
establish that their medical conditions, even if significant, are
attributable to the Company's respiratory protection products.
Nonetheless the Company's litigation experience indicates that
claims of persons alleging more serious injuries, including
mesothelioma, other malignancies, and black lung disease, are
costlier to resolve than the claims of unimpaired persons, and it
therefore believes the average cost of resolving pending and future
claims on a per-claim basis will continue to be higher than it
experienced in prior periods when the vast majority of claims were
asserted by medically unimpaired claimants."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/2dF1PR


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Had 1,500 Pending Claims at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc.'s subsidiary, ArvinMeritor, Inc., continues to defend
approximately 1,500 pending active asbestos claims in lawsuits at
March 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "ArvinMeritor, Inc. ("AM"), a predecessor of
Meritor, along with many other companies, has also been named as a
defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos used in certain components of Rockwell
products many years ago.  Liability for these claims was
transferred at the time of the spin-off of the automotive business
from Rockwell in 1997.  There were approximately 1,500 and 1,400
pending active asbestos claims in lawsuits that name AM, together
with many other companies, as defendants at March 31, 2019 and
September 30, 2018, respectively.

"A significant portion of the claims do not identify any Rockwell
products or specify which of the claimants, if any, were exposed to
asbestos attributable to Rockwell products, and past experience has
shown that the vast majority of the claimants will likely never
identify any of Rockwell products.  Historically, AM has been
dismissed from the vast majority of similar claims filed in the
past with no payment to claimants.  For those claimants who do show
that they worked with Rockwell products, management nevertheless
believes it has meritorious defenses, in substantial part due to
the integrity of the products involved and the lack of any
impairing medical condition on the part of many claimants."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/DxSM4X


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Had US$100MM Reserves at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc.'s subsidiary, ArvinMeritor, Inc., had reserves of
US$100 million for asbestos-related liabilities at March 31, 2019,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "ArvinMeritor, Inc. ("AM"), a predecessor of
Meritor, along with many other companies, has also been named as a
defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos used in certain components of Rockwell
products many years ago.  Liability for these claims was
transferred at the time of the spin-off of the automotive business
from Rockwell in 1997.  There were approximately 1,500 and 1,400
pending active asbestos claims in lawsuits that name AM, together
with many other companies, as defendants at March 31, 2019 and
September 30, 2018, respectively.

"The company engaged a third-party advisor with extensive
experience in assessing asbestos-related liabilities to conduct a
study to estimate its potential undiscounted liability for pending
and future asbestos-related claims as of September 30, 2018.
Management continuously monitors the underlying claims data and
experience, for the purpose of assessing the appropriateness of the
assumptions used to estimate the liability.

"As of September 30, 2018, the estimated probable range of equally
likely possibilities of the company's obligation for
asbestos-related claims over the next 41 years is US$103 million to
US$186 million.  Based on the information contained in the
actuarial study, and all other available information considered,
management concluded that no amount within the range of potential
liability was more likely than any other and, therefore, recorded a
liability at the low end of the range.  The company recognized a
liability for pending and future claims over the next 41 years of
US$100 million as of March 31, 2019 and US$103 million as of
September 30, 2018.

"AM has insurance coverage that management believes covers
indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insurance
retentions, for a significant portion of these claims.  The
insurance receivables for Rockwell asbestos-related liabilities
totaled US$66 million and US$68 million as of March 31, 2019 and
September 30, 2018, respectively.

"The amounts recorded for the asbestos-related reserves and
recoveries from insurance companies are based upon assumptions and
estimates derived from currently known facts.  All such estimates
of liabilities and recoveries for asbestos-related claims are
subject to considerable uncertainty because such liabilities and
recoveries are influenced by variables that are difficult to
predict.  The future litigation environment for Rockwell could
change significantly from its past experience, due, for example, to
changes in the mix of claims filed against Rockwell in terms of
plaintiffs' law firm, jurisdiction and disease; legislative or
regulatory developments; the company's approach to defending
claims; or payments to plaintiffs from other defendants.  Estimated
recoveries are influenced by coverage issues among insurers and the
continuing solvency of various insurance companies.  If the
assumptions with respect to the estimation period, the nature of
pending claims, the cost to resolve claims and the amount of
available insurance prove to be incorrect, the actual amount of
liability for Rockwell asbestos-related claims, and the effect on
the company, could differ materially from current estimates and,
therefore, could have a material impact on the company's financial
condition and results of operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/DxSM4X


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Global Had $366MM Reserve at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Global Holdings Inc. has asbestos reserve of US$366 million
at March 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "The claims alleging personal injury caused by
exposure to asbestos asserted against Ashland result primarily from
indemnification obligations undertaken in 1990 in connection with
the sale of Riley Stoker Corporation (Riley).  The amount and
timing of settlements and number of open claims can fluctuate from
period to period.

"From the range of estimates, Ashland records the amount it
believes to be the best estimate of future payments for litigation
defense and claim settlement costs, which generally approximates
the mid-point of the estimated range of exposure from model
results.  Ashland reviews this estimate and related assumptions
quarterly and annually updates the results of a non-inflated,
non-discounted approximate 50-year model developed with the
assistance of Nathan.

"During the most recent annual update of this estimate completed
during the June 2018 quarter, it was determined that the liability
for Ashland asbestos-related claims should be decreased by US$8
million.  Total reserves for asbestos claims were US$366 million at
March 31, 2019 compared to US$380 million at September 30, 2018."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/XaY6v5


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Upholds $33MM Jury Award in Finch
--------------------------------------------------------
Angela Childers, writing for Business Insurance, reported that a
district court upheld a nearly $33 million jury award granted to
the widow of a man who died from mesothelioma caused by asbestos
exposure.

In Finch v. Covil Corp., the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina denied the defendant's motion for a new
trial on damages on Wednesday, holding that there was no reason to
set aside the verdict on liability.

After Franklin Finch, a longtime employee of a tire factory in
Wilson, North Carolina, died from mesothelioma, his widow, Amy
Finch, sued Covil Corp., a pipe insulation company that went out of
business in 1991 and had sold virtually all of the insulation,
including the pipe insulation, used during the construction of the
tire plant.

Mr. Fitch, who worked at the plant from 1975 until 1995 as a mold
changer where insulated steam pipe led to and from the presses.
More than 7,000 feet of asbestos-containing pipe insulation
remained in the plant 15 years after its construction. His widow
filed a lawsuit against Covil alleging state law negligence and
failure to warn. The case was tried in October 2018, and a jury
awarded Ms. Fitch $32.7 million in damages. Covil argued that she
failed to present sufficient evidence to support the verdict on
liability and argued that the jury's verdict was excessive.

The district court, however, denied Covil's motion, holding that
Ms. Fitch offered extensive direct and circumstantial evidence that
Covil sold asbestos-containing products to the tire factory at a
time when it knew or should have known the products were dangerous
to human health, and that the exposure was the proximate cause of
Mr. Fitch's death.

The court held Ms. Fitch presented evidence that Mr. Fitch worked
in close proximity to the pipes, routinely bumped into them, which
caused a release of dust, and that air concentrations of asbestos
in the factory were high. She also presented evidence that Mr.
Fitch went through months of hospitalizations, surgeries,
complications and a colostomy before he died and found that Covil
had a full and fair opportunity to challenge Ms. Fitch's arguments
on the merits.

The court also found that she presented sufficient evidence that
the company had information by the mid-1960s that asbestos was
hazardous and caused mesothelioma, but started selling
asbestos-containing pipe insulation to the tire factory in 1973
without providing warnings.

"The fact that Covil lost and the jury returned a large verdict is
explained by the evidence, not by passion or prejudice," the court
said, and denied Covil's motions.

Attorneys in the case did not immediately respond to requests for
comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had 56,000 Claims at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc. (fka Crown Cork & Seal Co Inc.) had 56,000
outstanding claims related to asbestos matters as of March 31,
2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. ("Crown Cork")
is one of many defendants in a substantial number of lawsuits filed
throughout the U.S. by persons alleging bodily injury as a result
of exposure to asbestos.  These claims arose from the insulation
operations of a U.S. company, the majority of whose stock Crown
Cork purchased in 1963.  Approximately ninety days after the stock
purchase, this U.S. company sold its insulation assets and was
later merged into Crown Cork.

"Prior to 1998, amounts paid to asbestos claimants were covered by
a fund made available to Crown Cork under a 1985 settlement with
carriers insuring Crown Cork through 1976, when Crown Cork became
self-insured.  The fund was depleted in 1998 and the Company has no
remaining coverage for asbestos-related costs.

"In December 2001, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted
legislation that limits the asbestos-related liabilities of
Pennsylvania corporations that are successors by corporate merger
to companies involved with asbestos.  The legislation limits the
successor's liability for asbestos to the acquired company's asset
value adjusted for inflation.  Crown Cork has paid significantly
more for asbestos-related claims than the acquired company's
adjusted asset value.  In November 2004, the legislation was
amended to address a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision (Ieropoli
v. AC&S Corporation, et. al., No. 117 EM 2002) which held that the
statute violated the Pennsylvania Constitution due to retroactive
application. The Company cautions that the limitations of the
statute, as amended, are subject to litigation and may not be
upheld.

"In June 2003, the state of Texas enacted legislation that limits
the asbestos-related liabilities in Texas courts of companies such
as Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because
they are successors by corporate merger to companies that had been
involved with asbestos.  The Texas legislation, which applies to
future claims and pending claims, caps asbestos-related liabilities
at the total gross value of the predecessor's assets adjusted for
inflation.  Crown Cork has paid significantly more for
asbestos-related claims than the total adjusted value of its
predecessor's assets.

"In October 2010, the Texas Supreme Court held that the Texas
legislation was unconstitutional under the Texas Constitution when
applied to asbestos-related claims pending against Crown Cork when
the legislation was enacted in June 2003.  The Company believes
that the decision of the Texas Supreme Court is limited to
retroactive application of the Texas legislation to
asbestos-related cases that were pending against Crown Cork in
Texas on June 11, 2003 and therefore, in its accrual, continues to
assign no value to claims filed after June 11, 2003.

"In recent years, the states of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas,
Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan,
Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,
Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West
Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming enacted legislation that limits
asbestos-related liabilities under state law of companies such as
Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because they
are successors by corporate merger to companies that had been
involved with asbestos.  The legislation, which applies to future
and, with the exception of Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, South
Dakota, West Virginia and Wyoming, pending claims, caps
asbestos-related liabilities at the fair market value of the
predecessor's total gross assets adjusted for inflation.  Crown
Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-related claims than
the total value of its predecessor's assets adjusted for inflation.
Crown Cork has integrated the legislation into its claims defense
strategy.

"The Company further cautions that an adverse ruling in any
litigation relating to the constitutionality or applicability to
Crown Cork of one or more statutes that limits the asbestos-related
liability of alleged defendants like Crown Cork could have a
material impact on the Company."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/7FzvSl


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Decades Old Asbestos Cases in V.I. Inch Forward
----------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Ellis, writing for The St. John Source, reported that more
than a dozen attorneys crowded into Superior Court Judge Robert
Molloy's courtroom to share the status of some of the more than 600
remaining asbestos cases against Hess Oil.

Litigation of the cases has been moving slowly since 1997 and 1998,
when the first 400 cases were filed by people claiming illness due
to asbestos and/or silica dust exposure from the refinery and St.
Croix Alumina. In 2013 and 2014 alone, approximately 120 people
sued Hess with claims of asbestos exposure during their employment,
according to court documents.

Over the years, the plaintiffs have been mostly employees of the
Hess Refinery, family members or people who lived in the vicinity
-- between 40 and 50 women have filed lawsuits.

The first toxic dust case in the territory was settled in 2003
against Owens Corning in favor of plaintiff, William Dunn. At first
he was awarded $2 million and after appeal the amount was reduced
to $500,000. He died of cancer before he had a chance to spend it.

According to Russell Pate, attorney for the plaintiffs, Hess has
settled all cases that haven't been dismissed by the court. The
company has not tried any in court.

"It looks like Hess didn't care about the (1972 federal) law," Pate
said, and the company didn't begin to notify employees about the
asbestos in the insulation until after they started seeing
lawsuits. (Limetree Bay, the new operators of the refinery sent a
memo to employees and contractors in March 2015 that there is still
asbestos in the refinery.)

In the meantime, some of the plaintiffs have died before giving
depositions and others have not been located because of the passage
of time, slowing down the process.

The number of cases grew eventually to 1,400, Pate estimated, and
Hess sued all of the contractors at the refinery feeling they
should pay their fare share. Several of the attorneys in Molloy's
court represented companies such as Union Carbide, 3M and Dryers
and Ricktors.

When the cases were first filed, St. Croix had one fewer judge than
did the St. Thomas/St. John district. When the court was filled, it
was decided that one judge should handle all of the complex toxic
cases -- and Molloy was selected.

It was reported in the courtroom that 500 cases were resolved in
Molloy's court last year. He had set a trial date for May 2018 for
four cases but by the trial date, all 500 complaints were settled.
Thirty of the plaintiffs had died before going to court so Molloy
held a status conference to learn about contact and resolution with
the estates of the deceased.

During the session, it was apparent the judge and attorneys were
very familiar with the cases as they discussed the status of
plaintiffs. Several commended the judge and his staff on creating
charts and comprehensive data for the cases for the attorneys'
use.

Pate said he hopes a trial date can be set by next May, although
there is still a good amount of communication that needs to take
place between the court and the victims.

"You can't dismiss (a case) if there has been no contact with the
plaintiff," Molloy reminded the courtroom.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Records $164MM Liability at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company gas recorded US$164 million
gross liabilities at March 31, 2019 for both asserted and
unasserted asbestos-related claims, inclusive of defense costs,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "We are a defendant in numerous lawsuits
alleging various asbestos-related personal injuries purported to
result from alleged exposure to asbestos in certain products
manufactured by us or present in certain of our facilities.
Typically, these lawsuits have been brought against multiple
defendants in state and federal courts.

We periodically, and at least annually, review our existing
reserves for pending claims, including a reasonable estimate of the
liability associated with unasserted asbestos claims, and estimate
our receivables from probable insurance recoveries.  We recorded
gross liabilities for both asserted and unasserted claims,
inclusive of defense costs, totaling US$164 million and US$166
million at March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, respectively.  In
determining the estimate of our asbestos liability, we evaluated
claims over the next ten-year period.  Due to the difficulties in
making these estimates, analysis based on new data and/or a change
in circumstances arising in the future may result in an increase in
the recorded obligation, and that increase could be significant.

"We maintain certain primary and excess insurance coverage under
coverage-in-place agreements, and also have additional excess
liability insurance with respect to asbestos liabilities.  After
consultation with our outside legal counsel and giving
consideration to agreements with certain of our insurance carriers,
the financial viability and legal obligations of our insurance
carriers and other relevant factors, we determine an amount we
expect is probable of recovery from such carriers.  We record a
receivable with respect to such policies when we determine that
recovery is probable and we can reasonably estimate the amount of a
particular recovery.

"We recorded a receivable related to asbestos claims of US$107
million and US$108 million at March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018,
respectively.  We expect that approximately 65% of asbestos claim
related losses would be recoverable through insurance during the
ten-year period covered by the estimated liability.  Of these
amounts, US$13 million was included in Current Assets as part of
Accounts Receivable at both March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018.
The recorded receivable consists of an amount we expect to collect
under coverage-in-place agreements with certain primary and excess
insurance carriers as well as an amount we believe is probable of
recovery from certain of our other excess insurance carriers."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/4kpvyt


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX, Subsidiaries Still Defend Suits at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
IDEX Corporation and six of its subsidiaries remain defendants in a
number of lawsuits claiming various asbestos-related personal
injuries, allegedly as a result of exposure to products
manufactured with components that contained asbestos, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

IDEX Corp. states, "These components were acquired from third party
suppliers and were not manufactured by the Company or any of the
defendant subsidiaries.  To date, the majority of the Company's
settlements and legal costs, except for costs of coordination,
administration, insurance investigation and a portion of defense
costs, have been covered in full by insurance, subject to
applicable deductibles.  However, the Company cannot predict
whether and to what extent insurance will be available to continue
to cover these settlements and legal costs, or how insurers may
respond to claims that are tendered to them.

"Claims have been filed in jurisdictions throughout the United
States and the United Kingdom.  Most of the claims resolved to date
have been dismissed without payment.  The balance of the claims
have been settled for various immaterial amounts.  Only one case
has been tried, resulting in a verdict for the Company's business
unit.  No provision has been made in the financial statements of
the Company, other than for insurance deductibles in the ordinary
course, and the Company does not currently believe the
asbestos-related claims will have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, financial position, results of operations or
cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/ofkUBT


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Has $592.3MM Liabilities at March31
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand Public Limited Company has total asbestos-related
liabilities of US$592.3 million as of March 31, 2019, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

The Company also disclosed that it has total asset for probable
asbestos-related insurance recoveries of US$261.2 million as of
March 31, 2019.

Ingersoll-Rand states, "The Company's asbestos insurance
receivables related to Ingersoll-Rand Company and Trane were
US$139.6 million and US$121.6 million at March 31, 2019, and
US$141.7 million and US$126.5 million at December 31, 2018.  The
receivable attributable to Trane for probable insurance recoveries
as of March 31, 2019 is entirely supported by settlement agreements
between Trane and the respective insurance carriers.  Most of these
settlement agreements constitute "coverage-in-place" arrangements,
in which the insurer signatories agree to reimburse Trane for
specified portions of its costs for asbestos bodily injury claims
and Trane agrees to certain claims-handling protocols and grants to
the insurer signatories certain releases and indemnifications.

"The costs associated with the settlement and defense of
asbestos-related claims, insurance settlements on asbestos-related
matters and the revaluation of the Company's liability for
potential future claims are included in the income statement within
continuing operations or discontinued operations depending on the
business to which they relate.  Income and expenses associated with
Ingersoll-Rand Company's asbestos-related matters are recorded
within discontinued operations as they relate to previously
divested businesses, primarily Ingersoll-Dresser Pump, which was
sold by the Company in 2000.  Income and expenses associated with
Trane's asbestos-related matters are recorded within Other
income/(expense), net as part of continuing operations.

"In 2012 and 2013, Ingersoll-Rand Company filed actions in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, seeking a
declaratory judgment and other relief regarding the Company's
rights to defense and indemnity for asbestos claims.  The
defendants were several dozen solvent insurance companies,
including companies that had been paying a portion of
Ingersoll-Rand Company's asbestos claim defense and indemnity
costs.  The responding defendants generally challenged the
Company's right to recovery, and raised various coverage defenses.
Since filing the actions, Ingersoll Rand Company has settled with
approximately two-thirds of the insurer defendants, and has
dismissed one of the actions in its entirety.

"The Company continually monitors the status of pending litigation
that could impact the allocation of asbestos claims against the
Company's various insurance policies.  The Company has concluded
that its Ingersoll-Rand Company insurance receivable is probable of
recovery because of the following factors:

   * Ingersoll-Rand Company has reached favorable settlements
regarding asbestos coverage claims for the majority of its recorded
asbestos-related insurance receivable;

   * a review of other companies in circumstances comparable to
Ingersoll-Rand Company, including Trane, and the success of other
companies in recovering under their insurance policies, including
Trane's favorable settlement;

   * the Company's confidence in its right to recovery under the
terms of its policies and pursuant to applicable law; and

   * the Company's history of receiving payments under the
Ingersoll-Rand Company insurance program, including under policies
that had been the subject of prior litigation.

"The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related
liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on currently
available information.  The Company's actual liabilities or
insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than
those recorded if assumptions used in the calculations vary
significantly from actual results.  Key variables in these
assumptions include the number and type of new claims to be filed
each year, the average cost of resolution of each such new claim,
the resolution of coverage issues with insurance carriers, and the
solvency risk with respect to the Company's insurance carriers.
Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables are
subject to greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens.
Other factors that may affect the Company's liability include
uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction
to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms that may be made by
state and federal courts, and the passage of state or federal tort
reform legislation.

"The aggregate amount of the stated limits in insurance policies
available to the Company for asbestos-related claims acquired, over
many years and from many different carriers, is substantial.
However, limitations in that coverage, primarily due to the
considerations, are expected to result in the projected total
liability to claimants substantially exceeding the probable
insurance recovery."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/jQPcXx


ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Hid Asbestos in Talc for Years, SC Jury Told
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reported that one of thousands of talcum powder cases
Johnson & Johnson failed to transfer to Delaware federal court
headed to trial in South Carolina.  According to Law360, the jury
in the South Carolina case was told that Johnson & Johnson hid
asbestos in its talc products for years.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Had 3,288 Claims at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. is still a co-defendant in cases
alleging asbestos induced illness involving claims by approximately
3,288 plaintiffs as of March 31, 2019, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "In each instance, the Company is one of a
large number of defendants.  The asbestos claimants seek
compensatory and punitive damages, in most cases for unspecified
sums.  Since January 1, 1995, the Company has been a co-defendant
in other similar cases that have been resolved as follows: 55,032
of those claims were dismissed, 23 were tried to defense verdicts,
7 were tried to plaintiff verdicts (which were reversed or resolved
after appeal), 1 was resolved by agreement for an immaterial amount
and 893 were decided in favor of the Company following summary
judgment motions."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/JzxCDC


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NHS Trust Fined Over Royal Shrewsbury Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reported that an NHS trust has been fined GBP16,000 over
failures surrounding the discovery of asbestos at one of its
hospitals.

The case focused on builders' renovations for Shrewsbury and
Telford NHS Hospitals Trust (SaTH) in 2012.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) said workers' exposure to
asbestos was a "potentially lethal risk" SaTH failed to control.

The Trust pleaded guilty to health and safety breaches on Wednesday
and said "nobody came to harm".

At Telford Magistrates Court, SaTH was also ordered to pay costs of
more than GBP18,000.

The HSE says asbestos-related diseases are linked to 5,000 deaths a
year in the UK. Exposure is commonly linked to lung disease and
mesothelioma, according to Cancer Research.

Fears of asbestos exposure at SaTH were first raised by Les Small,
a project manager in the estates department.

His concerns regarded renovation work in nursing accommodation at
The Royal Shrewsbury Hospital.

He lost his job after raising his fears, but later won GBP50,000
damages after a tribunal found he was unlawfully fired.

Following the ruling, the HSE said SaTH had "failed to take
adequate measures to deal with the initial release of asbestos,
exposing other contractors who later worked in the flat".

The watchdog also found materials containing asbestos were not
properly recorded by SaTH, and once it was discovered, the trust's
actions were "inadequate".

A SaTH spokesperson said that although asbestos-related policies
were in place, "they were not always being followed".

She said there was now a "much more robust approach to asbestos
management across the trust".


ASBESTOS UPDATE: SoCal Man Awarded $3MM for Exposure
----------------------------------------------------
Andrew Beale, writing for The Press Democrat, reported that a jury
awarded $3 million Thursday to a Southern California man who was
exposed to asbestos while working in Ukiah.

Ervan Groves, 80, of El Centro and his wife sued D.W. Nicholson
Corp., alleging that his terminal cancer was caused by asbestos
exposure while the company was performing contracting jobs at a
facility in which Groves worked.

Groves worked for Masonite Corp. in Ukiah from 1964 to 1999, and
D.W. Nicholson installed mechanical, electrical and piping
equipment at Masonite more than 100 times while Groves worked
there, according to lawyers who worked on his case.

Venus Burns, a lawyer for Weitz & Luxenberg who worked on the case
on behalf of Groves, said D.W. Nicholson failed to tell Masonite
employees they were potentially exposed to asbestos, and failed to
clean up asbestos that they left behind.

"We hope this is a valuable lesson for other companies, and we hope
companies will act a lot more safely," Burns said.

D.W. Nicholson did not respond to a request for comment.

A jury found D.W. Nicholson was responsible for 20 percent of the
damages to Groves, while Masonite was responsible for 70 percent
and a third company, J.T. Thorpe and Son was responsible for 10
percent. J.T. Thorpe and Son settled prior to the verdict and
Masonite was not named in the suit, meaning only D.W. Nicholson
will have to pay after the verdict, Burns said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Burden in Calif. Suit Upped $7.6MM
------------------------------------------------------------------
A court has increased Standard Motor Products, Inc.'s
responsibility in an asbestos liability case in California from
US$7.4 million to US$7.6 million in February 2019, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "In evaluating our potential asbestos-related
liability, we have considered various factors including, among
other things, an actuarial study of the asbestos related
liabilities performed by an independent actuarial firm, our
settlement amounts and whether there are any co-defendants, the
jurisdiction in which lawsuits are filed, and the status and
results of such claims.  As is our accounting policy, we consider
the advice of actuarial consultants with experience in assessing
asbestos-related liabilities to estimate our potential claim
liability.  In addition, based on the information contained in the
actuarial study and all other available information considered by
us, we have concluded that no amount within the range of settlement
payments was more likely than any other and, therefore, in
assessing our asbestos liability we compare the low end of the
range to our recorded liability to determine if an adjustment is
required.  The methodology used to project asbestos-related
liabilities and costs in our actuarial study considered: (1)
historical data available from publicly available studies; (2) an
analysis of our recent claims history to estimate likely filing
rates into the future; (3) an analysis of our currently pending
claims; and (4) an analysis of our settlements to date in order to
develop average settlement values.

"In accordance with our policy of performing an annual actuarial
evaluation in the third quarter of each year, and whenever events
or changes in circumstances indicate that additional provisions may
be necessary, an actuarial study was performed as of August 31,
2018.  The results of the August 31, 2018 study included an
estimate of our undiscounted liability for settlement payments and
awards of asbestos-related damages, excluding legal costs and any
potential recovery from insurance carriers, ranging from US$37.1
million to US$56.9 million for the period through 2061.  Based upon
the results of the August 31, 2018 actuarial study, in September
2018 we increased our asbestos liability to US$37.1 million, the
low end of the range, and recorded an incremental pre-tax provision
of US$3.5 million in earnings (loss) from discontinued operations.

"In November 2018, we were involved in an asbestos liability case
in California, in which a jury returned a verdict in favor of the
plaintiff for the gross amount of US$8.6 million in compensatory
damages.  Of this amount, we were held responsible for
approximately US$7.4 million.  In February 2019, the court amended
the verdict on the judgment, thereby increasing our responsibility
to approximately US$7.6 million.  We plan to pursue all rights of
appeal.  While the verdict is being appealed, interest will accrue
at a rate of ten percent (10%) per annum.

"As a result of the California asbestos liability case, in the
fourth quarter of 2018, our actuarial firm revised the results of
the August 31, 2018 study.  The results of the revised actuarial
study increased the low end of the estimated range of our
undiscounted liability for settlement payments and awards of
asbestos-related damages, excluding legal costs and any potential
recovery from insurance carriers, from US$37.1 million to US$46.7
million, and increased the high end of the range from US$56.9
million to US$83.9 million for the period through 2061.  Based upon
the results of the revised actuarial study, in December 2018, and
in accordance with our practice, we increased our asbestos
liability to US$46.7 million, the low end of the range, and
recorded an additional incremental pre-tax provision of US$10.1
million in earnings (loss) from discontinued operations.  Future
legal costs, which are expensed as incurred and reported in
earnings (loss) from discontinued operations, are estimated,
according to the revised study, to range from US$45 million to
US$83.1 million.

"We plan to perform an annual actuarial evaluation during the third
quarter of each year for the foreseeable future and whenever events
or changes in circumstances indicate that additional provisions may
be necessary.  Given the uncertainties associated with projecting
such matters into the future and other factors outside our control,
we can give no assurance that additional provisions will not be
required.  We will continue to monitor events and changes in
circumstances surrounding these potential liabilities in
determining whether to perform additional actuarial evaluations and
whether additional provisions may be necessary.  At the present
time, however, we do not believe that any additional provisions
would be reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on our
liquidity or consolidated financial position."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/tqjPvY


ASBESTOS UPDATE: UTC Records $333MM Asbestos Liability at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
United Technologies Corporation (UTC) recorded approximately US$333
million as of March 31, 2019 for its estimated total liability to
resolve all pending and unasserted potential future asbestos claims
through 2059, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "...[L]ike many other industrial companies, we
and our subsidiaries have been named as defendants in lawsuits
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos
integrated into certain of our products or business premises.
While we have never manufactured asbestos and no longer incorporate
it in any currently-manufactured products, certain of our
historical products, like those of many other manufacturers, have
contained components incorporating asbestos.  A substantial
majority of these asbestos-related claims have been dismissed
without payment or were covered in full or in part by insurance or
other forms of indemnity.  Additional cases were litigated and
settled without any insurance reimbursement.  The amounts involved
in asbestos related claims were not material individually or in the
aggregate in any year.

"Our estimated total liability to resolve all pending and
unasserted potential future asbestos claims through 2059 is
approximately US$333 million and is principally recorded in Other
long-term liabilities on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet
as of March 31, 2019.  This amount is on a pre-tax basis, not
discounted, and excludes the Company's legal fees to defend the
asbestos claims (which will continue to be expensed by the Company
as they are incurred).  In addition, the Company has an insurance
recovery receivable for probable asbestos related recoveries of
approximately US$147 million, which is included primarily in Other
assets on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of March 31,
2019.

"The amounts recorded by UTC for asbestos-related liabilities and
insurance recoveries are based on currently available information
and assumptions that we believe are reasonable.  Our actual
liabilities or insurance recoveries could be higher or lower than
those recorded if actual results vary significantly from the
assumptions.  Key variables in these assumptions include the number
and type of new claims to be filed each year, the outcomes or
resolution of such claims, the average cost of resolution of each
new claim, the amount of insurance available, the allocation
methodologies, the contractual terms with each insurer with whom we
have reached settlements, the resolution of coverage issues with
other excess insurance carriers with whom we have not yet achieved
settlements, and the solvency risk with respect to our insurance
carriers.  Other factors that may affect our future liability
include uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, legal rulings
that may be made by state and federal courts, and the passage of
state or federal legislation.  At the end of each year, the Company
will evaluate all of these factors and, with input from an outside
actuarial expert, make any necessary adjustments to both our
estimated asbestos liabilities and insurance recoveries."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/3VpYC0


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers' Exposure Suit vs. TIM SpA Continues
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Public Prosecutor's Office at the Turin Appeal Court has
brought the asbestos-related case against TIM S.p.A., among other
defendants, to the Court of Cassation, according to TIM's Form 6-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
month of April 2019.

The Company states, "In September 2014 the Ivrea Public
Prosecutor's Office closed the investigation on the presumed
exposure to asbestos of 15 former workers from the companies "Ing.
C. Olivetti S.p.A." (now TIM S.p.A.), "Olivetti Controllo Numerico
S.p.A.", "Olivetti Peripheral Equipment S.p.A.", "Sixtel S.p.A."
and "Olteco S.p.A." and served notice that the investigations had
been concluded on the 39 people investigated (who include former
Directors of the aforementioned companies).

"On December 2014 the Ivrea Public Prosecutor's Office formulated a
request for 33 of the 39 people originally investigated to be
committed for trial, and at the same time asked that 6
investigations be archived.

"During the preliminary hearing, which started in April 2015, TIM
assumed the role of civilly liable party, after being formally
summonsed by all 26 civil parties (institutions and natural
persons) joined in the proceedings.  At the end of the preliminary
hearing, 18 of the original 33 persons accused were committed for
trial.  The trial started in November 2015, and, as the party
liable for damages, the Company has reached a settlement agreement
with 12 of the 18 individuals (heirs/injured persons/family
members) who are civil parties to the dispute and they have,
therefore, withdrawn the claim against TIM.

"In the judgment of first instance, in July 2016, 13 of the 18
defendants were found guilty, with sentences ranging from 1 year to
5 years of imprisonment: four of the defendants were found not
guilty, and one case was dismissed for health reasons.  The
defendants were also sentenced to pay compensation jointly and
severally with the party liable for damages TIM, of an overall sum
of approximately 1.9 million euros as a provisional payment to
INAIL and 6 heirs who were not part of the settlement.  A generic
judgment to pay compensation for damages to the remaining damaged
parties (entities/unions/associations) was issued, although they
must in any case ask the civil court to quantify the damages.  The
Company challenged the rationale for the judgment in the first
instance, and signed settlements, including with the final 6 heirs
who constituted the civil party, before the judgment in the second
instance was issued.  So the only civil parties to the appeal were
organizations and associations.

"In April 2018, the Turin Appeal Court, overturning the judgment of
the court of the first instance, found all the accused not guilty:
"because there was no case to answer for all the charges".

"In its considerations, filed in October 2018, the Court recognized
that there was no causal link between the individual behavior of
the accused persons and the death of the former workers.

"The Public Prosecutor's Office at the Turin Appeal Court appealed
to the Court of Cassation against said judgment based on a number
of grounds for appeal, and also requested the Joint Chambers to
provide clarifications regarding the principles to apply in
assessing the causal link."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/GC0EMK



                            *********

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 ***