CAR_Public/190527.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, May 27, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 105

                            Headlines

3M CO: Albuerne Sues Over Defective Earplugs
3M COMPANY: Removes Silva Suit to District of Rhode Island
AAC HOLDINGS: Pomerantz Files Securities Fraud Class Action Suit
AAC HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
ABBVIE INC: MSP Recovery Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania

ABC CORP: Underpays Delivery Persons, Chen Suit Alleges
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Troup Sues over Illegal Telemarketing Practice
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Hamano Suit Moved to C.D. California
ALL WEB LEADS: Williams Seeks OT Pay for Call Center Employees
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Zerriouh Sues over Debt Collection Practices

AMERICAN RENAL: Zhang Law Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
ANDY MOHR: Faces Class Action Over Document Preparation Fee
APPLE INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action in Calif.
ARIZONA ICED: Faces Class Action Over Green Tea Ginseng Claims
ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Court Appoints Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit

AT&T INC: PROFECO Wins Class Suit Over Undue Charges
ATBCOIN LLC: Case Sets Precedent for Future Securities Violations
AUTOZONE INC: Shaw-Taylor Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
AUTOZONERS, LLC: Marquez Seeks Meal Breaks for Store Employees
AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Lead Plaintiff Appointed in Securities Suit

BAI BRANDS: Court Narrows Claims in Branca Mislabeling Suit
BAYER AG: Saskatchewan Farmer Named Lead Plaintiff in Roundup Suit
BB&T CORP: $24MM Settlement in ERISA Suit Has Final Approval
BBQ PATIO: Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
BEMIS COMPANY: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Amcor Sale

BERKELEY BOWL: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
BROUSSEAU MANAGEMENT: Leja Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
C.R. ENGLAND: Settlement in Truck Lease Lawsuit Reached
CAESARS PALACE: Magistrate Suggests Dismissal of M. Anderson's Suit
CALIFORNIA CHECK: Cal. App. Affirms Summary Judgment in Gilberg

CANCHE CARPENTRY: Gochez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
CENIKOR FOUNDATION: Klick Sues Over FLSA and TVPA Violation
CHINA AGRITECH: Cahill Gordon Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
CITISTAFF SOLUTIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Wright Alleges
CJ FOODS: Underpays Food Mixers, Segura Suit Alleges

CLAREMONT HYUNDAI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Beltran Alleges
COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Dymond Sues Over FDCPA Violation
COVINGTON SPECIALTY: MSPA Claims Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
DANVERS MOTOR: Underpays Sales Persons, Miller Suit Alleges
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE: Challenging Use of Pseudonyms in Sex Abuse Case

DIAL CORP: Arizona AG Challenges $4.4MM Payout to Attorneys
EDDIE BAUER: Fisher Sues Over False "Discounting" Scheme
ENVOY AIR: Court OKs $3.55MM Settlement in Schroeder Suit
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Settles Virginia FCRA Class Action
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in Tadic Suit

EXTRA SPACE STORAGE: Johnson et al. Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
FCA US: Nov. 30 Deadline to Complete Alger Merits-Based Discovery
FEDEX FREIGHT: Calif. Court Dismisses Mamuyac Suit
FIAT CHRYSLER: Dodge Ram Emissions Class Action Can Proceed
FIRSTKEY HOMES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Drake Suit Claims

FORD MOTOR: Fiesta and Focus Owners Reach Settlement
FORD MOTOR: Suit Over Inaccesible On-Line Application Proceeds
FUSION CONNECT: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
FUSION CONNECT: June 17 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
FUTURE AG: Gomez-Gasca Sues Over Unpaid Compensations

GENERAL ELECTRIC: Court Compels Mediation in RGOI's Class Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Chevy Corvette Z06 Class Action Can Proceed
GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Faulty Cadillac SRX Headlights
GENOMICS MEDICINE: Chairman Faces Class Action in U.S.
GETSWIFT: Squire Patton-Led Shareholder Class Action Halted

GIGAMON INC: Stockholders' Delaware Class Action Dismissed
GILBERT ROZON: Contests Sex Assault Class Action at Appeals Court
GLEN MILLS: To Face State Investigation Amid Class Action
GOOGLE INC: $7MM Settlement Reached Over 1st Gen. Pixel Phones
GRAND CANYON UNIVERSITY: Removes Carr et al. Suit to N.D. Georgia

GRANT & WEBER: Chacon Sues over Debt Collection Practices
GRUPO RONTAN: 2 Remaining Class Actions Tentatively Settled
GTX INC: Living Seas Sues Over Merger Transaction
HILL'S PET: Faces Reed Suit over Sale of Tainted Dog Food
HOLCOMBE USA: Bittlingmeyer Sues Over TCPA Violation

HORIZON BANK: Court Dismisses Leato Couple's Claims as Frivolous
HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES: Nexus 6P Owners Get $400 Each in Settlement
INTERSECT ENT: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
INTERSECT ENT: Gainey Mckenna Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
INTUIT INC: Facing Suit Over "Free Filing for Military" Scheme

JASTRAM PROPERTIES: Former Investors' Class Action Certified
JBS USA FOOD: Peterson, Kimble Allege Price-Fixing of Beef
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Vallejo Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Calvillo Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Cervantes Talc Injury Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Choate Talc Injury Suit Moved to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Gould Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hyvarinen Talc Injury Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Ibrahim Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Iturreria Talc Injury Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Lozano Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Cameron Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Ceccato Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Hayes Talc Injury Suit to W.D. Kentucky
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Holstien Talc Injury Suit to N.D. Calif.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Yoshida Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Archer Suit to N.D. Georgia
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Brower Suit to N.D. Georgia
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Cerna Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Chavez Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Cheek Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Chimits Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Ciccone Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Gould Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Ingram Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Jacobi Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Trujillo Talc Injury Suit to N.D. Cal.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Wagner Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
JPMORGAN CHASE: Anderman, et al. Seek Damages Under FDCPA
JUICE BEAUTY: Wins Dismissal of S. Manier's CLRA Suit

JUMIA TECHNOLOGIES: July 15 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
JUMIA TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Suit
JUMIA TECHNOLOGIES: Timothy L. Miles Files Securities Fraud Suit
KALEIDOSCOPE FAMILY: Underpays Case Managers, Campbell Alleges
KIA MOTORS: Leon & Delgado Sue over Defective GDI Engine

KIA MOTORS: Oseguera & Zermeno Sue over Defective GDI Engine
KIMBERLY-CLARK: 2 Groups Renew Bid to Replace Avenatti
KRAKEN: BSV Holders Mull Class Action Over Delisting
KUSHCO HOLDINGS: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Fraud Suit
KUSHCO HOLDINGS: July 1 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline

L'OREAL USA: Devane Files Suit Over Products' False Ad
LANNETT CO: Robbins Arroyo Files Suit Over Price Fixing
LENDLEASE: Faces Class Action Over November Share Price Drop
LENOVO US: Settlement in Adware Litigation Has Final Court Approval
LEVEL 3: Court Dismisses J. Amedee's Suit

LONGFIN CORP: Skadden Arps Discusses SCOTUS Ruling Interpretation
LVNV FUNDING: Mendelovits Sues over Debt Collection Practices
LYFT INC: Block & Leviton Files Securities Fraud Class Action
LYFT INC: McCloskey Sues over False Statements in IPO Documents
LYFT: Faces Two Investor Class Actions Over IPO

LYNDON SOUTHERN: Camerman Suit Asserts TCPA Violation
MANAGE TRANSIT: Hobson Sues to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
MAXIMUS INC: Elizondo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
MERCURY GENERAL: MAO-MS0 Sues Over Unpaid Medical Expenses
METAGENICS INC: Settlement in Grivas Suit Has Final Court Approval

METROPOLITAN LEARNING: Heras Sues Over Missed Breaks, Unpaid Wages
MINI MART: Garcia Seeks Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
MIRAGE 1245 LTD: Cashiola et al. Seek Overtime, Minimum Pay
MOMO INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
MONITRONICS INT'L: Individual Claimants Survive Major Hurdle

MONSANTO CO: Accused by Combs Suit of Selling Dangerous Herbicide
MONSANTO CO: Bradley Sues Over Lymphoma From Roundup(R)- Exposure
MONSANTO CO: Combs Sues for Damages From Use of Roundup(R)
MONSANTO CO: Faces Cobb Suit Over Roundup(R)-Related Injuries
MONSANTO CO: Ibrom Sues Over Lymphoma Due to Roundup Exposure

MONSANTO CO: Malandrinos Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif.
MONSANTO CO: Sued by Caldwell for Roundup(R)-Related Damages
MONSANTO CO: Sued by Dailey Over Roundup(R)-Related Injuries
MONSANTO CO: Thompson Seeks Damages From Roundup(R) Exposure
MONSANTO COMPANY: Becker Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Frey Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Hix Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Lindsley Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Longs Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Taylor Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Wallace Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MORGAN STANLEY: Court Approves Briefing Schedule in B. Harvey Suit
NABRIVA THERAPEUTICS: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
NATIONAL STUDENT: Robinson Sues over Credit Background Checks
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Eslaquits Sue Over Improper Servicing Practice

NATURE'S PATH: Louis Sues Over Acai Toaster Pastry Product
NELNET INC: Fridman Sues Over False & Unauthorized Debt Collection
NEW JERSEY: Court Dismisses F. Rodriguez's Suit
NEW YORK: Court Certifies 2 Classes of Police Technicians
NEW YORK: Seeks to Dismiss Suit Over TPT Program

NISSAN: Court Sets Briefing Schedule in E. Cabebe Suit
NOBLES COUNTY, MN: Class Action Plaintiff Files Harassment Suit
NOKIA CORP: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Fraud Suit
NVIDIA CORP: Court Consolidates 2 Securities Fraud Suits
ONECOIN LTD: Grablis Sues Over Loss Due to Illegal Pyramid Scheme

ONOPCO, INC: J&J Removes Arstill Suit to C.D. California
OREGON: Governor Faces Suit over Child Welfare System
ORION GROUP: June 10 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE: Underpays Servers, Reutenauer Suit Alleges
P.F. CHANG: Littler Mendelson Discusses Class Certification Ruling

PORCELANA CORONA: July 1 Deadline to Exit Class Action Settlement
POSTMATES INC: Feld Sues Over False and Misleading Statements
PRO-LAB INC: Wins Bid to Set Aside Default Judgment in Standish
PROGRESSIVE COUNTY: Removes Lopez et al. Suit to W.D. Texas
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Court Dismisses Joyce's Non-CPA Claims

PROGRESSIVE SELECT: Sued over Medical Reimbursement Practice
RALPH LAUREN: Tripicchio Sues Over Phantom Discounts
REVLON INC: July 15 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
REVLON INC: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
ROYAL SEAS: Kelley Drye Discusses TCPA Class Certification Ruling

SAMMY'S YE OLDE: Settles Workers' FLSA Class Action
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Seminatore Claims Goes to Arbitration
SAS AUTOMOTIVE: Upshaw Asserts Calif. Labor Code Violation
SCHWANS COMPANY: Leguette Suit Moved to Middle District of Florida
SHARP GROSSMONT: Hagens Berman Provides Class Action Update

SILVER WHEATON: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action
SOCIAL SECURITY: Court Dismisses M. Lawrence's Veteran Suit
SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Appeals Court Upholds Decision in "Smith"
SPRINT CORP: June 21 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
SSC KERRVILLE: Court Won't Review Order Denying Arbitration Bid

STANFORD CARR: Faces Roberts et al. Suit in Hawaii
STANFORD INT'L: Greenberg Traurig Not Liable for Counsel's Work
STATE FARM FIRE: Removes Smith Suit to District of New Jersey
STATER BROS MARKETS: Ross Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
TELUS COMMUNICATIONS: Court Weighs in on Arbitration Clauses

TIER REIT: Martin Sues Over Merger Transaction
TIGER BRANDS: To Fight Listeria Outbreak Class Action
TRADER JOE'S: Sued Over Sale of Mislabeled Dried Fruit Products
TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Illegally Increased Insurance Costs, Shupe Says
TRIANGLE CORP: LifeWise Can File 2nd Amended Securities Suit

TRW AUTOMOTIVE: Strosberg Files $1-Bil. Suit Over Faulty Air Bags
UNITED NATURAL: Removes Ponce Suit to C.D. California
UNITED RENTALS: Underpays Equipment Associates, Castillo Alleges
UNITED STATES: Class Action vs. Immigration Officials Certified
UNITED STATES: Medicare Diabetes Patients Sue HHS Secretary

UNITEDHEALTH: Sued for Denying Mental Health Care Coverage
US STEEL: Faces Class Action Over Coke Pollution
UTILEBILL CREDIT: Faces Class Action Over False Information
WADDELL & REED: Settles ERISA Class Action for $4.88MM
WASTE SERVICES: Facing Class Suit Over Smelly CK Landfill

WEIGHT LOSS PRODUCTS: Rubinstein Alleges Deceptive Advertising
WELLCARE HEALTH: Rigrodsky Files Suit Over Centene Acquisition
WELLS FARGO: Judge Refuses to Certify Auto Repo Class Action
WHITESTONE REIT: June 17 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
WOOD-MODE INC: Competing Petitions Seek Class-Action Lawsuits

ZOGENIX INC: June 11 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
[*] Accounting Class Action Settlements Hit Near-Record High
[*] UK's Biggest Cos. Reduce Money Set Aside for Legal Claims

                            *********

3M CO: Albuerne Sues Over Defective Earplugs
--------------------------------------------
Maria Albuerne, Christian Garcia, Jose A. Gonzalez, and Leiman B.
Gonzalez on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-21554-XXXX
(S.D. Fla., April 23, 2019) is a complaint that seeks:

  (1) on behalf of the Plaintiffs, to recover damages for
      their personal injuries incurred while in training and/or
      on active military duty, resulting from Defendant's
      defective and unreasonably dangerous product, the Dual-ended
      Combat Arms earplugs (Version 2 CAEv.2) and

  (2) on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all other similarly-situated
      individuals, to establish a Court-supervised fund to
      provide medical monitoring to active-duty and veteran
      service members of the armed forces of the United States
      of America due to their increased risk from using 3M's
      defective products, and to extend some of the claims
      deadlines for fraudulent tolling.

Plaintiffs specifically used Defendant's dangerously defective Dual
ended Combat Arms earplugs while deployed in Iraq and during other
training and combat exercises. Defendant sold the Dual-ended Combat
Arms earplugs to the U.S. military for more than a decade without
the military and/or Plaintiffs having any knowledge of the
defect(s) and failed to adequately warn the military and/or
Plaintiffs of the defect(s).

The Defendant's Dual-ended Combat Arms(TM) earplugs were standard
issue in certain branches of the military (including Plaintiffs')
between at least 2003 to at least 2015. Thus, Defendant's
Dual-ended Combat Arms earplugs caused at least tens of thousands
of soldiers to suffer significant hearing loss, and additional
injuries related to hearing loss, including but not limited to pain
and suffering and loss of the pleasures of life, says the
complaint.

Plaintiffs joined the military in around 1994 and were discharged
in around 2019.

Defendant is in the business of designing, manufacturing, and
selling worker safety products, including hearing protectors and
respirators.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
     Howard M. Bushman, Esq.
     Joseph M. Kaye, Esq.
     THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
     2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
     Coral Gables, FL 33134
     Phone: (305) 740-1423
     Email: adam@moskowitz-law.com
            howard@moskowitz-law.com
            joseph@moskowitz-law.com

          - and -

     R. Seth Crompton (Pro Hac Vice to be filed)
     HOLLAND LAW FIRM, LLC
     300 N. Tucker Blvd., Suite 801
     St. Louis, MO 63101
     Phone: 314-241-8111
     Fax: 314-241-5554
     Email: scrompton@allfela.com


3M COMPANY: Removes Silva Suit to District of Rhode Island
----------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of ROBERT SILVA, as Administrator of the
Estate of MARIA SILVA; and the Minor Children BENJAMIN SILVA and
KATRINA SILVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. 3M COMPANY, JOHNSON & JOHNSON; and JOHNSON
& JOHNSON CONSUMER INC., filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from
the Superior Court of the State of Rhode Island, County of
Providence (Case No. PC-2018-9367) to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Rhode Island on April 18, 2019. The clerk of court
for the District of Rhode Island assigned Case No. Case
1:19-cv-00197-WES-LDA.

3M Company operates as a diversified technology company worldwide.
The company's Industrial segment offers tapes; coated, non-woven,
and bonded abrasives; adhesives; ceramics; sealants; specialty
materials; purification products; closure systems for personal
hygiene products; acoustic systems products; automotive components;
and abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mark O. Denehy, Esq.
          James R. Oswald, Esq.
          ADLER POLLOCK & SHEEHAN P.C.
          One Citizens Plaza, 8th Floor
          Providence, RI 02903-1345
          Telephone: (401) 274-7200
          Facsimile: (401) 351-4607
          E-mail: mdenehy@apslaw.com
                  joswald@apslaw.com


AAC HOLDINGS: Pomerantz Files Securities Fraud Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against AAC Holdings, Inc. (AAC) and certain of its officers. The
class action, filed in United States District Court, for the Middle
District of Tennessee, is on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired AAC
securities between March 8, 2017 and April 15, 2019, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused
by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against
the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased AAC securities during the
class period, you have until July 15, 2019, to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980.  Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

AAC was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Brentwood,
Tennessee. The Company provides inpatient and outpatient substance
use treatment services for individuals with drug addiction, alcohol
addiction, and co-occurring mental/behavioral health issues in the
United States.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, 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) AAC's internal control over
financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures was
inadequate to accurately reflect adjustments related to estimates
for accounts receivable, provision for doubtful accounts, and
revenue; (ii) AAC consequently misstated financial and operating
results in its annual reports for fiscal years 2016 and 2017, as
well as all quarterly reports throughout 2017 and 2018; (iii)
accordingly, those reports could not be relied upon, requiring AAC
to restate the financial and operating results reflected therein;
and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On April 16, 2019, AAC issued a press release, appended as an
exhibit to the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the
SEC, announcing AAC's financial results for the fourth quarter and
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, and providing guidance for
2019 (the "April 2019 Press Release"). The April 2019 Press Release
disclosed that the Company's annual reports for fiscal years 2017
and 2016, as well as all quarterly reports throughout 2017 and
2018, could no longer be relied upon, and stated that these
financial statements would be restated to reflect adjustments
related to estimates for accounts receivable, provision for
doubtful accounts, and revenue.

On this news, AAC's stock price fell $0.40 per share, or 18.69%, to
close at $1.74 per share on April 16, 2019.

Contact:

         Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
         Pomerantz LLP
         Phone: 888-476-6529 ext. 9980
         Website: www.pomerantzlaw.com
         Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]


AAC HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of AAC Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: AAC) from March 8, 2017
through April 15, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").  The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for AAC investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the AAC class action, go
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1577.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) AAC's internal controls over financial reporting and
disclosure controls and procedures were inadequate to accurately
reflect adjustments related to estimates for accounts receivable,
provision for doubtful accounts, and revenue; (2) AAC consequently
misstated financial and operating results in its annual reports for
fiscal years 2016 and 2017, as well as all quarterly reports
throughout 2017 and 2018; (3) accordingly, those reports could not
be relied upon, requiring AAC to restate the financial and
operating results reflected therein; and (4) as a result, AAC's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 15,
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-1577.html
Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm, on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm/.

Contact:

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


ABBVIE INC: MSP Recovery Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC;
MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC; and MAO-MSO RECOVERY II, LLC, SERIES PMPI,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. ABBVIE INC.; ABBOTT LABORATORIES; ABBOTT RESPIRATORY,
LLC; BARR PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; DURAMED PHARMACEUTICALS INC.;
DURAMED PHARMACEUTICALS SALES CORP.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA,
INC.; and TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED, Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-00892, was removed from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on April 12, 2019. The Eastern
District of Pennsylvania Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-01621 to the proceeding. The Case is assigned to the Hon.
William O. Bertelsman.

AbbVie Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells
pharmaceutical products in the United States, Japan, Germany,
Canada, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Brazil,
and internationally. The company was incorporated in 2012 and is
headquartered in North Chicago, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Tracy L. Turner, Esq.
          Christopher L. Coffin, Esq.
          PENDLEY BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP
          1100 Poydras Street
          New Orleans, LA 70163
          Telephone: (504) 355-0086
          Facsimile: (504) 355-0089
          E-mail: tturner@pbclawfirm.com
                  ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com


ABC CORP: Underpays Delivery Persons, Chen Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
HANG CHEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ABC CORP., d/b/a SUSHI EAST; and JIMMY CHEN,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03294 (S.D.N.Y., April 12, 2019) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Chen was employed by the Defendants as a delivery
person.

Abc Corp., d/b/a Sushi East operates a restaurant in the State of
New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Samuel, Esq.
          SAMUEL & STEIN
          38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 563-9884


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Troup Sues over Illegal Telemarketing Practice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Abercrombie & Fitch
Stores, Inc. for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (TCPA). The case is captioned Jessica Troup, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs.
Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. d/b/a Hollister Co., an Ohio
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-00779-CEM-GJK (M.D. Fla.,
April 24, 2019).

Plaintiff Jessica Troup alleges that Abercrombie & Fitch is engaged
in unsolicited telemarketing practices that harmed thousands of
customers in the process. The Defendant has reportedly sent
telemarketing text messages to Plaintiff's cellular telephone
ending in 2707 on or about April 15, 2016, and April 22, 2016.
Through this class 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 herself and members of the class,
and any other available legal or equitable remedies.

Abercrombie & Fitch is an Ohio corporation whose principal office
is located at 6301 Fitch Path, New Albany, OH. The company is a
world-wide clothing and apparel brand. It also directs, markets,
and provides its business activities throughout the state of
Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
     SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
     14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205
     Miami, FL 33132
     Telephone: 305-479-2299
     E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

             - and -

     Michael Eisenband, Esq.
     EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
     515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
     Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Telephone: 954.533.4092
     E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com

             - and –

     Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
     HIRALDO P.A.
     401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
     Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Telephone: (954) 400.-713
     E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

             - and -

     Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
     Jordan D. Utanski, Esq.
     EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
     19495 Biscayne Blvd #607
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Telephone: (305) 975-3320
     E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
             utanski@edelsberglaw.com
         
             - and -

     Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
     IJH LAW
     14 NE First Ave., 10th Floor
     Miami, FL 33132
     Telephone: (786) 351-8709
     E-mail: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com


ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Hamano Suit Moved to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as, Chase Hamano Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. R N Croft Financial
Group, Min Ning Goh, ASG Japan Limited, and U.A. Local No. 393
Defined Benefit Pension Plan and Defined Contribution Plans, the
Movants, and Activision Blizzard Inc., Robert A. Kotick, Spencer
Neumann, and Collister Johnson, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01741 (Filed Mar. 12, 2019) was transferred  from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Western
Division - Los Angeles) on May 2, 2019. The Central District of
California Court Clerk assgined Case No. 2:19-cv-03788-SVW-AFM to
the proceeding. The suit alleges Securities Exchange Act
violations. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Stephen V.
Wilson.

Activision Blizzard, Inc. is an American video game and film
holding company based in Santa Monica, California.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Todd L. Kammerman, Esq.
          ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 2805
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 279-5050
          E-mail: tkammerman@aftlaw.com

               - and -

          Marvin Alan Miller, Esq.
          MILLER LAW LLC
          115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 332-3400
          E-mail: Mmiller@millerlawllc.com

Attorneys for R N Croft Financial Group:

          Carol V Gilden, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS AND TOLL PLLC
          190 South LaSalle Street Suite 1705
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 629-3737
          Facsimile: (312) 357-0369
          E-mail: cgilden@cohenmilstein.com

Attorneys for U.A. Local No. 393 Defined Benefit Pension Plan and
Defined Contribution Plans:

          Tricia Lynn McCormick, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          E-mail: triciam@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Danielle S. Myers, Esq.
          Frank Anthony Richter, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN AND DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: dmyers@rgrdlaw.com
                  frichter@rgrdlaw.com

Attorneys for Activision Blizzard Inc., Collister Johnson, and
Robert A Kotick:

          Andrew Gordon May, Esq.
          Collette Alison Woghiren, Esq.
          H. Nicholas Berberian, Esq.
          NEAL, GERBER & EISENBERG LLC
          2 North LaSalle Suite 1700
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 269-8000
          E-mail: cwoghiren@nge.com
                  nberberian@nge.com

               - and -

          Erin C. Trenda, Esq.
          Koji F Fukumura, Esq.
          Ryan E Blair, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          4401 Eastgate Mall
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (858) 550-6000
          E-mail: etrenda@cooley.com
          E-mail: kfukumura@cooley.com
                  rblair@cooley.com

ALL WEB LEADS: Williams Seeks OT Pay for Call Center Employees
--------------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
All Web Leads, Inc., (AWL) for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and the state laws of Texas. The case is
captioned JOE WILLIAMS, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ALL WEB LEADS, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 5:19-cv-00426 (W.D. Tex., April 24, 2019).

Plaintiff Joe Williams alleges that AWL is implementing a uniform
company-wide policy wherein it improperly required its hourly
call-center and @home call-center employees to perform work
off-the-clock and without pay, and to clock out for breaks lasting
twenty minutes or less.  In addition, AWL has allegedly failed to
include commission payments in its calculations of Plaintiff and
the Putative Class Members' regular rate(s), thereby creating a
miscalculation of Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members' regular
rate(s) of pay for purposes of calculating their overtime
compensation each workweek.

Located in Austin Texas, AWL is the premier customer acquisition
marketing business focused on the U.S. insurance industry. The
heart of AWL's business is a proprietary customer acquisition
marketing (CAM) technology and services platform that allows the
company to attract, engage and qualify prospective consumers. AWL's
CAM platform is based on a "closed-loop" architecture that
incorporates data, analytics and real-time automated decision
making to optimize performance across the entire consumer
lifecycle. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Clif Alexander, 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
             lauren@a2xlaw.com
             cgordon@a2xlaw.com
             carter@a2xlaw.com


ALLIED INTERSTATE: Zerriouh Sues over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
YACINE ZERRIOUH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALLIED INTERSTATE, LLC; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02301-RJD-VMS
(E.D.N.Y., April 22, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Allied Interstate, LLC offers development and application of
automated information processing, long-distance data transmission,
massive data collection and storage, automated high-speed
telecommunications, and contributions to the management
professionalism in credit and collection. The company was founded
in 1954 and is based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. As of September
1998, Allied Interstate, LLC operates as a subsidiary of iQor, Inc.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amir J. Goldstein, Esq.
          166 Mercer Street, Suite 3A
          New York, NY 10012
          Telephone: (212) 966- 5253
          Facsimile: (212) 941- 8566


AMERICAN RENAL: Zhang Law Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces the filing of a class action lawsuit
on behalf of shareholders who bought shares of American Renal
Associates Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: ARA) from August 10, 2016 through
March 27, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks
to recover damages for American Renal investors under the federal
securities laws.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than May 28, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=american-renal-associates-holdings-inc&id=1811
or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action,
please contact Sophie Zhang, Esq. or Spencer Lee toll-free at
800-991-3756 or email info@zhanginvestorlaw.com,
slee@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) issues with American
Renal's accounting process for revenue recognition, collections,
and related matters would give rise to an SEC investigation into
the same, and increased regulatory scrutiny by the SEC; (2)
American Renal's financial statements for the fiscal years 2014,
2015, 2016 and 2017 contained in its Annual Reports for the years
ended December 31, 2016 and 2017, and its condensed consolidated
financial statements in quarterly reports from 2016 through 2018
were false and could not be relied upon; (3) American Renal had
material weaknesses in its internal control over financial
reporting; and (4) as a result, defendants' public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class has not been certified. You may retain counsel of your
choice. You may take no action at this time and be an absent class
member. Your ability to obtain a recovery is not dependent upon
being a lead plaintiff.

Contact:

         Sophie Zhang, Esq.
         Spencer Lee
         Zhang Investor Law P.C.
         99 Wall Street, Suite 232
         New York, New York 10005
         Tel: (800) 991-3756
         Toll-free: 800-991-3756
         Email: info@zhanginvestorlaw.com
                slee@zhanginvestorlaw.com [GN]


ANDY MOHR: Faces Class Action Over Document Preparation Fee
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hayleigh Colombo, writing for Indianapolis Business Journal,
reports that a class-action lawsuit filed against Andy Mohr
Automotive Group alleges the Indiana company violated a state law
prohibiting deceptive consumer sales tactics.

The suit, brought by Marion County resident Robert Lutz on behalf
of "hundreds or thousands" of people who have purchased vehicles at
various Andy Mohr dealerships in the last six years, was filed in
Marion Superior Court.

The complaint alleges that Andy Mohr dealerships have violated the
Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act by "engaging in an unfair
scheme to charge vehicle buyers an unlawful 'document preparation
fee.'"

The complaint says the $199 fee "does not reflect the expenses
actually incurred for the preparation of documents."

"Instead, defendants use the document preparation fee, not to
merely cover the expenses actually incurred for preparing
documents, but as a tool to extract additional profits from
consumers in an unfair and prohibited manner," according to the
complaint.

Indiana code states that with few exceptions it is an unfair
practice for dealers to require vehicle purchasers to pay a
document preparation fee as a condition of the sale unless the fee
reflects "expenses actually incurred for the preparation of
documents."

The complaint names 14 Andy Mohr-related entities as defendants.

Among other requests for relief, the complaint seeks the return of
the "improperly received and retained funds" back to vehicle
purchasers.

Brad Todd, president of Andy Mohr Automotive Group, did not
immediately respond to a message left by IBJ seeking comment from
the defendant.

The complainant is represented by Indianapolis law firm Cohen &
Malad LLP, which specializes in class-action suits. [GN]


APPLE INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP(
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/appleinc/)on April 16 disclosed that
a class action has been commenced by an institutional investor on
behalf of purchasers of Apple Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL) common stock
during the period between November 2, 2018 and January 2, 2019 (the
"Class Period"). This action was filed in the Northern District of
California and is captioned City of Roseville Employees' Retirement
System v. Apple Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-2033.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Apple common stock during the Class Period
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on
behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The
lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's
ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent
upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from April
16, 2019. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at
800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. You
can view a copy of the complaint as filed at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/appleinc/.

The complaint charges Apple and certain of its officers with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Apple designs,
develops, and sells consumer electronics, computer software, and
online services. The Company's most well-known products include its
iconic iPhone smartphones, the iPad tablet computer, and the Mac
personal computer. The iPhone, which is one of the Company's
flagship products, generated approximately two-thirds of Apple's
revenue in 2018.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made
materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose adverse information regarding Apple's business and
prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that: (a)
the U.S.-China trade war had negatively impacted demand for iPhones
and Apple's pricing power in greater China; (b) due to Apple
discounting the cost of replacement batteries to make up for the
Company's prior conduct of intentionally degrading the performance
of the batteries in older iPhones, the rate at which Apple
customers were replacing their batteries in older iPhones, rather
than purchasing new iPhones, was negatively impacting Apple's
iPhone sales growth; (c) as a result of slowing demand, Apple had
slashed production orders from suppliers for the new 2018 iPhone
models and cut prices to reduce inventory; and (d) defendants'
decision to withhold unit sales for iPhones and other hardware,
which was a metric relevant to investors and their view of the
Company's financial performance, was designed to and would mask
declines in unit sales of the Company's flagship product. As a
result of this information being withheld from the market during
the Class Period, the price of Apple stock was artificially
inflated to more than $209 per share.

Then on January 2, 2019, after the close of trading, Apple
disclosed that, for the first time in 15 years, Apple would miss
its prior quarterly revenue forecast amid falling iPhone sales in
China, its third-largest market after the United States and Europe.
The Company announced first quarter fiscal 2019 revenues of only
$84 billion, far below the expected range of $89 billion to $93
billion the Company had announced just eight weeks earlier on
November 1, 2018. The Company also admitted that in addition to
macroeconomics in the Chinese market, the price cuts to battery
replacements a year earlier to fix the Company's prior
surreptitious conduct had hurt iPhone sales. This news caused the
market price of Apple common stock to decline more than $15 per
share, or more than 9%, from a close of $157.92 per share on
January 2, 2019 to a close of $142.19 per share on January 3,
2019.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Apple common stock during the Class Period (the "Class"). The
plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- is a national law firm
representing investors in securities litigation. With 200 lawyers
in 10 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history. For five consecutive
years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked the Firm in
its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law firms in both
the amount recovered for shareholders and the total number of class
action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys have helped shape the
securities laws and recovered tens of billions of dollars on behalf
of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing financial recoveries for
defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also advocates for corporate
governance reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for
investors worldwide. [GN]


ARIZONA ICED: Faces Class Action Over Green Tea Ginseng Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Schachter, writing for News Day, reports that AriZona Iced
Tea's green tea with ginseng beverage contains no "detectable"
amount of ginseng, according to a lawsuit filed in federal district
court in Central Islip.

The lawsuit, filed earlier in April on behalf of two consumers, is
seeking class-action status to represent purchasers of AriZona
Green Tea with Ginseng and Honey in states around the country.

Executives of Woodbury-based AriZona Iced Tea LLC, Beverage
Marketing USA Inc. and their affiliated companies did not respond
to a request for comment.

The popular beverage, which the AriZona Iced Tea website describes
as "America's best selling green tea," carries labels that say it
contains "ginseng for energy," the lawsuit said.

Prices for ginseng, a plant root used as a medicinal herb and
thought by some to increase brain function and boost energy levels,
have surged above $1,000 per pound due to intense demand, according
to the lawsuit.

"Defendants know that if they were to use enough ginseng in the
product to actually provide energy to consumers, their revenues and
competitive advantage would suffer," the lawsuit said.

Two food laboratories hired for the lawsuit conducted three tests
of the beverage for "the main chemical constituent" of ginseng and
found that if ginseng was an ingredient it was "so minuscule" that
it cannot be detected by scientific tests.

The laboratories, meanwhile, did detect ginseng in competing
products from Starbucks and Republic of Tea, the suit says.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of consumers Kalesha Niles of upstate
Gloversville and Jason Lahey of Lee's Summit, Missouri, seeks a
jury trial and undetermined compensatory, statutory and punitive
damages plus interest and legal fees.

The plaintiffs' attorney, Stephen Raab of Seattle, did not respond
to a request for comment.

Professor Norman Silber, who teaches consumer law at Hofstra Law
School in Hempstead, said the company could present alternative lab
tests that show the presence of ginseng. Alternatively, the company
could modify the product's recipe or rebrand it with a revised
description, though both of those options could be costly.

A lawsuit filed in September in U.S. District Court in Central
Islip alleging that AriZona Beverages' labels misled consumers
about the amount of sugar and calories in its drinks by using a
serving size of 8 fluid ounces instead of the actual size of the
container was dismissed in March.

Another lawsuit filed in October in U.S. District Court in
Manhattan alleging that the Woodbury company "deceptively" labeled
beverages as having "no preservatives," when many of its products
contain citric or ascorbic acid -- deemed preservatives by some
food experts -- is ongoing. [GN]


ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Court Appoints Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, issued an Order granting Plaintiff
Nayman's Motion for Appointment of Lead Plaintiff in the case
captioned SPENCER WONG, Plaintiff, v. ARLO TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et
al., Defendants. Case No. 19-cv-00372-BLF. (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Spencer Wong filed this putative securities class action
lawsuit against Defendants Arlo Technologies, Inc. (Arlo), Matthew
McRae, Christine M. Gorjanc, Patrick C.S. Lo, and Andrew W. Kim.
Wong brings this lawsuit on behalf of persons and/or entities who
purchased or acquired Arlo stock in connection with Arlo's initial
public offering (IPO). Wong alleges that Defendants made materially
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies, resulting in a Registration
Statement issued in connection with the IPO that was materially
false and misleading.  

Lead Plaintiff

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA)
governs the procedure for selection of lead plaintiff in all
private class actions under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  

Pursuant to the PSLRA, the court shall appoint as lead plaintiff
the member or members of the purported plaintiff class that the
court determines to be most capable of adequately representing the
interests of class members, also referred to as the most adequate
plaintiff.

Procedural Requirements

Pursuant to the PSLRA, Pomerantz LLP (on behalf of Plaintiff Wong)
published notice of the pending action on January 22, 2019, the
same date the complaint was filed. The notice announced the
pendency of this action, listed the claims, specified the class
period, and advised putative class members that they had 60 days
from the date of the notice to file a motion to seek appointment as
lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. Id. Thus, the notice complied with
the PSLRA's requirements.

Plaintiff Nayman and Plaintiff Arlo Group filed the instant motions
on March 25,2 2019, the last day within the 60-day deadline. Both
parties have therefore met the statutory notice requirements.

Financial Interest

The court must next identify the presumptive lead plaintiff the
prospective lead plaintiff with the greatest financial interest in
the litigation. It is undisputed that Plaintiff Nayman has the
greatest financial interest in the relief sought and is therefore
the presumptive lead plaintiff. Nayman has submitted a "Loss
Analysis" setting forth calculations of his alleged losses,
totaling approximately $132,019.  

Accordingly, Plaintiff Nayman is necessarily the prospective lead
plaintiff with the greatest financial interest in the litigation.


Rule 23 Requirements

Having determined that Nayman is the prospective lead plaintiff
with the greatest financial stake in this litigation, the Court
must next consider whether Nayman satisfies the typicality and
adequacy requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a).
Rule 23(a) sets forth four requirements for class certification:
(1) numerosity (2) commonality (3) typicality and (4) adequacy. At
the appointment of lead plaintiff stage, courts need only consider
typicality and adequacy, as the failure to satisfy numerosity or
commonality would preclude certifying a class action at all.  

The Court address typicality and adequacy in turn. Arlo Group's
challenge to Nayman's motion is directed only to the adequacy
prong.  

Typicality

In determining whether typicality is satisfied, the Court inquires
whether other members have the same or similar injury, whether the
action is based on conduct which is not unique to the named
plaintiffs, and whether other class members have been injured by
the same course of conduct. Here, like all other members of the
purported class, Nayman purchased or acquired Arlo stocks at
(allegedly) artificially inflated prices during the relevant time
period and suffered accompanying losses.  Nayman's claims thus
appear to be typical, if not identical, to the claims of other
members of the putative class. Moreover, Arlo Group does not
challenge typicality.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Nayman has satisfied the
typicality requirement.

Adequacy

The test for adequacy asks whether the lead plaintiff and its
counsel have any conflicts of interest with other class members and
whether the lead plaintiff and his counsel will prosecute the
action vigorously on behalf of the class. Arlo Group argues that
Nayman would not prosecute this litigation "efficiently and
effectively" because a review of publicly available court records
indicates that Nayman has been the subject of at least three state
tax warrants and one federal tax lien between 2005 and 2015, in the
total amount of $1,894,575.  

The Court agrees with Mr. Nayman. Arlo Group has submitted no legal
authority for the proposition that Nayman's apparent prior failure
to meet unrelated tax liens or warrants creates a conflict of
interest or renders Mr. Nayman inadequate to prosecute this action
vigorously on behalf of the class. Instead, Arlo Group relies on
case law in which the unrelated misconduct resulting in failure to
appoint the prospective lead plaintiff was criminal in nature.
Here, by contrast, Mr. Nayman's tax obligations were satisfied
years ago and did not result in criminal charges. Nor does the
Court find that Mr. Nayman's prior tax liens or warrants raise a
credibility issue. Simply put, Arlo Group has not set forth
sufficient proof that Nayman would not adequately represent the
instant putative class.  

The Court finds that Plaintiff Nayman has met the Rule 23
requirements at this stage and qualifies as the presumptively most
adequate plaintiff under the PSLRA.

Plaintiff Nayman's motion to appoint lead plaintiff and approval of
selection of counsel is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 6, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yxo7rswj from Leagle.com.

Spencer Wong, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Marc George --
egeorge@bgrfirm.com -- Browne George Ross LLP, J. Alexander Hood,
II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Jeremy A.
Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice
& Jennifer Pafiti -- jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Arlo Technologies, Inc., Matthew McRae, Christine M. Gorjanc,
Patrick C.S. Lo & Andrew W. Kim, Defendants, represented by Koji
Francis Fukumura -- kfukumura@cooley.com -- Cooley Godward Kronish
LLP.

Richard Sarkis & Nadine Sarkis, Movants, represented by Rachele R.
Byrd -- Byrd@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
LLP.


AT&T INC: PROFECO Wins Class Suit Over Undue Charges
----------------------------------------------------
Holland & Knight LLP said that the Procuraduría Federal del
Consumidor (PROFECO), Mexico's consumer protection agency, has won
a class action lawsuit against a major mobile telecommunications
operator for undue charges, changing rates without informing
customers, and continuing to charge clients for services that had
been canceled during 2012, 2013 and 2014. The claim was originally
brought against a former operator that was acquired by the major
mobile operator.

At the time, the former operator marketed 4G services on its
website that were branded as "Radio Evolution," but such services
that were provided to the customers were found to be inferior to
what was advertised, including the use of abusive and false
advertising to prompt consumers into mistakenly acquiring such
services.

The penalty imposed by the consumer watchdog is final. The mobile
company has been ordered to pay damages to affected end-users, plus
20 percent compensation at 9 percent annual interest.

The decision is of paramount importance, as it sets an important
precedent to mobile operators with respect to the advertising of
telecommunications services. [GN]


ATBCOIN LLC: Case Sets Precedent for Future Securities Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Rossow, writing for Coin Telegraph, reports that if there's
anything to take away from this federal class-action suit, it's
that this new opinion on ATB Coin provides further guidance on when
a token might be considered a security under securities law in the
United States.

For those with a legal background, this piece is set up in a
similar way to a case brief you probably remember from law school.


A traditional case brief outlines the factual background, issues,
rule of law, and how that particular court applied the rule of law
to the factual background.

What did ATB Coin do wrong?
Pursuant to the Complaint was that ATB Coin LLC ("ATB/Defendants")
held itself out as a technology start-up company established for
the purposes of facilitating rapid, low-cost digital financing
transactions through revolutionary blockchain technology (Compl.
Par. 3,15-16).

From June 12, 2017 through September 15, 2017, ATB conducted an
initial coin offering, or "ICO," through which ATB offered digital
"ATB coins" to the general public in exchange for other digital
assets (the "ATB ICO") (Id. Par.2).

Defendants promoted the ATB coin as "an innovative decentralized
cryptocurrency incorporating the advanced technologies that tailor
the needs of primary market players—users, investors, and
business owners." (4/27/18 Kupka Decl. Ex. 1, at 2).

The ATB coin was "designed to overcome well-known inefficiencies
within government central banks and other cryptocurrencies [and to]
induce […] transactions that are fully secure, private, and
anonymous." (Id.)

The primary purpose of the ATB ICO, according to Defendants, was to
raise capital to enable Defendants to create and launch a new
blockchain (the "ATB Blockchain") on which the ATB coins would
operate (Compl. Par. 3). During the ICO, Defendants issued a range
of promotional materials describing the ATB ICO as an "investment
opportunity." (Id. Par. 33; see also id. Par. 4).

When the ATB ICO launched in June 2017, Defendants offered one (1)
ATB coin for $1, payable in the cryptocurrencies bitcoin ("BTC"),
ether ("ETH"), or litecoin ("LTC") (Id. Par. 5). As the price
increased $1.50 three months later, all market participants in the
ICO continued to receive a certain number of additional ATB coins
as a bonus (Id. Par. 37).

On August 21, 2017, Plaintiff Raymond Balestra ("Plaintiff")
participated in the ATB ICO, purchasing 388.5 ATB coins in exchange
for 2.100441 ETH (Id. Par. 13; id. Ex. 1). In total, the ATB ICO
raised over $20 million from thousands of investors (Compl. Par.
2).

While the Defendants launched the ATB Blockchain on September 14,
2017, at the close of the ATB ICO, it was not capable of the
technological feats that Defendants had advertised.

By March 11, 2018, the value of Plaintiff's ATB coins had decreased
by more than 85% from the price at which he purchased them (Id. Ex.
1; Lead Pl. Br. 5).

What brings Defendants into Court for this pending class-action
suit, is that Defendants did not file a registration statement for
the ATB ICO with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") at any point, either before, during, or after
the ICO (Compl. Par. 1, 9, 55-57).

Consequently, Plaintiff filed his Complaint on December 21, 2017,
alleging two claims against Defendants under the U.S. Securities
Act.

Going down the legal rabbit hole
In its putative class-action complaint, Plaintiffs alleged two
violations of the Securities Act:

Pursuant to Sec.12(a), Defendants offered and sold unregistered
securities in the form of ATB coins, and
Pursuant to Sec.15(a), ATB's co-founders, Edward Ng and Herbert W.
Hoover III, as "control persons" of ATB.  
Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss for:

Lack of personal jurisdiction (Federal Rule Civ. Procedure,
12[b][2]), and
Failure to state a claim, on the theory that ATB coins were not
"securities" based on the pleadings, pursuant to 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
#1 — Debunking the "jurisdictional" argument
In their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants claimed there was a "lack of
personal jurisdiction."

When a defendant moves for dismissal for lack of personal
jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure ("FRCP"), the plaintiff bears the burden of
demonstrating that the court has jurisdiction over the defendant.

For more than 70 years, U.S. courts have relied upon the "Minimum
Contacts" standard established in the 1945 case, Int'l Shoe Co. v.
Washington, for determining whether personal jurisdiction exists.

Under the Minimum Contacts test, a court will look to the amount of
contact a person (natural born or business) has had with that
court's forum state, to ensure hailing them into court there is
fair and justified.

With respect to Defendant's argument, the Court referred to a
number of New York conferences that Ng and Hoover had attended, in
efforts to promote the sale of ATB coins to U.S. investors.

According to one of the company's press releases, ATB Coin's
co-founder, Herbert W. Hoover III, is a member of America's iconic
manufacturing family who resides in New York and travels
worldwide.

Therefore, the Court quickly dismissed Defendant's argument,
holding that there was more than sufficient contact with the state
of New York.

#2 — Was the ATB Coin token sale a "securities offering" under
U.S. securities law?
Since 1946, the U.S. Supreme Court case, SEC v. W.J. Howey Co.,
continues to remain the leading standard in U.S. securities law for
determining whether or not a transaction is considered to be an
"investment contract" (securities offering), or a "commodity" under
the U.S. Securities Act.

An investment contract implies that the transaction is a type of
security.

In the world of blockchain technology and digital currencies, the
Howey Test comprises of three elements:

Was there an investment of money?
Was there a common enterprise?
Was there an expectation of profits predominantly from the efforts
of others?
For a token or coin to be considered a "security" under Howey, all
three elements must be met.

The third element of this standard encompasses both the third and
fourth prongs of the traditional Howey Test.

Was there an "investment of money"?
As for the first element of the test, there was no dispute among
the parties that money was invested into this venture.

The issue in this case revolves around the second and third
elements of the test.

Was there a "common enterprise"?
The Defendants argued that there was no common enterprise to
subject them to the requirements of Howey.

However, the Court disagreed. It found that "Defendants encouraged
investors to purchase ATB Coins based on the claim that the speed
and efficiency of the ATB Blockchain would result in an increase in
the coins' value."

It didn't matter that the coins never entitled the purchaser to a
pro rata share of ATB's profits. Rather, the Court sided with SEC
precedent, that an ICO can be a securities offering even where the
offer does not provide for a pro rata distribution of profits.

At the end of the day, the success of ATB coins was built upon the
success of the ATB enterprise, establishing "horizontal
commonality."

Was there an "expectation of profits predominantly from the efforts
of others"?
Yes. The Court pointed to the complaint, which in its belief,
sufficiently alleged that the buyers' profits were based on ATB's
efforts.

In addition to the SEC Consent Order, "2017 In Re Munchee," the
Court looked to the company's press releases and FAQs -- persuasive
authority, to help expand on its analysis. Quite literally, the
company stated that the coins were a kind of "investment"

"[. . .] the first users of ATB Coin cryptocurrency can be compared
to investors in a start-up, which can later acquire value, due to
its usefulness and popularity. Thus, the acquisition of the first
ATB Coin becomes a kind of investment with a long-term
perspective."

What's nice to see here is the Court's willingness to look to
persuasive sources such as SEC orders, which it has done in the
past, such as the DAO Report.

Legalese aside, what you need to know
As of April, the case is still in its early phases, as it took
approximately 16 months from the filing of the initial complaint to
the recent ruling on Defendants Motions to Dismiss. Why it took
this long, we do not know, but it's only fair to assume that it
will take at least another year until we see major news with
respect to the next stages in this process -- the class discovery
and class certification are major aspects to a class-action.

What we can take away from the Court's ruling on this Motion to
Dismiss is that, for the purposes of a Motion to Dismiss, the Howey
Test was satisfied for this particular case.

Per the Court, "Defendants promoted the ATB Coin as 'an innovative
decentralized cryptocurrency incorporating the advanced
technologies that tailor the needs of primary market players --
users, investors, and business owners . . . .'"

Case: Balestra v. ATBCoin LLC et al., 17-CV-10001 (VSB), S.D.N.Y.,
3/31/2019 [GN]


AUTOZONE INC: Shaw-Taylor Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------
The case, GENA SHAW-TAYLOR, as an individual and on behalf of all
employees similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AUTOZONE, INC., a
Tennessee corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-03262 (Filed on March 21, 2019), was transferred
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on April 24, 2019 pursuant to the Class
Action Fairness Act. The removal was based on the grounds that
Plaintiff Gena Shaw-Taylor is a citizen of a state different from
Defendant AutoZone, Inc. and that the matter in controversy exceeds
the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs. In
addition, the number of members of all proposed plaintiff classes
in the aggregate is more than 100.

In the complaint, Plaintiff Gena Shaw-Taylor alleges seven causes
of action against AutoZone, Inc. These include failure to pay
minimum wage and overtime, failure to provide rest and meal periods
or premium compensation in lieu thereof, and unfair or unlawful
business practices.

Headquartered in Memphis Tennessee, AutoZone, Inc. sells
aftermarket automotive parts and accessories. The company considers
itself as the leading retailer and leading distributor of
automotive replacement parts and accessories in the United States.
[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendant:

     Evan R. Moses, Esq.
     Elizabeth A. Falcone, Esq.
     OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
     400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Telephone: 213-239-9800
     Facsimile: 213-239-9045
     E-mail: evan.moses@ogletree.com
             elizabeth.falcone@ogletree.com

             - and -

     Nardo J. Catahan, Esq.
     Graham M. Hoerauf, Esq.
     OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
     Park Tower, Fifteenth Floor
     695 Town Center Drive
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626
     Telephone: 714-800-7900
     Facsimile: 714-754-1298
     E-mail: nardo.catahan@ogletree.com
             graham.hoerauf@ogletree.com


AUTOZONERS, LLC: Marquez Seeks Meal Breaks for Store Employees
--------------------------------------------------------------
NATALY MARQUEZ, individually and on behalf of other aggrieved
employees, the Plaintiff, vs. AUTOZONERS, LLC and DOES 1 through
10, the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV14772 (Cal. Super., April 29,
2019), seeks to recover civil penalties against Autozoners, LLC
under the Private Attorneys General Act, California Labor Code. The
civil penalties includes 75% payable to the Labor Workforce
Development Agency and 25% payable to aggrieved employees owed by
Defendant.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a non-exempt employee at one
of Defendant's stores in Los Angeles, California, from December 17,
2017 to December 28, 2018. The Defendant failed to provide the
Plaintiff duty-free meal periods of at least 30 minutes. As a
result of work demands (such as having to stay with customers or
cover for another employee), the Plaintiff frequently did not have
the opportunity to take a meal period that was duty free for a fall
30 minutes. The Defendant also failed to pay the Plaintiff premium
wages, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

           Gregory N. Karasik, Esq.
           KARASIK LAW FIRM
           1835 W. Olympic Blvd. Ste. 1275
           Los Angeles, CA 90064
           Telephone: (310) 312-6800
           Facsimile: (310) 943-2582
           E-mail: greg@karasiklawfirm.com

                - and -

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

AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Lead Plaintiff Appointed in Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
issued a Memorandum and Order granting Andrej Hormak's Motion to
Appoint Lead Plaintiff in the case captioned DAVID HACKEL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. et al., Defendants. Civil
Action No. 19-cv-10783-ADB. (D. Mass.).

Currently before the Court is motion to appoint lead plaintiff(s)
and to approve the movants' respective selections of lead counsel
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
(PSLRA).

This is a federal securities class action lawsuit concerning
alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R Section 240.10b-5, by
Defendant AVEO Pharmaceuticals (AVEO) and certain of its current
and former executives. Plaintiffs claim that AVEO made misleading
statements in connection with its efforts to demonstrate the
effectiveness of a candidate drug for treating renal cell
carcinoma.  

Under the PSLRA, the Court must appoint as lead plaintiff the
member of the purported plaintiff class that the court determines
to be most capable of adequately representing the interests of
class members.This person is known as the most adequate plaintiff.


To determine the largest financial interest, courts may consider
several factors, including (1) the number of shares purchased
during the class period (2) the number of net shares purchased
during the class period (3) the total net funds expended during the
class period and (4) the approximate losses suffered during the
class period.

Here, Hornak claims to have suffered a loss of $527,918 as a result
of purchasing 282,000 AVEO shares at a cost of $750,917 and
retaining 250,000 shares. Hornak's asserted loss is larger than the
other movants, Andrew P. Walsh and Daniel Van Meerbeeck, who claim
to have suffered a $341,506.42 loss as a result of purchasing
155,000 AVEO shares.  

The Court finds Hornak's purchase and continued ownership of AVEO
shares through the class period adequately documented and further
finds that he has a larger financial interest in this litigation
than Messrs. Walsh and Van Meerbeeck.

Because Hornak holds the largest financial interest and satisfies
the requirements of Rule 23, he must be appointed lead plaintiff,
unless the presumption of his adequacy is rebutted. The Court
therefore appoints Hornak as Lead Plaintiff and approves his
selection of Lead and Liaison Counsel.

Accordingly, Hornak's motion to be appointed lead plaintiff and for
approval of his selection of counsel is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 6, 2019 Memorandum and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3xju993 from
Leagle.com.

David Hackel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daryl DeValerio Andrews --
daryl@andrewsdevalerio.com -- Andrews DeValerio, Joseph Alexander
Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy A. Lieberman
-- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Michael Bailey, Matthew Dallas & Keith
S. Ehrlich, Defendants, represented by Daniel Willey --
DAN.WILLEY@WILMERHALE.COM -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr
LLP, Jessica R. Lisak -- JESSICA.LISAK@WILMERHALE.COM -- Wilmer
Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Michael G. Bongiorno --
michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale
and Dorr LLP & William H. Paine -WILLIAM.PAINE@WILMERHALE.COM --
Wilmer Hale LLP.

William Barry, Movant, represented by Joshua Baker –
jbaker@rosenlegal.com -The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.

Andrew P. Walsh & Daniel Van Meerbeeck, Movants, represented by
Shannon L. Hopkins -- shopkins@zlk.com -- Levi Korsinsky LLP.

Jean Claude Boustany, Movant, represented by Jeffrey C. Block --
jeff@blockesq.com --  Block & Leviton LLP.

Andrej Hornak, Movant, represented by Daryl DeValerio Andrews,
Andrews DeValerio.


BAI BRANDS: Court Narrows Claims in Branca Mislabeling Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Roger T. Benitez of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California granted, in part, and denied, in
part, the Motion to Dismiss filed by defendants Bai Brands, LLC,
and Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. in the case captioned KEVIN
BRANCA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. BAI BRANDS, LLC, a New Jersey Limited Liability
Company; DR PEPPER SNAPPLE GROUP, INC., a Delaware Corporation;
LARRY YOUNG, an individual; BEN WEISS, an individual; JUSTIN
TIMBERLAKE, an individual, Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-00757-BEN-KSC (S.D. Calif.).

Branca filed this case on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, asserting nine separate claims.  The Defendants
manufacture, distribute, advertise, market, and sell beverage
products labeled "Bai Antioxidant Infusion Brasilia Blueberry,"
"Bai Antioxidant Infusion Ipanema Pomegranate," "Bai Antioxidant
Infusion Malawi Mango," "Bai Bubbles Sparkling Antioxidant Infusion
Bolivia Black Cherry," and "Bai Bubbles Sparkling Antioxidant
Infusion Jamaica Blood Orange."

The ingredient list on the Defendants' Products provides "they
contain only natural ingredients and are flavored only with natural
ingredients when the Products, in fact, contain undisclosed
artificial flavors in violation of state and federal law."
Specifically, "Defendants add a synthetic industrial chemical
called d-1 malic acid, in the form of a racemic mixture of d- and
1-isomers, to flavor the Products and make them taste like fresh
fruit."  Malic acid has two forms: 1-malic acid, which occurs
naturally and is found in several fruits and vegetables, and d-1
malic acid, which is chemically manufactured from benzene or
butane.

The Defendants move to dismiss the FAC on the ground that Branca
has not satisfied the requirements for pleading secondary liability
(Joint Venture/Conspiracy/Agency/Aiding and Abetting) under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).  In this case, Branca combined his
Corporate and Individual responses in his Opposition to the
Defendants second Motion to Dismiss.  By combining his Responses,
Branca did not clearly differentiate why the Court should deny
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as to his claims for secondary
liability. Therefore, the Court grants the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss as to these claims.

A full-text copy of the Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y3wq2spl from Leagle.com.

Kevin Branca, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Lilach Halperin, Law Offices of
Ronald A. Marron, PLC, Michael Houchin, Law Offices of Ronald A.
Marron, Ronald Marron, Law Office of Ronald Marron & Tania Babaie,
Law Offices of Ronald A Marron.

Bai Brands, LLC, a New Jersey Limited Liability Company, Defendant,
represented by Creighton Reid Magid, Esq. -- magid.chip@dorsey.com
-- Dorsey & Whitney LLP, pro hac vice, Elizabeth Rozon Baksh, Esq.
-- baksh.elizabeth@dorsey.com -- Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, pro hac
vice, Kent J. Schmidt, Esq. -- schmidt.kent@dorsey.com -- Dorsey
and Whitney LLP & Navdeep Kumar Singh, Esq. --
singh.navdeep@dorsey.com -- Dorsey & Whitney LLP.

Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Elizabeth
Rozon Baksh, Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, pro hac vice, Kent J. Schmidt,
Dorsey and Whitney LLP & Navdeep Kumar Singh, Dorsey & Whitney
LLP.


BAYER AG: Saskatchewan Farmer Named Lead Plaintiff in Roundup Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alicia Bridges, writing for CBC.ca, reports that a Saskatchewan
farmer is at the centre of a class-action lawsuit claiming exposure
to the weedkiller Roundup has caused or contributed to the
plaintiffs' cancer.

Moose Jaw-area farmer Garry Gadd is the lead plaintiff in the
class, which is being launched by high-profile Canadian lawyer Tony
Merchant, Esq.-- info@merchantlaw.com--.

Merchant said there are currently fewer than 12 plaintiffs involved
in the claim.

According to court documents, the class consists of Canadians who
used Roundup and developed a blood cancer called non-Hodgkin
lymphoma, along with anyone else who would be entitled to a
derivative claim.

Merchant originally filed the claim in November last year then
applied this month to have a judge consider certifying it as a
class action.

Bayer, the company that owns Roundup, was ordered mid-May 2019 by a
Californian jury to pay $2 billion US to a couple who said the
herbicide gave them cancer.

The Canadian class action is against both Bayer and Monsanto, the
latter of which originally owned Roundup before it was taken over
by Bayer in 2018.

The lawsuit says the companies have been negligent by not saying
there are risks associated with the product -- a claim Bayer
denies.

"While we have great sympathy for the plaintiffs, glyphosate-based
herbicides are not the cause of their illnesses and we will
rigorously defend our products," Bayer Canada said in a response to
Merchant's case on May 16.

"Glyphosate has been extensively studied globally by scientists and
regulators, and results from this research confirm it is not
carcinogenic.

"We firmly stand behind the safety of glyphosate-based products and
as a company devoted to life sciences, assure Canadians that their
health and the environment are our top priority."

The International Agency for Research on Cancer, a division of the
World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as "probably
carcinogenic to humans" back in 2015.

Bayer has denied Roundup is unsafe.

Bayer rejects that finding and maintains that glyphosate is safe to
use in accordance with its label instructions, a conclusion that
has been endorsed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Health Canada and regulators in several other countries.

The recent decision is the third major loss that the company has
suffered in the California courts since Bayer acquired Monsanto in
a $66-billion US merger last spring.

Merchant said he has been receiving phone calls about Roundup from
people all over the world but said he did not have an appropriate
candidate for a lead plaintiff until he came across Gadd. He said
he does not remember how he came into contact with Gadd but it was
about five or six weeks before the class action was filed.

"[Gadd] was careful, he even took courses on how to deal with
herbicides, he used Roundup at least twice a year, he's a long-term
farmer and a careful farmer, he has no history of cancer in his
family," said Merchant.

Gadd does not want to be a public voice for the case. Merchant said
he personally has been trying to keep the case a secret until later
in the summer, when there would've been an advertising process to
advise other people.

He said the lawsuit does not have the official certification it
requires from the court to proceed and he does not expect that to
happen until early 2020.

Merchant added that the class action process in Canada is different
than the process that led to the $2-billion award in the U.S. this
week.

His lawsuit is asking the companies to pay damages but it is not
yet clear how much they would receive or how many plaintiffs there
will be.[GN]


BB&T CORP: $24MM Settlement in ERISA Suit Has Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Plaintiffs'
Motion for Final Approval of Settlement Agreement in the cases
captioned ROBERT SIMS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BB&T CORPORATION, et
al., Defendants; BREWSTER SMITH, JR., et al., Plaintiffs, v. BB&T
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. Nos. 1:15-CV-732, 1:15-CV-841
(M.D.N.C.).

The plaintiffs seek court approval of a settlement agreement with
the defendants and dismissal of this ERISA class action with
prejudice.
   
Plaintiff Robert Sims and others sued BB&T Corporation, its
employee benefits plan committee, board of directors, compensation
committee, investment advisor, and certain employees for violations
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.  

The Proposed Settlement Agreement

The proposed settlement agreement provides for a Gross Settlement
Amount2 of $24 million.   From this and subject to court approval,
Class Counsel may receive up to $8 million in attorney's fees and
$1.1 million for litigation costs and expenses, and each of ten
representative plaintiffs may receive up to $20,000. The remaining
$14.7 million, less administrative expenses and a contingency
reserve, will be distributed to class members in amounts
proportional to their average quarterly balance during the Class
Period.  

Final Class Action Settlement Approval

A four-factor test is applied to determine the fairness of a
proposed settlement: (1) the posture of the case at the time
settlement was proposed (2) the extent of discovery that had been
conducted (3) the circumstances surrounding the negotiations and
(4) the experience of counsel in the area of law at issue.

The Court assesses the adequacy of the settlement through the
following factors: (1) the relative strength of the plaintiffs'
case on the merits, (2) the existence of any difficulties of proof
or strong defenses the plaintiffs are likely to encounter if the
case goes to trial, (3) the anticipated duration and expense of
additional litigation, (4) the solvency of the defendants and the
likelihood of recovery on a litigated judgment, and (5) the degree
of opposition to the settlement.

All four fairness factors favor approval here. Class Counsel have
extensive experience in ERISA and class action litigation. BB&T
vigorously defended against the plaintiffs' claims, which were
likewise prosecuted zealously. The settlement was reached after
extensive adversarial litigation, including two motions to dismiss,
a contested motion for class certification, motions for summary
judgment, and discovery that also included motions. Class Counsel
declares that the parties exchanged over 275,000 pages of documents
and deposed 6 experts and 25 fact witnesses during discovery.There
is no evidence or indication that those negotiations were anything
but adversarial and arm's length.

The proposed settlement treats class members equitably relative to
each other. While no distributions will be made of $5.00 or less,
the justification for this different treatment is obvious, as this
de minimis recovery would cost more in processing than its value,
and thus would increase administrative costs and diminish recovery
to class members overall while providing marginal benefits to the
few class members.

The record also supports the conclusion that the settlement is
adequate. There is no doubt that the parties will incur substantial
additional litigation expense if this matter were to proceed to
trial. The Court had set aside approximately two weeks for the
trial, which would require the full-time attendance of several
lawyers and back-up assistance from others, as well as
administrative support, and there would be substantial expenses
associated with travel and hotels for counsel and expert
witnesses.

The motion for final approval of the settlement agreement is
GRANTED and the settlement of the Class Action is approved as
adequate and as fair and reasonable to the Plan and the Settlement
Class. Judgment will be entered concomitantly.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 6, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yxwn6bq7 from Leagle.com.

ROBERT SIMS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF CLASSES OF
SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, AND ON BEHALF OF THE BB&T CORPORATION
401(K) SAVINGS PLAN, ERIK GAVIDIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A
REPRESENTATIVE OF CLASSES OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, AND ON
BEHALF OF THE BB&T CORPORATION 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN, STEPHANIE
GAVIDIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF CLASSES OF
SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, AND ON BEHALF OF THE BB&T CORPORATION
401(K) SAVINGS PLAN, STACY HOLSTEIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A
REPRESENTATIVE OF CLASSES OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, AND ON
BEHALF OF THE BB&T CORPORATION 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN & KERRI GREANER,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF CLASSES OF SIMILARLY
SITUATED PERSONS, AND ON BEHALF OF THE BB&T CORPORATION 401(K)
SAVINGS PLAN, Plaintiffs, represented by KAI H. RICHTER --
krichter@nka.com -- NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP, BROCK J. SPECHT --
bspecht@nka.com -- NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP, CARL F. ENGSTROM --
cengstrom@nka.com -- NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP, DAVID B. PURYEAR, Jr.,
PURYEAR AND LINGLE, P.L.L.C.,  5501-E Adams Farm LaneGreensboro, NC
27407- 6396, HEATHER LEA --  hlea@uselaws.com -- SCHLICHTER BOGARD
& DENTON, LLP,JACOB T. SCHUTZ -- jschutz@nka.com -- NICHOLS KASTER,
PLLP, PAUL JOSEPH LUKAS -- lukas@nka.com -- NICHOLS KASTER,
PLLP,TROY A. DOLES -- tdoles@uselaws.com -- SCHLICHTER BOGARD &
DENTON & JEROME J. SCHLICHTER --  jschlichter@uselaws.com --
SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON

BB&T CORPORATION, BB&T CORPORATION EMPLOYEE BENEFITS PLAN
COMMITTEE, BB&T CORPORATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS, COMPENSATION
COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF BB&T CORPORATION, JOHN P
HOWE, ANNA R. CABLIK, EDWIN H WELCH, ERIC C KENDRICK, LOUIS B LYNN,
TOLLIE W RICH, STEVE REEDER, CINDY POWELL & STERLING CAPITAL
MANAGEMENT LLC, Defendants, represented by BRENT F. POWELL --
brent.powell@wbd-us.com -- WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, DEBBIE
WESTON HARDEN -- debbie.harden@wbd-us.com -- WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON
(US) LLP,RONALD R. DAVIS  -- ronald.davis@wbd-us.com -- WOMBLE BOND
DICKINSON (US) LLP, EDWARD J. MEEHAN -- emeehan@groom.com -- GROOM
LAW GROUP, CHARTERED, JUSTIN M. HOLMES, GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED,
MARK L. BIETER, GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED, MICHAEL J. PRAME,
GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED &PAUL J. RINEFIERD, GROOM LAW GROUP,
CHARTERED, 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006

JOHN DOES 1-40, Defendant, represented by BRENT F. POWELL, WOMBLE
BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, DEBBIE WESTON HARDEN, WOMBLE BOND
DICKINSON (US) LLP, RONALD R. DAVIS, WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US)
LLP, JUSTIN M. HOLMES, GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED,MARK L. BIETER,
GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED, MICHAEL J. PRAME, GROOM LAW GROUP,
CHARTERED & PAUL J. RINEFIERD, GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED.


BBQ PATIO: Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------
VICTORINO LOPEZ, JORGE MARTINEZ, and MARIO DOMINGUEZ, on behalf of
themselves and all other employees similarly situated, known and
unknown, Plaintiffs, v. B.B.Q. PATIO, SP, INC., an Illinois
corporation, STAVROULA PSIHOGIOS, individually, and PERIKLES
PSIHOGIOS, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02918 (N.D.
Ill., May 1, 2019) is an action arising under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), as a result of the Defendants' failure to
pay the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees of the
Defendants time and one-half compensation for the overtime (in
excess of 40 in any given week) hours they worked.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants never paid the Plaintiffs
time and one-half overtime compensation for the hours they worked
in excess of 40 each week. All current and former employees of the
Defendants who were/are paid on an hourly basis, who have worked
more than 40 hours in at least one week and/or who could be allowed
to work more than 40 hours in any given week now or in the future,
says the complaint.

Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as cooks and delivery
drivers at their BBQ Patio restaurant.

Defendants owned and operated a restaurant at or near 3256 S.
Ashland Avenue, Chicago, IL 60708 commonly known as "BBQ
Patio".[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Paul Luka, Esq.
     MENDOZA LAW, P.C.
     120 S. State Street, Suite 400
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Voice and Fax: (312) 508-6010
     Email: paul@alexmendozalaw.com


BEMIS COMPANY: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Amcor Sale
-------------------------------------------------------------
Halper Sadeh LLP, a global investor rights law firm, on April 17
announced the filing of a shareholder class action lawsuit against
Bemis Company, Inc. ("Bemis" or the "Company") (NYSE: BMS) in
connection with the proposed sale of Bemis to Amcor Limited.

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

The lawsuit alleges that Defendants issued a materially misleading
proxy statement recommending that Bemis shareholders vote in favor
of the proposed transaction. According to the complaint, the proxy
statement contains materially incomplete and misleading information
concerning: (1) the financial analyses performed by the Company's
financial advisor Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("Goldman"); (2) the
background of the proposed transaction; and (3) Bemis insiders' and
Goldman's potential conflicts of interest. As a result, the
complaint alleges that Bemis shareholders must be provided this
information to make a fully-informed voting decision concerning the
proposed transaction. The lawsuit seeks to enjoin the shareholder
vote on the proposed transaction until such information is
disclosed.

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

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


BERKELEY BOWL: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Marlena Tavernier-Fine, writing for The Daily Californian, reports
that a former Berkeley Bowl employee brought a class-action
complaint against the grocery chain April 10 over its alleged
failure to properly provide overtime pay.

The former employee and plaintiff, Spencer Sumisaki, claimed that
Berkeley Bowl is in violation of multiple articles of the
California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code.
Sumisaki is suing Berkeley Bowl on behalf of his colleagues, whose
interests he pledges to "fairly and adequately protect," according
to the suit. Sumisaki estimated that more than 50 individuals are
in his situation.

The general allegations include alleged failure to compensate
hourly-paid or nonexempt employees. Such employees are entitled to
overtime pay and minimum wage for "all hours worked and missed meal
periods and/or rest breaks," according to the court documents.

Sumisaki went as far so as to claim that the defendant knowingly
engaged in "wage abuse" and kept incomplete or inaccurate payroll
records. Berkeley Bowl also allegedly failed to reimburse employees
for work-related expenses and costs and did not compensate Sumisaki
and other class members in order to increase its own profits,
according to the lawsuit.

Sumisaki is represented by Edwin Aiwazian, the founder of Lawyers
for Justice, a Glendale-based law firm. Lawyers for Justice
represents clients "in class action lawsuits involving all types of
employment and labor law issues, unfair business practices, mass
torts and other related litigation," according to its website. The
law firm has experience with cases over the labor code violations
that Berkeley Bowl is being sued over.

As part of the demands, Sumisaki has asked the court to award him
and the other class members their standard hourly pay for each
workday where pay was not provided during meal and rest periods. In
addition, he has asked for compensation for damages and losses, in
line with the California Labor Code and California Business and
Professions Code.

Neither Sumisaki nor Berkeley Bowl responded for comment as of
press time. [GN]


BROUSSEAU MANAGEMENT: Leja Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT LEJA, Jr. individually and on behalf of the members of the
putative class, Plaintiff v. BROUSSEAU MANAGEMENT CO., L.L.C.;
BROUSSEAU PROPERTIES, L.L.C.; BROUSSEAU GEORGETOWN, L.L.C.;
BROUSSEAU CHARLESTOWN, L.L.C.; MONET MANOR, L.L.C.; 669 MONET
DRIVE, L.L.C.; 4484 FLOYNELL DRIVE, L.L.C.; 402 AND 406 SOUTH 21ST
STREET, L.L.C.; 964 MAXIMILLIAN, L.L.C.; 31903 PAT'S LANE, L.L.C.;
and BRIAN D. BROUSSEAU, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00269-BAJ-EWD
(M.D. La., May 1, 2019) is a lawsuit that seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").

The complaint asserts that Brousseau Property Management failed to
pay Leja overtime as required by federal law. Instead, Brousseau
Property Management paid Leja the same hourly rate for all hours
worked, including those in excess of 40 in a workweek.

Plaintiff Leja began working for Brousseau Property Management in
September 2015.

Brousseau Property Management is a real estate property ownership
and management company located in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
     PARMET PC
     PO Box 540907
     800 Sawyer St. (77007)
     Houston, TX 77254
     Phone: 713(999)5228
     Fax: 713(999)1187
     Email: matt@parmet.law


C.R. ENGLAND: Settlement in Truck Lease Lawsuit Reached
-------------------------------------------------------
Brian Straight, writing for FreightWaves, reports that a
long-running lawsuit over leased vehicles appears to be reaching
its conclusion.  The lawsuit, Roberts, et al. v. C.R. England,
Inc., et al, is scheduled for final approval by a judge on July 9,
2019, following a $37.8 million settlement that was reached last
month in the class-action suit.

The case centered around C.R. England and its affiliate,
Opportunity Leasing, and whether the company engaged in good faith
negotiations with lease-operator drivers.  First filed in May 2011,
the initial plaintiffs, Kenneth McKay and Charles Roberts, alleged
that C.R. England, through its Opportunity Leasing program,
violated the Utah Truth in Advertising Act, the Utah Business
Opportunity Disclosure Act, and the Utah Consumer Sales Practices
Act, and that England was committing fraud, negligent
misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty in connection with
its lease driver program.

The suit was recognized as a class-action to cover any driver who
entered into a vehicle lease agreement with Opportunity Leasing,
doing business as Horizon Truck Sales and Leasing, and had an
independent contractor operating agreement with C.R. England during
the period of May 27, 2007, through Jan. 31, 2017.

Under the terms of the settlement, C.R. England has agreed to treat
any unpaid debts to defendants as cancelled. The settlement filing
assumes this is equal to about $48 million. The company will also
take affirmative steps to inform credit reporting agencies that the
debts are no longer collectible and/or cancelled, and it will
refrain from actively collecting student tuition debt of class
members. Unpaid tuition debt amounts to approximately $13 million,
the settlement states.

"We are proud of the opportunity we offered to enterprising people
to start and grow their own businesses, much like our founder, C.R.
England, did with just one truck. However, we understand that some
were not happy with their experience and we hope that this
settlement resolves any lingering concerns," a spokesperson for
C.R. England said.

A mediator was used to help reach the final conclusion. McKay and
the estate of Charles Roberts will share in a total of $68,500.
Attorney fees amount to $16,250,000, and the remainder of the
settlement award will be shared with class members.

"If this settlement is approved, all class members will be eligible
to receive four-figure cash payments, relief from collection of
disputed outstanding debts for truck operations and driving school
tuition, and an opportunity for credit and DAC reporting repair,"
said C.J. Krawczyk, Esq. -- cjk@kravitlaw.com -- co-lead attorney
for the class.

The initial case alleged that C.R. England and Opportunity
fraudulently induced students to enroll in England's driver
training schools by promising the students the choice of employment
as a company driver or the ability to "earn a desirable income
driving as an independent contractor."

The reality, the plaintiffs charged, was that company driving jobs
were "largely unavailable" and the students were subjected to a
"misinformation campaign to convince them to lease trucks from the
defendants and become independent contractor drivers affiliated
with England" and leasing trucks from Opportunity/Horizon Truck
Leasing. [GN]


CAESARS PALACE: Magistrate Suggests Dismissal of M. Anderson's Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach of the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada issued a Report and Recommendation
dismissing the case in the case captioned MICAH ANDERSON,
Plaintiff, v. CAESARS PALACE, et al., Defendants. Case No.
2:19-cv-00742-JAD-VCF. (D. Nev.).

Before the Court is Plaintiff Micah Anderson's application to
proceed in forma pauperis and complaint.  

The allegations in Plaintiff's proposed complaint consist of one
paragraph:

     I, Micah Anderson am bringing a complaint up against Nevada
(Las Vegas) Casinos for deliberate indifference, mental & emotional
distress, contracts of insurance, prisoner petitions, civil rights,
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, other frauds,
personal injury product liability, asbestos personal injury product
liability, contract product liability, stockholders suits, marine
product liability, health care/pharmaceutical personal injury
liability, general, alien detainee, insurance, marine,
mar[sic]-personal injury malpractice injuries.

The complaint contains no short and plain statements of fact
showing that Plaintiff is entitled to relief in this matter. Many
of the potential claims in the complaint, such as prisoner
petitions or marine product liability, appear to have no logical
connection to any of the 34 Defendants or Plaintiff. Plaintiff's
civil cover sheet is also impossible to follow, stating that the
U.S. Government is the plaintiff in this case, the nature of the
suit is marine product liability, and this is a class action.  

The Magistrate finds the Plaintiff's complaint to be frivolous. It
is an attempt to create any type of legal conflict between
Plaintiff and a large business. Allowing Plaintiff to amend his
complaint would not cure its deficiencies.  

Accordingly, it is recommended that this case be dismissed and the
Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied as
moot.

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

Micah Anderson, Plaintiff, pro se.


CALIFORNIA CHECK: Cal. App. Affirms Summary Judgment in Gilberg
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rod M. Fliegel, Esq. -- rfliegel@littler.com -- and Francesca M.
Lanpher, Esq. -- flanpher@littler.com -- of Littler Mendelson PC,
in an article for Lexology, report that on April 15, 2019, a
California Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for the
employer in an action alleging class-wide violations of the
hyper-technical provisions of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA). Following just shortly after the Ninth Circuit's
pro-employee opinion in a similar case, Gilberg v. California Check
Cashing Stores, the court's opinion is a welcome development for
embattled employers in California.

The Court of Appeal Decision

The plaintiffs' class action suit alleged two purported FCRA
violations against the employer: (1) that its background check
disclosures to job applicants did not comply with the FCRA's
"standalone" disclosure requirement; and (2) that it rejected
certain applicants based on information in their consumer reports
without first providing the requisite pre-adverse action notice.
The employer moved for summary judgment following an order
certifying the case as a class action. The trial court granted
summary judgment for the employer on both claims, concluding that
any alleged violation of the FCRA's provisions was not "willful."4
The plaintiffs appealed the trial court's ruling, but the Court of
Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Standalone Disclosure

The Court of Appeal held that the employer's disclosure did not
constitute a willful violation of the standalone disclosure
requirement.  The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the
FCRA permits only a "10-word disclosure" because no authoritative
guidance by the Ninth Circuit, the Federal Trade Commission, or the
trial courts existed at the time of the alleged violations (i.e.,
when the employer presented the disclosures to the plaintiffs).
The court distinguished the Ninth Circuit's recent opinions in Syed
v. M-I5 and Gilberg because they were decided after the employer
presented the disclosures to the plaintiffs.  Additionally, neither
case considered alleged "extraneous" information similar to that in
the employer's disclosure forms.  In sum, no authorities had
existed to warn the employer away from using its forms.  Thus, the
employer's alleged violations could not be willful as a matter of
law.

Pre-Adverse Action Notice

The plaintiffs argued that, rather than provide the required
pre-adverse action notice to potentially disqualified job
applicants, the letter issued by the background check company for
the employer prematurely communicated a final decision by the
employer.  The Court of Appeal disagreed.  The court held that the
employer took a reasonable position in its pre-adverse action
letters, pointing to the conditional nature of the letter and the
time provided before any final action in fact would be taken.  It
noted that an employer can fully intend to carry out the adverse
action absent a dispute by the consumer.

Takeaways

While this Court of Appeal decision represents a victory for
employers, the law in this area remains dynamic.  Employers should
still take care to arrange for a privileged review of their
background check consent forms and adverse action process.  A
thorough review of these forms and processes may help avoid the
types of claims raised in cases that take issue with an employer's
inclusion of text beyond the minimum necessary for FCRA
disclosures. Employers should also continue to be mindful of their
obligations under state and local ban the box laws, which intersect
with the FCRA's required processes. [GN]


CANCHE CARPENTRY: Gochez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ADOLFO GOCHEZ, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. CANCHE CARPENTRY INC. f/k/a CANCHE CONSTRUCTION INC, CESAR
TURCIOS, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-21694-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 1,
2019) is an action arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").

The complaint alleges that the Defendants employed several other
similarly situated employees like the Plaintiff who have not been
paid overtime and/or minimum wages for work performed in excess of
40 hours weekly from the filing of the complaint back three years.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a construction worker from on or
about January 15, 2018 through on or about April 27, 2019.

CANCHE CARPENTRY INC. f/k/a CANCHE CONSTRUCTION INC. is a
corporation that regularly transacts business within Dade
County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J.H. Zidell, Esq.
     J.H. Zidell, P.A.
     300 71st Street, Suite 605
     Miami Beach, FL 33141
     Phone: (305) 865-6766
     Fax: (305) 865-7167
     Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


CENIKOR FOUNDATION: Klick Sues Over FLSA and TVPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY KLICK, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. CENIKOR FOUNDATION, Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-01583 (S.D. Tex., May 1, 2019) is a collective action
seeking to recover minimum wage and overtime compensation and all
other available remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
(the "FLSA"). Plaintiff also asserts individual and class claims of
quantum meruit/unjust enrichment and violations of the Trafficking
Victims Protections Act (TVPA).

Cenikor Foundation, a tax-exempt organization that runs a drug
rehabilitation program, says that it has a "long history of
fighting for [] clients' recovery alongside them," and that it does
"not allow the cost of treatment to become a hurdle for those
seeking to improve their lives." Despite these high-minded ideals
espoused by the company, Cenikor has turned patients struggling
with addiction into a pool of unpaid, forced labor, the complaint
says.

Cenikor, acting as a staffing agency, has outsourced its patients
through its work program to work for various private companies.
While in Cenikor's work program, patients are frequently required
to work 60-80 hours or more a week, often performing hard manual
labor under dangerous conditions. However, unlike a staffing
agency, Cenikor has pocketed the money paid by these companies for
the work performed by Cenikor's patients. Indeed, Cenikor made at
least $7 million by outsourcing its patients on work contracts in
2018. Cenikor's company-wide practices violate both the minimum
wage and overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as
well as Texas common law and the Trafficking Victims Protection Act
of 2000 (the "TVPA"), says the complaint.

Plaintiff is an individual who was formerly employed by Defendant.

Cenikor is a tax-exempt organization that holds itself out as a
drug rehabilitation Program.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Josh Borsellino, Esq
     Borsellino, P.C.
     1020 Macon St., Suite 15
     Fort Worth, TX 76102
     Phone: (817) 908-9861
     Facsimile: (817) 394-2412
     Email: josh@dfwcounsel.com


CHINA AGRITECH: Cahill Gordon Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Helene R. Banks, Esq. -- hbanks@cahill.com -- Bradley J. Bondi,
Esq. -- BBondi@Cahill.com -- Charles A. Gilman, Esq. --
cgilman@cahill.com -- Elai Katz, Esq., Geoffrey E. Liebmann, Esq.,
Ross Sturman, Esq. and Adam S. Mintz, Esq., of Cahill Gordon &
Reindel LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that last year, the
Supreme Court of the United States, in China Agritech, Inc. v.
Resh, resolved the question of whether, after the dismissal of a
putative class action, an absent class member could rely on the
tolling doctrine established in American Pipe & Construction Co. v.
Utah to file a successive putative class action claim after the
statute of limitations had lapsed. The Court held that plaintiffs
could not do so because American Pipe tolling applies only to a
subsequently-filed individual claim, not a class action claim.
Uncertainty remained, however, as to whether the bar on successive
class action claims was limited to situations where the previous
class action was dismissed at the class certification stage, as was
the case in China Agritech. On January 30, 2019, in In re Celexa
and Lexapro Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, the United
States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the first federal
appellate court to address this question, confirmed that China
Agritech's bar on successive class actions is not so limited and
that it imposes a categorical bar on successive class actions.
[GN]


CITISTAFF SOLUTIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Wright Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARVIN WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CITISTAFF SOLUTIONS, INC.; DEPENDABLE
HIGHWAY EXPRESS, INC.; and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE,
Defendants, Case No. 19STCV12719 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
April 12, 2019)

The Plaintiff Wright was employed by the Defendant as non-exempt
employee.

Citistaff Solutions Inc. was founded in 2004. The company's line of
business includes providing employment services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Joshua D. Boxer, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
          E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
                  jboxer@maternlawgroup.com


CJ FOODS: Underpays Food Mixers, Segura Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------
AYDE SEGURA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CJ FOODS SERVICE HOLDINGS USA, LLC; CJ FOODS
MANUFACTURING CORPORATION; CJ FOODS MANUFACTURING BEAUMONT
CORPORATION; BARON HR, LLC; BARONHR WEST, INC., and DOES 1 through
100, Defendants, Case No. 19 STCV13483 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., April 18, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for
unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for
missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff Segura was employed by the Defendants as food mixer.

CJ Foods Manufacturing Beaumont Corporation engages in the
production and sale of food products. The company was incorporated
in 2017 and is based in Beaumont, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
          Diego Aviles, Esq.
          BIBIYAN LAW GROUP
          1801 Century Park East, Suite 2600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 438-5555;
          Facsimile: (310) 300-1705
          E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com
                  diego@tomorrowlaw.com


CLAREMONT HYUNDAI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Beltran Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
PETER BELTRAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CLAREMONT HYUNDAI, LLC; MARTIN AUTOMOTIVE OF
GLENDORA, LLC; MARTIN AUTOMATIVE, INC.; MARTIN AUTOMOTIVE OF SIMI
VALLEY, INC.; MARTIN AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC.; MC AUTO GROUP, INC.;
and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV13423 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 18, 2019) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage
statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses.

Mr. Beltran was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt employee.

Claremont Hyundai, LLC is a dealership company selling new and used
Hyundai cars. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott M. Lidman, Esq.
          Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq.
          Milan Moore, Esq.
          LIDMAN LAW, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 322-4772
          Facsimile: (424) 322-4775
          E-mail: slidman@lidmanlaw.com
                  enguyen@lidmanlaw.com
                  mmoore@lidmanlaw. com

               - and -

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292-2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com


COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Dymond Sues Over FDCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
Heather Dymond, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Commonwealth Financial System, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02559 (E.D. N.Y., May 1, 2019) seeks to
recover for violations under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA").

The alleged Debt is an alleged obligation of Plaintiff to pay money
arising out of a transaction in which the money, property,
insurance, or services which are the subject of the transaction are
primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. The alleged
Debt does not arise from any business enterprise of Plaintiff. In
its efforts to collect the alleged Debt, Defendant contacted
Plaintiff by letter dated May 3, 2018. The Letter conveyed
information regarding the alleged Debt. The Letter was the initial
written communication Plaintiff received from Defendant concerning
the alleged Debt.

The complaint asserts that it is a violation of the FDCPA to
include language in the Letter that, when examined from the
perspective of the least sophisticated consumer, leads the least
sophisticated consumer to believe that her dispute must be made in
writing.

Plaintiff Heather Dymond is an individual who is a citizen of the
State of New York and is a natural person allegedly obligated to
pay a debt.

Commonwealth Financial Systems, Inc. operates as a collection
agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COVINGTON SPECIALTY: MSPA Claims Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, a Florida limited liability
company v. COVINGTON SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign profit
corporation, Case No. 1:18-cv-00830, was transferred on April 25,
2019, from the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Hampshire to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida (Miami).

The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-21583-KMW to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is a class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Section
1395y, otherwise known as the Medicare Secondary Payer ("MSP") Act
or the MSP Law, arising from the Defendant's alleged systematic and
uniform failure to reimburse conditional Medicare payments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tawny L. Alvarez, Esq.
          VERRILL DANA LLP
          One Portland Square
          Portland, ME 04101-4054
          Telephone: (207) 774-4000
          Facsimile: (207) 774-7499
          E-mail: talvarez@verrilldana.com

               - and -

          Paul W. Shaw, Esq.
          VERRILL DANA LLP
          One Boston Place, Suite 1600
          Boston, MA 02108-4407
          Telephone: (617) 309-2600
          Facsimile: (617) 309-2601
          E-mail: pshaw@verrilldana.com


DANVERS MOTOR: Underpays Sales Persons, Miller Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DANVERS MOTOR COMPANY, INC.; KEVIN GUINEE;
and LAWRENCE MICHAEL GUINEE, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00563C
(Mass. Super., Essex Cty., April 18, 2019) is an action against the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Mr. Miller was employed by the Defendants as sales person.

Danvers Motor Company, Inc. retails automobiles. The Company offers
new and used cars, vans, trucks, parts, and accessories, as well as
financing, maintenance, and repair services. Danvers Motor serves
customers in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephanie C. Ozahowski, Esq.
          Raven Moeslinger, Esq.
          Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C.
          99 High Street, Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 338-9400
          E-mail: sco@mass-legal.com
                  rm@mass-legal.com
                  nfo@mass-legal.com


DARTMOUTH COLLEGE: Challenging Use of Pseudonyms in Sex Abuse Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Ernst & Britta Greene, writing for New Hampshire Public Radio,
report that Dartmouth College is challenging the anonymity of
plaintiffs in a $70 million class-action lawsuit that claims the
school mishandled sexual abuse complaints for years.

Dartmouth argues the use of pseudonyms for two recently added
plaintiffs will make it unfairly difficult for the college to
defend itself.

The lawsuit, filed last fall, centers around three former members
of the school's neuroscience faculty. Plaintiffs argue Dartmouth
administrators failed to properly protect students from harassment
and assault by the men.

There are now nine total plaintiffs in the case, three of them
anonymous. They argue the use of pseudonyms is necessary to protect
their mental health and careers.

Dartmouth has denied the allegations in the suit, arguing
administrators moved quickly to investigate complaints and
discipline the three former faculty members. All three were forced
out last year. [GN]


DIAL CORP: Arizona AG Challenges $4.4MM Payout to Attorneys
-----------------------------------------------------------
Angela Gonzales, writing for ABC15 Arizona, reports that Dial
Corp.'s $7.4 million class action settlement involving the
effectiveness of its liquid hand soap will give $4.4 million to
attorneys and only $2.3 million to consumers.

This inequity has led Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich to
spearhead a bipartisan coalition of 12 state attorneys general to
urge a New Hampshire federal court to reject the proposed class
action settlement that leans in favor of 60 percent of the cash to
attorneys and only 40 percent to consumers.

This settlement is based on Dial's promise to stop including
triclosan in its soap. Triclosan originally was registered as a
pesticide in 1969 and is still used in some pesticide products. By
1972, it was being marketed as an antibacterial agent in numerous
consumer products, including soaps, body washes, toothpaste, and
even furniture, clothing and toys. [GN]


EDDIE BAUER: Fisher Sues Over False "Discounting" Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------
Jackie Fisher, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Eddie Bauer, LLC and DOES 1- 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00857, (S.D. Cal., May 7, 2019), seeks
redress for violations of California's Unfair Competition Laws,
Business and Professions Code, False Advertising Laws and Consumer
Legal Remedies Act.

Eddie Bauer maintains the Eddie Bauer brand, a line of men and
women's clothing, athletic shoes, home decor, bags & gear and
accessories. It operates Eddie Bauer retail and outlet stores and
the Eddiebauer.com website.

The complaint asserts that Eddie Bauer utilizes a false and
misleading reference price in the marketing and selling of its
"direct to outlet" merchandise sold at its outlet stores. The
"reference" price is used to induce customers into believing that
the merchandise was sold at a discount, when in fact they are
paying the regular or original retail price.

Fisher purchased a Radiator Fleece zip and a Thermal zip at the
Eddie Bauer outlet store at purportedly "50% Off" for $24.99 and
$27.50, respectively. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
      Alyshia K. Lord, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
      1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 762-1910
      Fax: (619) 756-6991
      Email: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com
             alord@carlsonlynch.com


ENVOY AIR: Court OKs $3.55MM Settlement in Schroeder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California issued a Judgment approving the Class Action Settlement
Agreement in the case captioned K. SCHROEDER, O. GUERRA, ARTURO
ALVAREZ, GILBERTO FRAGOSO, and FIDEL RAMIREZ, as individuals and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ENVOY AIR,
INC., and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. CV
16-4911-MWF (KSx). (C.D. Cal.).

The Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement (Settlement
Motion) and the Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees, Enhancement
Awards and Reimbursement of Costs (Fee Motion), filed by Plaintiffs
Karla Schroeder, Osvaldo Guerra, Arturo Alvarez, Gilberto Fragoso,
and Fidel Ramirez (Plaintiffs), came regularly for hearing before
this Court.

The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement is in the best
interests of Settlement Class Members, is fair, reasonable, and
adequate within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23,
and GRANTS final approval of the Settlement Agreement and all of
the terms and conditions contained therein.

The Court preliminarily found class certification for settlement
purposes appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The
Court now finds final certification of the Settlement Class
appropriate, as well. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23, the Court finally certifies, for settlement
purposes only, the Settlement Class defined as follows:

     All persons who were employed by Envoy within the State of
California as non-exempt employees at any time from May 25, 2012
through October 31, 2018, excluding those individuals who timely
submitted a valid Request for Exclusion.

The Court finds that Class Counsel satisfies the requirements of
Rule 23(g). The Court further confirms for settlement purposes the
appointment of Plaintiffs' counsel as Class Counsel under Rule
23(g).

The Court finds that Plaintiffs adequately represented the Class in
this matter.

Notwithstanding any other provision of the Settlement Agreement,
including without limitation those claims identified in Paragraph
62 of the Settlement Agreement, Settlement Class Released Claims
shall not include claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) arising from a Settlement Class Member's employment with
Envoy unless the Settlement Class Member has affirmatively opted-in
to the case by submitting a timely and valid Claim Form.

The Settlement Agreement shall be effective as a bar to any and all
of the claims released by Paragraph 62 of the Settlement Agreement
(for the Settlement Class) and Paragraph 63 (for the Named
Plaintiffs). In furtherance of this ruling, as to any and all
claims released by Paragraph 62 (for the Settlement Class) and
Paragraph 63 (for the Named Plaintiffs), the Settlement Class
(including, without limitation, the Named Plaintiffs) expressly
waives any and all rights or benefits conferred on Settlement Class
Members by the provisions of section 1542 of the California Civil
Code, or any similar provisions under state, federal, or local law.


Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Gross Settlement Value
(GSV) of the Settlement Agreement shall be three million five
hundred fifty-five thousand nine-hundred and forty-one U.S. dollars
and two cents ($3,555,941.02), and deemed included in that amount
will be a total of one million two hundred fifty-five thousand nine
hundred and forty-one U.S. dollars and two cents ($1,255,941.02)
that Envoy already paid after the filing of the May 25, 2016
Complaint to certain Settlement Class Members to compensate
employees for allegedly owed wages pursuant the Los Angeles Living
Wage Ordinance, L.A., Cal., Admin. Code, div. 10, ch. 1, art. 11
Sections 10.37 et seq. Accordingly, Envoy's total financial
commitment pursuant to the Settlement Agreement shall be the
non-reversionary Common Fund that will not exceed two million three
hundred thousand U.S. dollars and no cents ($2,300,000.00), out of
which Defendant will pay any Court-approved attorneys' fees and
costs.
  
Not later than fifteen (15) calendar days after the Effective Date,
Envoy shall transfer the Common Fund of $2,300,000 to the Claims
Administrator, and the Claims Administrator shall deposit the same
into a non-interest-bearing distribution account, pursuant to the
Settlement Agreement.

The Court has deemed that Class Counsel has adequately represented
the Named Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class orders and awards
Attorneys' Fees in the amount of $1,185,195 and Costs, in the
amount of $43,885.20. The Claims Administrator is ordered to pay
this Award to Harris & Ruble, 655 N Central Ave 17th floor,
Glendale, CA 91203, within ten (10) calendar days of the Claims
Administrator's receipt of the Common Fund.

Plaintiffs Schroeder, Guerra, Alvarez, Fragoso, and Ramirez are
hereby approved as representatives of the Settlement Class or
"Named Plaintiffs." The Enhancement Awards of $5,000 each for
Plaintiffs Schroeder and Guerra and $1,000 each for Plaintiffs
Alvarez, Fragoso, and Ramirez to be paid from the Common Fund are
approved. The Claims Administrator is to pay from the Common Fund
said amounts to each of the Named Plaintiffs within ten (10) days
of Claims Administrator's receipt of the Common Fund. The Claims
Administrator shall send the Enhancement Awards to Class Counsel,
Harris & Ruble, 655 N Central Ave 17th floor, Glendale, CA 91203.

The Parties' allocation of $37,500 from the Gross Settlement Value
for a release of Private Attorneys' General Act (PAGA) claims,
which is 75% of the total amount of payout allocated to cover PAGA
penalties, to be paid from the Common Fund is approved. The Court
hereby approves this Settlement of PAGA claims pursuant to
California Labor Code section 2699(l)(2). Accordingly, the LWDA
shall be bound by the release(s) of PAGA claims set forth in the
Settlement Agreement. In addition, all Settlement Class Members
attempting to stand in the shoes of the LWDA and/or the state of
California and other purported aggrieved employees under the PAGA,
or to recover penalties from a PAGA action filed by another
purported aggrieved employee, shall be bound by the release(s) of
PAGA claims set forth in the Settlement Agreement and shall be
barred from prosecuting and/or participating in such PAGA action
and/or PAGA recovery, unless they timely and properly submitted a
Request for Exclusion from the Settlement Agreement. The Claims
Administrator is hereby ordered to pay to the LWDA said amount from
the Common Fund within ten (10) calendar days of Claims
Administrator's receipt of the Common Fund.

The Claims Administrator's costs and expenses of $24,500, to be
paid from the Common Fund, are approved.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 6, 2019 Judgment is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yxo7rswj from Leagle.com.

K. Schroeder, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, O. Guerra, Gilberto Fragoso & Fidel Ramirez, Plaintiffs,
represented by D. Alan Harris -- law@harrisandruble.com -- Harris
and Ruble, John Patrick Dorigan, Law Offices of John P. Dorigan,
9008 Brandywine Rd, Northfield, OH 44067-2493 & Priya Mohan --
pmohan@harrisandruble.com -- Harris and Ruble.

Envoy Air, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew Lichtenstein --
alichtenstein@omm.com -- OMelveny and Myers LLP, Matthew Alan
Bahleda -- mbahleda@omm.com -- OMelveny and Myers LLP & Michael G.
McGuinness -- mmcguinness@omm.com -- OMelveny and Myers LLP.


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Settles Virginia FCRA Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Ebbs, Esq., of Womble Bond Dickinson, disclosed that as part
of its business, Equifax reports publicly available civil judgment
and tax lien information about consumers.  However, in multiple
class action lawsuits filed across the United States,
plaintiff-consumers alleged that while Equifax promptly reported
civil judgment and tax lien information, Equifax did not update
cancelled or satisfied judgments and liens with similar vigor or
regularity.  The plaintiff-consumers contend that reporting that
did not indicate the cancellation or satisfaction of a judgment or
lien was incorrect and misleading.  Further, the consumers alleged
that Equifax's reporting violated 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681e(b), a
provision of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) that requires a
reporting entity to follow reasonable procedures to ensure the
accuracy of the information published.

Equifax vigorously denied that it engaged in any conduct prohibited
by the FCRA or that a litigation class could be certified due to
the differences in how judgments and liens are reported from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction.  Nevertheless, Equifax and the
plaintiff-consumers have reached a mediated resolution to all of
the pending litigation.  On April 17, 2019, in Thomas, et al. v.
Equifax Information Services, LLC, United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia, Civil Action File No.
3:18-cv-00684, a class representative filed a motion for
preliminary approval of a settlement related to its reporting of
civil judgments and tax liens.

The proposed settlement requires the entry of an injunction that
prohibits Equifax from reporting any civil judgment or tax lien
records for a period of five years, subject to conditions that may
permit Equifax from resuming such reporting earlier.  Further, the
proposed settlement requires Equifax to establish an ADR program
pursuant to which impacted consumers can submit claims that will be
evaluated by an independent administrator.  For claims that are
accepted, Equifax will pay the consumer $1,500.  There is no cap to
the amount of money that Equifax may have to pay under the ADR
program.  The proposed settlement also requires Equifax to bear the
entire cost of the ADR program, pay $1,850,000 for class notice
activity, and an amount not to exceed $9,500,000 for attorneys'
fees and a service award for the class representatives. [GN]


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in Tadic Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Nada Tadic filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Nada Tadic v. Experian Information Solutions, et
al., Case No. 1:18-cv-02911-TWT, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia.

The nature of suit is stated as other fraud.

The appellate case is captioned as Nada Tadic v. Experian
Information Solutions, et al., Case No. 19-11434, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the
Appellant's brief is due on or before May 28, 2019.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant NADA TADIC, all on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          William Lewis Garrison, Jr., Esq.
          Christopher Boyce Hood, Esq.
          HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
          2224 1st Avenue N
          Birmingham, AL 35203-4204
          Telephone: (205) 326-3336
          E-mail: Lewis@hgdlawfirm.com
                  chood@hgdlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Travis Edward Lynch, Esq.
          James F. McDonough, III, Esq.
          Jonathan R. Miller, Esq.
          HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
          3621 Vinings Slope, Suite 4320
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (404) 996-0869
          E-mail: tlynch@hgdlawfirm.com
                  jmcdonough@hgdlawfirm.com
                  jmiller@hgdlawfirm.com

Defendants-Appellees EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., and
CONSUMERINFO.COM, INC., are represented by:

          Edward S. Chang, Esq.
          Jeremy S. Close, Esq.
          Richard Grabowski, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          3161 Michelson Dr., Suite 800
          Irvine, CA 92612-4408
          Telephone: (949) 851-3939
          E-mail: echang@jonesday.com
                  jsclose@jonesday.com
                  rgrabowski@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Rebecca Crawford Reynolds, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          1420 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 800
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 581-8825
          E-mail: rbcrawford@jonesday.com


EXTRA SPACE STORAGE: Johnson et al. Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ALEXANDRU IONESCU, LENAY JOHNSON and LAMAR MOSLEY,
individually and on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, vs. EXTRA SPACE STORAGE INC., Defendant, Case
No. RG19004671 (Filed on March 25, 2019), was transferred from
Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on April 24, 2019. The removal was based on the grounds
that federal court has jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness
Act, as this is a civil action between citizens of different
states, where the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of
$5,000,000 exclusive of costs and interest, and the putative class
has more than 100 members.  The United States District Court for
the Northern District of California assigned Case No.
4:19-cv-02226-YGR to the proceedings.

In the complaint, Plaintiffs Lenay Johnson, Alexandru Ionescu, and
Lamar Mosley allege that Defendant Extra Space Storage Inc. has
violated California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising
Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

Extra Space is a Maryland corporation with its headquarters and
principal place of business in Utah. It operates self-storage
facilities in the US. [BN]

Attorneys for the Defendant:

     Quyen L. Ta, Esq.
     Kathleen R. Hartnett, Esq.
     James A. Unger, Esq.
     BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
     1999 Harrison Street, Suite 900
     Oakland, CA 94612
     Telephone: (510) 874-1000
     Facsimile: (510) 874-1460
     E-mail: qta@bsfllp.com
             khartnett@bsfllp.com
             junger@bsfllp.com


FCA US: Nov. 30 Deadline to Complete Alger Merits-Based Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California approved a stipulation
setting the deadline to complete merits-based discovery to November
30, 2019, in the case captioned SHAWN ALGER as an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FCA US LLC
f/k/a CHRYSLER GROUP LLC, a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1
Assigned to through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-00360-MCE-EFB (E.D. Calif.).

A full-text copy of the Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y3rvvs7a from Leagle.com.

Shawn Alger, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Stuart C. Talley, Esq.
     William A. Kershaw, Esq.
     Kershaw, Cook & Talley PC
     401 Watt Avenue, Suite 1
     Sacramento, CA 95864
     Tel: (916) 520-6639
     Fax: (916) 244-4829

FCA US LLC, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Abirami Gnanadesigan, Esq. -- agnanadesigan@dykema.com -- Dykema
Gossett LLP, Brittany J. Mouzourakis, Esq. --
BMouzourakis@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett, PLLC, pro hac vice,
Dommond E. Lonnie, Esq. -- dlonnie@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett,
LLP, Fred J. Fresard, Esq. -- ffresard@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett
PLLC, pro hac vice & James P. Feeney, Esq. -- jfeeney@dykema.com --
Dykema Gossett PLLC.


FEDEX FREIGHT: Calif. Court Dismisses Mamuyac Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Judge Stephen V. Wilson of the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, Western Division, approved the
stipulation dismissing with prejudice as to Plaintiff and
dismissing without prejudice as to any putative class members the
case captioned JONATHAN MAMUYAC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FEDEX FREIGHT, INC., a
corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-04905-SVW-(SKx)(C.D. Calif.).

A full-text copy of the Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y2vqlrdh from Leagle.com.

Jonathan Mamuyac, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Caspar S. Jivalagian,
Esq. -- caspar@kjtlawgroup.com -- KJT Law Group LLP, Christopher A.
Adams, LightGabler LLP & Vache A. Thomassian, Esq. --
vache@kjtlawgroup.com -- KJT Law Group LLP.

FedEx Freight, Inc., a corporation, Defendant, represented by Keith
A. Jacoby, Esq. -- kjacoby@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC,
Linda N. Bollinger, Esq. -- lbollinger@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson PC, Sandra C. Isom, Fedex Freight Inc Legal Department &
Sophia Behnia, Esq. -- sbehnia@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson
PC.


FIAT CHRYSLER: Dodge Ram Emissions Class Action Can Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Dodge
Ram emissions lawsuit will proceed after a federal judge upheld
most claims related to Ram 2500 and 3500 diesel trucks that may be
equipped with emissions defeat devices.

The class action lawsuit alleges Fiat Chrysler (FCA US) and engine
manufacturer Cummins conspired to cheat on emissions tests in the
following Ram 2500 and 3500 trucks.

(Note: Dodge made "Ram" its own brand in 2012)

2007-2010 Dodge Ram 2500
2011 Dodge Ram 2500
2012 Ram 2500
2007-2010 Dodge Ram 3500
2011 Dodge Ram 3500
2012 Ram 3500

The lawsuit was dismissed in 2018, but U.S. District Judge Terrence
G. Berg allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint concerning
claims of violating fraud, consumer protection and contract laws.
In addition, the plaintiffs alleged in their amended lawsuit
violations of warranty and racketeering laws.

The judge gave the green light to the class action by upholding all
the plaintiff's claims except breach of warranty violations.

According to Judge Berg, claims of false advertising are enough to
show Chrysler may have intentionally mispresented the trucks in
violation of state consumer protection laws.

The plaintiffs also convinced the judge FCA may have concealed
emissions defeat devices in the Ram trucks knowing consumers would
have second thoughts about purchasing the trucks.

According to the lawsuit, Chrysler and Cummins colluded to
manufacture and sell Ram trucks that meet federal emissions
standards, but those standards were met only because the trucks
were illegal.

All the 2500 and 3500 trucks are equipped with Cummins 6.7-liter
diesel engines, trucks the plaintiffs say cost them about $9,000
too much compared to gasoline-powered engines.

According to attorneys for the plaintiffs, they tested three Ram
2500 trucks and determined in stop-and-go driving nitrogen oxide
emissions were 4.4 times the standard for a 2007 model year truck.
A 2009 Dodge Ram 2500 allegedly emitted 5.3 times beyond standards
and 3.8 times above standards for a 2012 Ram truck.

The Ram emissions lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan - James Bledsoe, et. al., v. FCA
US LLC, and Cummins Inc.

CarComplaints.com has complaints about the trucks named in the Ram
emissions lawsuit:

Dodge Ram 2500 - 2007 / 2008 / 2009 / 2010 / 2011 / All model
years
Ram 2500 - 2012 / All model years
Dodge Ram 3500 - 2007 / 2008 / 2009 / 2010 / 2011 / All model
years
Ram 3500 - 2012 / All model years [GN]


FIRSTKEY HOMES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Drake Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRENDA DRAKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIRSTKEY HOMES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-01746-LMM (N.D. Ga., April 18, 2019) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

FIRSTKEY HOMES, LLC provides single-family rental homes nationwide.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shireen Hormozdi, Esq.
          BRENDA DRAKE
          1770 Indian Trail Lilburn Road, Suite 175
          Norcross, GA 30093
          Telephone: (678) 395-7795
          Facsimile: (866) 929-2434
          E-mail: shireen@norcrosslawfirm.com

               - and -

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD.
          4849 N. Milwaukee Ave., Ste. 300
          Chicago, IL 60630
          Telephone: (312) 283-3814
          Facsimile: (773) 496-8617
          E-mail: gklinger@kozonislaw.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230
          Boca Raton, FL 33487
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
          401 Congress Ave., Ste. 1540
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 803-1578
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com


FORD MOTOR: Fiesta and Focus Owners Reach Settlement
----------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that settlement is coming for Ford Fiesta and
Focus owners.  If you own a Ford Focus or Fiesta you might be
looking at a partial refund thanks to a class-action settlement
over the cars' problem-plagued dual-action transmissions.  Halifax
resident Jordan Bonaparte was the first to notice his car jerking
forward in traffic and other issues with the transmission.  But,
he's not the only one. Transport Canada says it was the most
complained about issue in the past 10 years. [GN]


FORD MOTOR: Suit Over Inaccesible On-Line Application Proceeds
--------------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Review reports that for years, individuals have
brought lawsuits claiming that their access to goods and services
is limited under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities
("ADA").

According to Nat Law Review, in a recent case out of the Northern
District of Ohio, Kasper v. Ford Motor Company, the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio allowed a class action to
proceed against an employer based on allegations that the company's
on-line application process was not accessible and the company did
not provide an accessible accommodation request process. While the
case is far from over, it offers a good reminder of three questions
employer should consider:

Do your applicants as a practical matter have to apply online to be
considered for employment?

Is your website accessible to disabled application, especially
those applicants with visual disabilities?

Do you offer an effective accommodation process for individuals to
request accommodation where they are unable to use the on-line
application process?

In Kasper, the company provided an accommodation process to the
online application process but Kasper claims that the process
itself was limited due to website accessibility issues. Requesting
an accommodation involved calling a hotline listed on Ford's
website. Next to the hotline number, Ford's website instructed
users to leave their contact information and details about the job
in which they were interested. Kasper, however, claimed that his
cognitive disability prevented him from providing the required job
information via the hotline, as he could not access the necessary
information about the job from Ford's website.

Kasper v. Ford Motor Co. is just one of the recent cases that has
emerged in the website accessibility arena under Title I of the ADA
prohibiting employers from discriminating against applicants and
employees on the basis of a disability. Since this area of law
appears to be receiving increased attention, employers may want to
review their online employment application process (including their
mobile apps) to determine whether disabled applicants have an equal
opportunity to participate in the application process. [GN]


FUSION CONNECT: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP (www.blockesq.com), a Boston based securities
litigation firm representing investors nationwide, on April 16
disclosed that it has filed a securities fraud class action against
Fusion Connect, Inc. (NASDAQ: FSNN) and certain of its officers
alleging violations of the federal securities laws.

The Complaint, filed in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York (Manhattan), located at 500 Pearl Street, New
York, New York, 10007, and captioned Satarzadeh v. Fusion Connect,
Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-3391, alleges that between March 22, 2018
and April 2, 2019 (the "Class Period"), Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements in various financial statements which
were filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. A judge has
not yet been assigned.

If you purchased Fusion Connect shares during the Class Period and
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than June 17, 2019. As a member of the class, you may seek to file
a motion to serve as a lead plaintiff or take no action and remain
an absent class member. If you wish to become involved in the
litigation or have questions about your legal rights, you are
encouraged to contact Block & Leviton LLP at (617) 398-5660, by
email at info@blockesq.com, or by visiting
http://shareholder.law/fusion.

Block & Leviton LLP was recently ranked 4th among securities
litigation firms by ISS for recoveries in 2017. The firm represents
many of the nation's largest institutional investors and numerous
individual investors in securities litigation throughout the
country. Indeed, its lawyers have recovered billions of dollars for
its clients. [GN]


FUSION CONNECT: June 17 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
---------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP (www.blockesq.com), a Boston based securities
litigation firm representing investors nationwide, has filed a
securities fraud class action against Fusion Connect, Inc. (NASDAQ:
FSNN) and certain of its officers alleging violations of the
federal securities laws.

The Complaint, filed in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York (Manhattan), located at 500 Pearl Street, New
York, New York, 10007, and captioned Satarzadeh v. Fusion Connect,
Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-3391, alleges that between August 14, 2018
and April 2, 2019 (the "Class Period"), Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements in various financial statements which
were filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. A judge has
not yet been assigned.

If you purchased Fusion Connect shares during the Class Period and
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than June 17, 2019. As a member of the class, you may seek to file
a motion to serve as a lead plaintiff or take no action and remain
an absent class member. If you wish to become involved in the
litigation or have questions about your legal rights, you are
encouraged to contact Block & Leviton LLP at (617) 398-5660, by
email at info@blockesq.com, or by visiting
http://shareholder.law/fusion

Block & Leviton LLP was recently ranked 4th among securities
litigation firms by ISS for recoveries in 2017. The firm represents
many of the nation's largest institutional investors and numerous
individual investors in securities litigation throughout the
country. Indeed, its lawyers have recovered billions of dollars for
its clients. [GN]


FUTURE AG: Gomez-Gasca Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
-----------------------------------------------------
MOISES GOMEZ-GASCA, and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
FUTURE AG MANAGEMENT, INC., ELIAS PEREZ CHAVEZ, and CAMARILLO BERRY
FARMS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-02359 (N.D. Cal., May 1,
2019) seeks from the Defendants unpaid wages; liquidated damages;
actual, incidental, consequential, and compensatory damages;
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; and pre and post-judgment
interest.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) by willfully failing to pay at least the
required hourly wage for every compensable hour of labor performed
in a workweek (including by failing to reimburse their
employment-related expenses as required by law) to Plaintiff and to
each individual who may opt into this action as allowed by the FLSA
("Opt-In Plaintiff"), and to other similarly-situated workers. The
Defendants breached Plaintiff's employment contracts by failing to
pay the contractually-promised wages, including those required by
the FLSA, for all hours worked, and by failing to reimburse
Plaintiff's employment-related expenses including travel expenses,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff is an agricultural worker imported from Mexico by
Defendants Future Ag Management and Elias Perez-Chavez to work for
Defendants.

Future Ag Management, Inc. is a California corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dawson Morton, Esq.
     Santos Gomez, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF SANTOS GOMEZ
     1003 Freedom Boulevard
     Watsonville, CA 95076
     Phone: 831-228-1560
     Fax: 831-228-1542
     Email: dawson@lawofficesofsantosgomez.com
            santos@lawofficesofsantosgomez.com


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Court Compels Mediation in RGOI's Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
issued a Memorandum and Order granting Defendant's Motion to Compel
Mediation in the case captioned GOI ASC, LTD. d/b/a RIO GRANDE
ORTHOPAEDIC INSTITUTE AMBULATORY SURGERY CENTER and MONROE COUNTY
HEALTH CARE AUTHORITY d/b/a MONROE COUNTY HOSPITAL v. GENERAL
ELECTRIC COMPANY, GE HEALTHCARE, INC., and DATEX-OHMEDA, INC. Civil
Action No. 18-12624-RGS. (D. Mass.).

GE now moves to dismiss the action and compel mediation or, in the
alternative, to dismiss the Amended Complaint for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.

RGOI ASC, LTD. (RGOI) and Monroe County Health Care Authority (MCH)
are the plaintiffs in this putative class action brought against
General Electric Company, GE Healthcare, Inc., and Datex-Ohmeda,
Inc. (collectively GE). The Plaintiffs allege that GE violated
Section 2 of the Sherman Act by monopolizing the sale of parts and
training required to service its gas anesthesia machines.

A party seeking to compel mediation must show (1) that a valid
agreement to mediate exists (2) that the movant is entitled to
invoke the mediation clause (3) that the other party is bound by
that clause, and (4) that the claim asserted comes within the
clause's scope.

The Plaintiffs oppose GE's motion to compel mediation on several
grounds. First, the plaintiffs argue that their antitrust claim
falls outside the clause's scope because it does not relate to the
service agreements but to GE's anticompetitive conduct directed
towards GE's competitors.

However, GE argues, and the court agrees, that the plaintiffs'
monopolization claim falls squarely within the scope of the
mediation provision because it relates to the service agreements.

The Plaintiffs purchased services from GE pursuant to these
agreements, and now allege that GE has used its purported monopoly
power to raise the prices for such services. The alleged increased
cost clearly relates to the service agreements, which govern the
contractual price, especially given that related to is interpreted
broadly under Texas and Alabama law.  

Second, the plaintiffs contend that the dispute resolution
provision should be construed strictly against its enforcement.
Under Texas and Alabama law, conditions precedent are disfavored
and will only be enforced if compelled by the contractual language.
  

According to the plaintiffs, the dispute resolution provision here
does not clearly support a condition precedent.

The court disagrees.

The dispute resolution provision provides, in relevant part, that
the parties will first attempt to resolve in good faith any
disputes related to this Agreement, and that unresolved disputes
will be submitted to mediation prior to initiation of other means
of dispute resolution. By use of the imperative will, the clause
makes clear that mediation must first be undertaken prior to
initiating any other form of dispute resolution. Thus, mediation is
a condition precedent to litigation.  

Third, the plaintiffs maintain that efficiency counsels that the
case proceed regardless of the enforceability of the mediation
provision. According to the plaintiffs, mediation will not only
delay resolution of the case, but will also be futile because GE
will simply echo the same arguments it has made here in support of
its Motion to Dismiss.

The efficiency argument, while not risible, is trumped by the clear
language of the parties' contract. Nor is it a foregone conclusion
that mediation will be futile. Mediation rather provides the
parties an opportunity to compromise and potentially resolve their
dispute or at least narrow its parameters. Allowing plaintiffs to
forgo mediation would, as GE contends, ignore their contractual
commitment to mediate.

In short, the plaintiffs' Sherman Act claim falls within the scope
of the service agreements' valid dispute resolution provision,
which makes mediation the ticket of admission to litigation, if
such is to ensue. The court will, as plaintiffs request, stay the
case pending mediation.

Accordingly, GE's motion to compel mediation is allowed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 6, 2019 Memorandum and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y37wjco8 from
Leagle.com.

RGOI ASC, LTD., doing business as Rio Grande Orthopaedic Institute
Ambulatory Surgery Center, Plaintiff, represented by Edith M.
Kallas -- ekallas@whatleykallas.com -- Whatley Drake & Kallas LLC,
pro hac vice, Henry C. Quillen -- hquillen@whatleykallas.com --
Whatley Kallas, LLP, pro hac vice, Joe R. Whatley, Jr. --
jwhatley@whatleykallas.com -- Whatley Kallas LLP, pro hac vice,
Kristi M. Aronica -- kristi@weitzmorgan.com -- Weitz Morgan PLLC,
pro hac vice, Mark A. Weitz -- mweitz@weitzmorgan.com -- Weitz
Morgan, PLLC, pro hac vice, Patrick J. -- Sheehan
psheehan@whatleykallas.com -- Whatley Kallas, LLP & R. Stephen
Berry, Berry Law, PLLC, 1100 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 645,
Washington DC 20036, pro hac vice.

Monroe County Health Care Authority d/b/a Monroe County Hospital,
Plaintiff, represented by Daniel R. Sonneborn --
dsonneborn@preti.com -- Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios LLP,
Gregory S. Asciolla -- gasciolla@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow
LLP, Karin E. Garvey -- kgarvey@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow
LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick J. Sheehan, Whatley Kallas, LLP & Eric
G. Penley -- epenley@preti.com -- Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios
LLP.

General Electric Company, GE Healthcare, Inc., A subsidiary of
General Electric Company & DATEX-OHMEDA, INC., A subsidiary of
General Electric Company, Defendants, represented by Alfred C.
Pfeiffer -- al.pfeiffer@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac
vice, Caroline N. Esser -- caroline.esser@lw.com --  Latham &
Watkins LLP, pro hac vice, Elyse M. Greenwald --
elyse.greenwald@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP & Lawrence E.
Buterman -- lawrence.buterman@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins, pro hac
vice.


GENERAL MOTORS: Chevy Corvette Z06 Class Action Can Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Chevy
Corvette Z06 class action lawsuit will proceed for certain
plaintiffs who allege GM knew the cars overheated from faulty
cooling systems.

The class action lawsuit is one of five lawsuits filed in different
federal courts by the same attorneys who allege the cars aren't
ready for racetracks or even normal highways.

The other lawsuits were transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan where the judge required the
plaintiffs to file a consolidated Z06 class action.

The consolidated complaint included nationwide claims about
2015-2017 Corvette Z06 cars, but thanks to a motion to dismiss by
General Motors, the lawsuit will proceed for customers in only 16
states.

According to the plaintiffs, they purchased or leased 2015-2017
Corvette Z06 cars GM marketed and sold for use on public roads and
racetracks. But the cars allegedly can't handle highways or
racetracks because of defective cooling systems.

According to the lawsuit, the engine "will overheat if it operates
on the track during a typical track session, which causes the Z06
to go into 'Limp Mode' to prevent permanent damage, or causes the
driver to see the overheat gauge and pit the car before it goes
into Limp Mode."

The lawsuit describes how GM marketed the cars as "developed to
push the envelope of performance on the street and the track." In
numerous promotional materials, GM described the cars as
"track-proven" or "race-proven" and capable of handling high
temperatures.

But the plaintiffs claim the cars sometimes shut down after 15
minutes of track driving as the vehicles suddenly lose power, a
serious safety problem with other vehicles nearby.

The plaintiffs also allege GM knew about the defects but continued
to market the cars for track driving. According to the lawsuit,
Corvette's chief engineer, Tadge Juechter, admitted in 2015 that a
Z06 with an automatic transmission reaches "thermal limitations . .
. more quickly."

Additionally, customers who "plan to run extended track-day
sessions at ‘professional' speeds . . . to go with the manual
transmission, or to paddle shift the automatic and select higher
gears when conditions warrant it."

Allegedly as final proof GM knew the Corvette Z06 overheats from
defective cooling systems, the plaintiffs reference how the
automaker stopped production of the Z06 in 2016 and modified the
cooling system in the 2017 model.

The Court struck down the nationwide class allegations and also
dismissed claims under New York and Ohio laws, but various warranty
and fraud claims will proceed for 2015-2017 Chevrolet Corvette Z06
owners and lessees in these 16 states:

California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and Washington.

The Chevrolet Corvette Z06 class action lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan - Matanky
et al v. General Motors LLC.

The plaintiffs are represented by Hagens Berman, Grossman Roth
Yaffa Cohen, the Miller Law Firm, and Schuler Halvorson Weisser
Zoller Overbeck. [GN]


GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Faulty Cadillac SRX Headlights
--------------------------------------------------------
GM Authority's Sam Mceachern, citing Bloomberg, reports that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against General Motors in
Detroit by three plaintiffs who allege that moisture can become
trapped in the headlights of the Cadillac SRX crossover, posing a
potential safety hazard.

According to Bloomberg, the lawsuit claims the headlights found in
2010-2015 model year Cadillac SRX crossovers have weather seals
that may erode prematurely. This can allow moisture to enter the
headlight casing, which may cause the bulb to either dim or burn
out entirely.

"Such malfunctions will necessarily result in low visibility at
best, which can contribute to injurious, or even fatal, traffic
accidents," the lawsuit says.

Bloomberg's report also alleges that some SRX owners are "afraid to
drive their cars at night" due to this issue.

The filing indicates GM issued a service bulletin for the 2010-2015
Cadillac SRX headlights, but because the vehicle was never
officially recalled for the issue, it did not notify owners or
lessees of the problem. It says the automaker didn't upgrade to
better production components once discovering the problem, either,
and instead choose to replace the components with new versions of
the same ones when they broke.

The issue is believed to affect more than 300,000 examples of the
Cadillac SRX. If the suit moves forward, the plaintiffs will be
able to pursue GM on behalf of anyone who bought or leased an SRX
in the 2010 to 2015 model years.

GM has yet to release an official statement on the class action
lawsuit. It did not immediately respond to a request for comment
when asked by Bloomberg. [GN]


GENOMICS MEDICINE: Chairman Faces Class Action in U.S.
------------------------------------------------------
Killian Woods and Barry J Whyte, writing for The Business Post,
report that Ge Li, chairman of Genomics Medicine Ireland's parent
company, is facing a class action lawsuit in the US over alleged
violations of share trading rules. [GN]


GETSWIFT: Squire Patton-Led Shareholder Class Action Halted
-----------------------------------------------------------
Liz Main, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports that a
shareholder class action run by law firm Squire Patton Boggs
against logistics software company GetSwift has been stopped in its
tracks following a ruling by the High Court of Australia.

Three class actions were initially filed by law firms Corrs
Chambers Westgarth, Phi Finney McDonald and Squire Patton Boggs,
alleging that GetSwift shareholders suffered financial loss because
the company breached its continous disclosure obligations between
February 24, 2017 and January, 19 2018.

However, Federal Court judge Michael Lee ruled in May 2018 that Phi
Finney McDonald would lead the charge and put the other two cases
permanently put on hold.

Squire Patton Boggs appealed the decision but the High Court's
ruling on April 17 marks the end of the road. Only the Phi Finney
McDonald case will proceed.

The High Court's ruling signals its approval of the original
decision by the Full Court of the Federal Court that only one
shareholder class action should be run against ASX-listed company
GetSwift.

GetSwift faces a separate court case from Australian Securities and
Investments Commission, which alleges GetSwift breached the
Corporations Act by making a series of misleading announcements on
the ASX relating to clients it had secured between February and
December 2017, uncovered by an investigation by The Australian
Financial Review in January 2018.

"The company strongly disputes the allegations made against it,
including any alleged loss, and is vigorously defending the
proceedings. The company will continue to robustly pursue all legal
options to protect shareholder interests. The company will continue
to keep shareholders informed of developments," GetSwift said in a
statement on the ASX on April 18.

The ASIC trial will begin in June 2020, with the class action to
follow in August 2020. [GN]


GIGAMON INC: Stockholders' Delaware Class Action Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Gigamon Inc. ("Gigamon"), the essential element of network and
security infrastructure, providing pervasive visibility to network
traffic across physical, virtual, and cloud environments, on April
16 announced the notice of dismissal of a Delaware class action
lawsuit.

On October 26, 2017, Gigamon Inc. ("Gigamon") announced that it had
entered into an agreement with entities affiliated with Elliott
Management Corporation ("Elliott") to be acquired for $38.50 per
share (the "Transaction").

On November 30, 2017, two actions were filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware on behalf of a putative class of
Gigamon stockholders against Gigamon, its Board of Directors (the
"Board"), Elliott, and certain entities affiliated with Elliott.
The lawsuits, which were consolidated into a single action (the
"Action"), challenged, among other things, Gigamon's public
disclosures about the Transaction.  Plaintiffs in the Action
identified information that the plaintiffs contended should have
been, but was not, disclosed to Gigamon's stockholders in the proxy
statement related to the Transaction.

On December 12, 2017, and in response to the Action, Gigamon made
supplemental disclosures (the "Supplemental Disclosures") within a
Form 8-K that it filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.  The Supplemental Disclosures made the disclosure
claims asserted in the Action moot.  Therefore, plaintiffs agreed
to dismiss the Action.  The defendants deny that the Supplemental
Disclosures contained any additional material facts that were
required to be disclosed, and deny that any claim asserted in the
Action is or was ever meritorious.  On April 12, 2019, the Court of
Chancery entered an order dismissing the Action and the claims
asserted in the Action with prejudice only as to all named
plaintiffs individually, and without prejudice as to any actual or
potential claims of members of the putative class.

Gigamon has agreed to make a fee and expense payment to plaintiffs'
counsel in the Action of $500,000.00 to resolve any application for
an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be made by counsel for
plaintiffs in the Action for the alleged benefit conferred on
Gigamon stockholders through the issuance of the Supplemental
Disclosures detailed above.  The Court of Chancery has not been
asked to review, and will pass no judgment on, the payment of fees
and expenses or its reasonableness.

If you have any questions regarding the litigation, please contact
any of the attorneys below:

MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
Juan E. Monteverde
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
New York, New York 10118
Tel.: 212-971-1341
Fax: 212-202-7880
Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI P.C.
David Berger
650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
650-320-4901
Email: DBerger@wsgr.com

Attorneys for Defendants Gigamon Inc., Corey M. Mulloy, Paul A.
Hooper, Michael C. Ruettgers, John H. Kispert, Paul J. Milbury, Ted
C. Ho, Robert E. Switz, Joan A. Dempsey, Dario Zamarian, and Arthur
W. Coviello, Jr.

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
Brian M. Lutz
555 Mission Street
Suite 3000
San Francisco, California 94105-0921
(415) 393-8379
Email: blutz@gibsondunn.com

Attorneys for Defendants Elliott Associates, L.P., Elliott
Management Corporation, Elliott International, L.P., Elliott
International Capital Advisors Inc., The Liverpool Limited
Partnership, Evergreen Coast Capital Corp., Ginsberg Holdco, Inc.,
and Ginsberg Merger Sub, Inc.

                           About Gigamon

Gigamon is the recognized leader in network visibility solutions,
delivering the power needed to see, secure and empower enterprise
networks. Our solutions accelerate threat detection and incident
response times while empowering customers to maximize their
infrastructure performance across physical, virtual and cloud
networks. Since 2004 we have cultivated a global customer base
which includes leading Service Providers, Government Agencies as
well as Enterprise NetOps and SecOps teams from more than 80
percent of the Fortune 100. [GN]


GILBERT ROZON: Contests Sex Assault Class Action at Appeals Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Feith, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that though the
class action brought against Gilbert Rozon was born in the wake of
the "collective phenomenon" that was the #MeToo movement, each
individual complaint of sexual harassment or assault needs to be
considered individually.

Therefore, Rozon's lawyers continued in their arguments before the
Quebec Court of Appeal on May 17, 2019, a class-action lawsuit
isn't the appropriate measure to handle several complaints against
the Just for Laughs founder.

"Mr. Rozon has a right to a defence in every individual case,"
Raymond Doray said before the three-judge panel.

"They're trying to make it a collective issue, but that's not the
case," he continued. "It doesn't make sense.  It involves eminently
individual situations."

Rozon, 64, is being sued for $10 million by a group of women known
as "Les Courageuses" (The Courageous Ones), who allege he abused at
least 20 women between 1982 and 2016.

The suit alleges Rozon took advantage of the "silence,
embarrassment and the fears of his victims to continue his
predatory behaviour." He was before the appellate court on May 16
to challenge the decision that authorized the class-action
lawsuit.

Rozon was present for ay 16 proceedings, making a rare appearance
in court since the allegations surfaced. Wearing a blue suit and
flanked by supporters, he sat front row to hear the arguments. Some
of the women involved in the suit, including the lead plaintiff,
actress Patricia Tulasne, sat across the room from him.

Rozon refused to speak to reporters when asked for comment.

Justice Donald Bisson had ruled that a class action was appropriate
if there are allegations of multiple victims over a long period of
time and the total number of victims is not known at the beginning
of the legal process.

If the class action wasn't authorized, Bisson wrote, there is a
strong possibility that many alleged victims would be deprived of
their right to sue.

The Court of Appeal agreed to hear Rozon's legal challenge of the
decision in August.

On May 16, Doray argued Bisson erred in his judgment. Among other
arguments, he noted the reason for a class action must be the same
for all alleged victims, which he says isn't the case with Rozon.

Doray argued some of the women named in the suit had no
professional relationship with Rozon, questioning how he could have
used his "power and influence" over them. He said one complaint
dates back to when Rozon was a 24-year-old student, making it
impossible for him to have been in a position of power at the
time.

He also questioned the idea of bringing a class-action suit against
one person, noting that in other suits related to sexual assault --
he named minors being abused by priests as an example -- the
institutions are targeted, not the person alone.

In his reply, Bruce Johnston, one of the lawyers representing the
women, said there are few areas in which class actions are as
appropriate as when it comes to numerous claims of sexual assault.

"It's a way of ensuring access to justice," Johnston said, at one
point banging his hand against the stand as he argued.

"There are hundreds of victims who have been able to confront their
aggressors and put (the abuse) behind them" because of class-action
suits, he said.

One of the three judges hearing the case, Dominique Bélanger,
asked whether the suit was different from sexual-abuse class
actions involving minors since, in Rozon's case, the question of
consent will need to be addressed.

Doray said if it can't be established that there wasn't consent in
the individual claims, then the whole case will "crumble like a
sandcastle."

In closing, Doray mentioned the case of radio host Jian Ghomeshi,
who was charged with four counts of sexual assault in 2014 before
being found not guilty at trial.

He said the Ghomeshi case should serve as a valuable lesson to
society to "not judge people too quickly."

Tulasne took offence to the comment following the proceedings.

"I can't believe that in 2019, Mr. Ghomeshi can be used as a
positive lesson simply because he won," Tulasne told reporters,
adding she was glad to finally be breaking her silence after 30
years.

"That's why I'm fighting right now. To not hear that kind of thing
anymore."

The three-judge panel has begun deliberating on its decision.

In a separate case, Rozon is also facing rape and indecent assault
charges in criminal court. The charges stem from allegations of a
single female complainant dating back to 1979.

The charges were announced in December. At the same time, Quebec's
director of criminal and penal prosecutions said criminal
complaints against Rozon brought by 13 other alleged victims will
not result in charges.

Rozon stepped down as president of Just for Laughs after the
allegations surfaced.[GN]


GLEN MILLS: To Face State Investigation Amid Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Amber Armstrong, writing for The Washington Post, reports that Glen
Mills Schools, one of America's first reform schools, should be one
of its last.

On March 25, the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services ordered
the school to remove all of the boys from its care. After reporting
revealed that abuse was an "open secret" and coverups abounded, the
state finally took action by revoking all of Glen Mills Schools'
licenses. The state auditor general will launch an investigation,
and students and parents have filed a class-action lawsuit.

While a Philadelphia Inquirer investigation revealed that the
school had failed to follow state and internal policies for
decades, the roots of the problem go back to its founding as the
Philadelphia House of Refuge (PHR) nearly 200 years ago. The
ideologies that first created reformatories like the PHR, with
their misguided reliance on the purportedly positive power of
incarcerating children, have opened the door for the alleged abuses
and disasters in facilities like Glen Mills.

Exposure of the alleged horrors at Glen Mills gives us an
opportunity to discard a very broken model and allow research to
inform the creation of a new one -- one that actually helps
troubled youth live meaningful, productive lives.

Reform schools actually began as an effort to get youth out of
prison. Social reformers, including many Quakers, created
penitentiaries between the 1790s and 1810s in the hope that the
right environment (isolation, silence, labor) would awaken inmates'
minds, bodies and souls to proper belief and conduct. Yet riots,
violence, suicide, chronic overcrowding and arson brought
penitentiaries' basic vision of moral reform under fire.

But reformers held steadfast that delinquent children (a category
they codified in Pennsylvania state law for the first time) were
capable of reformation in a way criminal adults were not. They
relied heavily on enlightenment ideas to argue that youth, by their
nature, could not be fully accountable before the law and should be
kept out of criminal legal proceedings.

This led to the creation of PHR and other reformatories, 50 years
before the advent of the juvenile court system. Children sent to
the PHR did not, for the most part, receive criminal sentences.

A sense that children were different -- deserving of mercy rather
than punishment -- motivated the creation of reformatories. Yet
these facilities mimicked the penitentiary model, and their
creators increasingly cited strict carceral control as the best
vehicle for delivering mercy. The leaders of the reformatory
movement had not given up on the penitentiary model, they simply
tried to perfect it.

Believing that the poor have an inevitable predisposition to crime,
PHR's first managers thought that poor, mostly immigrant children
had a "criminal tendency" and lived in families that lacked proper
"protection and guidance." The solution? To change their
environment by incarcerating them, regardless of guilt or
innocence.

These ideas about the causes of and solutions for delinquency were
then codified into law. The first 10 years of PHR's operation
culminated in habeas corpus litigation, ex parte Crouse, which came
before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in 1838. PHR successfully
argued that it could hold delinquent children without a criminal
trial or conviction. Their confinement was not about individual
guilt, but about steering a general class of poor children.

In the late 19th century, a new wave of activists, the "child
savers," renewed efforts to reform rather than punish delinquents.
They saw existing reformatories as overcrowded, inconsistent and
abusive. And so they created the system of juvenile courts,
probation officers and residential facilities we recognize today.
Yet while well-intended, such institutions only further ingrained
the core tenet of the reformatory movement: incarceration betters
the lives of poor children.

This ideology justified the continued incarceration of children and
ignored the reality of life in reformatories. These institutions
remained hellacious places, as proven again in April with the
discovery of 27 potential graves adjacent to the former Dozier
School for Boys in Florida. Dozier, a notoriously brutal
reformatory, opened in 1897 as the Florida State Reform School with
designs of being a different sort of institution, but over more
than a century of existence, it carved a path of abuse and
brutality similar to, if not worse than, what's alleged at Glen
Mills.

Despite the failed effort to fix the reformatory model,
incarceration only expanded throughout the 20th century, especially
during the "tough on crime" heyday of the 1980s. But the rationale
has remained the same: A confined environment can help needy youths
overcome their criminal ways, in part because it gets them out of
the poor communities believed to fuel delinquency.

Indeed, criminology research shows that juvenile court officials
perceive children in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods --
most often communities of color -- as especially vulnerable and are
more likely to send them to carceral institutions, ostensibly to
get them out of these neighborhoods. The consequence is a system
that today continues to fruitlessly and destructively remove
children of color from their communities to give them mercy behind
bars.

However, there is no evidence that juvenile residential facilities
actually offer anything close to mercy or a solid foundation for
adulthood or that they reduce the likelihood of repeat offenses. By
contrast, a more positive and less punitive approach -- providing
therapeutic services, especially those that "include a youth
empowerment and/or a strengths-based perspective" -- has been shown
to lower rates of future criminal charges.

What this tells us is that the reformers who centuries ago plotted
the course for reformatories were both right and wrong. Children
have immense capacity for growth and change. But the methods they
envisioned for helping youth were all wrong. Instead of a juvenile
justice system focused on incarceration and social control, we need
one that fully embraces mercy without paternalistic control and
without legal accountability in the form of incarceration.

The reformatory movement sought to corral and control young
offenders -- it was the antithesis of the individual empowerment
proven most effective today.

The notion that children's nature or society's needs justifies
youth incarceration needs to end, along with Glen Mills. [GN]


GOOGLE INC: $7MM Settlement Reached Over 1st Gen. Pixel Phones
--------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Perez, writing for Komando.com, reports Google, which
recently released its Pixel 3a phone, recently settled a
class-action lawsuit over its first-generation Pixel phones for
more than $7 million.

Google will pay out $7.5 million to a group of customers who bought
the defective phones.  In some cases, customers who asked for a
replacement phone received another defective handset.

According to terms of the settlement, payouts will be split into
four categories.  A payment of $500 will be given to plaintiffs who
returned their malfunctioning phones and received a defective
replacement.

Plaintiffs who had a defective phone and did not try to replace it
could get up to $350.  Those who had to pay an insurance deductible
to repair their phones could have its value repaid.

Finally, people who owned Pixel phones that had no defects at all
will get $20. [GN]


GRAND CANYON UNIVERSITY: Removes Carr et al. Suit to N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case EILEEN CARR; CLAYTON KOLB; SAMUEL
STANTON; JANE DOE I; JANE DOE II; and JANE DOE III, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRAND
CANYON UNIVERSITY, INC.; and GRAND CANYON EDUCATION, INC.,
Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior
Court of the State of Georgia, County of Fulton (Case No.
2019CV317885) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia on April 16, 2019. The clerk of court for the Northern
District of Georgia assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01707-MLB. The case
is assigned to Judge Michael L. Brown.

Grand Canyon University, Inc. operates as a non-profit
organization. The Organization offers educational services. Grand
Canyon University serves clients in the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Grant Coyle, Esq.
          WEBB KLASE&LEMOND, L.L.C.
          1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (770) 444-9325
          Facsimile: (770) 217-9950
          E-mail: Grant@WebbLLC.com

                - and -

          Edward Adam Webb, Esq.
          WEBB KLASE&LEMOND, LLC
          1900 The Exchange, SE, Suite 480
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (770) 444-0773
          E-mail: Adam@WebbLLC.com

                - and -

          G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq.
          WEBB KLASE&LEMOND, LLC
          1900 The Exchange, SE, Suite 480
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (770) 444-9594
          Facsimile: (770) 444-0271
          E-mail: flemond@webbllc.com

                - and -

          Matthew C. Klase, Esq.
          WEBB KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
          1900 The Exchange, SE, Suite 480
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (770) 444-0998
          Facsimile: (770) 444-0271
          E-mail: matt@webbllc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Caroline Rawls Strumph, Esq.
          Derin Bronson Dickerson, Esq.
          Kristin Ramsay, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD, LLP – ATL
          1201 West Peachtree St., Suite 4900
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
          Telephone: (404) 881-7681
          E-mail: caroline.strumph@alston.com
                  derin.dickerson@alston.com
                  kristi.ramsay@alston.com


GRANT & WEBER: Chacon Sues over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
ROLANDO CHACON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GRANT & WEBER INC.; and DOES 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02580 (N.D. Il., April 16, 2019) seeks
to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect
a debt.

Grant & Weber, Inc. provides revenue cycle and receivables
management services to healthcare, credit union, financial
institution, and insurance industries in the United States. Its
services include consulting, insurance billing and follow-up, self
pay billing and customer service follow-up, self pay collections,
third-party liability recovery, workers' compensation recovery,
pre-charge off account management, third-party late stage
collections, and insurance subrogation and arbitration. The company
was founded in 1977 and is based in Calabasas, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         David B. Levin, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
         333 Skokie Blvd., Suite 103
         Northbrook, IL 60062
         Telephone: (224) 218-0882
         Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
         E-mail: dlevin@toddflaw.com


GRUPO RONTAN: 2 Remaining Class Actions Tentatively Settled
-----------------------------------------------------------
Global Digital Solutions, Inc., a company that is positioning
itself as a leader in comprehensive security and technology
solutions, has announced the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida has denied Rontan and the other
defendants' Motion to Dismiss based on Corporate Jurisdiction. The
ruling was issued by the court. Among other things, GDSI's
complaint contends Grupo Rontan Metalurgica, S. A, ("Rontan") and
Rontan's controlling shareholders, Joao Alberto Bolzan and Jose
Carlos Bolzan, breached their Share Purchase and Sale Agreement
("SPA") with GDSI by failing to consummate the transfer of the
shares of Rontan pursuant to the SPA.

William J. Delgado, GDSI's CEO, noted that "The Company is very
happy the court has evaluated this portion of our lawsuit and ruled
on our behalf. We look forward to a final decision on the remaining
issues related to Rontan's Motion for Dismissal. In a related
filing, Rontan's current counsel, Tenzer Arrieta, has filed a
petition to withdraw from the case citing irreconcilable
differences. This filing will not affect our legal claim or
strategies related to our current $63 million claim. I fully expect
our position will be validated by the Courts."

The two remaining class action lawsuits, commonly referred to as
the "Hull" and "Lopez" cases, have been tentatively settled. The
company is awaiting final documentation and court approval. Terms
of the settlements are confidential.

Delgado commented, "These are the final two cases that were left to
be resolved from actions undertaken by the Company's previous
management. The settlements will have little to no impact on the
Company's financial condition. I am looking forward to the
rebuilding process with the settlement of these two lawsuits."

                About Global Digital Solutions, Inc.

Global Digital Solutions, Inc. (OTC:GDSI), a company that is
positioning itself as a leader in comprehensive security and
technology solutions, continues to enhance shareholder value in
these areas. In addition to the Company's acquisition strategy, it
has initiated a lawsuit for damages against Grupo Rontan
Metalurgica, S. A, (″Rontan″) and that company's controlling
shareholders, Joao Alberto Bolzan and Jose Carlos Bolzan. The
Company has engaged the law firm of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP to
represent it in this action. The case will be handled by William
Isaacson of the firm's Washington office and Carlos Sires of the
firm's Fort Lauderdale office (Their professional profiles are
available at https://bsfllp.com/lawyers.). The action has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Florida. The complaint alleges that ″Rontan is wholly-owned by
Joao Bolzan and Jose Bolzan. It is one of the world's largest
manufacturers of original equipment for specialty vehicles for
emergency management, first responders, national security, and law
enforcement operations. The company also acquired NACSV, a supplier
of Mobile Command Centers to Military, Law Enforcement, and First
Responders. In March of 2019, the Company acquired HarmAlarm. HA
was formed in 2002 as a private Texas company to pursue Infrared
commercial applications in the aviation services area. HA has
developed a system known as Pilot Assisted Landing Systems (PALS).
The precision and robustness of PALS has generated a host of new
applications mainly through ″landing trajectory" optimization
which provides additional safety margin against weather related
hazardous conditions, like wind shear, wake turbulence, icing, as
well as low ceilings and fog.  For more information about GDSI,
visit http://www.gdsi.co[GN]


GTX INC: Living Seas Sues Over Merger Transaction
-------------------------------------------------
Living Seas LLC, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. GTX, INC., ROBERT J. WILLS, MARC S.
HANOVER, J.R. HYDE, III, MICHAEL G. CARTER, J. KENNETH GLASS, GARRY
A. NEIL, AND KENNETH S. ROBINSON, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00810-UNA (D. Del., May 1, 2019) is a class action filed on
behalf of public shareholders of GTx, Inc. against GTx and its
Board of Directors (the "Board" or the "Individual Defendants") for
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,  in connection
with Oncternal Therapeutics, Inc.'s proposed merger with GTx (the
"Proposed Transaction").

On March 7, 2019, GTx and Oncternal issued a press release
announcing their merger agreement whereby GTx would be acquired by
Oncternal in an all-stock transaction. According to the terms of
the merger, each outstanding share of Oncternal common stock will
be converted into the right to receive approximately 0.4474 shares
of GTx's common stock. Current GTx shareholders are expected to own
approximately 25% of the combined company while former Oncternal
shareholders are expected to own the remaining 75%.

The complaint discloses that the Registration Statement, which
recommends that GTx shareholders vote in favor of the Proposed
Transaction, omits and/or misrepresents material information
concerning: (i) GTx's and Oncternal's financial projections; (ii)
potential conflicts of interest involving GTx insiders; and (iii)
the sales process leading up to the Proposed Transaction.

The complaint asserts that the omission of material information
renders certain sections of the Registration Statement false and
misleading.  The sections include: (i) Background of the Merger;
(ii) GTx Reasons for the Merger; (iii) Opinion of the GTx Financial
Advisor; (iv) Director Positions Following the Merger; (v)
Interests of GTx Directors and Executive Officers in the Merger;
(vi) Management Prior to and Following the Merger; and (vii)
Recommendation of the GTx Board.

Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the shareholder vote on the Proposed
Transaction unless and until the material misstatements and
omissions are remedied. Unless remedied, GTx shareholders will be
forced to make a voting decision on the Proposed Transaction
without full disclosure of all material information. In the event
the Proposed Transaction is consummated, Plaintiff seeks to recover
damages resulting from Defendants' misconduct, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is an owner of GTx common stock.

GTx is a biopharmaceutical company that purports to engage in the
discovery, development, and commercialization of medicines for the
treatment of stress urinary incontinence and prostate cancer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zachary Halper, Esq.
     Daniel Sadeh, Esq.
     HALPER SADEH LLP
     375 Park Avenue, Suite 2607
     New York, NY 10152
     Phone: (212) 763-0060
     Facsimile: (646) 776-2600
     Email: zhalper@halpersadeh.com
            sadeh@halpersadeh.com

          - and -

     Brian E. Farnan, Esq.
     Michael J. Farnan, Esq.
     FARNAN LLP
     919 N. Market Street, 12th Floor
     Wilmington DE 19801
     Phone: (302) 777-0300
     Facsimile: (302) 777-0301
     Email: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
            mfarnan@farnanlaw.com


HILL'S PET: Faces Reed Suit over Sale of Tainted Dog Food
---------------------------------------------------------
CAROLE REED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC.; and
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-02225-SJF-AKT (E.D.N.Y., April 16, 2019) alleges that the
Defendants sell wet dog food containing toxic levels of Vitamin D.

According to the complaint, the Defendants issued a first recall
notice on January 31, 2019 of their brands of wet dog food, and
despite representing and warranting that they "isolated the issue"
and that they have "tighter quality controls in place to prevent
this from happening again," the Defendants expanded the recall in
March 20, 2019 to include additional products.

Furthermore, despite knowing or having reason to believe that its
recalled products were potentially dangerous due to containing
toxic levels of Vitamin D at least as early as December 2018, the
Defendants failed to provide a reasonable and timely warning to
consumers and permitted its ultra hazardous recalled products to
enter the stream of commerce for over 30 days until the Defendants
finally issued the January 31, 2019 recall, and permitted certain
ultra hazardous recalled products to continue in the stream of
commerce for longer until it issued the March 20, 2019 recall.

As a result of the Defendants' false and misleading representations
and warranties, and other conduct, the Plaintiff and Class members
had no idea that they were purchasing and feeding their dogs food
(i.e., the Recalled Products) with toxic levels of Vitamin D and
were forced to watch helplessly not knowing the cause as their
beloved dogs became violently ill, or even lost their lives due to
consuming ultra hazardous and essentially worthless products that
they paid a premium for due to their purportedly specialized
safety, health and nutritional benefits.

The Defendants labeled, and reinforced that labeling with an
advertising and marketing campaign, and otherwise warranted the
Recalled Products as being safe and healthy for regular consumption
by dogs, and assured consumers that they conduct rigorous daily
quality assurance and safety inspections to ensure that they, as
well as each ingredient contained therein, are safe for consumption
by dogs. However, the labeling, advertising, marketing and
warranties associated with the Recalled Products are false and
misleading because the Recalled Products caused injury, illness,
and/or death to the Plaintiff's and the Class members' household
pet dogs.

Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc. produces and markets pet food. The
company offers cat and dog food/care products. Hill's Pet
Nutrition, Inc. was formerly known as Hill Packing Company. The
company was founded in 1939, is headquartered in Topeka, Kansas,
and operates as a subsidiary of Colgate-Palmolive Co. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Esq.
          FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
          29 Broadway, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10006-3205
          Telephone: (212) 952-0014
          Email: jkravec@fdpklaw.com


HOLCOMBE USA: Bittlingmeyer Sues Over TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
CARLY BITTLINGMEYER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HOLCOMBE U.S.A., INC. Defendant,
Case No. 0:19-cv-61113-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 1, 2019) is a putative
class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").

The complaint relates that in efforts to inject a new stream of
revenue into its business, Defendant would often send marketing
text messages providing various types of promotional offers and
savings for future purchases of automobiles to consumers without
first obtaining express written consent to send such marketing text
messages as required to do so under the TCPA.

These messages were sent using mass-automated technology through a
third-party company hired by Defendant to send marketing text
messages on Defendant's behalf en masse. In sum, Defendant
knowingly and willfully violated the TCPA, causing injuries to
Plaintiff and members of the putative class, including invasion of
their privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion,
trespass, and conversion, says the complaint.

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

Defendant owns and operate car dealerships in the state of
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HORIZON BANK: Court Dismisses Leato Couple's Claims as Frivolous
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge P.K. Holmes, III, of the United States District Court for the
Western District of Arkansas, Fayetteville Division, dismissed
without prejudice the case captioned JOHN M. LEATO; and LAURINA T.
LEATO, Plaintiff, v. HORIZON BANK and HORIZON BANCORP, INC.,
Defendants, Civil No. 5:19-cv-05027 (W.D. Ark.), after determining
that the claims asserted are subject to dismissal on the grounds
they are frivolous or fail to state claims upon which relief may be
stated.

John and Laurina Leato have filed this lawsuit under the diversity
of citizenship statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332. They proceed pro se
and have sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). The
Plaintiffs have named as Defendants Horizon Bank and Horizon
Bankcorp, Inc. Both entities were formed under the law of the State
of Indiana.

The Court held that the proper way for the Plaintiffs to attempt to
reach a settlement of the proposed class action claims is through
their class action counsel.

A full-text copy of the Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yyax98wd from Leagle.com.

John M. Leato, Plaintiff, pro se.

Laurina T. Leato, Plaintiff, pro se.


HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES: Nexus 6P Owners Get $400 Each in Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hugh Baillie-Lane, writing for Notebookcheck.net, reports that
consumers who experienced bootlooping and battery drain issues with
their Nexus 6P devices could receive compensation after Huawei and
Google agreed to settle class action lawsuit.

Consumers in the United States who experienced problems with their
Nexus 6P smartphone might be eligible for up to US$400 compensation
after Google and Huawei seem set to settle a 2017 class action
lawsuit in Northern California. The lawsuit was brought against the
two companies because according to the legal filing:

Nexus 6P has a defect that can cause two different issues:
'bootloop' and 'battery drain.' 'Bootloop' is when a Nexus 6P
allegedly begins randomly rebooting, and in some instances fails
permanently in an endless bootloop cycle. 'Battery drain' is when a
Nexus 6P allegedly has a noticeable decrease in battery life or
shuts off suddenly, even when its battery life icon shows that it
is charged.

The proposed settlement makes Huawei and Google liable for up to
US$400 to each Nexus 6P owner who purchased their device on or
after Sept. 25, 2015, at a total expected cost of US$9.75 million.
Though they have settled the case, neither Google nor Huawei have
admitted fault and if any Nexus 6P owners used Google's warranty
exchange programme to get a Pixel XL, they will only be eligible
for US$10 compensation.

Consumers who are seeking compensation must have purchased the
device in the United States and submit the required documentation
between June 7 and Sept. 3, 2019.  Consumers who choose to not
settle at this time will maintain rights in any future lawsuits
relating to the issue. [GN]


INTERSECT ENT: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announced that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities
of Intersect ENT, Inc. ("Intersect ENT," "XENT" or the "Company)
(NASDAQ: XENT) between August 1, 2018, and May 6, 2019, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit, filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
seeks to recover damages for Intersect ENT investors under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you purchased XENT securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options, please visit Intersect ENT Class Action
Lawsuit or contact Joe Seidman toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
seidman@bernlieb.com.   

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclosed
that (1) Intersect ENT lacked adequate reimbursement
representatives to ensure physicians had access to SINUVA; (2)
Intersect ENT's sales force would focus on ensuring reimbursement;
(3) Intersect ENT's sales representatives were less focused on
driving sales; (4) physicians were less likely to adopt Intersect
ENT's SINUVA due to transaction costs associated with seeking
reimbursement; (5) the Company would increase staffing to address
these issues; and (6) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

On August 1, 2018, before the market opened, the Company disclosed
that it faced certain challenges with the launch of SINUVA, which
had negatively impacted the Company's second quarter 2018 financial
results. On this news, the Company's share price fell $6.30, nearly
20% to close at $26.05 per share on August 1, 2018.

On May 6, 2019, the Company disclosed a first quarter 2019 loss of
$10.8 million and lowered guidance for the remainder of 2019. The
Company also reported that Lisa Earnhardt, Intersect ENT's Chief
Executive Officer of 11 years, resigned. On this news, Intersect
ENT's share price fell $8.05, or more than 25%, to close at $25.10
per share on May 7, 2019.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in the Intersect ENT class
action, you must move the court no later than July 15, 2019. A lead
plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class
members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you
take no action, you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased XENT securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options, please visit https://tinyurl.com/yypjpjnp


Contact:

         Joe Seidman, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         10 East 40th Street, New York
         New York 10016
         Website: http://www.bernlieb.com
         Toll Free: (877) 779-1414
         Phone: (212) 779-1414
         Email: seidman@bernlieb.com [GN]


INTERSECT ENT: Gainey Mckenna Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Intersect ENT, Inc. (Nasdaq: XENT) in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities of
Intersect ENT between August 1, 2018 through May 6, 2019, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Intersect ENT lacked
adequate reimbursement representatives to ensure physicians had
access to SINUVA, Intersect ENT's sinus implant; (2) Intersect
ENT's sales force would focus on ensuring reimbursement; (3)
Intersect ENT's sales representatives were less focused on driving
sales; (4) physicians were less likely to adopt Intersect ENT's
SINUVA due to transaction costs associated with seeking
reimbursement; (5) Intersect ENT would increase staffing to address
these issues; and (6) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about Intersect ENT's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the
Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the July 15, 2019
lead plaintiff motion deadline.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action:

Contact:

        Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
        Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
        Gainey McKenna & Egleston
        Telephone: (212) 983-1300
        Website: www.gme-law.com  
        E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
                gegleston@gme-law.com [GN]


INTUIT INC: Facing Suit Over "Free Filing for Military" Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gibbs Law Group LLP and Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP have filed a class
action lawsuit on behalf of active military members who were
charged money to file tax returns that should have been free to
them based on a government-mandated agreement between TurboTax and
the IRS. The lawsuit alleges that TurboTax's parent Intuit, Inc.
created a marketing campaign targeting active duty servicemembers
with promises of "free filing for military," but then intentionally
hid those services, and purposely diverted them to its paid product
offerings. This scheme resulted in TurboTax collecting millions of
dollars in revenue from U.S. servicemembers who should have been
able to file their taxes at no cost, according to the lawsuit.
Attorneys at Gibbs Law Group and Stueve Siegel Hanson are reviewing
potential claims on behalf of additional servicemembers throughout
the country who were affected by the TurboTax "free to file"
scheme.

Servicemembers assert that TurboTax violated an agreement with the
IRS, which provided that for the 2018 tax season, all active
military members whose adjusted gross income was $66,000 or less
were eligible to file their tax returns for free. According to the
lawsuit, TurboTax intentionally violated that agreement and broke
the law by hiding its free file webpage from the TurboTax website,
preventing the free-filing services from being found by
servicemembers through Google and other search engines, and only
alerting customers that they would be charged money at the very end
of the filing process after they had spent hours inputting their
personal information on the platform.

Intuit also tries to advance its scheme by imposing forced
arbitration on servicemembers. In prior cases, TurboTax has
utilized a forced arbitration clause in its online Terms of Service
to prevent customers from joining together as part of a class
action and suing in court.

"TurboTax must be held accountable for illegally reaping profits
off the backs of those in the military who serve our country, and
denying them the opportunity to file their taxes for free," said
Eric Gibbs of Gibbs Law Group LLP.

"If anyone deserves their day in court, it is the men and women who
have dedicated their lives to serving our country," said Norman
Siegel of Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP. "We call on TurboTax to do the
right thing, and not attempt to force them into confidential
arbitration."

Active servicemembers who believe they were wrongfully charged for
TurboTax tax-filing services and would like to learn more about
their legal rights in the Turbo Tax Military Free-to-File Class
Action Lawsuit may contact our team at 866-344-1901. [GN]


JASTRAM PROPERTIES: Former Investors' Class Action Certified
------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Seyd, writing for North Shore News, reports that a B.C.
Supreme Court justice has certified a class-action lawsuit on
behalf of former investors trying to get back some of the $30
million they were allegedly swindled out of by a West Vancouver
Ponzi schemer.

Justice Joyce DeWitt-Van Oosten certified the class-action lawsuit
launched by Jastram Properties Ltd. against Virginia Mary Tan --
along with her husband Patrick Tan, her son Marcus Tan and a number
of related companies -- on April 2.

Tan admitted as part of a settlement agreement with the B.C.
Securities Commission two years ago to fraudulently raising at
least $30 million from investors.

According to securities commission documents, for several years
prior to 2011, Tan raised money from investors for short-term
high-interest loans and paid interest to the investors under the
name Letan Investments Management. After 2011, Tan stopped using
the money raised for loans, but still issued promissory notes to
investors saying the money would be used for "short-term
financing." Instead, Tan paid interest with money given to her from
new investors -- a classic Ponzi arrangement.

By late 2015, Tan was unable to raise enough new money to pay the
investors and stopped making interest payments. She and her husband
declared bankruptcy in April 2016.

In lawsuits filed since, former investors alleged money received by
the couple was "fraudulently diverted to Marcus Tan, their adult
son, and used to purchase assets and properties" for his benefit.

Those claims have not been proven in court.

But as DeWitt-Van Oosten noted in her April 2 ruling, Marcus Tan is
acknowledged to be the registered owner of six properties acquired
in connection with a condominium development in Surrey, and is an
officer and director of two companies that own 24 properties in
Fort St. John.

Jastram Properties Ltd, the North Vancouver-based company that
launched a lawsuit against the Tans and applied to have it
certified as a class action suit, was "one of the largest investors
in the scheme," according to court documents.

Between May 2012 and March 2015, the company claims it invested
over $6.6 million with Virginia Tan through a series of
instalments.

When the true nature of Tan's scheme was exposed in 2016, the
company had received just under $1.8 million in "return on its
investments" leaving over $4.8 million of the principal
outstanding, according to the lawsuit filed by the company.

DeWitt-Van Oosten noted one affidavit sworn by Lale Doetsch,
director of Jastram Properties, as part of the lawsuit, described
meeting Virginia Tan at Hollyburn Country Club for dinner where Tan
told her "‘she only lent money to people she knew who mainly
operated businesses that were waiting to get paid for government
jobs. . . . She said she had virtually no clients who defaulted and
because of that the investments were very safe.'"

In agreeing to certify the class action, DeWitt-Van Oosten noted as
many as 165 of the original 240 investors had been identified by
the bankruptcy trustee as being owed money by the Tans.

A significant number of those investors have not filed individual
lawsuits, the judge noted -- possibly because the Tans declared
bankruptcy.

"For these investors, a class action may provide them with access
to recourse for recovery that they are otherwise not able to seek,"
the judge wrote. [GN]


JBS USA FOOD: Peterson, Kimble Allege Price-Fixing of Beef
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Agri Stats, Inc.,
JBS USA Food Company Holdings, Tyson Foods, Inc., Cargill, Inc.,
and National Beef Packing Company for violations of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act, the antitrust laws, unfair competition laws,
consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment common laws of the
several states. The case is captioned KENNETH PETERSON and RICHARD
KIMBLE, Plaintiffs, v. AGRI STATS, INC., JBS USA FOOD COMPANY
HOLDINGS, TYSON FOODS, INC., CARGILL, INC., and NATIONAL BEEF
PACKING COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-01129 (D. Minn.,
April 26, 2019).

Plaintiff Kenneth Peterson and Richard Kimble allege that the
defendants engage in a conspiracy to maximize profits from the
distribution channel of beef, by both extracting all gains from the
ranchers who raised the cattle, as well as artificially inflating
the price of beef being sold to the consumer. In addition, these
defendants engaged in a concerted scheme to suppress throughput of
beef, artificially depressing both the amount of cattle they
purchased and the amount of processed beef they sold to retail
operations. The purpose of the scheme was to lower throughput of
beef supply and thus maximize the margins they received from sale
of beef. The result of the scheme was that the defendants underpaid
the farmers by artificially depressing demand for cattle and thus
lowering press, and simultaneously overcharged consumers by
reducing their output of beef and thus inflating consumer prices.

JBS USA Food Company Holdings, Tyson Foods, Inc., Cargill, Inc.,
and National Beef Packing Company are the largest meatpacking
companies in the world and the leading processors of approximately
$100 billion in annual commerce in the retail beef industry. Agri
Stats, Inc. is a statistical research and analysis firm which
provides detailed pricing reports to the industry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Steve W. Berman, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Telephone: (206) 623-7292
     Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
     E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

          - and -

     Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
     Rio S. Pierce, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
     Berkeley, CA 94710
     Telephone: (510) 725-3000
     Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
     E-mail: shanas@hbsslaw.com
             riop@hbsslaw.com

          - and -

     W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
     Elizabeth R. Odette, Esq.
     Brian D. Clark, Esq.
     Arielle S. Wagner, Esq.
     LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
     100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
     Minneapolis, MN 55401
     Telephone: (612) 339-6900
     Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
     E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com
             erodette@locklaw.com
             bdclark@locklaw.com
             aswagner@locklaw.com

          - and -

     Karl L. Cambronne, Esq.
     Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
     Jeffrey D. Bores, Esq.
     Chestnut Cambronne PA
     17 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300
     Minneapolis, MN 55401
     Telephone: (612) 339-7300
     E-mail: kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com
             bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
             jbores@chestnutcambronne.com


JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Vallejo Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
------------------------------------------------------------
DIDIANA VALLEJO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-02302-DLI-SJB (E.D.N.Y., April 18, 2019) seeks to
stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a
debt. The case is assigned to Chief Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry and
referred to Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara.

Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC provides payment rewards, bankruptcy
collection, and debt collection services. The company was founded
in 2002 and is based in St. Cloud, Minnesota. Jefferson Capital
Systems, LLC is a former subsidiary of Atlanticus Holdings
Corporation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob Silver, Esq.
          JACOB SILVER, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          237 Club Dr.
          Woodmere, NY 11598
          Telephone: (718) 855-3834
          Facsimile: (718) 534-0057
          E-mail: silverbankruptcy@gmail.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Calvillo Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 25, 2019, the lawsuit styled LAURA CALVILLO,
individually v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing
business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.,
a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC. f/k/a LUZENAC AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. Case No. 2:19-cv-03335
to the proceeding.

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

On June 19, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Superior
Court of Los Angeles County, which generally alleges that the
Debtors' talc, through the habitual use of J&J cosmetic talcum
powder products, caused the Plaintiff's personal injury and/or
wrongful death.

The case was coordinated into the coordinated proceeding pending in
Los Angeles County Superior Court before Judge Maren Nelson: In re
Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Cases (JCCP No. 4872).  On February
20, 2019, leadership for all plaintiffs in the coordinated
proceeding filed a Second Amended Master Complaint ("Master
Complaint").

On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two
affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc.
(collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11
petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys
Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter
11 Case").

Because the Debtors have historically been J&J's sole supplier of
cosmetic talc, the Debtors are routinely named as a co-defendant in
the actions in which the Talc Claims arise.  Even where the Debtors
are not so named as co-defendants, however, the Talc Claims are
related to the Debtors' bankruptcy.[BN]

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

          Michael C. Zellers, Esq.
          Amanda Villalobos, Esq.
          Nicholas Janizeh, Esq.
          Caroline Toole, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          515 South Flower Street, Forty-Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430-3400
          Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
          E-mail: michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com
                  amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com
                  nicholas.janizeh@tuckerellis.com
                  caroline.toole@tuckerellis.com

               - and -

          Michael F. Healy, Esq.
          Emily Weissenberger, Esq.
          Alexander Guney, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 544-1900
          Facsimile: (415) 391-0281
          E-mail: mfhealy@shb.com
                  eweissenberger@shb.com
                  aguney@shb.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Cervantes Talc Injury Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 25, 2019, the lawsuit styled GLORIA CERVANTES, an
individual; MARILU HAWORTH, an individual; GUADALUPE BARRON, an
individual; JULIANA MEDINA, an individual; SHEIRON ALLEN BARASA, an
individual; CAROLYN POULIOT, an individual; BARBARA MIRANDA, an
individual; and ARLENE HOFFMAN, an individual v. IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of
business in the state of California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New
Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business
in California; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. JCCP 4872, from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03343 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on May 18, 2016, in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles, and was assigned
Case No. BC620876.

According to the complaint, all claims in the action are a direct
and proximate result of the negligent, willful, and wrongful acts
and/or omissions of the Defendants and/or their corporate
predecessors in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the products known as
Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder and Shower to Shower.  All Plaintiffs
in this action seek recovery for damages as a result of developing
ovarian cancer, which was allegedly directly and proximately caused
by such wrongful conduct by the Defendants, the unreasonably
dangerous and defective nature of talcum powder, and the attendant
effects of developing ovarian cancer.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
          Karen L. Karavatos, 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
                  kkaravatos@rcrlaw.net

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

          Amanda Villalobos, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          515 South Flower Street, 42nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2223
          Telephone: (213) 430-3400
          Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
          E-mail: amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Choate Talc Injury Suit Moved to C.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 25, 2019, the matter captioned SHAWNE CHOATE, an
individual v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing
business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.,
a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of
business in the state of California, and DOES 1 through 100, Case
No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03364 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on November 6, 2017, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Santa Clara, and was
assigned Case No. 17CV318635.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

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

          Amanda Villalobos, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          515 South Flower Street, 42nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2223
          Telephone: (213) 430-3400
          Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
          E-mail: amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Gould Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 25, 2019, the lawsuit captioned MARY JEAN GOULD v.
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, LLC, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO SAV-ON DRUGS, INC.; et al., Case No. JCCP
4674/BC685953, from the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-00773 to the
proceeding.

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

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

On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two
affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc.
(collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11
petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys
Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter
11 Case").

Because the Debtors have historically been J&J's sole supplier of
cosmetic talc, the Debtors are routinely named as a co-defendant in
the actions in which the Talc Claims arise.  Even where the Debtors
are not so named as co-defendants, however, the Talc Claims are
related to the Debtors' bankruptcy.

On April 18, 2019, J&J filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware a Motion to Fix Venue for Claims
Related to Imerys's Bankruptcy Under 28 U.S.C. Sections 157(b)(5)
and 1334(b).  The State Court Talc Claims are among those that J&J
seeks to consolidate in the District of Delaware.[BN]

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

          Alexander G. Calfo, Esq.
          Julia E. Romano, Esq.
          Stacy L. Foster, 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
                  sfoster@kslaw.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hyvarinen Talc Injury Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 25, 2019, the lawsuit entitled Anne Hyvarinen, an
individual v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing
business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.,
a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of
business in the state of California; and DOES 1 through 100, Case
No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03350 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on June 29, 2017, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, and was
assigned Case No. BC667084.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Ted G. Meadows, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, PC
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, Alabama 36104
          Telephone: (800) 898-2034
          E-mail: ted.meadows@beasleyallen.com

               - 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
          E-mail: allen@smith-law.org

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

          Michael Carl Zellers, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          515 South Flower Street 42nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2223
          Telephone: (213) 430-3400
          Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
          E-mail: michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Ibrahim Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 25, 2019, the lawsuit titled SABINE IBRAHIM and
PATRICK BENNET v. CYPRUS AMAX MINERALS COMPANY, et al., Case No.
JCCP 4674/BC722130, from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03359 to the
proceeding.

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

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

On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two
affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc.
(collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11
petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys
Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter
11 Case").

Because the Debtors have historically been J&J's sole supplier of
cosmetic talc, the Debtors are routinely named as a co-defendant in
the actions in which the Talc Claims arise.  Even where the Debtors
are not so named as co-defendants, however, the Talc Claims are
related to the Debtors' bankruptcy.

On April 18, 2019, J&J filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware a Motion to Fix Venue for Claims
Related to Imerys's Bankruptcy Under 28 U.S.C. Sections 157(b)(5)
and 1334(b).  The State Court Talc Claims are among those that J&J
seeks to consolidate in the District of Delaware.[BN]

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

          Alexander G. Calfo, Esq.
          Julia E. Romano, Esq.
          Alexandra Kennedy-Breit, 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
                  akennedy-breit@kslaw.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Iturreria Talc Injury Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 25, 2019, the matter styled SUSAN ITURRERIA v.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in
California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New
Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of
business in the state of California; and DOES 1 through 100, Case
No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03366 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on October 31, 2017, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Sacramento, and was
assigned Case No. 34-2017-00221535.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Salkow, Esq.
          SALKOW LAW, APC
          1540 7th Street, Suite 206
          Santa Monica, CA 90401-3432
          Telephone: (310) 451-8484
          Facsimile: (310) 451-8486
          E-mail rsalkow@salkowlaw.com

               - and -

          James G. Onder, Esq.
          THE ONDER LAW FIRM
          110 East Lockwood
          St. Louis, MO 63119
          Telephone: (314) 963-9000
          Facsimile: (314) 963-1700
          E-mail: onder@onderlaw.com

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

          Michael Carl Zellers, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          515 South Flower Street 42nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2223
          Telephone: (213) 430-3400
          Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
          E-mail: michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Lozano Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 25, 2019, the lawsuit entitled PHILIP LOZANO and
VIRGINIA LOZANO v. BRENNTAG NORTH AMERICA, INC. (sued individually
and as successor-in-interest to MINERAL PIGMENT SOLUTIONS, INC. and
as successor-in-interest to WHITTAKER CLARK & DANIELS, INC.), et
al., Case No. BC714173, from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03372 to the
proceeding.

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

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

On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two
affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc.
(collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11
petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys
Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter
11 Case").

Because the Debtors have historically been J&J's sole supplier of
cosmetic talc, the Debtors are routinely named as a co-defendant in
the actions in which the Talc Claims arise.  Even where the Debtors
are not so named as co-defendants, however, the Talc Claims are
related to the Debtors' bankruptcy.

On April 18, 2019, J&J filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware a Motion to Fix Venue for Claims
Related to Imerys's Bankruptcy Under 28 U.S.C. Sections 157(b)(5)
and 1334(b).  The State Court Talc Claims are among those that J&J
seeks to consolidate in the District of Delaware.[BN]

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

          Alexander G. Calfo, Esq.
          Julia E. Romano, Esq.
          Bryan L. King, 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
                  bking@kslaw.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Cameron Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 25, 2019, the matter captioned VICTORIA CAMERON v.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in
California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New
Jersey corporation doing business in California; the State of
California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with
its principal place of business in and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03337 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on January 16, 2018, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Riverside, and was
assigned Case No. 1801115.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

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

          Amanda Villalobos, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          515 South Flower Street, 42nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2223
          Telephone: (213) 430-3400
          Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
          E-mail: amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Ceccato Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 25, 2019, the matter entitled RHONDA CECCATO, an
individual v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC.
F/N/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC. F/K/A LUZENAC AMERICA, INC. and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Case No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03339 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on March 6, 2018, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Riverside, and was
assigned Case No. RIC 1804316.  The lawsuit is an action for
alleged damages relating to the Defendants' design, manufacture,
sale, marketing, advertising, promotion, and distribution of
Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder and Shower to Shower.

Ms. Ceccato alleges that the use of the products can cause ovarian
cancer and other serious health conditions.  She contends that she
used the products and, as a result, she suffered injuries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Foley, Esq.
          SIMMONS HANLY CONROY
          One Court Street
          Alton, IL 62002
          Telephone: (618) 259-2222
          Facsimile: (618) 259-2251
          E-mail: jfoley@simmonsfirm.com

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

          Amanda Villalobos, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          515 South Flower Street, 42nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2223
          Telephone: (213) 430-3400
          Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
          E-mail: amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Hayes Talc Injury Suit to W.D. Kentucky
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 25, 2019, the lawsuit entitled CYNTHIA HAYES, as
Executrix of Estate of DONNA ANN HAYES v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE
COMPANY, et al., from the Jefferson Circuit Court to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00316-JHM-RSE to
the proceeding.

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

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

On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two
affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc.
(collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11
petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys
Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter
11 Case").

Because the Debtors have historically been J&J's sole supplier of
cosmetic talc, the Debtors are routinely named as a co-defendant in
the actions in which the Talc Claims arise.  Even where the Debtors
are not so named as co-defendants, however, the Talc Claims are
related to the Debtors' bankruptcy.

On April 18, 2019, J&J filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware a Motion to Fix Venue for Claims
Related to Imerys's Bankruptcy Under 28 U.S.C. Sections 157(b)(5)
and 1334(b).  The State Court Talc Claims are among those that J&J
seeks to consolidate in the District of Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph D. Satterley, Esq.
          Paul J. Kelley, Esq.
          Paul J. Ivie, Esq.
          J. Eric Kiser, Esq.
          J. Garrett Cambron, Esq.
          SATTERLEY & KELLEY PLLC
          8700 Westport Road, Suite 02
          Louisville, KY 40242
          Telephone: (502) 589-5600
          Facsimile: (502) 814-5500
          E-mail: jsatterley@stwlaw.com
                  pkelley@satterleylaw.com
                  pivie@stwlaw.com
                  ekiser@satterleylaw.com

               - and -

          Moshe Maimon, Esq.
          LEVY KONIGSBERG, LLP
          800 Third Avenue, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 605-6200
          E-mail: mmaimon@levylaw.com

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

          R. Scott Masterson, Esq.
          Brantley C. Rowlen, Esq.
          Ashley W. Spires, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          1180 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 2900
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 348-8585
          Facsimile: (404) 467-8845
          E-mail: scott.masterson@lewisbrisbois.com
                  brantley.rowlen@lewisbrisbois.com
                  ashley.spires@lewisbrisbois.com

Defendant Colgate-Palmolive Co. is represented by:

          Keith M. Ameele, Esq.
          FOLEY & MANSFIELD
          300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2800
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 283-2100
          E-mail: kameele@foleymansfield.com

               - and -

          Meredith M. Shaw, Esq.
          Brad E. Estes, Esq.
          J.D. Horton, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
          865 S. Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 443-3000
          Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
          E-mail: meredithshaw@quinnemanuel.com
                  bradestes@quinnemanuel.com
                  jdhorton@quinnemanuel.com

               - and -

          Morgan Tovey, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
          50 California Street, 22nd Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 875-6337
          E-mail: morgantovey@quinnemanuel.com

               - and -

          Adam Abensohn, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
          51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10028
          Telephone: (212) 849-7229
          E-mail: adamabensohn@quinnemanuel.com

               - and -

          J. Kirk Goza, Esq.
          Nathan Guest, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
          1300 I Street NW, Suite 900
          Washington, DC 2005
          Telephone: (202) 538-8169
          E-mail: kirkgoza@quinnemanuel.com
                  nathanguest@quinnemanuel.com

               - and -

          Matthew W. Breetz, Esq.
          Frederick R. Bentley, Esq.
          STITES & HARBISON, PLLC
          400 West Market Street, Suite 1800
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 681-0487
          E-mail: mbreetz@stites.com
                  rbentley@stites.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Holstien Talc Injury Suit to N.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 25, 2019, the lawsuit styled DEBORAH HOLSTIEN AND
NORMAN CONE v. BASCO DRYWALL & PAINTING CO., et al., Case No.
RG18887926, from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Alameda to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-02267-DMR to the
proceeding.

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

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

On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two
affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc.
(collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11
petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys
Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter
11 Case").

Because the Debtors have historically been J&J's sole supplier of
cosmetic talc, the Debtors are routinely named as a co-defendant in
the actions in which the Talc Claims arise.  Even where the Debtors
are not so named as co-defendants, however, the Talc Claims are
related to the Debtors' bankruptcy.

On April 18, 2019, J&J filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware a Motion to Fix Venue for Claims
Related to Imerys's Bankruptcy Under 28 U.S.C. Sections 157(b)(5)
and 1334(b).  The State Court Talc Claims are among those that J&J
seeks to consolidate in the District of Delaware.[BN]

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

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Yoshida Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 25, 2019, the matter entitled ANDRIYANI YOSHIDA,
an individual v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing
business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey
corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA,
INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business
in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03326 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on May 18, 2018, in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles, and was assigned
Case No. BC705664.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Ted G. Meadows, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, PC
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (800) 898-2034
          E-mail: ted.meadows@beasleyallen.com

               - 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
          E-mail: allen@smith-law.org

Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer
Companies, Inc., are represented by:

          Michael F. Healy, Esq.
          SHOOK HARDY AND BACON LLP
          One Montgomery Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 544-1900
          Facsimile: (415) 391-0281
          E-mail: mfhealy@shb.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Archer Suit to N.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case of JACKIE ARCHER, executor of the Estate
of CHERYL ARCHER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON &
JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC. f/k/a JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES,
INC.; PTI ROYSTON, LLC d/b/a PHARMA TECH INDUSTRIES; CYPRUS AMAX
MINERALS COMPANY f/k/a CYPRUS MINES CORPORATION; and JOHN DOE
CORPORATION 1-10, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit
from the State Court of the State of Georgia, County of Clayton
(Case No. 2019CV00656) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia on April 18, 2019. The clerk of court for the
Northern District of Georgia assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01749. The
case is assigned to Judge Michael L. Brown.

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. The company was incorporated in 1887 and is
based in New Brunswick, New Jersey. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Leslie J. Suson, Esq.
          Zoe Ileana Martinez, Esq.
          THOMPSON HINE LLP-GA
          3560 Lenox Road NE, Suite 1600
          Atlanta, GA 30326-4266
          Telephone: (404) 541-2972


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Brower Suit to N.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case of ANASTASIA BROWER, a minor through her
legal guardian PAMELA RUSSELL; and PAMELA RUSSELL, as Executrix of
the Estate of DIANE BROWER, Plaintiffs v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, INC.;
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; and IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC., Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit
from the State Court of the State of Georgia, County of Fulton
(Case No. 16EV005534) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia on April 18, 2019. The clerk of court for the
Northern District of Georgia assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01748-ELR.

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. The company was incorporated in 1887 and is
based in New Brunswick, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jack R. Dodson III, Esq
          Autumn L. Gentry, Esq.
          DICKINSON WRIGHT, PLLC
          424 Church Street, Suite 800
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-6538
          Facsimile: (844) 670-6009
          E-mail: RDodson@dickinsonwright.com
                  AGentry@dickinsonwright.com

               - and -

          Alexander Denton, Esq.
          ROBBINS ROSS ALLOY BELINFANTE
          LITTLEFIELD LLC
          999 Peachtree Street, N.E. Suite 1120
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 856-3276
          Facsimile: (404) 856-3250
          E-mail: Alexander.Denton@robbinsfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Leslie J. Suson, Esq.
          Zoe Ileana Martinez, Esq.
          THOMPSON HINE LLP-GA
          3560 Lenox Road NE, Suite 1600
          Atlanta, GA 30326-4266
          Telephone: (404) 541-2972


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Cerna Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 25, 2019, the lawsuit titled SONIA CERNA, an
individual v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing
business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.,
a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of
business in the State of California, previously named as DOE 1; and
DOES 2 through 100, inclusive, from the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03341 to the
proceeding.

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

On May 18, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint in
the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, which generally alleges
that the Debtors' talc, through the habitual use of J&J cosmetic
talcum powder products, caused the Plaintiff's personal injury
and/or wrongful death.

The case was coordinated into the coordinated proceeding pending in
Los Angeles County Superior Court before Judge Maren Nelson: In re
Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Cases (JCCP No. 4872).  On February
20, 2019, leadership for all plaintiffs in the coordinated
proceeding filed a Second Amended Master Complaint ("Master
Complaint").

On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two
affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc.
(collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11
petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys
Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter
11 Case").

Because the Debtors have historically been J&J's sole supplier of
cosmetic talc, the Debtors are routinely named as a co-defendant in
the actions in which the Talc Claims arise.  Even where the Debtors
are not so named as co-defendants, however, the Talc Claims are
related to the Debtors' bankruptcy.[BN]

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

          Michael C. Zellers, Esq.
          Amanda Villalobos, Esq.
          Nicholas Janizeh, Esq.
          Caroline Toole, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          515 South Flower Street, Forty-Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430-3400
          Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
          E-mail: michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com
                  amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com
                  nicholas.janizeh@tuckerellis.com
                  caroline.toole@tuckerellis.com

               - and -

          Michael F. Healy, Esq.
          Emily Weissenberger, Esq.
          Alexander Guney, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 544-1900
          Facsimile: (415) 391-0281
          E-mail: mfhealy@shb.com
                  eweissenberger@shb.com
                  aguney@shb.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Chavez Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 25, 2019, the matter titled MICHELLE CHAVEZ, an
individual v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing
business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.,
a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of
business in the State of California and DOES 1 through 100, Case
No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03365 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on May 14, 2018, in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Santa Clara and was assigned
Case No. 18CV328220.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert R. Ahdoot, Esq.
          Bradley K. King, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          10728 Lindbrook Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          E-mail: randoot@andootwolfson.com
                  bking@andootwolfson.com

               - and -

          Korey A. Nelson, Esq.
          Amanda K. Klevorn, Esq.
          BURNS CHAREST LLP
          365 Canal Street, Suite 1170
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 799-2845
          E-mail: knelson@burnscharest.com
                  aklevorn@burnscharest.com

               - and -

          Warren T. Burns, Esq.
          Daniel H. Charest, Esq.
          Spencer M. Cox, Esq.
          BURNS CHARIEST LLP
          900 Jackson Street, Suite 500
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (469) 904-4550
          E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com
                  dcharest@burnscharest.com
                  scox@burnscharest.com

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

          Amanda Villalobos, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          515 South Flower Street, 42nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2223
          Telephone: (213) 430-3400
          Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
          E-mail: amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Cheek Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 25, 2019, the matter captioned KARI E. CHEEK, et
al. v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; and IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC. F/K/A LUZENAC AMERICA, INC., Case No. JCCP 4872, from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03348 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on April 28, 2017, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Santa Clara, and was
assigned Case No. 17CV309242.

The lawsuit is a products liability action against the Defendants
because the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs' Decedents have suffered
from and have passed away from the severe effects of Ovarian Cancer
caused by Johnson & Johnson's baby powder and Shower-to-Shower
consumer products, which were manufactured, mined, and/or marketed
by the Defendants, according to the complaint.  The Plaintiffs
contend that the products each contain talc powder, which caused
them and their Decedents to develop Ovarian Cancer after they used
the products in their perineal area.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

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

          Amanda Villalobos, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          515 South Flower Street, 42nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2223
          Telephone: (213) 430-3400
          Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
          E-mail: amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Chimits Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 25, 2019, the matter captioned JUDI CHIMITS, an
individual v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing
business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey
corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA,
INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business
in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03345 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on April 23, 2018, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Orange, and was assigned
Case No. 30-2018-00988028-CU-MT-CXC.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Ted G. Meadows, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, PC
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (800) 898-2034
          E-mail: ted.meadows@beasleyallen.com

               - 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
          E-mail: allen@smith-law.org

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

          Amanda Villalobos, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          515 South Flower Street, 42nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2223
          Telephone: (213) 430-3400
          Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
          E-mail: amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Ciccone Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 25, 2019, the lawsuit entitled PATRICIA CICCONE,
an individual v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing
business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey
corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA,
INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business
in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03354 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on April 4, 2018, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Santa Clara, and was
assigned Case No. 18CV325837.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lee Cirsch, Esq.
          Michael Akselrud, Esq.
          THE LANIER LAW FIRM, PC
          21550 Oxnard Street, 3rd Floor
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (310) 277-5100
          Facsimile: (310) 277-5103
          E-mail: lee.cirsch@lanierlawfirm.com
                  michael.akselrud@lanierlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Susanne Scovern, Esq.
          Joseph McPeak, Esq.
          SCOVERNLAW
          201 Spear St., Suite 1105
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (888) 725-1890
          E-mail: scovern@scovernlaw.com
                  joseph_mcpeak@scovernlaw.com

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

          Amanda Villalobos, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          515 South Flower Street, 42nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2223
          Telephone: (213) 430-3400
          Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
          E-mail: amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Gould Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 25, 2019, the lawsuit styled MARY JEAN GOULD v.
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, LLC, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO SAV-ON DRUGS, INC.; et al., Case No. JCCP
4674/BC685953, from the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03473-GW-SS to
the proceeding.

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

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

On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two
affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc.
(collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11
petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys
Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter
11 Case").

Because the Debtors have historically been J&J's sole supplier of
cosmetic talc, the Debtors are routinely named as a co-defendant in
the actions in which the Talc Claims arise.  Even where the Debtors
are not so named as co-defendants, however, the Talc Claims are
related to the Debtors' bankruptcy.

On April 18, 2019, J&J filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware a Motion to Fix Venue for Claims
Related to Imerys's Bankruptcy Under 28 U.S.C. Sections 157(b)(5)
and 1334(b).  The State Court Talc Claims are among those that J&J
seeks to consolidate in the District of Delaware.[BN]

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

          Alexander G. Calfo, Esq.
          Julia E. Romano, Esq.
          Stacy L. Foster, 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
                  sfoster@kslaw.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Ingram Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 25, 2019, the lawsuit captioned VICKIE INGRAM, an
individual v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing
business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.,
a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of
business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03363 to the
proceeding.

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

On May 2, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Superior
Court of Santa Clara County, which generally alleges that the
Debtors' talc, through the habitual use of J&J cosmetic talcum
powder products, caused the Plaintiff's personal injury and/or
wrongful death.

The case was coordinated into the coordinated proceeding pending in
Los Angeles County Superior Court before Judge Maren Nelson: In re
Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Cases (JCCP No. 4872).  On February
20, 2019, leadership for all plaintiffs in the coordinated
proceeding filed a Second Amended Master Complaint ("Master
Complaint").

On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two
affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc.
(collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11
petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys
Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter
11 Case").

Because the Debtors have historically been J&J's sole supplier of
cosmetic talc, the Debtors are routinely named as a co-defendant in
the actions in which the Talc Claims arise.  Even where the Debtors
are not so named as co-defendants, however, the Talc Claims are
related to the Debtors' bankruptcy.[BN]

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

          Michael C. Zellers, Esq.
          Amanda Villalobos, Esq.
          Nicholas Janizeh, Esq.
          Caroline Toole, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          515 South Flower Street, Forty-Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430-3400
          Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
          E-mail: michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com
                  amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com
                  nicholas.janizeh@tuckerellis.com
                  caroline.toole@tuckerellis.com

               - and -

          Michael F. Healy, Esq.
          Emily Weissenberger, Esq.
          Alexander Guney, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 544-1900
          Facsimile: (415) 391-0281
          E-mail: mfhealy@shb.com
                  eweissenberger@shb.com
                  aguney@shb.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Jacobi Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 25, 2019, the lawsuit titled STACEY KIRKLAND
JACOBI and CHARLES JACOBI v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER INC. f/k/a JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC. and
IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. f/k/a LUZENAC AMERICA, INC., Case No.
JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03368 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on August 30, 2018, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Santa Clara, and was
assigned Case No. 18CV333802.

The lawsuit is a products liability action against the Defendants
because Plaintiff Stacey suffered from the severe effects of
Ovarian Cancer allegedly caused by Johnson & Johnson's baby powder
and Shower-to-Shower consumer products, which were manufactured,
mined, and/or marketed by the Defendants.  The Plaintiffs seek
recovery for damages as a result of developing ovarian cancer,
which was directly and proximately caused by such wrongful conduct
by the Defendants, the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature
of the products and talcum powder, and the attendant effects of
developing ovarian cancer.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

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

          Michael Carl Zellers, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          515 South Flower Street 42nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2223
          Telephone: (213) 430-3400
          Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
          E-mail: michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Trujillo Talc Injury Suit to N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 25, 2019, the lawsuit captioned JACQUELINE
TRUJILLO and EDWARD TRUJILLO v. CYPRUS AMAX MINERALS COMPANY,
Individually and as Successor-In-Interest to WINDSOR MINERALS,
INC., et al., Case No. RG19001767, from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Alameda to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California (Oakland).

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-02264-KAW to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on January 8, 2019, alleging that prior to
her mesothelioma diagnosis, Plaintiff Jacqueline Trujillo was
exposed to asbestos fibers by using and handling
asbestos-containing products, including asbestos-contaminated talc,
and being in the presence of others using and handling
asbestos-containing products.  Ms. Trujillo used Johnson & Johnson
Baby Powder throughout her adult life.  The Plaintiffs argue that
the talc in Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder contained asbestos.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David L. Amell, Esq.
          David L. Rancilio, Esq.
          Marissa Y. Uchimura, Esq.
          MAUNE RAICHLE HARTLEY FRENCH & MUDD, LLC
          70 Washington Street, Suite 200
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (800) 358-5922
          Facsimile: (314) 241-4838
          E-mail: damell@mrhfmlaw.com
                  drancilio@mrhfmlaw.com
                  muchimura@mrhfmlaw.com

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

          Alexandra Julia Kennedy-Breit, Esq.
          KING AND SPALDING LLP
          101 Second St., Suite 2300
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 318-1220
          E-mail: akennedy-breit@kslaw.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Wagner Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 25, 2019, the lawsuit titled LOUIS D. WAGNER,
Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to NANETTE C. WAGNER,
deceased v. AMERICAN ART CLAY CO., INC., Individually and as
Successor-in-Interest to STEWART'S OF CALIFORNIA, INC., et al.,
Case No. JCCP 4674/BC645588, from the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03374 to the
proceeding.

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

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

On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two
affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc.
(collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11
petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys
Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter
11 Case").

Because the Debtors have historically been J&J's sole supplier of
cosmetic talc, the Debtors are routinely named as a co-defendant in
the actions in which the Talc Claims arise.  Even where the Debtors
are not so named as co-defendants, however, the Talc Claims are
related to the Debtors' bankruptcy.

On April 18, 2019, J&J filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware a Motion to Fix Venue for Claims
Related to Imerys's Bankruptcy Under 28 U.S.C. Sections 157(b)(5)
and 1334(b).  The State Court Talc Claims are among those that J&J
seeks to consolidate in the District of Delaware.[BN]

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

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


JPMORGAN CHASE: Anderman, et al. Seek Damages Under FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------------
ROSEMARY ARBUCKLE ANDERMAN, CAROLYN ARBUCKLE PLATT, MARILYN
ARBUCKLE SCHEIDT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, PHELAN HALLINAN DIAMOND & JONES, PLLC, Defendants,
Case No. 8:19-cv-01034-WFJ-CPT (M.D. Fla., April 30, 2019) is a
complaint brought individually and on behalf of a Class or Class
Members, seeking monetary damages pursuant to the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").

On December 31, 1997, the Plaintiff's brother, Clinton Arbuckle,
purchased a home located at 3468 Dover Street, Sarasota, Florida.
At all relevant times, the Dover home was Clinton Arbuckle's
homestead. The Plaintiffs have never owned the Dover home. On July
28, 2008, Clinton Arbuckle refinanced his mortgage loan on the
Dover home. In so doing, Mr. Arbuckle executed a promissory note
and a mortgage securing payment of the note. The Plaintiffs neither
signed the promissory note or mortgage, nor were they on the Dover
title. On July 21, 2012, Clinton Arbuckle passed away. At all
relevant times, the Plaintiffs were the sisters of Clinton Arbuckle
and the surviving heirs of Clinton Arbuckle. Due to the fact that
the Plaintiffs never signed the promissory note which is the
evidence of the debt for purposes of the mortgage foreclosure, the
Plaintiffs were never obligated to pay any of the principal,
interest, fees, costs, attorney's fees or otherwise, incurred on
the subject note, to anyone.

On June 22, 2018, after having filed an intervening amended
complaint, Defendant Chase, by and through its counsel, Defendant
Phelan, filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint
with an attached three-count "Verified Second Amended Complaint To
Fore close Mortgage" (hereafter "SAC"). The Plaintiffs have never
jointly or severally filed for bankruptcy protection much less
received a discharge of any debt. On or about June 22, 2018 to July
11, 2018, the Plaintiffs were notified that they were being sued in
foreclosure and that the bank was seeking a deficiency from them.
At that time, a copy of the SAC was sent to the Plaintiffs. Marilyn
Scheidt contacted the Sarasota Clerk of Court and questioned why
she would have to file an answer if she did not sign the mortgage
loan. The clerk advised her that she could lose the case if she did
not file an answer, and that she may be subject to a deficiency.
In filing their answer wherein they surrendered any right, title
and interest in the Dover property as potential heirs of Clinton
Arbuckle, the Plaintiffs believed that the Defendants would release
them from liability for the deficiency.

Upon receiving the summons and complaint, Plaintiff Scheidt
contacted her sisters and discussed the fact that Defendants were
still pursuing each of them for a deficiency. They were very
concerned that they may owe a deficiency for the debt. Plaintiff
Scheidt contacted an on line attorney and advised that the lawsuit
named her a defendant and that it was seeking a deficiency from
her. Upon receipt of the two orders of November 2, 2018, the
Plaintiffs became distressed that their request to be relieved from
a deficiency had not been granted and they also did not want to
have to attend a trial in order to defend themselves. At that time,
they began searching for an attorney to assist them.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's violations of
the FDCPA, all three Plaintiffs have been damaged and suffered
mental and emotional distress, frustration, anger, humiliation,
embarrassment and other emotional and mental anguish as well as the
time and expenses of driving to court to file documents. Plaintiff
Scheidt was further damaged by loss of compensation from work due
to her driving to Sarasota to file her documents with the court,
says the complaint.

Plaintiffs are natural persons.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association is registered as a
National Association with the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     George Gingo, Esq.
     James E. Orth, Esq.
     Gingo & Orth, PLLC
     1702 S. Washington Avenue
     Titusville, FL 32780
     Phone: 321-264-9624
     Email: jamesorthlaw@gmail.com
            gingo.george@gmail.com


JUICE BEAUTY: Wins Dismissal of S. Manier's CLRA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
in the case captioned SHARON MANIER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JUICE
BEAUTY, INC., Defendant. Case No. 18-cv-06834-RS. (N.D. Cal.).

This is a putative class action filed in this Court under a
contention that jurisdiction exists pursuant the Class Action
Fairness Act (CAFA). Among other prerequisites, jurisdiction under
CAFA requires that the amount controversy exceed the sum or value
$5,000,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. Section 1332(d)(2).


Named plaintiffs Sharon Manier and Judith Rodriguez allege that
defendant Juice Beauty, Inc. markets and sells a line of shampoo,
conditioner, and hair mask products under the label Repairing.
Plaintiffs contend the products are falsely represented as having
the capability to repair damaged hair, in a literal sense, beyond
anything the products may actually do.  

Juice Beauty moves to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, contending
the amount in controversy does not meet the $5 million threshold.


In opposition to dismissal, plaintiffs insist the jurisdictional
minimum can be satisfied because, they contend, California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) provides for statutory damages
of $1000 per violation. While plaintiffs go on to offer reasons
they believe the jurisdictional minimum likely would be satisfied
whether or not they can pursue a nationwide class under California
law, all of their arguments turn on their assertion that the CLRA
imposes statutory damages of up to $1000 per violation.

It does not.

Rather, California Civil Code section 1780(a)(1) provides that a
consumer who suffers damages as a result of a violation of the CLRA
may seek to recover actual damages, but in no case shall the total
award of damages in a class action be less than one thousand
dollars ($1,000).

Nothing in the allegations or evidence suggests that the maximum
damages per alleged violation, where each sale was in the range of
$10 or less per unit, would result in a total amount in controversy
anywhere remotely near the jurisdictional minimum, given the number
of units of the products sold to consumers nationwide in the
relevant time frame was under 160,000.

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction must be
granted. This ruling is without prejudice, of course, to any rights
plaintiffs may have to proceed in one or more state courts.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 6, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2ogjgws from Leagle.com.

Sharon Manier & Judith Rodriguez, Plaintiffs, represented by C.K.
Lee, Lee Litigation Group, PLLC, 30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor New
York, NY 10016, Nadir Osman Ahmed, Law Office of Nadir O. Ahmed,
401 W A St Ste 1100, San Diego, California 92101 & C.K. Lee, Lee
Litigation Group, PLLC, 30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY
10016 pro hac vice.

Juice Beauty, Inc., doing business as Juice Organics, Defendant,
represented by Angela Lee Diesch -- angela@dieschforrestlaw.com --
Diesch Forrest, APC & Stephen Edward Paffrath --
stephen@dieschforrestlaw.com -- Diesch Forrest APC.


JUMIA TECHNOLOGIES: July 15 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Jumia Technologies AG (NYSE: JMIA) on behalf of
investors who purchased the Company's American Depository Shares
("Shares") between April 12, 2019 and May 9, 2019, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

IMPORTANT DEADLINE: Investors who purchased Jumia's Shares during
the Class Period may, no later than July 15, 2019, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative in the action.

Jumia investors who would like to receive additional information
about this action and their legal rights and options are encouraged
to contact Kaskela Law LLC (D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.) at (888)
715-1740, or to submit their information online at
http://kaskelalaw.com/case/jumia-technologies-ag/.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period Jumia and
certain other defendants made materially false and misleading
statements to investors, and failed to disclose that: (i) Jumia had
materially overstated its active customers and active merchants;
(ii) Jumia's representations about its orders, order cancellations,
undelivered orders and returned orders lacked a sufficient factual
basis and materially overstated the Company's sales; (iii) Jumia
failed to sufficiently disclose related party transactions; and
(iv) Jumia's financial statements were presented in violation of
applicable accounting standards.

On May 9, 2019, Citron Research published a report alleging that
Jumia has misrepresented to investors, among other things, its
active consumer and active merchant figures. The Citron report
further alleged that Jumia (i) "is a fraud and deserves immediate
SEC attention" and (ii) "is the most expensive US listed ecommerce
company with an unviable business." Following the publication of
this report, Jumia's Shares declined $6.22 per share, or nearly 19%
in value, to close on May 9, 2019 at $26.89 per share, on heavy
trading volume.

Jumia investors are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC prior to
the deadline in this action. Kaskela Law LLC exclusively represents
investors in securities fraud, corporate governance, and merger &
acquisition litigation. For additional information about Kaskela
Law LLC please visit www.kaskelalaw.com.

Contact:

         D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
         KASKELA LAW LLC
         18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100
         Newtown Square, PA 19073
         Tel: (484) 258-1585
         Website: www.kaskelalaw.com
         Email: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com [GN]


JUMIA TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Jumia Technologies AG (NYSE: JMIA)
from April 12, 2019 through May 9, 2019, inclusive (the Class
Period) of the important July 15, 2019 lead plaintiff deadline in
the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages
for Jumia investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Jumia class action, go
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1569.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 INVESTORS
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) Jumia had materially overstated its active customers and
active merchants; (2) Jumias representations about its orders,
order cancellations, undelivered orders and returned orders lacked
a sufficient factual basis and materially overstated Jumias sales;
(3) Jumia failed to sufficiently disclose related party
transactions; (4) Jumias financial statements were presented in
violation of applicable accounting standards; and (5) as a result
of the foregoing, defendants positive statements about Jumias
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and
lacked a reasonable basis. 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 July 15,
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-1569.

Contact:

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


JUMIA TECHNOLOGIES: Timothy L. Miles Files Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Timothy L. Miles informs investors there has
been a class action lawsuit filed against Jumia Technologies AG
(JMIA) and certain of its officers accusing the Company of
fraudulent activities and asserting alleged violations of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 between April 12, 2019 through
May 9, 2019. Jumia operates a pan-African e-commerce platform.

According to the complaint, Jumia completed its IPO in April 2019
for net proceeds of approximately $280.2 million.  Less than a
month after, Citron Research issued a research report announcing
that "Jumia is a Fraud" that "deserves immediate SEC attention."
According to the Citron Report, while media in the U.S. naively
anointed Jumia the "Amazon of Africa," numerous articles have been
issued in its home country of Nigeria claiming widespread fraud. An
investigation by Nigerian news reporters described Jumia as a
company "struggling to survive over internal fraudulent activities"
and "filled with many shady deals." Citron Report further notes
that just prior to the IPO, Jumia issued a confidential investor
presentation in October 2018 with financial metrics that
significantly differ from its registration documents. When the
truth was revealed, Jumia's ADSs declined approximately 28% on
heavy trading volume over a two-day period, from $33.11 per ADS on
May 8, 2019 to $24.50 per ADS on May 10, 2019.

If you purchased Jumia securities, have information, or would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Timothy L. Miles, Esquire, at 615-587-7384,
Toll-Free at 855-846-6529, or by email to tmiles@timmileslaw.com.
If you inquire by email please include your mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Contact:

         Timothy L. Miles, Esq.
         LawOffices of Timothy L. Miles
         124 Shiloh Ridge
         Hendersonville, TN 37075
         Phone: (855-846-6529)
         Website: www.timmileslaw
         Email:tmiles@timmileslaw.com [GN]


KALEIDOSCOPE FAMILY: Underpays Case Managers, Campbell Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHAMINA CAMPBELL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KALEIDOSCOPE FAMILY SOLUTIONS;
ABA, INC.; KALEIDOSCOPE FAMILY SOLUTIONS MASSACHUSETTS, INC.;
KALEIDOSCOPE FAMILY SOLUTIONS, INC.; SCOTT MCANDREWS; and
CHRISTOPHER MCANDREWS, Defendants, Case No. 19-1195B (Mass. Super.,
Suffolk Cty., April 16, 2019) is an action against the Defendants
for failure to pay intra-day travel time between client locations,
earned overtime wages, and reimburse transportation expenses.

The Plaintiff Campbell was employed by the Defendants as case
manager.

Kaleidoscope Family Solutions is a family services company offering
disability support services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephanie C. Ozahowski, Esq.
          Raven Moeslinger, Esq.
          Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, PC
          99 High Street, Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617)338-9400
          E-mail: sco@mass-legal.com
                  rm@mass-legal.com


KIA MOTORS: Leon & Delgado Sue over Defective GDI Engine
--------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINA LEON; and GABRIEL DELGADO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KIA MOTORS AMERICA,
INC.; and DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No.
19STCV13618 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 18, 2019) alleges
that the Defendants' vehicle and its 2.0 gasoline direct injection
(GDI) engine were defective and susceptible to sudden and
catastrophic failure.

According to the complaint, the Defendants knew since 2009, if not
earlier, that the 2011-2019 KIA Optima, 2011-2019 KIA Sportage,
2012-2019 KIA Sorento, 2011-2019 Hyundai Sonata, and 2013-2019
Hyundai Santa Fe vehicles equipped with a 2.0 or 2.4L engine,
including the 2011 Kia Optima contained one or more design and/or
manufacturing defects in their engines that results in the
restriction of oil flow through the connecting rod bearings, as
well as to other vital areas of the engine.

The defect -- which typically manifests itself during and shortly
after the limited warranty period has expired -- causes the KIA
Vehicle to experience catastrophic engine failure, stalling while
in operation and poses an unreasonable safety risk of non-collision
fires all due to inadequate lubrication. Furthermore, engine
seizure often causes internal parts, such as the connecting rods,
to break and a knock hole in the engine, permitting fluids to leak
and ignite a fire.

Kia Motors America, Inc. operates as an automobile dealer. The
Company offers passenger cars, minivans, sports utility vehicles,
crossovers, sedans, vans, and cargo trucks. Kia Motors serves
customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tionna Dolin, Esq.
          Sean Crandall, Esq.
          STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES
          A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 430
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 929-4900
          Facsimile: (310) 943-3838
          E-mail: tdolin@slpattomey.com
                  scrandall@slpattorney.com


KIA MOTORS: Oseguera & Zermeno Sue over Defective GDI Engine
------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL OSEGUERA; and NANCY ZERMENO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KIA MOTORS AMERICA,
INC.; and DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No.
19STCV13608 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 18, 2019) alleges
that the Defendants' vehicle and its 2.0 gasoline direct injection
(GDI) engine were defective and susceptible to sudden and
catastrophic failure.

According to the complaint, the Defendants knew since 2009, if not
earlier, that the 2011-2019 KIA Optima, 2011 ­ 2019 KIA Sportage,
2012-2019 KIA Sorento, 2011-2019 Hyundai Sonata, and 2013-2019
Hyundai Santa Fe vehicles equipped with a 2.0 or 2.4L engine,
including the 2011 Kia Optima contained one or more design and/or
manufacturing defects in their engines that results in the
restriction of oil flow through the connecting rod bearings, as
well as to other vital areas of the engine. This defect -- which
typically manifests itself during and shortly after the limited
warranty period has expired -- causes the KIA Vehicle to experience
catastrophic engine failure, stalling while in operation and poses
an unreasonable safety risk of non-collision fires all due to
inadequate lubrication. Furthermore, engine seizure often causes
internal parts, such as the connecting rods, to break and a knock
hole in the engine, permitting fluids to leak and ignite a fire.

Kia Motors America, Inc. operates as an automobile dealer. The
Company offers passenger cars, minivans, sports utility vehicles,
crossovers, sedans, vans, and cargo trucks. Kia Motors serves
customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Tionna Dolin, Esq.
          Daniel Tai, Esq.
          STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES
          A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 430
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 929-4900
          Facsimile: (310) 943-3838
          E-mail: tdolin@slpattorney.com
                  dtai@slpattorney.com


KIMBERLY-CLARK: 2 Groups Renew Bid to Replace Avenatti
------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that two competing groups have renewed their bids to
replace indicted attorney Michael Avenatti in a $450 million class
action over defective surgical gowns against against Kimberly-Clark
Corp. with different former Eagan Avenatti attorneys. [GN]


KRAKEN: BSV Holders Mull Class Action Over Delisting
----------------------------------------------------
Aakash Athawasya, writing for AMBCrypto, reports that the Bitcoin
SV saga continues with another set of lawsuits from the BSV camp
set to rock the industry. However, this legal charge is not
spearheaded by Calvin Ayre and Craig S Wright, but the BSV
holders.

Kraken became the latest heavyweight exchange to delist Satoshi's
Vision on April 16, following Binance. After this ousting, Ayre
claimed, that the exchange's BSV holders are taking legal action.
In a tweet, less than 12 hours after Kraken's booting out of the
coin, the BSV proponent stated that "US companies," are "preparing
lawsuits," against the San Francisco exchange.

In addition to the "companies" looking to target Kraken with
"lawsuits," Ayre suggested that the exchange has "cut off BSV
withdrawals." He added that such an "illegal" move should result in
the BSV account holders filing a "class action suit" against the
exchange.

Kraken's official blog post regarding the delisting clearly spelled
out that the BSV deposits will only be disabled on April 22,
following which trading on the listed trading pairs will conclude
seven days later. More importantly, withdrawals will be permitted
till the end of the next month i.e. May 31 allowing plenty of time
for BSV holders to pull their funds out of the exchange.

Despite no mention of a change in the terms of the withdrawal by
Kraken, Ayre attests to the "illegal" change.

Bitcoin SV has been no stranger to using the legal path to engage
the cryptocurrency community. Ayre and Wright have been launching a
slew of legal notices to those who claim that Wright is a "fraud."
Unsurprisingly, the community is opposed to their "bullying," with
Kraken CEO referring to the BSV "founders" as "total assholes" upon
delisting the coin.

The Reddit BSV-community appeared to be disgruntled by the lawsuits
and by Kraken's behavior, first with the poll hinting at delisting
and their official announcement. One user, pafkatabg drew a
parallel with the stock market:

"Imagine Nasdaq's CEO to start a twitter poll if they should delist
TESLA, because Elon Musk's behaviour is toxic and this twitter poll
results in 20%+ drop in the price. It's clear market manipulation.
Kraken's actions are hard to explain with valid reasons. It's all
about emotions."

Fount4inhead opined:

"The poll is absurd I know. We all know that majority of customers
for exchanges are speculators and so a poll like this is equivilant
to having a horse race and then asking participants to remove
certain horses from the race after bets are placed, of course they
vote yes." [GN]


KUSHCO HOLDINGS: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against KushCo Holdings, Inc.
("KushCo" or the "Company") (OTCQB: KSHB) and certain of its
officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired KushCo securities between July 13, 2017 and April 9, 2019,
both dates inclusive. Such investors are encouraged to join this
case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/kshb.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

In the past several years, KushCo has expanded its services through
the acquisition of several companies in the cannabis industry. For
example, in May 2017, KushCo acquired CMP Wellness LLC ("CMP
Wellness"), a privately-held manufacturer and distributor of
Med-ePen brand vaporizer pens, cartridges, tanks, and accessories.
Then, in May 2018, KushCo acquired Summit Innovations, LLC
("Summit"), a distributor of hydrocarbon products, such as propane
and butane, to the legal cannabis industry. Finally, in July 2018,
KushCo acquired The Hybrid Creative ("Hybrid"), a self-described
premier creative agency for cannabis ventures, including branding,
marketing, web, and strategy.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, 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) KushCo made material accounting
errors in connection with its acquisitions of CMP Wellness, Summit,
and Hybrid; (ii) as a result, KushCo's previously issued financial
statements as of and for the fiscal years ended August 31, 2018 and
August 31, 2017, included in the Company's Annual Reports on Form
10-K for such periods, and financial statements as of and for the
quarterly periods ended May 31, 2017, November 30, 2017, February
28, 2018, May 31, 2018 and November 30, 2018, included in the
Company's Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for such periods, could
not be relied upon; (iii) KushCo's net loss for the fiscal year
ended August 31, 2018, was more than twice as high than previously
reported; (iv) KushCo and its management's assurances that its
financial statements for those fiscal years and periods were
accurate and fairly reported could not be relied upon; and (v) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On April 9, 2019, KushCo issued a press release, attached as an
exhibit to the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K (the "April
2019 8-K"), announcing the Company's decision to restate prior
period financial statements for fiscal years 2017 and 2018 for
non-cash items related to acquisitions of CMP Wellness, Summit, and
Hybrid.

Specifically, the April 2019 8-K disclosed that KushCo had
inaccurately accounted for certain shared-settled contingent
consideration relating to its CMP Wellness, Summit, and Hybrid
acquisitions, by recording their respective earnout arrangements as
equity rather than as liabilities.

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

If you suffered a loss in KushCo you have until July 1, 2019 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  A lead
plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing
the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its
choice. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that
you serve as a lead plaintiff.

If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the
firm's site: www.bgandg.com/kshb or you may contact:

         Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
         Yael Hurwitz
         Investor Relations Analyst
         Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
         Phone: 212-697-6484
         Email: info@bgandg.com
               peretz@bgandg.com [GN]


KUSHCO HOLDINGS: July 1 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
---------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces the filing of a class action lawsuit
on behalf of shareholders who bought shares of KushCo Holdings,
Inc. (OTC: KSHB) from July 13, 2017 through April 9, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for KushCo investors under the federal securities laws.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than July 1, 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
https://tinyurl.com/y6n2e72j or to discuss your rights or interests
regarding this class action, please contact Sophie Zhang, Esq. or
Spencer Lee toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com, slee@zhanginvestorlaw.com for
information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) KushCo made material accounting errors in connection with
its acquisitions of CMP Wellness LLC, Summit Innovations, LLC, and
The Hybrid Creative; (2) KushCo's previously issued financial
statements for the fiscal years ended August 31, 2018 and August
31, 2017 could not be relied upon; (3) KushCo's net loss for the
fiscal year ended August 31, 2018 was more than twice as high than
previously reported; (4) KushCo and its management's assurances
that its financial statements for those fiscal years and periods
were accurate and fairly reported could not be relied upon; and (5)
as a result, KushCo's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class has not been certified.  You may retain counsel of your
choice.  You may take no action at this time and be an absent class
member.  Your ability to obtain a recovery is not dependent upon
being a lead plaintiff.  

         Contact:
         Sophie Zhang, Esq.
         Spencer Lee
         Zhang Investor Law P.C.
         99 Wall Street, Suite 232
         New York, New York 10005
         Phone:: (800) 991-3756
         Toll-free: 800-991-3756
         Email: info@zhanginvestorlaw.com
                slee@zhanginvestorlaw.com [GN]


L'OREAL USA: Devane Files Suit Over Products' False Ad
------------------------------------------------------
TAMMY DEVANE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. L'OREAL USA, INC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-04362 (S.D. N.Y., May 14, 2019) is a nationwide class
action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of herself and other similar
situated consumers who purchased L'Oreal Paris EverSleek Sulfate
Free Keratin Caring Shampoo or L'Oreal Paris EverSleek Sulfate Free
Keratin Caring Conditioner (collectively, the "Products") for
personal or household use and not for resale.

Defendant manufactures, advertises, markets, distributes and sells
EverSleek KeratinCaring Products. Plaintiff purchased the
Defendants Product at Walgreens and at Walmart.

According to the complaint, through an extensive, uniform,
nationwide advertising and marketing campaign, Defendant mislead
the consumer that their Products contained keratin for chemically
processed hair. In reality, the EverSleek KeratinCaring Products do
not contain any keratin at all and are incapable of providing the
claimed benefits of keratin to the consumer.

The EverSleek Keratin Caring Products' labels are false, deceptive
and misleading, in violation of the Federal Food Drug & Cosmetics
Act and its parallel state statutes, and every state warranty,
consumer protection, and product labeling law throughout the United
States, says the complaint.

As a result of Defendant's misconduct and misrepresentations,
Plaintiff and putative Class Members have suffered injury in fact,
including economic damages, adds the complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Taylor Bartlett, Esq.
     HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
     5 Penn Plaza, 23rd Floor
     New York, NY 10001
     Phone: 800-241-9779
     Fax: 205-380-8085
     Email: taylor@hgdlawfirm.com

          - and -

     Caroline Hollingsworth, Esq.
     HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
     2224 First Ave. North
     Birmingham, AL 35203
     Phone: 800-241-9779
     Fax: 205-380-8071
     Email: caroline@hgdlawfirm.com


LANNETT CO: Robbins Arroyo Files Suit Over Price Fixing
-------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP announces that
Lannett Company (LCI) may face damages caused by a pending
securities lawsuit action lawsuit. Lannett develops, manufactures,
packages, markets, and distributes generic versions of brand
pharmaceutical products in the United States.

Investors filed a class action complaint against Lannett for
alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, since 2013, Lannett's business strategy
has been to collusively enter into industry-wide anti-competitive
agreements with other generic drug manufacturers. Extensive
regulatory investigations revealed that Lannett was involved in an
industry-wide conspiracy to fix prices and allocate territories for
the sale of at least 18 different generic medications.
Nevertheless, Lannett insiders misled investors by stating that
price increases were the result of legitimate and competitive
market forces contrary to their knowledge that the market was being
driven by antitrust violations. The complaint further alleges that
Lannett insiders misrepresented the scope of their investigations
into potential antitrust violations and the likelihood that Lannett
would be implicated in the broader price-fixing procecutions.
Capitalizing on Lannett's artificially inflated stock prices,
certain executives made nearly $10 million in insider sales.  As a
result of its price-fixing, Lannett is now defending itself against
regulatory inquiries and investigations and private lawsuits
alleging securities fraud, consumer deception, and violations of
state and federal antitrust laws. On May 15, 2019, U.S. District
Court Judge Wendy Beetlestone denied Lannett's motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' complaint, paving the way for litigation to proceed.

Contact:

         Leo Kandinov, Esq.
         Robbins Arroyo LLP
         5040 Shoreham Place
         San Diego, CA 92122
         Phone: (619) 525-3990
         Toll Free: (800) 350-6003
         Website: www.robbinsarroyo.com
         Email: LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com [GN]


LENDLEASE: Faces Class Action Over November Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Danckert, writing for Sydney Morning Herald, reports that the
construction and engineering giant building the delayed NorthConnex
project in Sydney has been hit with a class action from investors
over its November share price plunge, caused in part by it
revealing it was behind schedule on the multibillion-dollar road
development.

Maurice Blackburn on April 18 filed an open class action in the New
South Wales Supreme Court against Lendlease.

The class action will cover all shareholders who bought shares in
the group between November 2017 and Lendlease's shock November 2018
announcement regarding issues in its engineering department.

The class action alleges Lendlease breached the Corporations Act by
failing to properly inform the market of serious issues in its
engineering and services business, leading to a loss of shareholder
value.

Lendlease took the market by surprise when it announced on November
9 that it had discovered underperformance within its engineering
arm and would book a $350 million write-down on the value of its
projects in the division.

Lendlease' shares tumbled on the day of the write-down announcement
to $14.25 after closing strongly on November 8 at $17.45. The share
fall wiped billions from the company's market capitalisation over a
period of five trading days.

At its half-year results in February, Lendlease announced an
additional pre-tax provision of between $450 million and $550
million for the restructuring of its engineering business including
costs to close out contracts with customers. It also said the
division was no longer a part of group strategy.

Lendlease told the market at the time that its engineering and
services business had been hit by wet weather, a slowdown in work
on Sydney's NorthConnex, and some other project problems.

Lendlease is also the main contractor on Melbourne's flagship
infrastructure project -- the Melbourne Metro Tunnel Project.

The NorthConnex project is expected to be delivered six months
after schedule. The tunnel is due for completion in 2020.

Maurice Blackburn alleges Lendlease had assured shareholders at its
November 2017 annual general meeting that its engineering
department was functioning as expected.

Rebecca Gilsenan, class action principal lawyer at Maurice
Blackburn, said the market had been led to think Lendlease had its
business under control.

"Frankly, it is hard to believe that a company with the experience
and sophistication of Lendlease wouldn't have been aware earlier of
such significant financial problems within its business," Ms
Gilsenan said.

"But if Lendlease didn't know sooner, that is an even bigger
problem as it would highlight to shareholders serious inadequacies
of Lendlease's internal systems to properly manage a complex
business," she said.

Maurice Blackburn alleges that between November 2017 and February
2018 Lendlease told investors through its annual general meeting
and results that there would be an improved performance in the
engineering business moving forward.

The law firm alleges Lendlease engaged in misleading and deceptive
conduct towards its investors by failing to disclose information
that there likely was a material risk in its financial performance
and the results would be negatively affected by its engineering
business.  It also alleges Lendlease did not have reasonable
grounds for making the representations given to the market.

Lendlease acknowledged the filing of the class action in a
statement to the ASX on April 18.  "Lendlease denies any liability
and will vigorously defend the proceeding," it said in the
statement.

Lendlease shares closed up 0.7 per cent to $12.80 on April 18.
[GN]


LENOVO US: Settlement in Adware Litigation Has Final Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, Oakland Division, issued a Judgment granting Final
Approval of Settlement Agreement in the case captioned IN RE:
LENOVO ADWARE LITIGATION. This Document Relates to All Cases. Case
No. 15-md-02624-HSG. (N.D. Cal.).

This matter came before the Court for hearing pursuant to the Order
Preliminarily Approving Class Action Settlement and Providing for
Notice on the motion of Plaintiffs for approval of proposed class
action settlements (Settlement) with Defendants Lenovo (United
States) Inc. (Lenovo) and Superfish Inc. (Superfish).  

This Final Judgment also incorporates by reference the April 24,
2019 Order Granting Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement and Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and Service
Awards.
  
Excluded from this Class are Defendants, the officers, directors,
and affiliates of Defendants at all relevant times, members of
their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs,
successors, or assigns, and any entity in which Defendants have or
had a controlling interest.

The Court reaffirms its grant of final approval of the Settlement,
rendered in the Final Approval Order, and finds that it is, in all
respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the best interests
of the Settlement Class.

The Court reaffirms its finding, rendered in the Final Approval
Order, that notice of this Settlement was given to Class Members in
accordance with the Preliminary Approval Order and constituted the
best notice practicable of the proceedings and matters set forth
therein, including the Settlement, to all Persons entitled to such
notice, and that this notice satisfied the requirements of Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and of due process.

The Action is dismissed, with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 6, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y6zrzys7 from Leagle.com.

In re Lenovo Adware Litigation, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan
Krasne Levine --  jkl@pritzkerlevine.com -- Pritzker Levine, LLP.

Sterling International Consulting Group, Plaintiff, represented by
Elizabeth Cheryl Pritzker -- ecp@pritzkerlevine.com -- Pritzker
Levine LLP & Jonathan Krasne Levine, Pritzker Levine, LLP.

David Hunter, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Harris Richman --
brichman@edelson.com -Edelson PC, Jay Edelson --
jedelson@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, Rafey Sarkis Balabanian --
rbalabanian@edelson.com -- Edelson PC & Samuel Lasser  --
samlasser@hotmail.com -- Law Office of Samuel Lasser.

Lenovo Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel James Stephenson --
dan.stephenson@klgates.com -- K&L Gates, Amanda G. Ray, Womble
Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, Betsy Cook Lanzen, Womble Carlyle
Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, P.O. Box 831. Raleigh, NC 27602, Christina
Noel Goodrich -- christina.goodrich@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP,
Hayden J. Silver, III, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, P.O.
Box 831. Raleigh, NC 27602, Matthew N. Lowe --
matthew.lowe@klgates.com -- KL Gates LLP, pro hac vice, Raymond M.
Bennett, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, P.O. Box 831.
Raleigh, NC 27602 & Rebecca Liu -- rebecca.liu@klgates.com -- KL
Gates LLP.

Superfish, Inc., defendant STAYED re Order, Defendant, represented
by Rodger R. Cole -- rcole@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West LLP &
Tyler Griffin Newby -- tnewby@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West LLP.


LEVEL 3: Court Dismisses J. Amedee's Suit
-----------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado
issued an Order dismissing the case captioned JAMES AMEDEE, On
Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v.
LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, INC., JEFF K. STOREY, JAMES O. ELLIS, JR.,
KEVIN P. CHILTON, STEVEN T. CLONTZ, IRENE M. ESTEVES, T. MICHAEL
GLENN, SPENCER B. HAYS, MICHAEL J. MAHONEY, KEVIN W. MOONEY, PETER
SEAH LIM HUAT, and PETER VAN OPPEN, Defendants. Civil Action No.
17-cv-00155-RM-STV (D. Colo.) as moot.

Is Plaintiff's complaint only partially mooted? No.

In a nutshell, the Plaintiff alleges the Supplemental Disclosures
which the Plaintiff found sufficient and approved before and after
they were issued were in fact insufficient as there were allegedly
matters raised in the Complaint which should have been disclosed
but were not disclosed prior to the merger. This is so, the
Plaintiff asserts, even after extensive negotiations and ample
discovery by counsel with extensive experience and expertise in
shareholder class action litigation who was aided by a financial
expert.

This is so, the Plaintiff asserts, even though the Plaintiff
represented to the Court "Plaintiff and his counsel have concluded
that the Supplemental Disclosures provided Level 3 shareholders
with information sufficient to make a fully informed decision on
the Merger.  But, lest Plaintiff forget, his complaint was based on
allegations that the Proxy misrepresents and/or omits material
information that is necessary for the Company's stockholders to
make an informed voting decision on the Proposed Transaction.

Even if moot, dismissal is not warranted? No.

The Plaintiff argues that even if the complaint is now moot, this
case should not be dismissed. The Plaintiff contends class action
lawsuits are different and this action is not moot merely because
the relief sought has been obtained; instead, he asserts, a
flexible approach to mootness is required. The Plaintiff relies
primarily on Clark v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 590 F.3d 1134
(10th Cir. 2009).

Such reliance is misplaced.

In Clark, the district court determined that because Clark no
longer had any claim against State Farm, and no class had yet been
certified, the entire case was moot. The Tenth Circuit affirmed.
Such is the situation here for the Plaintiff in this case. The
flexible character of the mootness doctrine discussed in Clark
confirms rather than disproves the same result should be reached
here.

Under Clark, as a general rule, a suit brought as a class action
must be dismissed for mootness when the personal claims of the
named plaintiffs are satisfied and no class has been properly
certified.

Three other situations may allow a class to be certified despite
the mooting of the Plaintiff's claim prior to a certification
decision: (1) when the plaintiff's claim is capable of repetition,
yet evading review (2) when the plaintiff's claim is inherently
transitory such that the trial court will not have even enough time
to rule on a motion for class certification before the proposed
representative's individual interest expires and (3) when the
defendant makes a full offer of judgement thereby mooting the named
plaintiff's claims at so early a point in the litigation that the
named plaintiff could not have been expected to file a class
certification motion.

The Plaintiff also cites to a number of decisions within and
without this District, none of which are controlling. To the extent
the holding of any of these decisions would be that, under the
facts and circumstances here, this case is not moot, the Court
respectfully disagrees.  

Should this case be dismissed? Yes.

This is not a case where just the personal claims of the named
plaintiff are satisfied, and no class has been properly certified.
Instead, in light of claims made and the Supplemental Disclosures,
the claims of all putative class members whom Plaintiff seeks to
represent here are also satisfied.

Accordingly, the order to show cause is made absolute.  This entire
action is dismissed without prejudice as moot.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 6, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y6byxf35 from Leagle.com.

James Amedee, On Behafl of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Adam Acocelli --
racocelli@weisslawllp.com -- WeissLaw LLP.

Level 3 Communications, Inc., Jeff K. Storey, James O. Ellis, Jr.,
Kevin P. Chilton, Steven P. Clontz, Irene M. Esteves, T. Michael
Glenn, Spencer B. Hays, Michael J. Mahoney, Kevin W. Mooney, Peter
Seah Lim Huat & Peter Van Oppen, Defendants, represented by Sameer
Nitanand Advani -- sadvani@willkie.com -- Willkie Farr & Gallagher
& Tariq Mundiya -- tmundiya@willkie.com -- Willkie Farr &
Gallagher.

Dean Houser, Objector, represented by Francis A. Bottini, Jr. --
fbottini@bottinilaw.com -- Bottini & Bottini, Inc.


LONGFIN CORP: Skadden Arps Discusses SCOTUS Ruling Interpretation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Drylewski, Esq. -- alexander.drylewski@skadden.com -- Jay
Kasner, Esq. -- jay.kasner@skadden.com -- Peter Morrison, Esq. --
peter.morrison@skadden.com -- and Scott Musoff, Esq., of Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report
that in one of the first decisions to interpret and apply the U.S.
Supreme Court's recent decision in Lorenzo v. Securities and
Exchange Commission, on April 11, 2019, the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York in In re Longfin Corp. Securities
Class Action Litigation, 18-cv-2933(DLC), 2019 WL 1569792 (S.D.N.Y.
Apr. 11, 2019), denied a motion to dismiss a claim that an
underwriter defendant violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by participating in an allegedly fraudulent
scheme.

The complaint alleged that the defendants violated the securities
laws by failing to disclose that Longfin's shares did not meet the
registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933. The
underwriter (Network 1) moved to dismiss the Exchange Act claim on
the ground that the complaint failed to allege that Network 1 was
the maker of a false statement. Relying on the Supreme Court's
recent Lorenzo decision, the court concluded that Network 1 may be
liable "regardless of whether it 'made' any misrepresentations or
omissions." The court held that allegations that Network 1
"facilitated" Longfin's offering and listing on NASDAQ, despite
knowing that its shares were not validly issued, were adequate to
state a claim that it "participated in a scheme cognizable under
Rule 10b-5." The court further explained that "if Network 1 played
a significant role in getting Longfin listed on NASDAQ when it knew
that a significant number of shares were not validly issued . . .
then it violated Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5."

The Longfin decision illustrates the ways in which Lorenzo could be
applied to broaden potential liability under Section 10(b) beyond
what Janus may have permitted. [GN]

The case is IN RE LONGFIN CORP. SECURITIES CLASS ACTION LITIGATION,
No. 18cv2933 (DLC)(S.D.N.Y.).

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

Mohammad A Malik, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Donald J. Enright,
Levi & Korsinsky LLP & Christopher James Kupka, Levi & Korsinsky,
LLP.

Karthik Reddy, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Rhiana Lauren Swartz, Scott +
Scott, L.L.P. & Thomas Livezey Laughlin, IV, Scott Scott, L.L.P.

Loong Chee Min, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Lesley Frank Portnoy, Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP.

Robert E. Miller, Plaintiff, pro se.

Chen Wei, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman,
Pomerantz LLP & Joseph Alexander Hood, II, Pomerantz LLP.

Frank J. Fish, Movant, represented by Lesley Frank Portnoy, Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP, Daniella Quitt, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP,
Robert I. Harwood, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Robert Vincent
Prongay, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

LongFin Corp., Defendant, pro se.

Venkat S. Meenavalli, Defendant, pro se.

Vivek Kumar Ratakonda, Defendant, pro se.

Andy Altahawi, Defendant, represented by Robert Gerard Heim, Meyers
& Heim LLP.

Network 1 Financial Securities, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Peter George Siachos, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani.


LVNV FUNDING: Mendelovits Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nechume Mendelovits, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LVNV FUNDING, LLC; RESURGENT
CAPITAL SERVICES, LP; DYNAMIC RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC; AND JOHN AND
JANE DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 7:19-cv-03380-NSR (S.D.N.Y.,
April 16, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt. Judge Nelson Stephen
Roman.

LVNV Funding LLC purchases portfolios of both domestic and
international consumer debt. The Company invests in consumer debt
which is owned by credit grantors including banks, financial
companies, and other debt buyers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abraham Kleinman, Esq.
          KLEINMAN LLC
          626 RexCorp Plaza
          Uniondale, NY 11556-0626
          Telephone: (516) 522-2621
          Facsimile: (888) 522-1692
          E-mail: akleinman@kleinmanllc.com


LYFT INC: Block & Leviton Files Securities Fraud Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP (www.blockesq.com), a Boston-based securities
litigation firm representing investors nationwide, has filed a
securities fraud class action against Lyft, Inc. (NASDAQ: LYFT),
certain of its officers and directors, and underwriters of its
recent initial public offering, alleging violations of the
Securities Act of 1933.

The lawsuit alleges that Defendants made false and misleading
statements in Lyft's registration statement and prospectus issued
in connection with the company's March 29, 2019 initial public
offering. The alleged misstatements involve Lyft's claims about its
domestic market share, failure to disclose issues surrounding the
safety of the company's bike sharing program, and labor issues.

If you purchased Lyft shares pursuant and/or traceable to Lyft's
registration statement and prospectus and want to become involved
in the litigation or have questions about your legal rights, you
are encouraged to contact Dan DeMaria at (617) 398-5660, by email
at dan@blockesq.com, or by visiting https://shareholder.law/lyft.
As a member of the class, you may seek to file a motion to serve as
a lead plaintiff or take no action and remain an absent class
member. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the
Court no later than July 16, 2019.

The complaint in this case was filed in the United States District
Court, Northern District of California, and is captioned Matias
Malig, as Trustee for the Malig Family Trust v. Lyft, Inc. et al.,
No. 3:19-cv-02690. A judge has not yet been assigned to the case.

Contact:

         Dan DeMaria, Esq.
         BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
         260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
         Boston, MA 02110
         Phone: (617) 398-5660
         Email: dan@blockesq.com [GN]


LYFT INC: McCloskey Sues over False Statements in IPO Documents
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Lyft, Inc. et al
for violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1933. The case
is captioned MARY MCCLOSKEY, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. L YFT, INC.; LOGAN GREEN;
JOHN ZIMMER; RAN MAKA VY; JON MCNEILL; BRIAN ROBERTS; KRISTIN
SVERCHEK; PRASHANT (SEAN) AGGARWAL; BEN HOROWITZ; VALERIE JARRETT;
DAVID LA WEE; HIROSHI MIKIT ANI; ANN MIURAKO; MARY AGNES (MAGGIE)
WILDEROTTER; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES
(USA) LLC; JEFFERIES LLC; UBS SECURITIES LLC; STIFEL, NICOLAUS &
COMPANY, IN CORPORA TED; RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC; KEYBANC CAPITAL
MARKETS INC.; COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC; RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES,
INC.; CANACCORD GENUITY LLC; EVERCORE GROUP L.L.C.; PIPER JAFFRA Y
& CO.; JMP SECURITIES LLC; WELLS FARGO SECURITIES, LLC; KKR CAPITAL
MARKETS LLC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. CGC-19-575475 (Cal. Super., April 24, 2019).

Plaintiff Mary McCloskey brings this securities class action on
behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or acquired shares
of Lyft, Inc. pursuant or traceable to the Lyft's Registration
Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Lyft's March
29, 2019 initial public offering.  McCloskey alleges that Lyft's
Offering Documents contained materially incorrect or misleading
statements and/or omitted material information that was required to
be disclosed.

Unbeknownst to investors, however, the Registration Statement's
representations were materially false and misleading because they
failed to disclose, inter alia, that: (1) more than 1,000 of the
bicycles in Lyft's rideshare program suffered from safety issues
that would lead to their recall; and (2) Lyft's claimed ridesharing
market share and position were overstated. Accordingly, the price
of the Lyft's shares was artificially and materially inflated at
the time of the IPO.

Lyft is a ride-hailing company headquartered in San Francisco at
185 Berry Street, #5000, San Francisco, CA 94107. Lyft conducts
business in the United States and in parts of Canada. Lyft's stock
is traded on the NASDAQ market under the ticker symbol LYFT. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
     AlbertY. Chang, Esq.
     Yury Kolesnikov, Esq.
     BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
     7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
     La Jolla, CA 92037
     Telephone: (858) 914-2001
     Facsimile: (858) 914-2002
     E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com
             achang@bottinilaw .com
             ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com


LYFT: Faces Two Investor Class Actions Over IPO
-----------------------------------------------
Kay Franklin, writing for Mail Herald, reports that the
ride-hailing company's share price has dropped from $78 to $58
since its IPO kicked off.

When Lyft went public in March, its first day of trading was
strong, with its share price closing at $78.29. That's $6.29 higher
than its preopen share price of $72.

Then things took a turn. By day two, the ride-hailing company's
share price fell to $69.01. It's been on a downhill slide ever
since. As of Thursday's close, Lyft's share price was $58.36.

On April 17, investors filed two separate proposed class action
lawsuits against Lyft, according to Bloomberg. They allege the
company misrepresented its market position when it went public
saying it dominated 39% of the ride-hailing market when it might
actually be less. The cases were filed in San Francisco's state
court where Lyft is headquartered.

Lyft was the first tech unicorn to go public in 2019, a year that's
predicted to be full of Silicon Valley initial public offerings.
Lyft rival Uber publicly filed with the US Securities and Exchange
Commission for what could be the largest IPO in US history. In the
days following Uber's filing, Lyft's stock dipped dramatically to
an all-time low of $56.11 on April 22.

A Lyft spokeswoman declined to comment on the lawsuits.

Why have the Lyft stocks plummeted and why is it important?
The price of Lyft shares at the initial public offering was $72.
Currently, the stock is trading below the $60 mark. Several things
made the price go down. The major negative factor was that the
company's main rival Uber Technologies Inc. also filed for IPO. In
addition, investors have recently sued Lyft claiming that it
overstated its market position.

Why it matters for investors in Lyft
There are 2 separate class-action complaints against Lyft, as well
as its officers and directors and underwriters. According to
investors, the firm exaggerated when it said that its US market
share was 39% and didn't inform that it was about to recall more
than a 1,000 of the bikes in its rideshare program.

Wall Street analysts keep worsening their forecasts for Lyft. The
biggest problem is uncertainty: the company is unprofitable and
because of the rigorous competition with Uber, it's difficult to
predict how much it will cost to acquire new customers and retain
the existing ones as well as drivers in the future. Lyft had a net
loss of $911 million in 2018, a 210% increase from the figure of
2017. The rising insurance costs represent a major issue as they
comprised 27% of the company's revenue last year.

The ridesharing market is growing fast and has immense potential.
On the one hand, this is good. However, it may also attract other
players as well, and for now, it's questionable whether Lyft will
manage to stay in the second place after Uber.

Why it matters to traders
Although the price of Lyft's stock has significantly fallen, it
doesn't seem wise to try to catch falling knives: given the
company's situation, going long is risky. [GN]


LYNDON SOUTHERN: Camerman Suit Asserts TCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
HALE CAMERMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. LYNDON SOUTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY a Florida
corporation, CARGUARDIAN WARRANTY LLC d/b/a CARGUARDIAN, a
California corporation, and OMEGA AUTO CARE, a Missouri
corporation, Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-61215-XXXX (S.D. Fla.,
May 14, 2019) is a putative class action under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), arising from Defendants' knowing
and willful violations of the TCPA.

At issue in this case are marketing calls sent for the purpose of
selling Defendant Lyndon Insurance's vehicle service insurance
policies. The Defendants caused thousands of unsolicited calls to
be placed to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and Class
Members, causing them injuries, including invasion of their
privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass,
and conversion, says the complaint.

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

Lyndon Insurance is a nationwide provider of automotive warranty
underwriting services to various warranty administrators, including
Defendants CarGuardian and Omega Auto.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

     Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
     EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC
     425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: 954-524-2820
     Email: seth@pathtojustice.com


MANAGE TRANSIT: Hobson Sues to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Hobson, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. Manage Transit
Corp., and Julissa Curcio, individually, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-02695 (E.D. N.Y., May 7, 2019), seeks to recover overtime and
spread-of-hours pay under the the Fair Labor Standards Act and New
York Labor Law.

Defendants operate a bus transportation company in Brooklyn where
Hobson worked as a bus matron from November 10, 2017 through
January 26, 2018. She claims to be denied overtime pay for hours
rendered in excess of 40 per work week.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq.
     Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
     Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
     BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
     655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821
     New York, NY 10017
     Tel. (212) 679-5000
     Fax. (212) 679-5005


MAXIMUS INC: Elizondo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Pamela Elizondo, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MAXIMUS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00076 (S.D. Tex., May 14, 2019) is action brought
individually by Plaintiff and on behalf of all current and former
hourly call-center employees who worked for Defendant to recover
compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
("FLSA"), and Texas common law.

Although Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members have routinely
worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, Plaintiff and the
Putative Class Members have not been paid overtime of at least one
and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked, asserts the
complaint.

Plaintiff Elizondo was employed by MAXIMUS in customer service in
Brownsville, Texas from approximately August 2016 until February
2017.

MAXIMUS is a multinational services company with its United States
headquarters located in Reston, Virginia and with locations across
the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Saudi Arabia, and
Australia.[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
     Phone: (361) 452-1279
     Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
     Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
            austin@a2xlaw.com
            lauren@a2xlaw.com
            cgordon@a2xlaw.com
            carter@a2xlaw.com


MERCURY GENERAL: MAO-MS0 Sues Over Unpaid Medical Expenses
----------------------------------------------------------
MAO-MS0 RECOVERY II, LLC, a Delaware entity; MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, a
Florida entity; MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, a Delaware entity,
Plaintiffs, v. MERCURY GENERAL, a California company, its
subsidiaries and affiliates, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-mc-91176-ADB
(C.D. N.Y., May 1, 2019) seeks reimbursement for those
accident-related medical expenses paid for by the Plaintiffs'
assignors and all other MAOs that should have been paid, in the
first instance, by Defendant under the Medicare Secondary Payer
provisions.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant failed to fulfill its
statutorily-mandated duty to reimburse Medicare Advantage
Organizations ("MAOs") for medical expenses arising out of the use,
maintenance or operation of an automobile.

Under Medicare Secondary Payer provisions of the Medicare Act, MAOs
are, by law, secondary payers for any medical expenses that are
also covered by the terms and provisions of an insurance policy.
This means Medicare always pays secondary to a primary payer. If
another source is responsible for payment of a medical claim(s),
i.e., an insurance policy, that source is required to pay for those
medical claim(s) up to the policy limit before Medicare is required
to pay.  And, if Medicare does pay first, by law, those payments
are considered "conditional" and the primary payer is required to
reimburse the Medicare coverage provider.

The Defendant offers automobile insurance policies that contain
no-fault' and/or medical payments ("Med Pay") coverage for any
automobile accident-related medical expenses. The policies provide
primary coverage for medical bills incurred as a result of an
automobile accident. Plaintiffs' and the putative class members
("Class Members") paid Medicare benefits on behalf of the
Medicare-eligible beneficiaries enrolled under the Medicare
Advantage program. These Medicare beneficiaries were simultaneously
covered by no-fault insurance policies issued by Defendant, which
made Defendant the primary payer for the medical bills, services.
MAOs and/or parties who were financially responsible as a result of
agreement with the MAOs paid or otherwise incurred losses for the
medical items or treatment even though Defendant was responsible
for paying those expenses, says the complaint.

Plaintiff MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC is a Delaware entity.

Mercury General is a California company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     R. Brent Wisner, Esq.
     Michael L. Baum, Esq.
     Pedram Esfandiary, Esq.
     BAUM HEDLUND ARISTEI & GOLDMAN, P.C.
     12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950
     Los Angeles, CA 90025
     Phone: (310) 207-3233
     Fax: (310) 820-7444
     Email: rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com
            mbaum@baumhedlundlaw.com
            pesfandiary@baumhedfundlaw.com

          - and -

     Christopher L. Coffin, Esq.
     Tracy L. Turner, Esq.
     Courtney L. Stidham, Esq.
     PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP
     1515 Poydras Street, Suite 1400
     New Orleans, LA 70112
     Phone: (504) 355-0086
     Email: ccoffm@pbclawfirm.com
            tturner@pbclawfirm.com
            cstidham@pbclawfirm.com


METAGENICS INC: Settlement in Grivas Suit Has Final Court Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Southern Division, issued an Order granting Plaintiff
William Grivas for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement in the
case captioned  WILLIAM GRIVAS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. METAGENICS, INC.,
Defendant. Case No. SACV 15-01838-CJC-DFM. (C.D. Cal.).

The unopposed motion brought by Plaintiff William Grivas for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement came on for hearing.  

The Court finds that the requirements of Rule 23(e) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and other laws and rules applicable to
final settlement approval of class actions have been satisfied, and
the Court approves the settlement of this Action as memorialized in
the Settlement Agreement, which is incorporated herein by
reference, as being fair, just, reasonable, adequate, in the best
interests of the Class and its members, and the full and final
resolution of the Class's claims.

The Plan Administrator is directed to implement and carry out the
Settlement Agreement in accordance with the terms and provisions
thereof, including the settlement and distribution plan, as
described in Section III and elsewhere in the Settlement
Agreement.

Class Counsel and the Class Representative fairly and adequately
represented the interests of the Class members. The Court finds
that Class Counsel's request for $325,000 in attorneys' fees and
litigation costs, which represents 25% of the total recovery, is
fair and reasonable, given the high level of risk involved, the
result achieved, the high quality of the legal representation, the
duration of this case, the novelty of their claim, and the
complexity of the issues in this Court and the Court of Appeals. In
addition, this Court has cross-checked the fee award against Class
Counsel's combined lodestar and finds that the fee award represents
a fee reduction in their lodestar, or a negative multiplier,
further speaking to the reasonableness of the request.

Accordingly, Class Counsel is hereby awarded $325,000 for fees and
costs.

The Court further finds the requested service award is fair and
reasonable, given the time and effort expended by the Class
Representative on behalf of the Class, and the risk they incurred
in pursuing relief on behalf of the Class. The Court awards a
$5,000 service award to Plaintiff William Grivas. This award shall
be distributed by Defendant at the same time as the attorneys' fees
and costs.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 6, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y57es8lm from Leagle.com.

William L Grivas, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alex Tomasevic --
atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org -Nicholas and Tomasevic LLP, Kirk B.
Hulett -- kbh@hulettharper.com -- Hulett Harper Stewart LLP,
Michael T. McColloch, McColloch Law, Firm 5740 Fleet Street, Suite
140, Carlsbad, CA 92008 & Craig M. Nicholas --
cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org -- Nicholas and Tomasevic LLP.

Metagenics, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alexandra Eve Laks --
alaks@mofo.com -- Morrison and Foerster LLP, Claire Celeste Bonelli
-- cbonelli@mofo.com -- Morrison and Foerster LLP & Claudia Maria
Vetesi -- cvetesi@mofo.com -- Morrison and Foerster LLP.


METROPOLITAN LEARNING: Heras Sues Over Missed Breaks, Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Heras, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Metropolitan Learning Institute, Inc. and Boris
Davidoff, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-02694 (E.D. N.Y., May 7,
2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, spread-of-hours
wages, earned wages and overtime compensation together with
liquidated damages, compensatory damages, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Metropolitan Learning Institute, Inc. is a private, non-profit
pedagogical organization with campuses located in Rego Park,
Jackson Heights and Brooklyn, New York, where Heras worked as a
recruiter. She usually worked from 9am to 6pm without a meal break
and never received wage statements, asserts the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
      225 Broadway, Suite 307
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 323-6980
      Facsimile: (212) 233-9238
      Email: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com


MINI MART: Garcia Seeks Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
--------------------------------------------------
Crystal Garcia, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. Mini Mart, Inc. EG (Retail) America, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. No. 19-cv-01322, (D. Colo., May 7, 2019) seeks
to recover overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938, the Colorado Wage Claim Act and the Colorado Minimum Wage
Act.

Defendants operate as "Loaf 'n Jug," a retail store chain with
locations in Colorado, Wyoming, N. Dakota, S. Dakota, Montana,
Nebraska and New Mexico.

Garcia claims to have rendered off-the-clock work before her shift
started and was not paid the appropriate overtime. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian D. Gonzales, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC
      2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201
      Fort Collins, CO 80528
      Telephone: (970) 214-0562
      Email: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com

             - and -

      Marc S. Hepworth, Esq.
      Charles Gershbaum, Esq.
      David A. Roth, Esq.
      Rebecca S. Predovan, Esq.
      HEPWORTH, GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC
      192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545~1199
      Facsimile: (212) 532-3801
      E-mail: mhepworth@hgrlawyers.com
              cgershbaum@hgrlawyers.com
              droth@hgrlawyers.com
              rpredovan@hgrlawyers.com


MIRAGE 1245 LTD: Cashiola et al. Seek Overtime, Minimum Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
Mirage 1245 Ltd et al for violations of the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act (OMWA). The case is captioned MOLLY CASHIOLA, ANDREA
BROCK, and MORGAN PERKINS-PAYNE, On Behalf of Themselves and All
Other Similarly Situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. MIRAGE 1245
LTD D/B/A CLUB 1245 and SKIPPER 1339, LLC d/b/a JEN'S DEN, and
CYRUS B. KURTZ, III, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00923 (N.D. Ohio,
April 24, 2019).

Plaintiffs complain that Defendants and/or their predecessor
entities, doing business as Club 1245 and/or Jen's Den,
misclassified Plaintiffs and all other members of the class and
collective as independent contractors when they should have been
classified as employees. As a result, Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiffs and all other members of the class and collective
minimum wage compensation they were entitled to under the FLSA and
OMWA.

Mirage 1245 Ltd is limited liability business entity formed in the
state of Ohio. It operates the gentlemen's clubs, Club 1245, which
feature female exotic dancers in Akron, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
     ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
     8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
     Silver Spring, MD 20910
     Telephone: (301) 587-9373
     E-mail: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com


MOMO INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Momo Inc. (NASDAQ: MOMO) and certain of its officers.  The
class action, filed in United States District Court, for the
Southern District of New York, and indexed under 19-cv-04433, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Momo securities between April 21,
2015 and April 29, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company
and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Momo securities during the
class period, you have until July 15, 2019, to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby atrswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Momo operates a mobile-based social and entertainment platform in
the PRC. The Company operates the Momo platform that includes its
Momo mobile application (or "app") and various related features,
functionalities, tools, and services to users, customers, and
platform partners.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, 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.

On June 27, 2018, Spruce Point Capital Management LLC ("Spruce
Point") issued a short seller report on Momo, recommending a
"strong sell" opinion on the Company's shares citing, inter alia,
possible compliance issues under PRC regulation (the "Spruce Point
Report"). According to several agencies cited throughout the Spruce
Point Report, Momo had a reputation for being a "sex cam"
service-i.e., Momo users were using Momo's services for illicit
sexual content. The Spruce Point Report highlighted how these
services put Momo at an increased risk of violating the Ministry of
Commerce's ("MOC") and the State Administration of Radio, Film and
TV's ("SARFT") new regulations limiting the behavior of live
streamers and raising accountability for platforms. The Spruce
Point report also alleged various illicit financial reporting
activity by Momo.

Following the publication of the Spruce Point Report, Momo's
American depositary receipt ("ADR") price fell $2.48 per share, or
5.47%, to close at $42.86 per share on June 27, 2018.

On June 28, 2018, Momo issued a press release, appended as an
exhibit to Momo's report on Form 6-K with the SEC, denying the
allegations in the Spruce Point Report.

Despite its public denial, the Company's inadequate compliance
procedures and controls came to a head on April 29, 2019, when Momo
issued a press release disclosing that the Tantan social and dating
mobile app had been removed from certain mobile app stores at the
direction of Chinese authorities (the "April 2019 Press Release").

On this news, Momo's ADR price fell $2.51 per share, or 6.81%, to
close at $34.36 per share on April 29, 2019.

Contact:

         Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
         Pomerantz LLP
         Phone: 888-476-6529 ext. 9980
         Website: www.pomerantzlaw.com
         Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]


MONITRONICS INT'L: Individual Claimants Survive Major Hurdle
------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Pastore, Esq.-- tpastore@dsllp.com.-- writing for
SecurityInfoWatch, reports that in 2017, security company
Monitronics International Inc., agreed to pay $28 million to settle
a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class-action lawsuit
alleging the company made automated telemarketing calls to phone
numbers listed on the national Do Not Call Registry (DNCR) and to
consumers who had not provided their consent.

The case, known as In re: Monitronics International Inc. Telephone
Consumer Protection Act Litigation, Case No. 1:13-md-02493, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia,
resolved dozens of similar proposed class actions against
Monitronics which were previously consolidated in federal court.

Those eligible for the class action settlement were class members
who, since May 18, 2007, received a telemarketing call from agents
of Monitronics on a residential or cell phone using an automated
telephone dialing system or pre-recorded voice, or two or more
calls within a 12-month period to a residential number listed on
the national DNCR. Typically, when a litigation is settled, all
claims are resolved with finality, releases are exchanged, and the
parties walk away equally happy -- or often, equally unhappy;
However, in a class action, some litigants who would otherwise be
eligible for the class, elect not to join the class. Those
litigants are free to pursue their claims independently of the
class and need not accept the settlement agreed to by the class.

Of course, like most things in life, there are advantages and
disadvantages to opting out of a class action. On the one hand,
individual plaintiffs have more control over the conduct of the
litigation and may be able to yield a greater individual recovery.
On the other hand, individual plaintiffs do not have the leverage
of a class and may endure substantially higher expenses than class
members in the pursuit of the claims.

In the Monitronics case, approximately 30 individuals opted out of
the class.  In April, 2019, the remaining individual plaintiffs
survived a major hurdle -- when the presiding federal judge
declined to release Monitronics from the individual claims. In
particular, the court denied Monitronics' motion for summary
judgment -- finding that significant questions existed as to
whether Monitronics was vicariously liable for the telemarketing
campaign waged by its agents.

Monitronics argued that it was entitled to dismissal because there
was no evidence that it had directed the retailers to place the
calls on its behalf or that it had any control over these
telemarketing activities. The court disagreed -- suggesting that
whether Monitronics was actually aware of and supported the
retailers' conduct was an open question for trial.

"The substantial evidence of Monitronics' control over its dealers'
sales tactics -- including the provision of scripts, leads and
contracts the dealers had to use to sell Monitronics' services, as
well as required pricing structures and extensive sales training --
confirms that the dealers acted as Monitronics' agents, making it a
jury issue whether Monitronics is vicariously liable for their
telemarketing violations," the court concluded.

Breaking Down the Judgment

The two significant factors in the decision were:

   1. The control Monitronics allegedly exercised over its agents;
and

   2. The company's response to the many consumer complaints
between 2009 and 2012 about the telemarketing activities.

Additionally, the court expressed concern that 26.5 million calls
were placed to potential Monitronics customers before Monitronics
hired outside counsel in 2012 to address consumer complaints. "A
jury could find that by ignoring the repeated notice it had of
these violations, Monitronics impliedly authorized the unlawful
calls," the court ruled.

The court also rejected Monitronics argument that it was not a
"seller" under the TCPA. While the agents had the option to keep
the alarm monitoring contracts they were attempting to sell, they
could only do so after offering them to Monitronics. Consequently,
the court found that the agents telemarketing "increased the flow
of consumers" to Monitronics and that the company benefited from
the allegedly illegal telemarketing.

In fairness to Monitronics, the denial of its summary judgment
motion does not mean that it is liable or that the individual
plaintiffs will prevail; in fact, the company may very well have
viable defenses and it should be afforded the opportunity to defend
itself at trial.

Class actions are tricky and so is the TCPA. Individual plaintiffs
can opt out of the class and cause problems for big companies, as
it has with Monitronics.

Additionally, hiring other companies to conduct marketing for your
company is a double-edged sword -- you may benefit from the flow of
new customers, but you also may bear liability for the conduct of
those companies, particularly if you are on notice of improper
conduct and do nothing to address it.

Hiring skilled and responsible counsel at an early stage of any
meaningful consumer complaint -- particularly where the TCPA can be
invoked -- is a critical step and ultimately could result in a
substantial savings to any company at risk of litigation in this
area. [GN]


MONSANTO CO: Accused by Combs Suit of Selling Dangerous Herbicide
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA COMBS v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00995 (E.D. Mo.,
April 25, 2019), arises from the Defendant's alleged negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO CO: Bradley Sues Over Lymphoma From Roundup(R)- Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HARLEY R. BRADLEY and BETTY BRADLEY (h.w), LENA G. BRADSHAW and
ROBERT E. BRADSHAW (h/w), HUGH C. BROWN, MELANIE L. CLAWSON-
ROBERTS and JOHN E. ROBERTS (h/w), MARK CLINKER and B. GAYLE
CLINKER (h/w), MITCHELL B. COOPER and ADRIEN LAVOIE (h/h), MIKE R.
FROST, KENNETH W. JOHNSON and CHRISTINA JOHNSON (h/w), RANDY E. MAY
and DEANNA MAY (h/w), JAMES S. OLSEN and ROBIN OLSEN (h/w), LILLIAN
J. RADANOVICH and behalf of the estate of DANIEL RADANOVICH,
BARBARA SIPICH and DAVID SIPICH (h/w), RONALD W. STEEN and JOAN
STEEN (h/w), CARL B. TANNER and LILLIAN J. TANNER (h/w), and GLENN
YETTER and NICOLE YETTER (h/w) v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No.
4:19-cv-00989 (E.D. Mo., April 25, 2019), arises out of Monsanto's
alleged wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing,
advertising, distribution, labeling, and sale of the herbicide
Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs argue that Roundup(R) is dangerous to human health
and unfit to be marketed and sold in commerce, particularly without
proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with
its use.  The Plaintiffs, who used Roundup(R) extensively, now
suffer from non-Hodgkins Lymphoma and bring this action for the
harm they have incurred.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Chris Schneiders, Esq.
          NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, PLLC
          6731 West 121st Street, Suite 201
          Overland Park, KS 66209
          Telephone: (212) 397-1000
          E-mail: cschnieders@napolilaw.com


MONSANTO CO: Combs Sues for Damages From Use of Roundup(R)
----------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Combs v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-01015 (E.D.
Mo., April 28, 2019), is brought for damages allegedly 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(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.  The
Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective,
dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and
sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to
the dangers associated with its use.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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




MONSANTO CO: Faces Cobb Suit Over Roundup(R)-Related Injuries
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLOTTE COBB, an individual v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No.
3:19-CV-02294-VC (E.D. Mo., April 26, 2019), arises out of
Monsanto's alleged wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing,
advertising, distribution, labeling, and sale of the herbicide
Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

Glyphosate has been found to be carcinogenic, linked to causing
various forms of cancer, and in particular non-Hodgkins Lymphoma,
according to the complaint.  As such, the Plaintiff contends,
Roundup is dangerous to human health and unfit to be marketed and
sold in commerce, particularly without proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use.

The Plaintiff, who used Roundup extensively, suffered from
non-Hodgkins Lymphoma and brings this action for the harm she
incurred, according to the complaint.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin P. Sullivan, Esq.
          Patrick J. Sullivan, Esq.
          SULLIVAN LAW FIRM, LLC
          701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4600
          Seattle, WA 98104-7068
          Telephone: (206) 682-9500
          Facsimile: (206) 260-2060
          E-mail: k.sullivan@sullivanlawfirm.org
                  p.sullivan@sullivanlawfirm.org

               - and -

          Thomas N. Petersen, Esq.
          BLACK, CHAPMAN, PETERSEN & STEVENS
          221 W Stewart Avenue, Suite 209
          Medford, OR 97501-3647
          Telephone: (541) 772-9850
          Facsimile: (541) 779-7430
          E-mail: petersen@blackchapman.com


MONSANTO CO: Ibrom Sues Over Lymphoma Due to Roundup Exposure
-------------------------------------------------------------
LARRY IBROM and LORRAINE IBROM v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No.
4:19-cv-00993 (E.D. Mo., April 25, 2019), is brought for alleged
personal injuries sustained by Plaintiff over exposure to
Roundup(R) containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine.

As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup(R),
Plaintiff Larry Ibrom developed Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma in 2014.
Plaintiff Lorraine Ibrom has a claim for loss of consortium related
to the injuries of her husband.

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MONSANTO CO: Malandrinos Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled ALEXANDER P. MALANDRINOS AND ELENI MALANDRINOS
v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00655 DDN, was transferred on
April 25, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

The California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02200-VC to the proceeding.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MONSANTO CO: Sued by Caldwell for Roundup(R)-Related Damages
------------------------------------------------------------
LINDA CALDWELL and VAUGHN CALDWELL v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No.
4:19-cv-00996 (E.D. Mo., April 25, 2019), is an action for damages
allegedly suffered by the Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate
result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MONSANTO CO: Sued by Dailey Over Roundup(R)-Related Injuries
------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Dailey v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-01014 (E.D.
Mo., April 28, 2019), is brought for damages allegedly 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(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO CO: Thompson Seeks Damages From Roundup(R) Exposure
------------------------------------------------------------
ROGER THOMPSON v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00991 (E.D.
Mo., April 25, 2019), is an action for damages allegedly 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(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Becker Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Becker, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-01057 (E.D. Mo., April 30, 2019), seeks to recover
damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result
of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active
ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Frey Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------
Donald Frey, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-01168-PLC (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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Hix Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
---------------------------------------------------------
Nelma Hix, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case
No. 4:19-cv-01163-SNLJ (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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Lindsley Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
EILEEN LINDSLEY, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-01067 (E.D. Mo., April 30, 2019), seeks to recover
damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result
of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active
ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Longs Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------
LEWIS C. LONG SR. and PATSY LONG, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01068-DDN (E.D. Mo., April
30, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, as
a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
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 Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Taylor Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Taylor, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-01162 (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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Wallace Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lucille Wallace, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-01167 (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

MORGAN STANLEY: Court Approves Briefing Schedule in B. Harvey Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order on Briefing Schedule in  the case
captioned BRANDON HARVEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC,
Defendant. Case No. 3:18-cv-02835. (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Brandon Harvey and Defendant Morgan Stanley Smith Barney
LLC (Harvey Parties) and Plaintiffs in the case of Chen et al. v.
Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC, currently pending in the Orange
County Superior Court of California.

The Harvey Parties and the Chen Plaintiffs have since agreed to a
mutually agreeable alternate briefing schedule for the briefs
related to the Preliminary Approval Motion. Specifically, the
parties request that the Court set the following briefing schedule
for the Preliminary Approval Motion: (1) any opposition to or
amicus brief concerning the Preliminary Approval Motion shall be
filed on or before May 16, 2019; and (2) any reply brief(s) shall
be filed on or before May 29, 2019.

All parties agree that this alternate briefing schedule will
provide sufficient time for the parties to draft their briefs and
prepare for the anticipated June 12, 2019 hearing on the
Preliminary Approval Motion.

Any opposition to or amicus brief concerning the Preliminary
Approval Motion shall be filed on or before May 16, 2019.

Any reply to an opposition or amicus brief concerning the
Preliminary Approval Motion shall be filed on or before May 29,
2019.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 6, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yxud7n5r from Leagle.com.

Brandon Harvey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Edward Joseph Wynne, Wynne Law
Firm, 100 Drakes Landing Road Ste. 275 Greenbrae, CA 94904, David
Samuel Markun – dmarkun@mzclaw.com -- Markun Zusman Freniere &
Compton LLP, George Ryan Nemiroff, Wynne Law Firm, 100 Drakes
Landing RoadSte. 275Greenbrae, CA 94904, James F. Clapp --
jclapp@clapplegal.com -- Clapp & Lauinger LLP, Jeffrey Karl Compton
-- jcompton@mzclaw.com -- Markun Zusman Freniere & Compton LLP &
Marita Murphy Lauinger -- mlauinger@clapplegal.com -- Clapp &
Lauinger LLP.

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC, Defendant, represented by Lynne C.
Hermle -- lchermle@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
LLP, Andrew Ralston Livingston -- alivingston@orrick.com -- Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP & Jinnifer Darlene Pitcher --
jpitcher@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington Sutcliffe.


NABRIVA THERAPEUTICS: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Nabriva
Therapeutics plc (NASDAQ: NBRV) for violations of Sec. 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares between November 1,
2018 and April 30, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before July 8, 2019.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Nabriva's manufacturers were incapable of
maintaining good manufacturing practices. Because these
manufacturers would be subject to inspection as part of the
Company's New Drug Application for CONTEPO with the FDA. The poor
manufacturing practices were likely to hurt the chances of the New
Drug Application to be approved. Based on these facts, the
Company's public statements were false and materially misleading
throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth
about Nabriva, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

Contact:

         Brian Schall, Esq.
         Sherin Mahdavian, Esq.
         The Schall Law Firm
         1880 Century Park East, Suite 404
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Tel: 310-301-3335
         Email: info@schallfirm.com
                brian@schallfirm.com [GN]


NATIONAL STUDENT: Robinson Sues over Credit Background Checks
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL STUDENT CLEARINGHOUSE, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-10749-FDS (D. Mass., April 18, 2019) alleges
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case is assigned
to Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV.

National Student Clearinghouse provides education verification and
student educational outcomes research. It offers assistance to
educational institutions in compliance, back-office management, and
academic support. Additionally, it offers educational reporting,
verification, and research on behalf of its participating
institutions to colleges and high schools, student lending
community, the Department of Education, state educational agencies,
students and alumni, and employers. The company was founded in 1993
and is based in Herndon, Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stuart T. Rossman, Esq.
          NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER
          7 Winthrop Square, 4th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 542-8010
          Facsimile: (617) 542-8028
          E-mail: srossman@nclc.org


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Eslaquits Sue Over Improper Servicing Practice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Selim Eslaquit and Hamdi Eslaquit, on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated individuals Plaintiffs, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE,
LLC, d/b/a MR. COOPER, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00528 (E.D. Va.,
May 1, 2019) complains about Mr. Cooper's improper servicing
practices and challenges Mr. Cooper's failure to honor its
agreement with the Plaintiffs to modify their mortgage even though
the Plaintiffs fulfilled all of Mr. Cooper's requirements to
qualify for the modification.

The complaint states that Mr. Cooper mailed a permanent loan
modification agreement to the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs
complied with all of Mr. Cooper's requirements in signing and
returning the agreement. Despite this, Mr. Cooper refused to honor
the terms of the permanent modification and instead rejected the
agreements for various bogus reasons, including because Mr. Cooper
repeatedly rejected the Plaintiffs' attempts to enroll in Mr.
Cooper's automatic payment program, the complaints discloses.

After Mr. Cooper improperly rejected the permanent loan
modification, it proceeded to take highly adverse and damaging
actions towards the Plaintiffs, including the rejection of their
modified loan payments and the attempted foreclosure of their home,
says the complaint.

Plaintiffs are each a natural person residing in Virginia.

Mr. Cooper is a foreign limited liability company authorized to do
business in the Commonwealth of Virginia through its registered
offices in Richmond, Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
     Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
     Casey S. Nash, Esq.
     KELLY GUZZO, PLC
     3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
     Fairfax, VA 22030
     Phone: (703) 424-7572
     Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
     Email: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
            aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
            casey@kellyguzzo.com


NATURE'S PATH: Louis Sues Over Acai Toaster Pastry Product
----------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Louis, Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Nature's Path Foods USA Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02584 (E.D. N.Y., May 1, 2019) seeks an
order requiring Defendant to refrain from making false
representations on the product, Frosted Wildberry Acai Toaster
Pastry.

The Defendant's Frosted Wildberry Acai Toaster Pastry (the Product)
contains a dark red thick filling, purportedly comprised of wild
berries and more specifically, acai berries. The front label states
the Product name, "Frosted Wildberry Acai Toaster Pastries,"
"Always Organic," "Made with Real Fruit" and "No Artificial Flavors
or Synthetic Colors." The back panel states, "Real Organic
Goodness," "Real Organic Berries". Consumers are induced to
purchase the Products because acai berries are considered a good
source of antioxidants, and are associated with improving cognitive
and bodily health. Consumers value its unique taste, described as
"a rich blackberry or raspberry and a piece of dark chocolate. Most
say the chocolate flavor is more of an aftertaste that hits after
chewing the berry for a few seconds". Due to the amount of labor
needed to produce a bottle of pure acai juice, its price is
typically between $30-$40, depending on quality, and it is
imported, mainly from Brazil. The manual labor and expense of the
Product, and how consumers understand it, allow products promoting
acai berries to be sold higher than similar products without them.

The use of the term "acai" in the Product name and the numerical
superiority of acai berries depicted relative to the other berries
cause a reasonable consumer to expect the Products contain more
acai berries than other identified and named fruit ingredients.
Reasonable consumers expect that in a toaster pastry touting the
presence of acai berries, the fruit inclusion portion will (1) be
appropriate to the product type, (2) contain acai berries in the
same form as the other berries promoted on the Products and (3) be
present in a meaningful amount. A reasonable consumer will expect
that the acai berries will be present in the same form in which the
other fruit components are present. Given that the ingredient list
declares apples, strawberries, blueberries, etc., and uses these
ingredients in their puree form, it is deceptive and misleading
that the acai component is not present in that form as opposed to a
powder.

The Products' representations are misleading because despite the
label claims of acai among the berry mixture they do not contain
this component in the amount, type and/or form which a reasonable
consumer would expect based on the claims, the complaint says.

The Products contain other representations which are misleading and
deceptive, the complaint continues. As a result of the false and
misleading labeling, the Products are sold at a premium price -- no
less than $4.99 per box of six toaster pastries, excluding tax --
compared to other similar products represented in a non-misleading
way, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs purchased one or more Products for personal consumption
with the representations described.

Nature's Path Foods USA Inc. manufactures, processes, distributes,
markets, labels and sells toaster pastries to consumers from third
party retailers, including brick-and-mortar stores and online, and
directly from Defendant's website.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
     Sheehan & Associates, P.C.
     505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311
     Great Neck, NY 11021
     Phone: (516) 303-0552
     Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com


NELNET INC: Fridman Sues Over False & Unauthorized Debt Collection
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Fridman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NELNET, INC., a Nebraska corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-21708-FAM (S.D. Fla., May 1, 2019)
seeks, under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act, to stop Nelnet's practice of
sending false and unauthorized debt collection text messages to
consumers, and to obtain redress for all persons similarly injured
by Nelnet's conduct.

The action challenges Nelnet's practice of sending text messages
demanding payment of student loans to individuals who do not
actually owe any money on student loans serviced by Nelnet.
Nelnet's texts violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA"), because they are unauthorized. Nelnet's texts also
violate the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ("FCCPA"),
because they are a deceiving attempt by Nelnet to collect student
loan debt that it knows is not legitimate and because they give the
appearance of being authorized by the federal government which
contracts with Nelnet to accurately and fairly service federal
student loans.

The complaint asserts that Nelnet's false and unsolicited debt
collection texts caused Plaintiff and putative members of the
Classes to suffer actual harm, including the harassment,
aggravation, nuisance, loss of time, and invasions of privacy that
result from the receipt of such unsolicited and false text
messages, lost value of cellular services paid for, and a loss of
the use and enjoyment of their phones, including wear and tear to
their phones' data, memory, software, hardware, and battery
components, among other harms.

Plaintiff Michael Fridman is a Miami-Dade County resident.

Nelnet is the largest servicer of student loans in the United
States,
servicing more than 40% of all outstanding student loan debt.[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: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
            rachel@kaufmanpa.com


NEW JERSEY: Court Dismisses F. Rodriguez's Suit
-----------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued a Memorandum Opinion dismissing the case with prejudice in
the case captioned FRANK RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. STATE PAROLE
BOARD, Defendant. Civ. No. 19-7858 (FLW) (LHG). (D.N.J).

The Court now screens the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. Swection
1915A.

Plaintiff, Frank Rodriguez is proceeding pro se with this Complaint
asserting violations of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. Section
1983. Rodriguez explains that sometime around 2004 he pleaded
guilty to endangerment of a child and was sentenced to a suspended
prison sentence and parole supervision for life.  He seems to
indicate that he was punished for parole violations in April 2007,
January 2011, and February 2018. The Court infers that his present
incarceration stems from his most recent parole violation.  

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. 104-134, Sections
801-810, 110 Stat. 1321-66 to 1321-77 (Apr. 26, 1996) (PLRA),
district courts must review prisoner complaints when the prisoner
seeks redress against a governmental employee or entity.  

The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state
a claim pursuant to Section 1915A is identical to the legal
standard employed in rule on 12(b)(6) motions. To survive the
Court's screening for failure to state a claim, the complaint must
allege sufficient factual matter to show that the claim is facially
plausible. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.

To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege,
first, the violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws
of the United States, and second, that the alleged deprivation was
committed or caused by a person acting under color of state law.  

Rodriguez names the State Parole Board as the only defendant to
this action. The State Parole Board, however, is not a person
amenable to suit under Section 1983. As such, the Court will
dismiss Rodriguez's claims against the State Parole Board with
prejudice, as that entity is not a proper defendant to a Section
1983 claim.1The Court will, however, permit Rodriguez to file an
amended complaint against a proper defendant within 30 days.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 6, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3wbkp68 from
Leagle.com.

FRANK RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, pro se.


NEW YORK: Court Certifies 2 Classes of Police Technicians
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as CYNTHIA HILL, GAIL WILLIAMS, DENISE INMAN,
VICKIE GORDON, ROLANDO LOPEZ, TAURA PATE, ELLEN ENNIS, and ANDREA
HOLLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, vs. CITY OF NEW YORK, MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG, as
Mayor of the City of New York, RAYMOND KELLY, as Police
Commissioner, RICHARD F. NAPOLITANO, CHARLES F. DOWD, MICHAEL V.
POLITO, LJUBOMIR BELUSIC, DONALD CHURCH, DAVID LICHENSTEIN, LOCAL
1549, DISTRICT COUNCIL 37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, and JOHN and JANE DOES
1–20  (said names being fictitious, the persons intended being
those who aid and abetted the unlawful conduct of the Named
Defendants), the Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-6147-PKC-JO (N.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Pamela K. Chen entered an order amending a previous
class certification ruling and certified the following two
classes:

Section 1981 Rule 23(b)(2) class:

   "all individuals who are currently employed by the City of New
   York as Police Communications Technicians ("PCTs") or Supervisor

   Police Communications Technicians ("SPCTs") in the NYPD
   Communications Section"; and

Section 1981 Rule 23(b)(3) class:

   "all individuals who are currently employed, or have been
   employed within the three years preceding the filing of this
   action on November 6, 2013, by the City of New York as Police
   Communications Technicians ("PCTs") or Supervisor Police
   Communications Technicians ("SPCTs") in the NYPD Communications

   Section."

The Court finds that the relevant superiority factors weigh in
favor of certifying the proposed Rule 23(b)(3) class. The Court is
not aware of any other litigation concerning the controversy at
issue in this action. That this action is over five years old also
suggests that potential class members do not have a strong interest
in pursuing litigation on their own. This is not surprising, the
Court notes, given that the likely monetary relief is not likely to
exceed the costs of pursuing an individual claim (class members
will receive a total of $205 in monetary compensation).
Furthermore, in light of the potential class size of over 1,000
current and former employees, it is clearly desirable to
concentrate the litigation of their claims into a single action.
The Court therefore finds that the superiority requirement of Rule
23(b)(3) is satisfied.

Because the Plaintiffs have satisfied both the predominance and
superiority requirements of FRCP 23(b)(3), the Court certifies a
Rule 23(b)(3) class of current and former employees to seek
monetary relief.

The Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification under
FRCP 23(b)(2) on September 28, 2015. Since this class
certification, the parties have engaged in discovery and extensive
settlement negotiations. On December 21, 2018, the parties
indicated that they had reached a settlement. The Plaintiffs filed
a motion seeking preliminary approval of their class action
settlement and Defendants filed a motion seeking approval of the
notice of proposed settlement and fairness hearing, as required by
Rule 23(e).[CC]

NEW YORK: Seeks to Dismiss Suit Over TPT Program
------------------------------------------------
Stephen Witt & Kelly Mena, writing for Kings County Politics,
report that with millions of dollars of intergenerational black and
brown community wealth on the line, the city argued in federal
court filings that its Third Party Transfer (TPT) program passes
U.S. Constitution muster, and that property owners who have had
their fully paid off properties taken with no compensation should
be denied recourse in their effort to certify a class action
lawsuit.

Under the TPT program -- the subject of an ongoing KCP
investigative series -- the city seizes properties they deem
"distressed," and give them to the public/private non-profit
Neighborhood Restore, who in turn give the property for a nominal
fee to a qualified non-profit or for-profit developer.  The program
was created in the late 1970s, when the city had a large number of
abandoned and neglected buildings.

However, with gentrification, these properties, and others in the
same program, are now worth millions of dollars in market value.
Almost all were completely paid for with no mortgage and located in
traditionally black and brown neighborhoods, which are becoming
increasingly gentrified.

In early March, three of the property owners, McConnell Dorce,
Cecilia Jones and Sherlivia Thomas-Murchinson, filed papers in the
U.S. Southern District of New York Federal District Court alleging
their properties were unconstitutionally confiscated under the in
rem foreclosure process.

Their filing was to seek certification to pursue a class action
lawsuit, which if successful, could cost the city tens of millions
of dollars and the return of dozens of properties.

Their suit was bolstered in late March, when Kings County Supreme
Court Judge Mark Partnow ordered the city to give six Central
Brooklyn property owners their property back, restoring millions of
dollars of intergenerational wealth in the black and Latino
community.

The six properties were among more than 60 that were taken in a
single in rem court foreclosure action in Dec. 2017 and were then
put into the TPT program,  violating constitutional rights under
the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U. S.
Constitution, and article 1, section 7, of the New York State
Constitution.

Partnow also ruled: "The City has particularly targeted properties
that are owned by minorities. The court recognizes that home
ownership is an important means for families to build
intergenerational wealth. While the Third Party Transfer Program
was intended to be a beneficial program, an overly broad and
improper application of it that results in the unfair divestiture
of equity in one's property cannot be permitted."

The city responded to Partnow's ruling with the filing of a notice
of appeal, which gives them six months to file an actual appeal.

But Federal Judge Deborah Batts gave the city mid-May 2019 as a
deadline to respond to the plaintiffs, and the city responded with
a motion to dismiss on two grounds.

Firstly, the city argued that, "This [federal court] lacks subject
matter jurisdiction as the complaint challenges municipal action
that can and should be litigated in state court."

This argument follows the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which states, "a
state court judgment was entered providing for property foreclosure
and authorizing ownership transfer to the City or a third party.
Essentially, plaintiffs now challenge those judgments, asserting
that they were secured without due process, in violation of
state-law restrictions, and without providing
constitutionally-necessary notice and just compensation.

"The Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies to precisely such situations,
in which state court "losers" in effect seek to have a federal
court renounce such judgments, as opposed to pursuing proper state
court remedies."

The motion does not mention Partnow's ruling that ordered the city
to give back six properties.

The second motion to dismiss argued that the complaint failed to
state a claim of relief including that the TPT program is not a
taking without just compensation.

"The City's in rem law and process do not violate the 14th
Amendment. It is well-settled that there is no requirement that a
former owner receive surplus funds following in rem tax
foreclosure," the city argues.

Case 1:19-cv-02216-DAB [GN]


NISSAN: Court Sets Briefing Schedule in E. Cabebe Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division, issued an Order regarding
Briefing Schedule and Hearing Date in the case captioned ELISA
CABEBE, HILLARY DICK, ISRAEL CHIA, ALEXANDRA McCULLOUGH, MONTELL
JONES, KEVIN BURKE, ARNIKA IRELAND, JEANINE INGRASSIA, SEIJI
SILER-HYATTE, LASHANDRIKA WILLIAMS, LAURA WINDOM, and MICHAEL
KANZLER, Individually and On Behalf of a Class of Similarly
Situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. NISSAN OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant. Case No. 3:18-cv-00144-WHO. (N.D. Cal.).

The Court granted the Parties' Joint Stipulation to extend the
deadline for Plaintiff Cabebe to file an Amended Complaint, set a
briefing Schedule, and to continue the Case Management Conference
(CMC).

Plaintiff Cabebe filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint.

NNA filed its Motion to Dismiss Portions of Plaintiffs' First
Amended Complaint.

While NNA's motion to dismiss was still pending, the Court approved
a Joint Stipulation extending the deadline for Plaintiffs Cabebe,
Dick, Chia, and McCullough to file a Second Amended Complaint until
21 Days after the Order on the pending Motion to Dismiss and later
that day granted in part and denied in part Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss and therein set a deadline of November 15, 2018 for
Plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Complaint (SAC).

The Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Portions of Plaintiffs'
Second Amended Complaint.

The May 3, 2019 deadline for the Plaintiffs' Opposition to the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Portions of Plaintiffs' Second
Amended Complaint shall be extended to a new date to be determined
at the June 12, 2019 CMC.

The May 28, 2019 deadline for the Defendant's Reply in support of
its Motion to Dismiss shall be extended to a new date to be
determined at the June 12, 2019 CMC.

The June 12, 2019 hearing on the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
shall be taken off calendar and re-set for a new date to be
determined at the June 12, 2019 CMC.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 6, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y6byxf35 from Leagle.com.

Elisa Cabebe, Hillary Dick, Israel Chia & Alexandra McCullough,
Plaintiffs, represented by Mark Samuel Greenstone --
mgreenstone@greenstonelaw.com -- Greenstone Law APC, Danielle Leigh
Manning -DMANNING@GLANCYLAW.COM -- Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP,
Lionel Z. Glancy -- LGLANCY@GLANCYLAW.COM -- Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP, Marc Lawrence Godino -mgodino@glancylaw.com -- Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP & Stan Karas -SKaras@glancylaw.com -- Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP.

Montell Jones, Jeanine Ingrassia, Evelyn Monroe, Michael Kanzler,
Individually On Behalf of a Class of Similarly Situated
Individuals, Seiji Siler Hyatte, Kevin Burke, Laura Windom, Arnika
Ireland & Lashandrika Williams, Plaintiffs, represented by Mark
Samuel Greenstone, Greenstone Law APC.

Nissan of North America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Paul
Jeffrey Riehle -- paul.riehle@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath
LLP, Adam Johnson Thurston -- adam.thurston@dbr.com -- Drinker
Biddle & Reath LLP, E. Paul Cauley, Jr.  -- paul.cauley dbr.com-
Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP, Matthew Jacob Adler --
matthew.adler@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle Reath LLP & Zoe K. Wilhelm
-- zoe.wilhelm@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP.


NOBLES COUNTY, MN: Class Action Plaintiff Files Harassment Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
5 EYEWITNESS NEWS reports that a woman who is already part of a
class-action civil rights lawsuit against Nobles County in
southwestern Minnesota is now accusing sheriff's deputies of
harassment after they arrested her on an invalid warrant in
December 2018.

Maria de Pineda first spoke to 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS in October. She's
among four named plaintiffs suing Nobles County and its Sheriff
Kent Wilkening, accusing him of exceeding his authority by
unlawfully holding people suspected of violating immigration law.

In February 2018, Worthington police officers arrested de Pineda
for identity theft and forgery -- an alleged crime for which de
Pineda said she is regretful, but even after her family posted her
bond, the Sheriff's Office kept de Pineda locked up for another 17
days at the request of immigration authorities.

"That is a constitutional violation," said Norm Pentelovitch, lead
attorney in the lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties
Union of Minnesota. "Our lawsuit is all about whether a state law
enforcement officer has any authority to honor that request."

Last year, the county and Wilkening denied any wrong-doing and said
they were merely following a long-time detention contract with U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

But two months after de Pineda appeared in a 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS
report talking about her lawsuit, deputies with the Nobles County
Sheriff's Office arrived at her home on December 9th, 2018 and
arrested her on a warrant for failing to meet with her probation
officer.

The arrest was recorded on dash camera video.

"I tell them 'you're wrong. I report[ed][to] my probation
officer,'" de Pineda said.

Nobles County forced de Pineda to spend one more night in jail, but
internal jail records obtained by 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS later confirmed
what de Pineda told deputies, that "she should not have been
arrested because the warrant was quashed."

A judge had canceled the warrant more than a month earlier.

Amanda Delaney, an assistant public defender in Nobles County, says
it's extremely uncommon for law enforcement to arrest someone on a
quashed warrant.

"I've never seen it happen," said Delaney who isn't involved in de
Pineda's case.

"It's a big deal in people's lives to get picked up on a warrant
like that, so for someone to be arrested on a warrant that wasn't
even valid? That is disappointing," Delaney said.

In his report, one of the deputies who arrested de Pineda wrote:
"The warrant was confirmed through dispatch," but other records
show confusion about whether dispatch had been notified that the
warrant was canceled.

In a bulletin published by the ACLU, the author wrote: "Now we
believe deputies are harassing Maria."

De Pineda echoed the same sentiment about her arrest in December.

"I think it's because I spoke up and filed a lawsuit for my
rights," she said in Spanish.

Nobles County Sheriff Wilkening has not yet agreed to talk about de
Pineda's arrest.

For several weeks, 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS repeatedly requested an
interview with the Wilkening via phone calls, e-mails, and visits
to the Sheriff's Office in Worthington.

"What is happening to my client in this arrest is a continuation,
or seems to be another example of the type of conduct that the
Nobles County Sheriff's Department engages in," Pentelovitch said.

In October, a judge approved a temporary restraining order,
blocking the Nobles County Sheriff for holding people on behalf of
ICE.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison recently filed a brief in
support of the ACLU's lawsuit, calling the "ICE holds" by the
Sheriff's Office a "violation of Minnesota law."

Attorneys say the lawsuit is still pending, but it may still be a
year before the case goes to trial. [GN]


NOKIA CORP: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Nokia Corporation ("Nokia" or the "Company") (NOK) and
certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States
District Court, for the Southern District of New York, and indexed
under 19-cv-03982, is on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Nokia's
securities between April 15, 2015 through March 21, 2019, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Nokia securities during the
class period, you have until June 18, 2019, to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Nokia engages in the network and technology businesses worldwide.
Among other things, Nokia provides hardware, software, and services
for telecommunications operators, enterprises, and related
markets/verticals, including public safety and Internet of Things
("IoT"). The Company also offers various networking solutions,
including networking infrastructure, implementation, and
optimization products and services.

On April 15, 2015, Nokia announced plans to purchase Alcatel-Lucent
S.A. ("Alcatel"), a French global telecommunications equipment
company. Nokia finalized the acquisition of Alcatel on November 2,
2016.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, 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) Alcatel maintained insufficient
internal controls and was materially non-compliant in its business
practices; (ii) Nokia had failed to conduct adequate due diligence
into Alcatel prior to its acquisition; (iii) subsequent to the
completion of Nokia's acquisition of Alcatel, the Company
maintained insufficient internal controls over the integration of
Alcatel's businesses; (iv) as a result of the foregoing, at all
relevant times, Nokia was at risk of serious criminal and civil
penalties; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On March 21, 2019, Nokia filed its Annual Report on Form 20-F with
the SEC, announcing the Company's financial and operating results
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018 (the "2018 20-F"),
wherein the Company disclosed that it had "been made aware of
certain practices relating to compliance issues" at Alcatel that
raised concerns. Nokia advised investors that it had "initiated an
internal investigation and voluntarily reported the matter to the
relevant regulatory authorities, with whom we are cooperating with
a view to resolving the matter."

Following this disclosure, the price of Nokia's American depositary
receipts ("ADRs") fell $0.38 per share, or 6.07%, to close at $5.88
per share on March 22, 2019.

On March 22, 2019, after market hours, Nokia issued a press release
responding to the "market rumors" surrounding the March 21, 2019
disclosure (the "March 2019 Press Release"). Specifically, the
March 2019 Press Release attempted to assuage investor fears
regarding these issues, stating that the "investigation is not
expected to have a material impact on Nokia."

Despite Nokia's attempt to soothe investors in the March 2019 Press
Release, the price of Nokia ADRs continued to decline over the next
few trading days, falling an additional $0.19 per share from its
close price on March 22, 2019, or approximately 3.23%, to close at
$5.69 per share on March 28, 2019.

         Contact:
         Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
         Pomerantz LLP
         Phone: 888-476-6529 ext. 9980
         Website: www.pomerantzlaw.com
         Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]


NVIDIA CORP: Court Consolidates 2 Securities Fraud Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Haywoods S. Gilliam, Jr., of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, granted an amended
stipulation consolidating the case captioned as, Oto v. NVIDIA
Corporation, et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-07783-HSG, into the action
styled as, IRON WORKERS LOCAL 580 JOINT FUNDS, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NVIDIA
CORPORATION, JENSEN HUANG, and COLETTE KRESS, Defendants, Case No.
4:18-cv-07669-HSG (N.D. Calif.).

On December 21, 2018, Plaintiff Iron Workers Local 580 Joint Funds
filed a putative class action complaint, captioned Iron Workers
Local 580 Joint Funds v. NVIDIA Corporation, et al., Case No.
4:18-cv-07669-HSG, against Defendants for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On December 28, 2018, a substantially similar putative class action
complaint was filed in this District asserting the same or
substantially similar claims against Defendants, captioned Oto v.
NVIDIA Corporation, et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-07783-HSG.

A full-text copy of the Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y2mu3cx4 from Leagle.com.

Iron Workers Local 580 Joint Funds, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan
Daniel Uslaner, Esq. -- jonathanu@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz
et al & David Ronald Stickney, Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger &
Grossmann.

NVIDIA Corporation, Jensen Huang & Colette Kress, Defendants,
represented by John C. Dwyer, Esq. -- dwyerjc@cooley.com -- Cooley
LLP, Brett Hom De Jarnette, Esq. -- bdejarnette@cooley.com --
Cooley LLP, Emily Brooke Harrington, Esq. -- eharrington@cooley.com
-- Cooley LLP & Patrick Edward Gibbs, Esq. -- pgibbs@cooley.com --
Cooley LLP.

Oakland County Employees' Retirement System, Oakland County
Voluntary Employees' Benefit Association Trust & Oakland County
Employees' Retirement System Trust, Defendants, represented by Adam
J. Zapala, Esq. -- azapala@cpmlegal.com -- Cotchett Pitre &
McCarthy LLP.

Henry Keller, Dennis Horanic & Jack Cravens, Movants, represented
by Jon A. Tostrud, Esq. -- jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com -- Tostrud Law
Group, P.C.

Meitav Dash Provident Funds and Pension Ltd., Movant, represented
by Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. -- jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Shelly Weiss, Movant, represented by Christopher J. Keller, Esq. --
ckeller@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, Eric J. Belfi, Labaton
Sucharow & Rudoff LLP, Francis P. McConville, Esq. --
fmcconville@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP & James Matthew
Wagstaffe, Esq. -- wagstaffe@wvbrlaw.com -- Wagstaffe, von
Loewenfeldt, Busch & Radwick LLP.

Julius Myron Rosen, Movant, represented by Ramzi Abadou, Kahn Swick
Foti LLP.

NVDA Investor Group, Movant, represented by Melissa Ann Fortunato,
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB, Movant, represented by Darren J. Check,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Jennifer Lauren Joost, Kessler
Topaz Meltzer and Check LLP, John Christopher Browne, Esq. --
johnb@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger Grossman LLP,
Michael D. Blatchley, Esq. -- michaelb@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein
Litowitz Berger Grossmann LLP, Naumon A. Amjed, Kessler Topaz
Meltzer Check, LLP & Ryan Thomas Degnan, Kessler Topaz Meltzer
Check, LLP.

Stichting Pensioenfonds PGB, Movant, represented by Darren J.
Check, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Jennifer Lauren Joost,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check LLP, John Christopher Browne,
Bernstein Litowitz Berger Grossman LLP, Jonathan Daniel Uslaner,
Bernstein Litowitz et al, Michael D. Blatchley, Bernstein Litowitz
Berger Grossmann LLP, Naumon A. Amjed, Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check,
LLP & Ryan Thomas Degnan, Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check, LLP.


ONECOIN LTD: Grablis Sues Over Loss Due to Illegal Pyramid Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Grablis, individually and on behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Onecoin Ltd., Ruja Ignatova,
Konstantin Ignatov, Sebastian Greenwood and Mark Scott, Defendants,
Case No. 19-cv-04074, (S.D. N.Y., May 7, 2017), alleges violations
of Sections 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
breach/rescission of contract, unjust enrichment, fraudulent
inducement, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent
misrepresentation, conversion and civil conspiracy in connection
with the OneCoin trader packages/memberships.

Onecoin Ltd. is a Bulgarian company that markets a digital
cryptocurrency called "OneCoin" through a global multi-level
marketing network of OneCoin members. Grablis claims that this was
a pyramid scheme and that the said cryptocurrency never really
existed. Onecoin amassed $4,000,000,000.00 in revenues from its
members.

Grablis funded her Onecoin membership by investing $130,000.00. She
claims to have lost all of this after Onecoin's scheme was
uncovered. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael L. Braunstein, Esq.
      THE BRAUNSTEIN LAW FIRM, PLLC
      3 Eberling Drive
      New City, NY 10956
      Tel: (845) 499-2198
      Email: MBraunstein@BraunsteinFirm.com

             - and -

      David C. Silver, Esq.
      Jason S. Miller, Esq.
      SILVER MILLER
      11780 W. Sample Road
      Coral Springs, FL 33065
      Telephone: (954) 516-6000
      E-mail: DSilver@SilverMillerLaw.com
              JMiller@SilverMillerLaw.com


ONOPCO, INC: J&J Removes Arstill Suit to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson removed the case, JENNIFER ARSTILL and BROCK
ARSTILL, the Plaintiffs, vs. ONOPCO, INC., (sued individually and
as successor-in-interset to UNILEVER, and LEVER BROTHERS COMPANY),
et al., the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV09118, from the Superior
Court of California, Los Angeles County, 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-03538
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'
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 Defendants:

          Alexander G. Calfo, Esq.
          Julia E. Romano, Esq.
          Jennifer T. Stewart, 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
                  jstewart@kslaw.com

OREGON: Governor Faces Suit over Child Welfare System
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kate Brown, Governor
of Oregon. The case is captioned as WYATT B., by their next friend
Michelle McAllister; NOAH F., by their next friend Michelle
McAllister; KYLIE R, by their next friend Kathleen MegillStrek;
ALEC R., by their next friend Kathleen MegillStrek; UNIQUE L., by
her next friend Annette Smith; SIMON S., by his next friend Paul
Aubry; RUTH T., by her next friend Michelle Bartov; BERNARD C., by
his next friend Ksen Murry; NAOMI B., by her next friend Kathleen
MegillStrek; NORMAN N., by his next friend Tracy Gregg,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. KATE BROWN, Governor of Oregon in her official
capacity; FAIRBORZ PAKSERESHT, Director, Oregon Department of Human
Services in his official capacity; and MARILYN JONES, Director,
Child Welfare in her official capacity Oregon Dept. of Human
Services, Defendants, Case No. 6:19-cv-00556-AA (D. Or., April 16,
2019). The case is assigned to Judge Ann L. Aiken.

According to http://www.abetterchildhood.org/oregon/,the
Plaintiffs are 10 foster children, aged 1 through 17, representing
the general class of over 8,000 Oregon foster children. The lawsuit
includes three subclasses: the ADA subclass, the Aging Out
subclass, and SGM (Sexual and Gender Minority) subclass. This
action is the first in the country to litigate on behalf of a set
of specific populations in foster care combined into a single class
action lawsuit.

The lawsuit claims that Oregon fails to exercise sufficient
oversight over its child welfare system and to take necessary steps
to ensure that the DHS complies with federal law and constitutional
rights of children. Oregon has assumed responsibility but failed to
protect children by not providing necessary services nor placing
them in safe homes and appropriate facilities.  The result of these
failures is that the Oregon foster care system devastates and
permanently damages the children in its care.

Oregon is a coastal U.S. state in the Pacific Northwest known for
its diverse landscape of forests, mountains, farms and beaches.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory A. Chaimov, Esq.
          Paul J.C. Southwick, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP
          1300 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2400
          Portland, OR 97201-5630
          Telephone: (503) 778-5328
          Facsimile: (503) 778-5299
          E-mail: gregorychaimov@dwt.com
                  paulsouthwick@dwt.com

               - and -

          Emily R. Cooper, Esq.
          Thomas Stenson, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON
          610 SW Broadway. Suite 200
          Portland, OR 97205
          Telephone: (503) 243-2018
          Facsimile: (503) 243-1738
          E-mail: ecooper@droregon.org
                  tstenson@droregon.org


ORION GROUP: June 10 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on April 17
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Orion Group Holdings, Inc.
(NYSE:ORN) from March 13, 2018 through March 26, 2019, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Orion investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Orion class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1555.html or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. or 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) Orion had overstated goodwill in certain periods; (2)
Orion had overstated accounts receivable in certain periods; (3)
Orion lacked effective internal control over financial reporting,
including over goodwill impairment testing and allowance for
doubtful accounts; (4) that, as a result, the required adjustments
would materially impact Orion's financial results; and (5) as a
result of the foregoing, Orion's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

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 10,
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
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1555.html or 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.

Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents investors
throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities
class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm
was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number
of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has
secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. [GN]


OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE: Underpays Servers, Reutenauer Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN REUTENAUER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE OF FLORIDA, LLC; BLOOMIN'
BRANDS, INC.; and OSI RESTAURANT PARTNERS, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. (Conn. Super., Hartford Cty., April 18, 2019) seeks to recover
from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.

Mr. Reutenauer was employed by the Defendants as server.

Outback Steakhouse of Florida, LLC owns and operates a chain of
steakhouse restaurants in the United State. The company offers
steaks, grilled chicken, ribs, fresh seafood, starters, entrees,
sides, and desserts; and cocktails, wines, premium liquors, and
beers. It also provides online take-away ordering services. The
company was incorporated in 1987 and is based in Tampa, Florida.
Outback Steakhouse of Florida, LLC operates as a subsidiary of OSI
Restaurant Partners, LLC. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas J. Durkin, Esq.
          Richard E. Hayber, Esq.
          THE HAYBER LAW FIRM
          750 Main Street, Suite 904
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 522-8888
          Facsimile: (860) 218-9555
          E-mail: tdurkin@hayberlawfitm.com
                  rhayber@hayberlawfitm.com


P.F. CHANG: Littler Mendelson Discusses Class Certification Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Melnick, Esq. -- smelnick@littler.com -- of Littler
Mendelson PC, in an article for Lexology, reports that the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) recently discussed class
certification in state court wage and hour cases in Gammella v.
P.F. Chang's China Bistro. The SJC held that the same civil
procedure rules applicable to other class actions also apply to
wage claims.  It also found that uncertainty in the exact number of
persons who might have a valid claim is not a reason for denying
class action treatment.  The SJC further held that making an offer
of judgment to a class action plaintiff that includes all potential
relief she might recover does not extinguish that person's claims.

Background

Under Massachusetts law, if an employee arrives for a shift
scheduled for three hours or longer, but then is sent home before
working three hours, the employee is entitled to three hours' wages
of at least the minimum wage.  This provision is often called the
"reporting pay" or "three-hour" rule.

The plaintiff in Gammella, a restaurant server, claimed that she
was sent home early numerous times without being given the required
reporting pay.  She filed suit on her own behalf and on behalf of
other restaurant employees.  She moved to certify a class, but the
trial court denied this motion.  Soon thereafter, the defendant
made an offer to the plaintiff of the money she was owed.  Even
though the plaintiff refused this offer, the trial court dismissed
her claims because it found her claims were rendered moot by the
offer.

The Class Action Standard in Massachusetts

The first issue the SJC addressed is whether a relaxed standard
applies for certifying a class alleging violations of
Massachusetts' wage and hour laws.  The Massachusetts Wage Act
states that an employee may bring a claim on behalf of "others
similarly situated."  The plaintiff in Gammella argued that this
language means that courts should apply a more lenient standard in
certifying a class action.

The SJC disagreed.  It held that this "similarly situated" language
means that a plaintiff has the right to bring a class action, but
does not change what the plaintiff has to prove to get that class
certified.  Rather, Massachusetts Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (Rule
23) applies to class certification for Wage Act claims -- the same
rule that applies to class actions under most other laws in state
court.

The Numerosity Requirement

Having established that Rule 23 applied to the plaintiff's claims,
the SJC next applied the specific requirements of that rule to the
case.  One of the requirements of Rule 23 is that the class be "so
numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable."  That is,
the plaintiff must prove that there are so many members of the
class that requiring each person to individually join the case as a
named plaintiff would be impractical.  This standard is often
called the "numerosity" requirement.

In denying class certification, the trial court in Gammella found
that the numerosity requirement was not met.  The trial court noted
that reporting pay is not owed to an employee who leaves a shift
early "completely on a voluntary basis."  Because there was no way
to determine how many employees had left their shifts voluntarily
versus involuntarily, the trial court held that it could not
determine whether there were enough employees who could state a
claim so as to make the class sufficiently numerous.

The SJC disagreed with this reasoning.  It found that there was
evidence that hundreds of employees had left their shifts early, on
thousands of occasions.  While it was possible that some (or even
all) of those early departures were voluntary, that fact could be a
defense to the employees' claim.  According to the court, the
possibility of a defense, by itself, does not equal uncertainty as
to the number of persons with a claim, and therefore cannot be used
to undermine a claim of numerosity.  The SJC also found that the
employer had not maintained records about why employees left early,
and the lack of records could not be used to deny class
certification.  The SJC thus sent the case back to the trial court
to re-assess whether it could be certified as a class action.

Does An Offer of Full Relief Extinguish a Plaintiff's Claim?

Lastly, the SJC considered the trial court's dismissal of the
plaintiff's claim.  After class certification was denied, the
defendant made a formal offer (called an offer of judgment) under
Massachusetts Rule of Civil Procedure 68 (Rule 68) to pay plaintiff
all amounts the plaintiff claimed to be owed and to have judgment
entered against it.  The plaintiff rejected the offer of judgment.
After that effort failed, the defendant made a settlement offer (a
tender offer) to the plaintiff, accompanied by a certified check,
in an amount sufficient to cover potential wages on the plaintiff's
individual claim, along with her fees and costs.  The plaintiff
refused the tender offer and did not cash the check.  The trial
court held that because the plaintiff had been offered everything
she could receive at trial, there was no more claim for her to
pursue, and therefore dismissed the case.

The SJC reversed this ruling as well.  It found that neither the
rejected Rule 68 offer nor the tender offer – even for the full
amount claimed -- cut off the plaintiff's claims. After all, the
plaintiff had not received anything from the defendant.  The SJC
further noted that the plaintiff had previously moved to certify a
class, and that her class-wide claims survived the defendant's
offer to pay for plaintiff's individual claims.

Takeaways

The Gammella decision offers a mixed bag for employers.  On one
hand, the SJC rejected an attempt to put in place a broader, more
lenient standard for granting class action status to wage and hour
plaintiffs.  On the other hand, the SJC found that a rejected offer
of judgment and tender offer, despite being for the full amount
sought, did not moot the plaintiff's claims under the
circumstances.  The portion of the SJC's decision that addressed
the numerosity requirement essentially re-affirmed existing law.

While not addressed directly by the Gammella decision, the case
serves as a reminder that while employees may not be owed reporting
pay if they voluntarily leave their shift early, an employer should
maintain some documentation about such early departures in case
there is a future dispute. [GN]


PORCELANA CORONA: July 1 Deadline to Exit Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To recall, settlement has been reached with Porcelana Corona De
Mexico, S.A. de C.V. f/k/a/ Sanitarios Lamosa S.A. de C.V. a/k/a
Vortens regarding certain designated ceramic toilet tanks bearing
Model #3464 or #3412 ("Affected Tanks"), manufactured by Vortens
between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2011. The Settlement
covers the purchase and possession of an Affected Toilet Tank, as
well as payments made to reimburse property damage suffered as a
result of the failure of an Affected Toilet Tank.

Individuals are affected by this class action settlement if they
own(ed) a Vortens toilet tank model 3412 or 3464 manufactured
between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2011. A description of how
to determine whether Class Members own an affected tank is included
on the website http://www.VortensSettlement.com/

For Settlement Class Members that have not experienced property
damage as a result of a cracked tank, if they make a Valid Claim in
the Settlement and provide proof of tank ownership and expenses
incurred in replacement and/or installation, they will receive
reimbursement up to $300 per tank. Class Members may make a claim
without receipts, but only in conjunction with a declaration sworn
under oath upon penalty of perjury, and recovery is capped at $150
per affected tank.

For Settlement Class Members that have experienced property damage
as a result of a cracked tank, if they make a Valid Claim in the
Settlement and provide proof of unreimbursed out-of-pocket expenses
incurred as a result of the cracked tank, they are entitled to
reimbursement up to $4,000. Class Members may make a claim for
reimbursement of proper damage expenses without receipts, but only
in conjunction with a declaration sworn under oath upon penalty of
perjury, and recovery is capped at $150 per affected tank. An
unreimbursed deductible is an eligible out-of-pocket expense.

To get a refund, Class Members can visit the Settlement Website
www.VortensSettlement.com and download or complete a Claim Form.
Class Members can also obtain a paper Claim Form by contacting the
Settlement Administrator.

Class Members who wish to preserve their right to bring a separate
lawsuit on these claims, must exclude themselves from the
Settlement Class by July 1, 2019.  Class Members can also object to
the Settlement, but must do so by July 15, 2019. For further
details on how to exclude or object, please visit
www.VortensSettlement.com or contact the Settlement Administrator.

The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing to consider whether to
approve the Settlement, Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees
and expenses, and $7,500 in incentives to the designated individual
representatives who pursued the suit. The parties have requested
the Fairness Hearing be set on August 9, 2019. Please consult the
Settlement Website at www.VortensSettlement.com for updated
information on the hearing date and time. Class Members or their
own lawyers, if they have one, may ask to appear and speak at the
hearing at their own cost, but do not have to.

For further information please visit
http://www.VortensSettlement.com/

Class Members may also contact:

         The Settlement Administrator
         Phone: 1-855-424-0783

         Or write to:

         Vortens Settlement,
         P.O. Box 4540, Portland,
         OR 97208-4540.

Class Members may also contact Class Counsel at Carpenter &
Schumacher, P.C. and/or access the court docket on PACER available
at https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov.[GN]


POSTMATES INC: Feld Sues Over False and Misleading Statements
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie FELD, as an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. POSTMATES, INC., a Delaware state
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03899 (S.D. N.Y., May 1,
2019) seeks all available remedies under New York's General
Business Law, including declaratory, injunctive, and other
equitable relief, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant made false, misleading
statements that are likely to deceive reasonable customers.
Plaintiff asserted that Defendant has mistakenly or misleadingly
represented that its POSTMATES-branded delivery application and
website ("the Service") would (1) delivery "Anything. Anytime.
Anywhere.", and that it ran an "anything" network, when in fact,
they do not, because the Service does not allow delivery of
anything, anytime, or anywhere; (2) deliver food for a stated
"Delivery Fee", which in fact, they do not, because the Service
charges an extra, hidden "Service Fee".

Plaintiff signed-up, downloaded and/or made purchases through the
Service in 2019.

POSTMATES is the owner, manufacturer and distributor of the
Service.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew N. Bobrow, Esq.
     125 East 4th Street (16)
     NY, NY 10003
     Phone: (908) 610-5536
     Email: matthew.bobrow@law.nyls.com


PRO-LAB INC: Wins Bid to Set Aside Default Judgment in Standish
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LYLE STANDISH, Plaintiff, v. PRO-LAB, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-02604-KJM-DB (E.D. Calif.), Judge
Kimberly J. Mueller of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California granted defendant's motion to set
aside the default after determining that there is no evidence of
intentional bad faith that would preclude the court from setting
aside the default here.

On September 21, 2018, Standish filed a class action complaint
alleging Pro-Lab called his cellular telephone using an automatic
telephone dialing system, violating the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, et seq.

A full-text copy of the Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y33bkdg7 is available at Leagle.com.

Lyle Standish, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq.
-- ltfisher@bursor.com -- Bursor and Fisher, PA.

Pro-Lab, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joshua Briones, Esq. --
JBriones@mintz.com -- Mintz Levin.


PROGRESSIVE COUNTY: Removes Lopez et al. Suit to W.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case of RICHARD LOPEZ; and GLORIA LOPEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. PROGRESSIVE COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; and APRIL
HAGER, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the
Judicial District Court of the State of Texas, County of Bexar
(Case No. 2018CI05245) to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas on April 2, 2019. The clerk of court for the
Western District of Texas assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-00380-FB-ESC.
The case is assigned to udge Fred Biery and referred to Magistrate
Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney.

Progressive County Mutual Insurance Co. is based in Austin, Texas.
Progressive County Mutual Insurance Co. operates as a subsidiary of
Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John R. Fabry, Esq.
          THE CARLSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          1717 N. Interstate Highway 35, Suite 305
          Round Rock, TX 77664
          Telephone: (512) 671-7277
          Facsimile: (512) 238-0275
          E-mail: jfabry@carlsonattorneys.com

               - and -

          Stephen Saunders Dummitt, Esq.
          THE CARLSON LAW FIRM, PC
          618 SW Military Dr.
          San Antonio, TX 78238
          Telephone: (210) 696-8600
          Facsimile: (210) 923-3378
          E-mail: Sdummitt@carlsonattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Daniel McNeel Lane , Jr., Esq.
          NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
          300 Convent Street, Suite 2100
          San Antonio, TX 78205
          Telephone: (210) 270-7170
          Facsimile: (210) 270-7205
          E-mail: neel.lane@nortonrosefulbright.com

               - and -

          Gregory J. Peterson, Esq.
          Larry J. Goldman, Esq.
          GOLDMAN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          10100 Reunion Place, Suite 800
          San Antonio, TX 78216
          Telephone: (210) 340-9800
          Facsimile: (210) 340-9888
          E-mail: greg@ljglaw.com
                  larry@ljglaw.com


PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Court Dismisses Joyce's Non-CPA Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JOEL STEDMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, No. C18-1254RSL
(W.D. Wash.), Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, granted
defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff Karen Joyce's claims for
breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, bad
faith, violation of Insurance Fair Conduct Act, and declaratory
judgment arising out of these claims after concluding that Ms.
Joyce's claims accrued on January 30, 2015, and that the three-year
statute of limitations on her non-Consumer Protection Act claims
expired in January 2018, approximately six months before the case
was filed.

This litigation, however, is stayed until the Washington Supreme
Court resolves the certified issues regarding the plaintiffs' CPA
claim.

A full-text copy of the Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y2mv9wgp from Leagle.com.

Joel Stedman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated & Karen Joyce, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Duncan Calvert
Turner, Esq. -- dturner@badgleymullins.com -- BADGLEY MULLINS
TURNER PLLC, Randall C. Johnson, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF RANDALL C.
JOHNSON, Daniel A. Rogers, Esq. -- drogers@badgleymullins.com ==
BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC & Daniel R. Whitmore .

Progressive Direct Insurance Co, a foreign automobile insurance
company, Defendant, represented by Casie Collignon, BAKER HOSTETLER
LLP, pro hac vice, James Raymond Morrison, BAKER HOSTETLER LLP,
Justin Winquist, BAKER HOSTETLER LLP, pro hac vice & Paul
Karlsgodt, BAKER HOSTETLER LLP.


PROGRESSIVE SELECT: Sued over Medical Reimbursement Practice
------------------------------------------------------------
CLEARVIEW IMAGING, LLC d/b/a CLEARVIEW OPEN MRI, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 87895144
(Fla. Cir., Hillsborough Cty., April 12, 2019) alleges that the
Defendant erroneously reduce the insured patient's co-insurance
portion of a medical bill.

According to the complaint, on June 25, 2018, the insured patient,
identified in the complaint as A.M., was involved in a motor
vehicle accident, and as a result, sustained bodily injuries
related to the operation, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle.
At the time of that accident, the Insured Patient was a contracting
party and a named insured and an omnibus insured under an
automobile insurance policy issued by the Defendant, consistent
with the exemplar of the Insurance Policy.

As a result of the injuries sustained by the Insured Patient at
that accident, the Plaintiff, a health care provider, subsequently
rendered health care services to the Insured Patient on September
25, 2018.

Prior to providing such medical services and as a condition to
providing them, the Plaintiff obtained from the Insured Patient a
written assignment of benefits.

After providing health care services to the Insured Patient, the
Plaintiff timely submitted a bill to the Defendant for the services
rendered. In response to the bill for health care services provided
to the Insured Patient, the Defendant issued an "Explanation of
Reimbursement" form which purported to extend the Fee Schedule
Method reductions to the portion of the bill that applies to the
Insured Patient's 20% coinsurance or co-payment.

The Plaintiff contends that the Fee Schedule Method can only be
applied to the 80% portion of the medical bill covered by the
Reasonable Medical Expenses Mandate and cannot lawfully be extended
to the portion of a medical bill that is covered by a PIP insured's
20% coinsurance or co-payment amount. The Defendant disagrees, and
routinely purports to extend the Fee Schedule Method reductions to
the portion of a medical bill that is covered by the PIP insured's
20% coinsurance or co-payment amount.

Progressive Select Insurance Company operates as an insurance
company. The Company offers auto, trailers, motorcycles, boats,
renters, condos, flood, life, and health insurance services.
Progressive Select Insurance serves customers in the United States.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Daniel Clark, Esq.
          CLARK & MARTINO, P.A.
          3407 W. Kennedy Boulevard
          Tampa, FL 33609
          Telephone: (813) 879-0700
          E-mail: dclark@clarkmartino corn

               - and –

          David M. Caldevilla, Esq.
          DE LA PARTE & GILBERT, P.A.
          Post Office Box 2350
          Tampa, FL 33601-2350
          Telephone: (813) 229-2775
          E-mail: dcaldevilla@dgfirm.com


RALPH LAUREN: Tripicchio Sues Over Phantom Discounts
----------------------------------------------------
BRENDA TRIPICCHIO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION; and
RALPH LAUREN RETAIL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03292
(S.D.N.Y., April 15, 2019) is a class action brought against the
Defendants' unlawful uniform sales and marketing practices.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have a uniform policy of
assigning and displaying a reference price on the price tag of
every item offered for sale in their factory stores in New Jersey.

The tagged reference price is not the actual sale price of the
item. In fact, very few, if any, items in the Defendants' factory
stores in New Jersey are ever sold or offered for sale at the
reference prices displayed on their price tags.

The reference prices listed on the Defendants' tags are wholly
fictitious and inflated prices, fabricated by the Defendants as a
marketing tool according to a standardized formula, intended
specifically to induce the false and misleading impression in the
minds of consumers that the consumer goods bearing such tags are
being offered for sale at a discounted price that is lower than
their usual selling price in the market place, and that the goods
are of such quality that they are actually worth that higher
price.

Ralph Lauren Corporation designs, markets, and distributes
lifestyle products in North America, Europe, Asia, and
internationally. The company sells apparel and accessories under
the Ralph Lauren Collection, Ralph Lauren Purple Label, Polo Ralph
Lauren, Double RL, Lauren Ralph Lauren, Polo Golf Ralph Lauren,
Ralph Lauren Golf, RLX Ralph Lauren, Polo Ralph Lauren Children,
Chaps, Club Monaco, and other brand names; women's fragrances under
the Ralph Lauren Collection, Woman by Ralph Lauren, Romance
Collection, Ralph Collection, and Big Pony Women's brand names; and
men's fragrances under the Polo Blue, Safari, Purple Label, Polo
Red, Polo Green, Polo Black, Polo Supreme, Polo Sport, and Big Pony
Men's brand names. Ralph Lauren Corporation was founded in 1967 and
is headquartered in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ross Schmierer, Esq.
          DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
          315 Madison Avenue, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 979-3642
          E-mail: rschmierer@denittislaw.com


REVLON INC: July 15 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-----------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Revlon, Inc. (REV) from March 12,
2015 through March 28, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period") of the
important July 15, 2019 lead plaintiff deadline in the first-filed
action commenced by the firm. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages
for Revlon investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Revlon class action, go to https://tinyurl.com/yxd3jhh4
or 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) Revlon failed to create measures to monitor its
enterprise resource planning ("ERP") system appropriately once
implemented; (2) Revlon failed to design, implement and
consistently operate effective process-level controls to ensure
that it appropriately (a) recorded and accounted for inventory,
accounts receivable, net sales and cost of goods sold, (b)
reconciled balance sheet accounts, (c) reviewed and approved the
complete population of manual journal entries, and (d) used
complete and accurate information in performing manual control,
which constituted a material weakness in its internal controls over
financial reporting; (3) as a result of the poor preparation and
planning of the implementation of the ERP system, Revlon was unable
to fulfill product shipments of approximately $64 million of net
sales and the Company incurred $53.6 million of incremental charges
to remediate the decline in customer services levels; and (4) as a
result, defendants' statements about Revlon's business, operations,
and prospects were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 15,
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
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1537.html

Contact:

         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34thFloor
         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]


REVLON INC: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Revlon, Inc.
(NYSE: REV) for violations of Sec. 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares between March 12, 2015
and March 28, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged
to contact the firm before July 15, 2019.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Revlon failed to develop metrics to
monitor its enterprise resource planning ("ERP") system after it
was implemented. The Company also failed to develop and maintain
appropriate internal controls on the recording and accounting of
inventory, receivables, net sales, and cost of goods sold in the
ERP system. The Company was incapable of maintaining controls on
other related accounting activities, such as approving manual
journal entries. Due to the poor implementation of its ERP system,
Revlon failed to fulfill order shipments totaling $64 million,
causing $53.6 million in incremental charges to triage declining
customer service levels. Based on these facts, the Company's public
statements were false and materially misleading throughout the
class period. When the market learned the truth about Revlon,
investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

Contact:

         Brian Schall, Esq.
         Sherin Mahdavian, Esq.
         The Schall Law Firm
         Tel: 310-301-3335
         Email: info@schallfirm.com
                brian@schallfirm.com [GN]


ROYAL SEAS: Kelley Drye Discusses TCPA Class Certification Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John D.S. Gilmour, Esq. -- jgilmour@kelleydrye.com -- Talat Ansari,
Esq. -- tansari@kelleydrye.com -- David A. Hartquist, Esq. --
dhartquist@kelleydrye.com -- James F. Jacobus, Esq., Philip D.
Robben, Esq., John L. Hagan, Esq., Lee S. Brenner, Esq., Andrew E.
Minkiewicz, Esq., and John M. Herrmann II, Esq., of Kelley Drye &
Warren LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that a California
federal judge has certified a nationwide class of consumers to
pursue claims that a lead-generation company and a cruise company
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by using a
prerecorded voice and/or automatic dialing system to call class
members without their consent.

The plaintiffs allege that Royal Seas Cruises, Inc. ("Royal")
engaged Prospects DM ("Prospects") to obtain and call telephone
numbers to inquire whether the called party was interested in
Royal's products and, if so, to transfer the called party to a
Royal representative.  Plaintiffs allege that Prospects obtained
the telephone numbers through third-party websites operated by
digital marketing companies.  Specifically, Prospects provides the
name of a given customer, like Royal, to the digital marketing
companies, which in turn incorporate the customer's name into their
websites.  The websites generate leads by using a form through
which a user can register their contact information for promotional
and product information related to companies identified in the
form.  The form expressly indicates that checking the box including
in the form constitutes consent to receive communications from one
of several identified companies and organizations, whether by text
or call using an automated dialer or an artificial or prerecorded
voice.  The form does not submit if the box is left unchecked.  A
lead is generated when the user completing the form checks the box
and clicks the submit button.  The lead information is sent to
Prospects who then contacts the prospective customer to gauge their
interest in Royal's products.

Class certification primarily turned on whether individualized
issues of consent among the named plaintiffs or putative class
prevented common issues of law or fact from predominating.  Royal
and Prospects argued that issues of whether the named plaintiffs
consented through the website forms predominated over common
issues.  The court disagreed.

The court explained that, for individualized issues of consent to
predominate, the party opposing class certification must first
present evidence of that consent.  Royal and Prospects offered
declarations from representative of each company discussing in the
abstract how they believe the lead generation program should work
for "consumers," "the consumer," "the opted-in telephone number,"
"a person" or "individual users" using a website.  The declarants,
however, lacked personal knowledge of whether the named plaintiffs
or any putative class member actually visited and completed the
forms available at the websites Royal contended are the lead
generation sources for the telephone numbers of the class members.
Thus, the court concluded these declarations could not constitute
evidence that named plaintiffs or class members provided consent
before they were contacted.

Without actual evidence of prior express consent from either
defendant, the court explained that class members could provide
individual affidavits averring lack of consent, and the defendants
would be unable to rebut with anything other than the unfounded
testimony of individuals who lack personal knowledge of who visited
the websites generating the leads.  Indeed, the named plaintiffs
submitted declarations supporting their assertions that neither
defendant obtained their prior express consent, stating that they
did not fill out the contact form on the third-party websites and
their consent, as well as that of putative class members, had been
"manufactured."  The named plaintiffs argued that their
"manufactured" leads theory could be tested by comparing the number
of leads generated for a particular website with the website
traffic data from the servers associated with the website.

The court certified a nationwide class and subclass.  The
nationwide class consists of those who Prospects, on behalf of
Royal, called using an automatic dialing system and/or prerecorded
voice and whose telephone number is associated in Prospect's
records with either of the third-party websites associated with the
named plaintiffs' numbers.  The subclass consists of those members
of the class who had their call transferred to a Royal
representative.  The decision applies a difficult burden for
defendants to meet to produce actual evidence of consent by named
plaintiffs or putative class members to defeat class certification,
particularly where that consent may be through a third party.

The decision is McCurley v. Royal Seas Cruises, Inc., No.
3:17-cv-00986 (S.D. Cal.), Dkt. No. 87. [GN]


SAMMY'S YE OLDE: Settles Workers' FLSA Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Coughlin, writing for MorristownGreen.com, reports that a
Mendham restaurant has settled with workers who allege the owners
skimmed their tips and withheld back wages.

While denying any improper behavior, the owners of Sammy's
Steakhouse agreed to pay $190,000 to cover three years of back
wages and damages to 26 plaintiffs, along with their legal fees.
United States Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson approved the
settlement in March.

Owners Samuel, Maryann and Philip Fornaro are grandchildren of
Samuel Fornaro, who founded the restaurant -- also known as Sammy's
Ye Olde Cider Mill -- as a speakeasy in the 1920s.

They were accused of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act in a
federal class-action lawsuit brought by employees Jennifer Helmer
and Kelly Montes. Helmer was hired as a food server in September
2014, Montes, in February 2017; they no longer work there.

"Although our clients deny any wrongdoing, the matter . . . was
amicably resolved amongst the parties. We are unable to provide
further comment," the Fornaros' lawyer, Margaret O'Rourke Wood,
said on April 19.

In papers filed in U.S. District Court, the plaintiffs claimed that
despite grossing more than $500,000 in each of the last four years,
the owners "intentionally, willfully and repeatedly" failed to pay
employees full minimum wage for all hours worked, and for all "side
work" for employees who spent more than 20 percent of their time
assigned to non-tipped duties.

The owners also were accused of "willfully misappropriating" and
pocketing portions of tips and service charges earned by servers,
and of failing to keep accurate records as mandated by law.

In court papers, the Fornaros countered that they should not be
considered "employers" under federal law, and that they were
entitled to share pooled tips when performing tipped work.

The action represented employees hired since June 2012.  Servers
were paid $2.50 an hour, instead of the federal minimum wage of
$7.25, with the expectation that tips would make up the difference,
the suit states.

Because employees were not informed of their eligibility for these
special tip provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, they should
have been entitled to the full minimum wage, according to the
suit.

Instead of hiring cleaning and kitchen help at the state minimum
wage ($8.25 to $8.60 per hour), the owners assigned its
$2.50-per-hour tipped staff to perform duties ranging restocking
desserts to washing coffeepots and blinds, folding napkins and
answering phones, the plaintiffs further asserted.

The owners maintained they were within their legal rights to
require side work by the servers. [GN]


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Seminatore Claims Goes to Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LYNETTE PANG, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-01882-PJH
(N.D. Calif.), Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California granted
defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc.'s motion to compel
arbitration and plaintiff Cindy Seminatore is compelled to
arbitrate all claims she asserts in this action.

Plaintiffs Lynette Pang, Timo Masalin, and Cindy Seminatore bring
this putative false advertising and warranty class action against
Samsung. Generally, plaintiffs allege that, contrary to Samsung's
representations and advertising, the rear cameras on various
Samsung smartphones -- the Galaxy S7, Galaxy S7 Edge, Galaxy S7
Active, the Galaxy S8 and Note 8 -- are not high quality because
the lenses spontaneously shatter (the "defect"), rendering the
camera all but useless. The Plaintiffs' warranty claims allege that
Samsung failed to honor its warranty by requiring consumers whose
phone exhibited the alleged defect to pay for the repair.

On November 20, 2018, the plaintiffs filed their Second Amended
Class Action Complaint (the "SAC"), which added plaintiff Cindy
Seminatore as a named plaintiff. Seminatore was added as a named
plaintiff because, unlike Pang and Masalin, Seminatore did not opt
out of the Samsung arbitration agreement that accompanied her phone
purchase.

The court stays the action only with respect to Seminatore's
claims.  The Defendants' request for a stay of the entire action
pending the resolution of Seminatore's arbitration is denied.

A full-text copy of the Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yyjn6hdq from Leagle.com.

Lynette Pang, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED & Timo Masalin, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, represented by Jeffrey Greg Lewis,
Esq. -- jlewis@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Alison
Smith Gaffney, Esq. -- agaffney@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller
Rohrback LLP, pro hac vice, Garrett Heilman, Esq. --
gheilman@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback LLP, pro hac vice,
Matthew M. Gerend, Esq. -- mgerend@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller
Rohrback LLP, pro hac vice & Michael Dean Woerner, Esq. --
mwoerner@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback, LLP, pro hac vice.

Cindy Seminatore, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by Garrett Heilman,
Keller Rohrback LLP, pro hac vice & Michael Dean Woerner, Keller
Rohrback, LLP.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert
James Herrington, Esq. -- herringtonr@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg
Traurig LLP & Michael Elliot McCarthy, Esq. -- mccarthyme@gtlaw.com
-- Greenberg Traurig, LLP.


SAS AUTOMOTIVE: Upshaw Asserts Calif. Labor Code Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
GLEN UPSHAW, an individual on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SAS AUTOMOTIVE USA, INC., a
Delaware corporation; WWIL Personnel LLC, a Illinois limited
liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. RG19028867 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., May 14, 2019)
seeks redress for violations of various provisions of the
California Labor Code, relevant orders of the Industrial Welfare
Commission (IWC), and the California Business & Professions Code.

The complaint asserts that Plaintiff and Class Members consistently
worked at Defendants behest without being paid all wages due. Class
Members were either not paid by Defendants for all hours worked or
were not paid at the appropriate minimum, regular and overtime
rates. During the course of Class Members' employment with
Defendants, they were not paid all wages they were owed, including
for all work performed (resulting "off the clock" work) and for all
overtime hours worked, and were forced to work off-the-clock in
part due to demands Defendants' placed upon them, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff GLEN UPSHAW was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt
hourly employee within the State of California.

SAS AUTOMOTIVE USA, INC. is a Delaware corporation, and describes
its type of business as "assembly of cockpits/dashboard" on th9
California Secretary of State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SCHWANS COMPANY: Leguette Suit Moved to Middle District of Florida
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as, Joanne Miller individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Schwan's Company,
Schwan's Consumer Brands, Inc., and SFC Global Supply Chain, Inc.,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02551 (Filed Dec. 31, 2017), from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to
the U.S. District Court for Middle District of Florida
(Jacksonville) on May 2, 2019. The Middle District of Florida Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00501-TJC-JBT to the proceeding.
The suit demands $5,000,000 alleging Health Care/Pharmaceutical
Personal Injury related violations. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Timothy J. Corrigan.

Schwan's Company, formerly known as The Schwan Food Company, is a
privately owned company under CJ CheilJedang with approximately
12,000 employees.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
          LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2527
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (516) 343-0542

               - and -

          Spencer I. Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          505 Northern Boulevard, Suite 311
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 303 0552
          Facsimile: (516) 234 7800

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          August Theodore Horvath, Esq.
          FOLEY HOAG LLP
          1540 Broadway, 23rd floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (646) 927-5544

SHARP GROSSMONT: Hagens Berman Provides Class Action Update
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sharp Grossmont Hospital is facing a class-action lawsuit for its
alleged use of hidden cameras in the operating rooms of its Women's
Health Center, according to attorneys at Hagens Berman representing
a proposed class of thousands of female patients who were
videotaped without their consent during surgical procedures.

The same law firm represents a class of women against Harvey
Weinstein, and also recently achieved a pending settlement on
behalf of female students and alumnae of the University of Southern
California who were sexually harassed and abused at USC Student
Health Center by its former gynecologist, Dr. George Tyndall.

According to recent investigations, Sharp Grossmont Hospital in La
Mesa, Calif. secretly videotaped more than 1,800 women, who were
"unconscious, undressed on operating room tables, undergoing
medical procedures" and captured in more than 6,966 video clips.
The hidden cameras were installed on or about July 17, 2012 in all
three operating rooms of the Women's Health Center. The cameras
operated 24 hours a day, seven days a week until June 30, 2013.

The lawsuit, filed Apr. 17, 2019, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California states the hospital did not
obtain patients' consent to record any of the footage, which
includes caesarean births, birth complications, dilatation and
curettage to resolve miscarriages, hysterectomies, sterilizations
and other medical procedures.

If you underwent a surgical procedure in the Women's Health Center
at Sharp Grossmont Hospital between July 17, 2012 and June 30,
2013, find out more about the lawsuit and your rights.

The suit's named plaintiff gave birth at the hospital by caesarean
section during the timeframe the cameras were in the operating room
at Women's Health Center at Sharp Grossmont Hospital. The suit
states, "Plaintiff did not consent and would not have consented to
being recorded during this procedure, has suffered severe emotional
distress upon learning of this gross invasion of privacy, and has
been damaged as a result of Defendants' actions."

"In a further breach of trust and duty, after the recordings were
completed, Sharp stored the files on computers accessible by
multiple users, some without password protection," the suit states.
"Sharp also allegedly destroyed some recordings, but has not
confirmed when or how it deleted the files, whether anyone took the
files, or whether the files are nonetheless recoverable."

The lawsuit brings various charges against Sharp Grossmont Hospital
including invasion of privacy; gross negligence; intentional and
negligent infliction of emotional distress; negligent failure to
warn, train or educate; and violation of California penal codes
related to videotaping and recording.

"These patients suffered a severe breach of their basic rights to
privacy and respect at a time when they were at their most
vulnerable -- seeking medical attention and likely unconscious
during a serious surgical procedure. The hospital's use of cameras
is a gross invasion of privacy and shameful behavior," said Steve
Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman.

"Physicians swear to an oath when they pursue a role as a trusted
caretaker in our communities and hospitals: They promise to
'respect the privacy of my patients' and 'respect a patient's right
to confidentiality,'" Berman added. "We believe this conduct falls
well below the standard set by the Hippocratic Oath, and below
basic core human tenets of respect and dignity. We intend to fight
aggressively for the rights of women who were secretly filmed."

An Investigation Reveals the Hidden Cameras

According to the lawsuit, the hospital claims it installed the
cameras to catch a suspected doctor stealing drugs from the
operating rooms, but the hospital admitted that it knew the film
would not be enough to confront the suspected doctor. The existence
of the recordings only became known to a limited number of people
when the Medical Board of California began an investigation of the
suspected doctor in 2015.

Shortly after installing the cameras, the hospital's then-Director
of Security told its then-CEO the video evidence was not sufficient
to confront the suspected doctor. However, the CEO instructed the
Director of Security to continue taking the videos.

"The hospital kept the hidden cameras running for several months
after it concluded its investigation of the suspected doctor,"
Berman said. "Unquestionably, Sharp Grossmont must be held
accountable."

Recent news headlines have brought these heinous acts to the
forefront, and many victims have bravely stepped forward to tell
their stories. Hagens Berman continues this fight, working to help
achieve justice for those who have been victim to sexual violation,
and enforce systemic change. Tell us about your case.

                     About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a
consumer-rights class-action law firm with nine offices across the
country. The firm's tenacious drive for plaintiffs' rights has
earned it numerous national accolades, awards and titles of "Most
Feared Plaintiff's Firm," and MVPs and Trailblazers of class-action
law. [GN]


SILVER WHEATON: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Lexology, reported that
on March 25, 2019, Judge Christina A. Snyder of the United States
District Court for the Central District of California denied a
motion to dismiss a class action filed against a Canadian silver
company (the "Company"), current and former executives of the
Company, and its auditor and tax consultant (the "Auditor"),
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. In Re Silver Wheaton Corp.
Secs. Lit., No. 2:15-cv-05146; 2:15-cv-5173 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 25,
2019). Plaintiffs allege defendants failed to disclose USD$207
million in Canadian tax liabilities and that the Auditor wrongfully
issued clean audit opinions. The Court held that plaintiffs
sufficiently pleaded claims against all defendants. Of particular
note, while the Court acknowledged several hurdles that generally
result in the dismissal of claims against auditors, it held that
those hurdles had been surmounted by plaintiffs given the unique
circumstances of the case. [GN]


SOCIAL SECURITY: Court Dismisses M. Lawrence's Veteran Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Maryland
issued a Memorandum Opinion dismissing the case for failure to
state a claim in the case captioned MICHAEL LAWRENCE PACK
Plaintiff, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant. MICHAEL
LAWRENCE PACK Plaintiff, v. MARYLAND MOTOR VEHICLE ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant. MICHAEL LAWRENCE PACK Plaintiff, v. VA Veteran Hospital
Defendant. Civil Action Nos. RDB-19-1143, RDB-19-1144, RDB-19-1145
(D. Md.).

Pack filed a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis in each case,
which will be granted.

After preliminary review of the Complaints, this Court finds they
fail to state a cognizable federal action, and will dismiss them
with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2).

Pack, who identifies himself as an Army veteran, states that he is
filing a class action for civil rights discrimination based on his
difficulty in securing a medical card from the Veterans
Administration (VA), a Social Security card from the Social
Security Administration (SSA), and an identification card from the
Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA). Pack asserts that
without identification, he will be arrested and detained until the
police can ascertain his identity. Pack is suing for $10 million in
each case..

Federal district judges have discretion under 28 U.S.C. Section
1915(e)(2) to screen meritless or frivolous cases. A complaint may
be dismissed under Section 1915(e) if it lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact.  

To the extent Pack wants to bring each case as a class action, none
meets the requisites for a class action, and in any event, Pack may
not represent the legal rights of others unless he is a member of
the bar. Further, Pack generally alleges Defendants have violated
his civil rights, but does not identify any constitutional right to
a VA medical card, a Social Security card or an MVA identification
card or explain how the actions alleged here were unlawful.
Although Pack's efforts to obtain these cards may be very
frustrating for him, they do not support a claim of constitutional
dimension.

This Court will by separate Order dismiss these cases with
prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 6, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion is available at  https://tinyurl.com/y6t9ungo from
Leagle.com.

Mr. Michael Lawrence Pack, Plaintiff, pro se.


SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Appeals Court Upholds Decision in "Smith"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Southwestern Energy Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 25, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the Court of Appeals
has affirmed the trial court's order denying all requests to
intervene in the case entitled, Smith v. SEECO, Inc. et al., and in
a separate order, affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of
the Company on all claims.

The Company has been a defendant in three certified class actions
alleging that the Company underpaid lessors of lands in Arkansas by
deducting from royalty payments costs for gathering, transportation
and compression of natural gas in excess of what is permitted by
the relevant leases.  

Two of the these class actions were filed in Arkansas state courts
and the third in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas. The Company denied liability in all these
cases. Under the agreement for the sale of the Company's properties
in the Fayetteville Shale, the Company retained responsibility for
these class actions.

In June 2017, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Company
on all counts in Smith v. SEECO, Inc. et al., the class action in
the federal court, whose plaintiff class comprises the vast
majority of the lessors in these cases.  

The plaintiff had asserted claims for, among other things, breach
of contract, fraud, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment and
violation of certain Arkansas statutes.  

Following the verdict, the court entered judgment in favor of the
Company on all claims. The trial court denied the plaintiff's
motion for a new trial, and the plaintiff appealed to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Independent of the
plaintiff's appeal, several different parties sought to intervene
in the Smith case prior to or shortly after trial, and have
appealed the trial court’s order denying their request to
intervene. Oral argument occurred in January 2019.

On April 23, 2019, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's
order denying all requests to intervene in the case, and, in a
separate order, affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the
Company on all claims.

In the second quarter of 2018, the Company entered into an
agreement to settle another of the class actions, which has been
pending in the Circuit Court of Conway County, Arkansas under the
caption Snow et al. v. SEECO, Inc., et al.  The settlement received
final approval by the court during the third quarter of 2018, and
the deadline to appeal the order approving the settlement passed
without any appeals filed.  

The amount of the settlement is reflected in the Company's
consolidated statement of operations for the second quarter of 2018
and was paid early in the fourth quarter of 2018. The third class
action was dismissed in the second quarter of 2018.

The Smith and the Snow cases cover all affected lessors, except a
small percentage who opted out.  Most of those have filed separate
actions.  The Company does not expect those cases to have a
material adverse effect on the results of operations, financial
position or cash flows of the Company.  

Additionally, it is not possible at this time to estimate the
amount of any additional loss, or range of loss, that is reasonably
possible.

Southwestern Energy Company, an independent energy company, engages
in the exploration, development, and production of natural gas and
oil in the United States. It operates through two segments,
Exploration and Production, and Midstream. Southwestern Energy
Company was founded in 1929 and is headquartered in Spring, Texas.


SPRINT CORP: June 21 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, with nine offices in eight cities
around the country and eighty attorneys, reminds Sprint Corporation
(NYSE: S) investors of the securities class action, Meneses v.
Sprint Corporation et al., No. 1:19-cv-03549, pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Sprint securities between
January 31, 2019 and April 16, 2019 (the "Class Period") and
suffered losses you do not need to sign up to be included in the
putative class of investors.

If you suffered significant losses (in excess of $50,000), you may
qualify to be a lead plaintiff – one who selects and oversees the
attorneys prosecuting the case.  If you wish to serve as a lead
plaintiff in this class action, you must move the Court no later
than June 21, 2019 (the "Lead Plaintiff deadline").  Contact Hagens
Berman immediately for more information about the case and being a
lead plaintiff: https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/Sprint or contact
Reed Kathrein, who is leading the firm's investigation, by calling
510-725-3000 or emailing Sprint@hbsslaw.com

According to the complaint, Defendants misled investors by (1)
highlighting that it had 309,000 total postpaid net additions, a
widely-watched metric by Wall Street analysts, and (2) concealing
that these additions were not new customers.

"We're focused on investors' losses, whether Sprint's disclosures
to regulators about the Company's business to support the T-Mobile
merger might be inconsistent with disclosures to investors, and,
whether investors may have been misled," said Hagens Berman partner
Reed Kathrein.

Contact:

       Reed Kathrein, Esq.
       Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
       Phone: 510-725-3000
       Email: reed@hbsslaw.com [GN]


SSC KERRVILLE: Court Won't Review Order Denying Arbitration Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ROSARIO PASSMORE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; BRENDA L. CHAFTON, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; MARIA WEAKS, JO ANN
VEGA, KELLY SLAPE, Plaintiffs, v. SSC KERRVILLE HILLTOP VILLAGE
OPERATING COMPANY LLC, SSC KERRVILLE EDGEWATER OPERATING COMPANY,
LLC, SSC KERRVILLE ALPINE TERRACE OPERATING COMPANY, LLC,
Defendants, No. SA-18-CV-00782-FB (W.D. Tex.), Magistrate Judge
Elizabeth S. Chestney of the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, denied defendants'
motion for reconsideration of the order denying their motion to
dismiss and to compel arbitration.

The Defendants ask the Court to modify its Order denying the
Defendants' motion to compel arbitration, which concluded that the
Plaintiffs' collective action claims did not fall within the
parties' arbitration agreement, to grant the motion and reach only
the question of whether the arbitration agreement is valid and
enforceable, sending the Plaintiffs' claims to the arbitrator to
determine arbitrability. The Court finds that this argument fails.

The Magistrate notes that the Defendants concede that they did not
raise the issue of arbitrability in their motion to dismiss, nor
did they argue in writing or at the hearing on their motion to
compel that the arbitrator should be the one to interpret the scope
of the arbitration agreement -- the primary legal issue raised in
their motion.  According to the Magistrate, motions for
reconsideration are not a vehicle for new legal arguments or new
legal theories but instead must "clearly establish either a
manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered
evidence."  The Defendants' motion does neither.

A full-text copy of the Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y34stssh from Leagle.com.

Rosario Passmore, Individually and On behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Brenda L. Chafton, Individually and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, Maria Weaks, Jo Ann Vega & Kelly
Slape, Plaintiffs, represented by:

     Daniel Anthony Verrett, Esq.
     Edmond S. Moreland, Jr., Esq.
     Moreland Verrett, P.C.
     The Commissioners House at Heritage Square
     2901 Bee Cave Road, Box L
     Austin, TX 78746
     Phone: 512-782-0567
     Fax: 512-782-0605

SSC Kerrville Hilltop Village Operating Company LLC, SSC Kerrville
Edgewater Operating Company, LLC & SSC Kerrville Alpine Terrace
Operating Company, LLC, Defendants, represented by Jeffrey C.
Londa, Esq. -- jeffrey.londa@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash
Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Lara Cardin De Leon, Esq. --
lara.deleon@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &
Stewart & Mark A. McNitzky, Esq. -- mark.mcnitzky@ogletree.com --
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, PC.


STANFORD CARR: Faces Roberts et al. Suit in Hawaii
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stanford Carr
Development, LLC. The case is captioned as JEREMY ROBERTS; SCOTT
CLARKE; and LORELEI CLARKE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STANFORD CARR DEVELOPMENT
LLC; KEHALANI 217-MAUI LLC; KEHALANI 511-MAUI LLC; and
KEHALANI-MAUI LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1CC191000600 (D. Hawaii,
April 12, 2019).

Stanford Carr Development, LLC is a real estate development company
in Hawaii. The company specializes in architectural design and
community planning. It develops residential communities, commercial
projects, and special needs housing. The company was founded in
1990 and is based in Honolulu, Hawaii. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Melvin Y. Agena
          LAW OFFICES OF MELVIN Y. AGENA
          55 Merchant St., Suite 1850
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 536-6647


STANFORD INT'L: Greenberg Traurig Not Liable for Counsel's Work
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Packel, writing for The American Lawyer, reports that Greenberg
Traurig cannot be held liable for its former attorney's work on
behalf of convicted Ponzi schemer R. Allen Stanford in a putative
class action suit, a federal appeals court ruled on April 18.

Investors who lost billions of dollars after purchasing
certificates of deposit issued by Stanford International Bank Ltd.
had sought to hold Greenberg Traurig responsible for Carlos
Loumiet's work as primary outside counsel for Stanford until the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission shut operations down in
2009. Loumiet no longer practices at Greenberg Traurig.

But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a
lower court decision that said the investors were stymied by a
doctrine of attorney immunity in Texas law.

"This appeal concerns three purported exceptions to that doctrine,"
Judge Leslie Southwick said in the 10-page opinion. "The district
court held that none of them exists."

Fort Lauderdale-based Boies Schiller Flexner partner Stuart Singer
argued the appeal for Greenberg Traurig. Singer praised the appeals
court and Judge David Godbey of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, in a statement.

"The district court and now the court of appeals properly
recognized that the attorney immunity doctrine is important
protection for attorneys to represent their clients without legal
claims from other parties, and we are pleased that the court found
that Texas law did not contain exceptions to that doctrine," he
said.

Dallas-based Clark Hill Strasburger partner P. Michael Jung --
michael.jung@clarkhillstrasburger.com -- who argued the appeal for
the investors, did not respond to a request for comment.

The appeal is just one of the many threads of litigation stemming
from Stanford's scheme, which led to a criminal conviction and a
110-year prison sentence.

The Stanford investors behind the class action had argued that
Loumiet, a Miami banking attorney, was a "knowing and active"
participant in Stanford's fraud while a partner at Hunton &
Williams and later at Greenberg Traurig. Loumiet, who was not a
defendant in the case, is currently a partner at Nelson Mullins
Riley & Scarborough.

Hunton & Williams also was named in the lawsuit, but the firm ended
its participation with a $34 million settlement in 2017.

In a 2012 complaint that unfolded over 172 pages, the investors
alleged that Loumiet helped Stanford structure his bank in Antigua
without any U.S. government oversight while he marketed it as a
U.S.-based investment bank and aided Stanford in a takeover of the
entire Antigua government while abetting other deceptions.

But the claims remained active against Greenberg Traurig as well as
Miami attorney Yolanda Suarez, whom the complaint referred to as
Stanford's "chief of staff."

After a Texas federal judge ruled in December 2017 that Greenberg
Traurig was immune to the claims in the lawsuit, the investors
appealed, alleging that Texas law allowed three exceptions to
attorney civil immunity: conduct outside of litigation, criminal
conduct and violations of the Texas Securities Act.

The investors sought to have the appeals court certify the case to
the Texas Supreme Court, noting that the state's high court had not
set any precedent on these questions. But the Fifth Circuit panel
concluded that appellate courts had handled enough related issues
to give guidance on the matter.

The panel then referenced a 2015 ruling from the Texas Supreme
Court, Cantey Hanger v. Byrd, which found that fraud is not an
exception to attorney immunity as long as the attorney is acting
within the scope of his or her representation of a client. While a
dissent in that case advocated limiting attorney immunity "to
statements or conduct in litigation," the panel noted that
immediate appeals courts in the state had on multiple occasions
immunized attorneys who had been sued for nonlitigation conduct.

The Fifth Circuit had previously cited the Cantey Hanger case in a
2016 ruling, in which the court said Proskauer Rose and Chadbourne
& Parke were immune in another class action brought by Stanford
investors over the work of another lawyer for Stanford, Thomas
Sjoblom.

Prior to that ruling, Chadbourne had agreed to a $35 million
settlement to resolve that matter and a parallel set of investor
claims. Proskauer Rose, slated to face a trial over those parallel
claims, reached a $63 million settlement with the court-appointed
receiver in charge of winding down Stanford Financial Group and the
Official Stanford Investors Committee in August. [GN]


STATE FARM FIRE: Removes Smith Suit to District of New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of JOHANN SMITH, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STATE FARM
FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant, filed a notice to remove the
lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey, County
of Camden (Case No. CAM-L-1040-19) to the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey on April 18, 2019. The clerk of court
for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-10319. The
case is assigned to Judge Jerome B. Simandle and Magistrate and
Karen M. Williams.

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company provide property insurance for
State Farm customers in the United States. State Farm Fire and
Casualty Company was formerly known as State Farm Insurance Company
Inc. and changed its name to State Farm Fire and Casualty Company
in June 1950. The company was founded in 1935 and is based in
Bloomington, Illinois. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company
operates as a subsidiary of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David F. Swerdlow, Esq.
          WINDELS MARX LANE & MITTENDORF, LLP
          120 Albany Street Plaza, 6th Floor
          New Brunswick, NJ 08901
          Telephone: (732) 448-7600
          E-mail: dswerdlow@windelsmarx.com


STATER BROS MARKETS: Ross Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------
The case, CHEYLYN ROSS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. STATER BROS. MARKETS, a
California Corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. CIV-DS1902518 (Filed Jan. 25, 2019), was transferred from the
Superior Court for the State of California, County of San
Bernardino, Civil Division to the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, Eastern Division on April 24,
2019. The District Court for the Central District of California
assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-00755 to the proceedings. Removal was
based on federal question jurisdiction pursuant to Labor Management
Relations Act pre-emption.

In the complaint, Plaintiff Cheylyn Ross asserted seven causes of
action against Defendant Stater Bros. Markets for: (1) failure to
pay all wages owed, including overtime; (2) failure to provide
second meal periods; (3) failure to authorize and permit rest
periods; (4) failure to timely pay wages owed upon separation from
employer; (5) failure to reimburse necessary expenses; (6) knowing
and intentional failure to comply with accurate itemized wage
statement provisions (7) violation of the Unfair Competition Law.

Headquartered in San Bernardino, California, Stater Bros. Markets
operates 172 supermarkets in seven counties throughout the Southern
California, and has approximately 18,000 employees with annual
sales of over $4 billion. [BN]

Attorneys for the Defendant:

     Brendan W. Brandt, Esq.
     Jeff T. Olsen, Esq.
     Ankit H. Bhakta, Esq.
     VARNER & BRANDT LLP
     3750 University Avenue, Suite 610
     Riverside, CA 92501
     Telephone: (951) 274-7777
     Facsimile: (951) 274-7770
     E-mail: Brendan.Brandt@varnerbrandt.com
             Jeff.Olsen@varnerbrandt.com
             Ankit.Bhakta@varnerbrandt.com


TELUS COMMUNICATIONS: Court Weighs in on Arbitration Clauses
------------------------------------------------------------
Paul-Erik Veel, Esq. -- pveel@litigate.com -- of Lenczner Slaght
LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that the question of whether
and when arbitration clauses will preclude a class proceeding is
seemingly continually litigated. In some circumstances—such as in
the consumer protection context—legislatures have clarified that
certain claims cannot be subject to arbitration. In other cases,
however, it is up to courts to craft the appropriate rules. The
recent decision of TELUS Communications Inc v Wellman shows that
the question of what rules are appropriate can attract significant
disagreement. In a 5-4 split decision, the majority of the Supreme
Court of Canada held that valid arbitration clauses in contracts
should generally be given effect and that persons with such
contracts should not be included in class proceedings. [GN]


TIER REIT: Martin Sues Over Merger Transaction
----------------------------------------------
STEVEN MARTIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. TIER REIT, INC. RICHARD I. GILCHRIST
GREGORY J. WHYTE SCOTT W. FORDHAM R. KENT GRIFFIN JR. CHRISTIE B.
KELLY And DENNIS J. MARTIN, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01292-RDB
(D. Md., May 1, 2019) is a class action brought on behalf of public
holders of common stock of TIER REIT, Inc. against the Company and
the members of the Company's board of directors for violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934  in connection with the
proposed merger between TIER and Cousins Properties Incorporated.

On March 25, 2019, the Board caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which the Company's
shareholders stand to receive 2.98 shares of common stock of
Cousins for each share of TIER stock they own (the "Merger
Consideration"). Upon completion of the merger, Cousins
stockholders will own approximately 72% and TIER stockholders will
own approximately 28% of the combined company. On April 19, 2019,
in order to convince TIER shareholders to vote in favor of the
Proposed Merger, the Board authorized the filing of a materially
incomplete and misleading Form S-4 Registration Statement (the
"S-4") with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), in
violation of the Exchange Act. The materially incomplete and
misleading S-4 violates both Regulation G (17 C.F.R. § 244.100)
and SEC Rule 14a-9  each of which constitutes a violation of the
Exchange Act.

The complaint alleges that while touting the fairness of the Merger
Consideration to the Company's shareholders in the S-4, Defendants
have failed to disclose certain material information that is
necessary for shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the
Proposed Merger, thereby violating SEC rules and regulations and
rendering certain statements in the S-4 materially incomplete and
misleading. In particular, the S-4 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 TIER shareholders vote in favor of
the Proposed Merger. The financial projections were also utilized
by TIER's financial advisor, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC ("J.P.
Morgan"), in conducting certain valuation analyses in support of
its fairness opinion. It is imperative that the material
information that has been omitted from the S-4 is disclosed prior
to the forthcoming vote to allow the Company's shareholders to make
an informed decision regarding the Proposed Merger, says the
complaint.

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

Defendant TIER is incorporated in Maryland.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
     James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     685 Third Ave., 26th Fl.
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 983-9330
     Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
            jwilson@faruqilaw.com

          - and -

     John B. Isbister, Esq.
     Daniel S. Katz, Esq.
     TYDINGS & ROSENBERG LLP
     One East Pratt Street, Suite 901
     Baltimore, MD 21202
     Phone: (410) 752-9700
     Fax: (410) 727-5460
     Email: jisbister@tydingslaw.com
            dkatz@tydingslaw.com


TIGER BRANDS: To Fight Listeria Outbreak Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that Tiger Brands said on April 17 it will fight a
class action lawsuit over its role in the world's largest ever
listeria outbreak.

The listeriosis outbreak, the infection caused by the bacteria,
killed more than 200 people in South Africa last year and was
traced back to a factory run by Tiger Brands-owned Enterprise
Foods.

Tiger Brands confirmed to the stock exchange that it had received a
summons with respect to the class action lawsuit, which has been in
the offing for some time.

"The company intends to defend the class action," the statement
said, adding it would follow due legal process and issue further
updates when appropriate.

The amount of damages being claimed was not identified in the
summons, it continued, because the first stage of the class action
is concerned with liability and not damages, which will be dealt
with at a subsequent stage once there has been a ruling on
liability.

It said that the plaintiffs are seeking damages under the terms of
the Consumer Protection Act and for exemplary, punitive or
constitutional damages, which Tiger Brands said it has been advised
are not recognised in South African law.

While the company has product liability insurance cover, this does
not include cover for exemplary or punitive damages, which are
damages intended to punish the defendant for its conduct and deter
it and others from similar behaviour in future.

Listeriosis causes flu-like symptoms, nausea, diarrhoea and
infection of the blood and brain. It poses a higher risk for
newborns, the elderly, pregnant women and people with weak
immunity. [GN]


TRADER JOE'S: Sued Over Sale of Mislabeled Dried Fruit Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
GABRIEL BARRERE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRADER JOE'S COMPANY; and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV12693 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., April 12, 2019) is a class action lawsuit brought on
behalf of all purchasers of Trader Joe's Dried Fruit brand products
sold at retail outlets throughout California and the United
States.

According to the complaint, the Defendant intentionally misleads
and shortchanges consumers by falsely and deceptively
misrepresenting the amount of dried fruit actually contained in
each box of Product. The Defendant uniformly and substantially
under-fills the opaque packages by 69%. Every package is filled
only 31% full with of fruit product. During the Plaintiff's
investigation into the reason for the Defendant's under-filling of
the boxes, which included consultation with an expert in packaging
design, the Plaintiff discovered that nearly all of the 69% balance
of empty space, or "slack-fill," serves no legitimate or lawful
function. The Product is made, formed, and filled as to be
misleading. The Product therefore is misbranded.

Trader Joe's Company owns and operates grocery stores in the United
States. It provides bakery products, beverages, cheese products,
frozen products, groceries, produce and flowers, refrigerated
products, snacks and sweets, supplements, and wines and beers.
Trader Joe's Company was formerly known as Pronto Markets and
changed its name to Trader Joe's Company in January 1967. The
company was founded in 1958 and is headquartered in Monrovia,
California. Trader Joe's Company operates as a subsidiary of
T.A.C.T. Holding, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (323) 306-4234
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com

               - and -

          G. Thomas Martin, III, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq.
          MARTIN & BONTRAGER, APC
          6464 W. Sunset Blvd., Ste. 960
          Los Angeles, CA 90028
          Telephone: (323)940-1700
          Facsimile: (323) 238-8095
          E-mail: Tom@mblawapc.com
                  Nick@mblawapc.com


TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Illegally Increased Insurance Costs, Shupe Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOYCE SHUPE, individually and on behalf of and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00045-KEM (N.D. Iowa, April 18, 2019)
is an action arising from substantial cost of insurance increases
on the Defendant's universal life insurance policies. The Defendant
breached the express and implied terms of the policies and falsely
and misleadingly stated that the cost increases were permitted due
to a change in the Defendant's prospective cost expectations.

According to the Plaintiff, as a result of the Defendant's actions,
thousands of class members are facing an impossible choice: either
pay exorbitant and improper cost increases that cannot be justified
by the ultimate death benefits of the policies and that violate the
policies' terms or surrender or lapse on the policies and walk away
from years' or decades' worth of premium payments. At this point,
the Plaintiff and many policyholders like her cannot maintain the
premiums needed to keep the policies in-force, their policies will
likely terminate, and they will lose life insurance coverage even
though they faithfully paid premiums and complied with all of the
policies' provisions.

Transamerica Life Insurance Company offers life and heath insurance
products. It offers traditional, interest sensitive whole, term,
universal, and single premium life insurance products; Medicare
supplement, hospital indemnity, cancer, AD and D, accident and
health, heart, ICU, and disability insurance policies; and
annuities. The company was founded in 1961 and is based in Cedar
Rapids, Iowa. Transamerica Life Insurance Company operates as a
subsidiary of Commonwealth General Corporation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jenna L. Green, Esq.
          HUPY AND ABRAHAM, S.C., P.C.
          6600 Westown Parkway, Suite 270
          West Des Moines, IA 50266
          Telephone: (515) 984-0091
          Facsimile: (515) 777-3399
          E-mail: jgreen@hupy.com

               - and -

          Thomas W. Kyle, Esq.
          HUPY AND ABRAHAM, S.C., P.C.
          111 East Kilbourn Avenue, Suite 1100
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: (414) 223-4800
          Facsimile: (414) 469-0646
          E-mail: tkyle@hupy.com

               - and -

          Stephen J. Fearon, Jr., Esq.
          Paul V. Sweeny, Esq.
          SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
          32 East 57th St., 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 421-6492
          Facsimile: (212) 421-6553
          E-mail: stephen@sfclasslaw.com
                  paul@sfclasslaw.com


TRIANGLE CORP: LifeWise Can File 2nd Amended Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the consolidated cases involving violations of federal
securities laws captioned as IN RE TRIANGLE CAPITAL CORP.
SECURITIES LITIGATION, This Document Relates to: ALL ACTIONS,
Consolidated Civil Action No. 5:18-CV-10-FL (E.D.N.C.), Judge
Louise W. Flanagan of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division, granted
defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended consolidated
complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

The Court finds that the plaintiffs fail to plead sufficient,
particularized facts to plausibly show the defendants' statements
regarding the quality of defendant Triangle's investments were
false.  The Court also finds that the complaint fails to plead with
sufficient specificity facts that show defendants believed their
origination process was inadequate when making contemporaneous
statements about originating its 2014 and 2015 investments.  Thus
defendants cannot be said to have made a material false statement
or omission as to its origination process in 2014 and 2015.

Moreover, plaintiff LifeWise has failed to plausibly show that
defendant Triangle made a false statement or omission regarding
defendant Tucker's role in the final selection of investments by
defendant Triangle's investment committee in 2014 and 2015.

Accordingly, the Court dismisses the plaintiffs' complaint without
prejudice for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff LifeWise is
allowed to file a motion to amend, together with proposed second
consolidated amended complaint correcting the deficiencies.

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

LifeWise Family Financial Security, Inc., Movant, represented by
Daniel K. Bryson, Esq. -- dan@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield, Bryson &
Mason, LLP, Patrick Donovan, Esq. -- donovan@whafh.com -- Wolf
Haldenstein Alder Freeman & Herz LLP & Peter C. Harrar, Esq. --
harrar@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Alder Freeman & Herz LLP.

Julie Serrano, Movant, represented by L. Bruce McDaniel, McDaniel &
Anderson, L.L.P.

Gary W. Holden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Alexander Hood, II,
Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP.

Yun Cheng, Chi Wai Leung, Steven Lynn Koeppel & Susan Marie
Koeppel, Plaintiffs, represented by Samuel Ranchor Harris, III,
Girardi Keese.

Geraldine Checkman, Plaintiff, represented by Mark R. Sigmon,
Sigmon Law PLLC.

Henry Werdenberg, Plaintiff, represented by David G. Schiller,
Schiller & Schiller.

LifeWise Family Financial Security Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Matthew M. Guiney, Wolf Haldenstein Alder Freeman & Herz LLP &
Daniel K. Bryson, Whitfield, Bryson & Mason, LLP.

Triangle Capital Corporation, E. Ashton Poole, Steven C. Lilly &
Garland S. Tucker, III, Defendants, represented by Chelsea J.
Corey, King & Spalding LLP, Benjamin W. Pope, King & Spalding LLP,
Benjamin Warren Pope, King & Spalding, LLP, Bethany M. Rezek, King
& Spalding LLP, Israel Dahan, King & Spalding LLP & Michael R.
Smith, King & Spalding LLP.


TRW AUTOMOTIVE: Strosberg Files $1-Bil. Suit Over Faulty Air Bags
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Battagello, writing for WINDSOR STAR, reports that Windsor law
firm Strosberg Sasso Sutts has served notice of action in Ontario
Superior Court of plans to launch a class action lawsuit of over $1
billion against an airbag manufacturer and several automakers which
have installed faulty airbags that allegedly fail to deploy upon
impact.

The local firm is co-counsel on the legal action along with
McKenzie Lake Lawyers of London which together are claiming general
damages of $900 million and punitive damages of $150 million.

"Airbags are there for safety," said Windsor lawyer Harvey
Strosberg, Esq. -- harvey@strosbergco.com "Without airbags people
can be seriously injured or die. We are suing about safety. These
airbags on impact sometimes will not inflate.

"The problem is the circuit board that translates from impact. That
sequence of events does not take place in some cases. That is
horrendous."

It is the first class-action lawsuit of its kind in Canada with
several similar class-action suits in recent weeks previously filed
in the U.S.  The airbag companies named in the lawsuit include TRW
Automotive US, ZF TR Automotive Holdings Corp. and ZF
Friedrichshafen AG.

Lawsuits in the U.S. came quickly after it was announced in April
that about 12.3 million vehicles are under federal investigation
because they are equipped with ZF-TRW airbag control units which
may fail and cause airbag failures.

Unlike a previous airbag-related controversy a few years ago
involving product maker Takata — which has since gone out of
business after a global controversy occurred when its airbags
deployed at random — the recent TRW-related product concerns are
focused on airbags failing to deploy at all.

The Strosberg-led class-action suit claims the airbag control units
were "negligently designed and manufactured," yet continued to be
installed by several automakers.

Among automakers named in the lawsuit alleged to have installed the
faulty airbags are Acura, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, Honda,
Hyundai, Kia, Mitsubishi and Toyota.

Without airbags people can be seriously injured or die
Windsor-built minivans are not included among 50 vehicle models on
the list named in the lawsuit of having installed the alleged
faulty airbags.

Strosberg's firm claims that up to 2.5 million vehicles across
Canada may have the TRW airbags installed with the potential they
may not deploy during impact.

Despite knowing the risks and potential for failure, Strosberg
suggested that following Takata's demise, automakers may have found
themselves in a pinch and continued to install the alleged faulty
airbags because of a lack of global supplies.

"There was probably not enough supply (for automakers) after Takata
went bankrupt," he said. "Now their problems are compounded because
of the TRW airbags."

Recalls have been slow to be issued, perhaps because dealerships
could be overwhelmed since it involves a lengthy full-day process
to disconnect and replace a single airbag.

"Our position is the manufacturers continued to install airbags
knowing these issues exist," Strosberg said.

None of the claims in this class-action suit have yet been tested
in court. [GN]


UNITED NATURAL: Removes Ponce Suit to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case of DAVID PONCE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED
NATURAL FOODS, INC.; WHOLE FOODS MARKET, INC.; WHOLE FOODS MARKET
CALIFORNIA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants,
filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Riverside (Case No. RIC1901643) to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
April 12, 2019. The clerk of court for the Central District of
California assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-00668-DSF-SHK. The case is
assigned to Judge Virginia A Phillips  and referred to Magistrate
Shashi H Kewalramani.

United Natural Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
distributes natural, organic, and specialty foods and non-food
products in the United States and Canada. United Natural Foods,
Inc. was founded in 1976 and is headquartered in Providence, Rhode
Island. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          John S Battenfeld, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue 22nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Telephone: (213) 612-2500
          Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
          E-mail: jbattenfeld@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Ashley A. Baltazar, Esq.
          Rebecca N. Friedman, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          One Market, Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442-1270
          Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
          E-mail: ashley.baltazar@morganlewis.com
                  rebecca.friedman@morganlewis.com


UNITED RENTALS: Underpays Equipment Associates, Castillo Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
RICARDO CASTILLO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED RENTALS (NORTH AMERICA),
INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00599-VAB (W.D. Wash., April 18,
2019) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours,
overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest
periods.

The Plaintiff Castillo was employed by the Defendant as equipment
associate.

United Rentals (North America), Inc. operates as an equipment
rental company in the United States, Canada, and Europe. The
company is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut. United Rentals
(North America), Inc. is a subsidiary of United Rentals, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
          Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
          Erika L. Nusser, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103-8869
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
          E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
                  jmurray@terrellmarshall.com
                  enusser@terrellmarshall.com

               - and -

          Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq.
          David C. Leimbach, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
          KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
                  dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com


UNITED STATES: Class Action vs. Immigration Officials Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Doiron, writing for WPRI 12 Eyewitness News, reports that a
federal judge ruled on May 16, 2019, that a lawsuit filed on behalf
of a Providence mother detained by Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) can move forward.

The ruling will extend the lawsuit beyond its five plaintiffs,
including other New England-area residents to continue seeking
lawful status without worrying about deportation.

Lilian Calderon is the lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit,
filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of
Massachusetts, that challenges President Donald Trump and his
administration's pattern of separating married couples and families
pursuing lawful immigration status.

Calderon was detained by ICE in January 2018 after a marriage
interview at an immigration office in Johnston. The Guatemalan
native, who came to Rhode Island as a toddler, told Eyewitness News
she thought she was taking the next step to becoming a lawful,
permanent resident. She was released from detention in February
2018 following ACLU's legal action.

Calderon and her husband Luis Gordillo, an American citizen, are
among four other New England couples being represented in the
lawsuit, which argues that non-citizen immigrants, who are going
through the citizenship process, should be granted temporary relief
to remain in the United States.

According to the ACLU, filings in the case revealed how the United
States utilized its own regulations, which were designed to protect
families from unnecessary separation during the legalization
process, to target individuals for detention and deportation.

"This class certification is about ensuring that families stay
together," Executive Director of the ACLU of Massachusetts Carol
Rose said.

The ACLU of Massachusetts said the court also denied the
government's motion to dismiss petitioners' equal protection claim,
finding that Trump's policies adopted by his administration,
"supported a plausible claim that the harms petitioners suffered
were the product of  racial animus."

On May 15, Calderon was granted her visa by the U.S. consulate in
Guatemala, meaning she can now return to the United States as a
lawful, permanent resident. Once home, she plans to continue her
path to citizenship. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Medicare Diabetes Patients Sue HHS Secretary
-----------------------------------------------------------
Diabetes Health reports that Health and Human Services Secretary
Alex Azar is the subject of a new class action lawsuit filed by two
plaintiffs, Douglas B. Sargent and Carol A. Lewis. They allege that
Medicare's repeated refusal to cover continuous glucose monitors
(CGMs) results in serious negative health outcomes to patients.
CGMs have largely replaced the "finger prick" method of testing
blood glucose levels that was common before they were developed in
the early 2000s.

CGMs are effective because they continuously monitor a patient's
blood glucose level and easily send the data to patients and
caregivers alike. This makes it easier to catch any potential
issues before they become serious. Denying diabetes patients access
to them, then, might put their health in jeopardy.

The plaintiffs are hoping to receive retroactive payments for
patients who have shouldered this cost alone. [GN]


UNITEDHEALTH: Sued for Denying Mental Health Care Coverage
----------------------------------------------------------
Alisa Roth Edina, writing for MPR News, reports that Max Tillitt's
parents thought they were close to saving him.

Their son had struggled for years with mental health problems and
substance use, products of a violent hit during a junior year high
school football practice that left him with a concussion and neck
injury so bad he couldn't play anymore.

It changed Max, creating behavioral problems that got him kicked
out of school and mixed up with people who opened doors to
marijuana, prescription painkillers and heroin. The young man who'd
grown up looking out for others in need needed help.

When Max was 21, the Tillitts thought they found an answer, a
treatment center where their son finally seemed to be recovering.
And they had insurance to cover it -- a UnitedHealth plan they
thought would pay for Max's treatment costs until doctors
pronounced him well.

UnitedHealth, however, had its own methods to decide how much was
enough.

Twenty days into the program, UnitedHealth stopped paying for
treatment, according to his parents. Max's doctors appealed to the
insurer, saying Max was nowhere near ready to leave, but he was
discharged. His parents found outpatient treatment and he started
improving, but a UnitedHealth mistake interrupted his coverage, his
mother said. By the time it got resolved, it was too late. Max had
lost momentum.

Max didn't make it to 22, dying of a heroin overdose in 2015 after
relapsing and finding his way back to his old dealer.

His story is now part of a class action lawsuit that may include as
many as 50,000 people challenging UnitedHealth's standards for
behavioral care. U.S. Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero
recently ripped the Twin Cities-based insurer for placing an
"excessive emphasis" on paying for treatments during a crisis while
ignoring "effective treatment of . . . underlying conditions."

Spero ruled United Behavioral Health, which manages behavioral
health services for UnitedHealth members, violated its financial
obligation to clients.

UnitedHealth has declined to comment but told the court it can show
that its decision making was consistent with "evidence-based
treatment and the terms of the health plans."

A 2008 federal law requires insurers to treat mental health care
the same way they treat physical health care. Insurers, though, can
find strategies around it, such as not having enough people
in-network to provide mental health care or making it hard to get
the medications people need, said Haiden Huskamp, an economist who
studies behavioral health at Harvard Medical School.

Huskamp compares UnitedHealth's behavioral health standard to an
insurer covering only an emergency in diabetes, but not long-term
management of the disease. They'll cover the crisis, she said, but
"when [the patient comes] home, you're not going to cover their
insulin or their routine care like their diabetic eye exams or the
other kinds of care they need to stay healthy."

DeeDee Tillitt, Max's mother, believes Max would still be alive if
UnitedHealth had OK'd more time in treatment.

"It's just so maddening," she said. "This is just such a waste. I
mean, you know, he wasn't diagnosed with terminal cancer. He had a
treatable illness."

'They just basically said no'
The class action suit includes UnitedHealth customers from 2011 to
2017 who were working through a wide range of disorders when they
were denied coverage.

Like the Tillitts, many believed their policies covered medically
appropriate treatment not just during a crisis, but ongoing care
for the underlying condition.

Chuck Lesniak of Austin, Texas, said his middle-school daughter
developed severe anorexia five or six years ago to the point where
she was nearly passing out every time she stood up, "just eating
very very small amounts and it became very bad, very very
quickly."

An eating disorder specialist in Austin said she either needed
inpatient hospital care or care in a residential treatment center
right away or she could die. Lesniak was an employee of the city of
Austin, which provided employee health coverage through
UnitedHealth. The doctor warned them, though, it would be hard to
get UnitedHealth to cover it after the crisis passed.

That's what happened. Lesniak's daughter was at the treatment
center for six or eight weeks when she reached an acceptable
weight, at which point UnitedHealth said it was done paying.

On the doctors' urging, Lesniak said he kept his daughter at the
center for about seven more months. The bill topped $200,000. He
said he kept trying to get UnitedHealth to pay and even asked the
city of Austin to help since the city provided his health
insurance. Both refused.

"They just basically said no, you're done," Lesniak recalled.
"You've exhausted your appeals and there's nothing you can do.
That's your debt and your problem."

To pay part of the bill, Lesniak borrowed against his retirement
accounts. The family still owes more than $100,000. The treatment
center agreed to only take more money if and when Lesniak won back
the additional money.

Lesniak's daughter recovered completely, returned to school and was
recently accepted to college. Lesniak is sure it was the extended
treatment that saved his daughter's life at the time and made it so
she didn't relapse. But he's still angry.

"I want these people punished," he said. "I don't want other
families to go through what we went through."

Sell a kidney for care?
Carrie Gruman said her oldest daughter Katie was in her late teens
when she ended up in an inpatient behavioral health program for
anxiety and a very serious substance use disorder. The girl had
struggled with mental health problems since middle school.

They let her go away to college after high school, thinking it
would offer a fresh start. She had barely started her first
semester when her parents got a call that she was in the hospital
after trying to kill herself.

The family brought her back to Minnesota and put her into an
outpatient treatment program.

She started seeing her longtime psychologist again. Shortly after,
her doctor urged the family to get Katie into a residential
treatment facility. The one they found was in California,
specializing in mental illness and substance abuse disorders --
care that could not be found closer to home.

The center's bill hit $172,000. UnitedHealth said it would pay
$10,000.

"We were desperate," Carrie Gruman recalled as she showed a
reporter a pile of paperwork and claim denials tied to Katie's care
in 2010. "We knew she needed this care or she would have died. We
know that for a fact."

Gruman said outpatient care would not have been enough for Katie,
but UnitedHealth declined to cover.

"We're trying to fly out and do family therapy and be there and
support her and working with the doctors at the treatment center
— and at the same time, fighting with our insurance company and
going through the appeals process," she said.

The first month's treatment bill came in at nearly $33,000. "We're
trying to figure out how to pay for it," she recalled. "I actually
Googled how to sell a kidney or a body part because I was like, you
know, we have to figure this out."

Gruman kept her kidney. She and her husband used credit cards and
borrowed money from family and their retirement accounts.

Katie Gruman lives in Colorado these days. She has other health
insurance. And she's working to help other people get access to
insurance for behavioral health needs.

Because the Grumans' fight with UnitedHealth started before 2011,
her case is not covered by the lawsuit in California.

'He will be saving thousands of people'
In a statement to MPR News, UnitedHealth said: "We look forward to
demonstrating in the next phase of this case how our members
received appropriate care. We remain committed to providing our
members with access to the right care for the treatment of mental
health conditions and substance use disorders."

The class action attorneys suspect there are thousands of
UnitedHealth customers outside the suit who were wrongly rejected
by the company for behavioral needs treatment. They say they are
pushing for an outcome that provides some compensation for them.

"Our argument would be that United has to adopt new guidelines that
satisfy generally accepted standards of care," said one of the
attorneys, D. Brian Hufford. "That it should improve and change its
processes for reviewing and adopting and applying guidelines."

He said he hopes UnitedHealth will go back and reprocess all the
claims it denied.

The Tillitts say they ended up spending more than $100,000 for
Max's care.

A few months after UnitedHealth stopped covering his inpatient
treatment, Max met up with his old heroin dealer, Beverly Burrell.
She was later convicted of third-degree murder and sentenced to
more than 14 years in prison for the deaths of Max and another
man.

After his death, his parents discovered that Max had already booked
himself back into the treatment facility and he was due to start
there again the following week.

DeeDee Tillitt remembers her son always worried about everybody
else. When he was little, he would give his money to people begging
in the street.

"It used to make me so mad," DeeDee recalled, laughing, as she sat
in her office recently where she works as part of the health
insurance industry. "Like, 'Max, I don't want to save everybody, I
just want to save you.' And he was just like, 'Oh, Mom, come on, we
have to help out so and so.'"

When he got older, helping people meant doing things like inviting
friends who had nowhere to go to come sleep on the porch at his
dad's house in Eden Prairie.

His mother remembers one time he asked her to help a man he was in
treatment with, who was having trouble with his insurance.

"So that was Max," she said. "While he's in treatment, supposed to
be healing himself, he's over here worrying about Joe's insurance
issues. He's like, 'Oh talk to my mom. . . . She knows this
stuff."

She was in the courtroom in California for every day of the trial,
listening to testimony and watching evidence presented. She said
she feels like if UnitedHealth was forced to change the way it
operates, it would be one more chance for Max to take care of
others.

"He will be saving thousands of people," she said, "and not just
maybe saving their lives, but making their lives better and
livable. And so that, to me, is the joy." [GN]


US STEEL: Faces Class Action Over Coke Pollution
------------------------------------------------
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that two lawsuits were filed in
related to coke oven emissions, including a class action lawsuit
against U.S. Steel over nuisance sulfur dioxide and hydrogen
sulfide pollution following the Dec. 24, 2018, fire at the Clairton
Coke Works.

The class action suit was filed April 9 in the Allegheny County
Court of Common Pleas, with East Pittsburgh resident Linda
Hernandez as the named plaintiff on behalf of all residents of 22
communities in the Mon Valley.

According to the lawsuit, Ms. Hernandez experienced "nuisance-level
physical discomforts: burning throat, difficulty breathing,
headache, persistent coughing, and general malaise" after
decorating the outside of her home on Dec. 24. The lawsuit asks for
both compensatory and punitive damages, alleging negligence in not
preventing the fire and in continuing to operate the plant while
the desulfurization controls were down.

Separately, Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future joined local clean
air groups based in Louisiana and Alabama, along with the national
environmental organization the Sierra Club, in suing Andrew
Wheeler, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, in the
Northern District of California federal court. That lawsuit makes
no specific mention of the Clairton plant, instead calling on Mr.
Wheeler to "to take actions mandated by the Clean Air Act . . . to
protect public health and the environment from coke ovens."

Neither U.S. Steel nor the EPA comments on active litigation. A
media representative for U.S. Steel directed the Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette to www.clairton.uss.com for information regarding the
recently completed post-fire repairs at the Clairton Works.

The Allegheny County Health Department said after the repairs were
completed that it would begin a "comprehensive assessment of
violations since the Dec. 24, 2018, fire to determine the amount of
the resulting civil penalties."

According to the health department, there were a total of 10 hourly
exceedances of the federal standard for sulfur dioxide emissions
following the fire, eight recorded by the monitor in Liberty and
two at the North Braddock monitor. The most recent occurred at
Liberty on March 28. [GN]


UTILEBILL CREDIT: Faces Class Action Over False Information
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kristin Annable and Katie Nicholson, writing for CBC News, report
that Utilebill Credit Corp. -- the company at the centre of a
complaint about costly contracts for home energy products sold
door-to-door in Winnipeg -- is facing a proposed class action
lawsuit over its "use of false and misleading information" with
sales made in Calgary.

A statement of claim filed in February alleges a salesperson from
Secure Home Services Inc. came to Ronald Mykytyshyn's door in 2015
and told him he could get a furnace plus air conditioner if he paid
$165 a month for two years.

"He was flying all over the place, making us promises and
guarantees and all kinds of things," Mykytyshyn told CBC.

"We weren't told anything about a 10-year rental agreement or
anything."

Mykytyshyn's allegation is similar to the story told to CBC by
Claude Caya. The 60-year-old said he is drowning in debt after
signing a 10-year lease for four different home energy products
with Prairie Home Comfort, another company affiliated with
Utilebill. Caya says he didn't understand what he was signing and
now owes the company over $30,000.

Utilebill describes itself as a financing company and says Secure
Home Services Inc. was one its dealers.

Both are named as defendants in the proposed class action suit,
which was filed Feb. 11 in the Calgary Court of Queen's Bench.

Customer didn't realize what he signed
The claim alleges the salesperson made a verbal promise for the
deal for an air conditioner and furnace and then compiled a
"lengthy agreement" for the couple to sign.

At Mykytyshyn's requrest, the salesperson added an "addendum" by
rewriting the terms of the verbal contract and signing it. The
salesperson allegedly told the couple to sign the official
agreement in order to get the equipment, but "they would receive a
revised contract . . . in about two weeks," according to the
statement of claim.

Soon after signing the contract, Mykytyshyn says he spoke to a
neighbour who signed the same agreement and realized he had signed
on to a 10-year rental agreement. The revised contract never came,
the claim alleges.

Mykytyshyn, who lives in Calgary, says he continued to make
payments for the next two years -- living up to the agreement he
felt he signed. Then he stopped making payments.

"Personally I feel this is the contract that we made with them," he
said. "They can try to squeeze money out of us, but that is like
trying to squeeze blood out of a stone, or rock. Because they
aren't going to get it, we aren't going to give them any more
money."

Utilebill says they are 'arms-length' to company
Utilebill responded in a statement of defence on March 29, where it
denied "each and every allegation" in the statement of claim.

"It (Utilebill) is a separate and arms-length entity from SHS
(Secure Home Services) and there is no cross-affiliation between
the two defendants," Utilebill said in its statement.

Utilebill argues that it had no involvement in what was verbally
pitched to Mykytyshyn or the terms of the agreement and any
misunderstanding of the agreement falls to the plaintiff and Secure
Home Services.

Secure Home Services is no longer in business, according to its
website.

The statement of defence notes that Mykytyshyn would not be able to
fairly represent the interest of a class of members because he is
in default of his payments.

Utilebill has counter-sued Mykytyshyn for this payment, arguing he
owes them $3,310.

The statement of defence also dismisses the proposed class action,
saying each class member "was subject to different agreements, for
different equipment and with different payment arrangements."

In an email to CBC, Utilebill's owner John Nassar said Utilebill is
a finance company.

"The action in Alberta has to do with a dealer that sold us some
contracts and we funded. That dealer is out of business," Nassar
wrote.

Mathew Farrell is the lawyer leading the proposed class action and
says Mykytyshyn will be used as "the example of what has been done
on a number of cases to many more people."

"In this case we are talking about someone who comes to your door
and they tell you that they are going to be giving you one thing
and they make all sorts of promises and tell you what is supposedly
in this contract and you say those promises sound good," he said.

"Then you sign and you find out the agreement is much different
from what they told you … and we believe that is what has
happened to a lot of people."

Lawyer says contracts should be void Farrell counters Utilebill's
argument that they are not liable for Secure Homes' contracts.

"Utilebill is seeking to enrich itself on a basis of a contract
that was entered into in respect of a misrepresentation," he said.

"The contract should be voided and it shouldn't be enforceable."

The next step for the case is it to go before case management and
eventually a judge will decide if it will be certified class
action.

Farrell says if it is certified, then anyone who has entered into a
contract with Utilebill or Secure Homes could potentially join the
suit.

"We are interested in hearing from anyone who has been wronged by
Secure Homes, but also by anybody across the country who has been
wronged by Utilebill, whether that is with Secure Homes or not," he
said. [GN]


WADDELL & REED: Settles ERISA Class Action for $4.88MM
------------------------------------------------------
James Dornbrook, writing for Kansas City Business Journal, reports
that Waddell & Reed Financial Inc. agreed to pay $4.88 million to
settle a class-action lawsuit filed against it by a former
employee.

Stacy Schapker of Shawnee, a former paralegal at Overland
Park-based Waddell & Reed (NYSE: WDR), filed suit against the
company in 2017, claiming that it breached its fiduciary duty and
made prohibited transactions under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Schapker accused the company of
forcing plan participants nearly exclusively into investment
options managed by Waddell & Reed or affiliated entities that she
claims in virtually all instances charged excessive fees and
performed worse than comparable available options.

The 401(k) plan held $190.38 million at year-end 2016, which was
down 5.7% from $201.95 million at the end of 2015.

The suit was filed in Kansas federal court. Waddell & Reed denied
the accusations. The case ended up in arbitration, where a
settlement agreement was reached.

Plaintiff attorneys at Wichita-based Foulston Siefkin LLP, led by
Scott Nehrbass in the Overland Park office, were awarded $1.71
million in legal fees and costs. The legal bills will come out of
the overall settlement amount, leaving $3.17 million to be
distributed to class members, which includes anyone who worked at
Waddell & Reed from June 23, 2011, to Nov. 28, 2018. The company
reported almost 1,200 employees last year.

A website was created for class members at
www.waddell401ksettlement.com, but it has not been updated to
reflect the settlement agreement, which the court approved April
8.

The case against Waddell & Reed was similar to one filed against
Kansas City-based American Century Investments in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Missouri. That case went all the
way to trial and ended in a rare defense victory. Plaintiffs filed
43 of these types of cases before 2019, and all but five settled.
Only two of the cases that went to trial ended in a win for
defendants. One case was dismissed but refiled. Two that went to
trial ended in partial losses for defendants. [GN]


WASTE SERVICES: Facing Class Suit Over Smelly CK Landfill
---------------------------------------------------------
Steve McClain, writing for News-Graphic, reports that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Waste Services of the
Bluegrass (WSB) seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief from
"intolerable and noxious odors" from Central Kentucky Landfill (CK
Landfill).

The suit was filed May 3 by plaintiffs William Cope, Linda Stacy
and Mark Wallace on their behalf and a "class of similarly situated
individuals." They are represented by Randal A. Strobo, Esq. --
RSTROBO@STROBOBARKLEY.COM -- of Strobo Barkley PLLC in Louisville
and Donald R. Todd, Esq. of Todd & Todd in Lexington.

A civil suit only reflects the plaintiffs' version of the
complaint, and no court date has been set.

The suit claims WSB has caused a nuisance to surrounding residents
and property owners because of the negligent operation and
maintenance of CK Landfill, and continued to do so without adequate
mitigation or repair. It also states the Kentucky Department of
Environmental Protection determined the odors and other chemicals
invading plaintiffs property to be a nuisance and have issued
"scores of Notices of Violations to WSB."

Cope is a resident on Double Culvert Road, Sadieville; Stacy
resides on Luke Road, Sadieville; and Wallace lives on Cincinnati
Road, Sadieville. All three claim they have been unlawfully damaged
by the "invasion of landfill gas and odors" into homes and
property.

The lawsuit claims as facts, among other things, that a properly
operated and managed landfill will collect, capture and destroy
landfill gas in order to prevent it from escaping into the air, and
that WSB has failed to adequately collect, capture and mitigate
landfill gas to prevent fugitive emissions and prevent odors. The
plaintiffs also claim WSB has intentionally and recklessly failed
to properly contract, repair, maintain and operate its landfill.

The plaintiffs are seeking a jury trial to find on their behalf a
reasonable and just compensation for injuries to interests in real
property and loss of use and enjoyment of property; all expenses
and economic losses; punitive damages; attorney fees and requiring
the defendant to cease the unlawful invasion of odors into
properties and homes.

Steve McClain can be reached at smcclain@news-graphic.com [GN]


WEIGHT LOSS PRODUCTS: Rubinstein Alleges Deceptive Advertising
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Weight Loss
Products, LLC and its managing partner, Beth Golden, for violations
of the New York General Business Law and Federal Trade Commission's
official pronouncements, rules and orders on weight-loss products.
The case is captioned Chaim Rubinstein, Individually and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. Weight Loss
Products, LLC (WLP) and Beth Golden, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-03641 (S.D.N.Y., April 24, 2019).

Plaintiff Chaim Rubinstein alleges that the Defendants are engaged
in unlawful, unfair, and deceptive scheme in the production,
distribution, advertising, labeling, marketing, and sale of RK Pure
Raspberry Ketone Capsules. Through its website at
https://www.hcgdietplan.com, WLP falsely and deceptively represents
its RK Pure Raspberry Ketone Capsules to be a "fat burner,"
"Natural" and "100% Natural."

Based in Saint Petersburg, Florida, WLP offers professional weight
loss and anti-aging products and services. It operates the website
www.HCGDietPlan.com. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark Schlachet, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF MARK SCHLACHET
     3515 Severn Road
     Cleveland, OH 44118
     Telephone: (216) 225-7559
     Facsimile: (216) 932-5390
     E-mail: markschlachet@me.com


WELLCARE HEALTH: Rigrodsky Files Suit Over Centene Acquisition
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announces that it has filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware on behalf of holders of WellCare Health Plans, Inc. (NYSE:
WCG) common stock in connection with the proposed acquisition of
WellCare by Centene Corporation ("Centene") announced on March 27,
2019 (the "Complaint").  The Complaint, which alleges violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against WellCare, its Board of
Directors (the "Board"), and Centene, is captioned Kent v. WellCare
Health Plans, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-00865 (D. Del.).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's
counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at Rigrodsky & Long,
P.A., 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220, Wilmington, DE 19801, by
telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail atinfo@rl-legal.com, or at
http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/

On March 26, 2019, WellCare entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Centene. Pursuant to the terms
of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of WellCare will receive 3.38
shares of Centene stock and $120.00 per share in cash (the
"Proposed Transaction").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction, defendants
issued materially incomplete disclosures in a registration
statement (the "Registration Statement") filed with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission. The Complaint alleges
that the Registration Statement omits material information with
respect to, among other things, WellCare's and Centene's financial
projections and the analyses performed by WellCare's financial
advisor. The Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable relief and
damages on behalf of holders of WellCare common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than July 9, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

Contact:

       Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
       Gina M. Serra, Esq.
       Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
       Tel: (302) 295-5310
       Fax: (302) 654-7530
       Website: www.rigrodskylong.com
       Email: info@rl-legal.com
              gms@rl-legal.com
              sdr@rl-legal.com [GN]


WELLS FARGO: Judge Refuses to Certify Auto Repo Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a Pennsylvania federal judge wouldn't certify
the class in a lawsuit over whether Wells Fargo improperly
repossessed and resold vehicles, ruling on April 17 the proposed
lead plaintiff's circumstances are too unique. [GN]


WHITESTONE REIT: June 17 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. on April 17 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Whitestone REIT (NYSE: WSR)
securities between May 9, 2018 and February 27, 2019 (the "Class
Period").  Investors have until June 17, 2019 to apply to the Court
to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose: (1) the company lacked effective internal control over
financial reporting; (2) Whitestone was incorrectly recognizing
assets and liabilities associated with its contribution to
Pillarstone Capital REIT Operating Partnership LP; (3) the
company's financial statements for the fiscal year 2018 were
overstating revenues; (4) the company's financial statements for
the fiscal year 2018 could no longer be relied upon; and (5) as a
result of the foregoing, the company's financial statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

If you purchased Whitestone securities during the Class Period or
continue to hold shares purchased before the Class Period, have
information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon
Walker or Melissa Fortunato by email at investigations@bespc.com,
or telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact
form.  There is no cost or obligation to you.

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. -- http://www.bespc.com-- is a New
York-based law firm concentrating in commercial and securities
litigation.  For additional information concerning the Whitestone
lawsuit, please go to https://bespc.com/wsr/. [GN]


WOOD-MODE INC: Competing Petitions Seek Class-Action Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Scicchitano, writing for Sunbury Daily Item, reports that two
petitions filed on May 15, 2019, in Harrisburg federal court seek
certification as a class action lawsuit against Wood-Mode following
the Snyder County cabinet maker's abrupt closure announced on May
13.

Both complaints allege Wood-Mode violated the WARN Act by failing
to provide 60 days notice that the manufacturing firm would shut
down. Each action seeks a judgement against the company equal to
pay wages, vacation time, retirement, health benefits and more for
a period of 60 days.

The complaints were filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania. They each name only one plaintiff, both
said to be former employees, and ask the judge to certify the
competing firms as the designated counsel for a certified class
action lawsuit.

Large employers typically must give workers two months warning
before plant closings, but the law includes three exceptions,
including one for faltering businesses that are up for sale or
can't find financing, according to the state Department of Labor
and Industry.

Wood-Mode's closure will cost 938 employees their jobs, according
to a company notice filed with the state. The notice indicated that
administrative workers would be laid off immediately on May 20 and
production workers would be laid off in phases ending by May 24.

Samuel J. Cordes, Esq. -- SJCordes@rothmangordon.com -- Rothmans
Gordon, Pittsburgh, filed on behalf of William Swede of Union
County. Attorney James Huggett, Esq.
--jhuggett@margolisedelstein.com -- Margolis Edelstein, Wilmington,
Del., filed on behalf of Curtis Trego of Snyder County.

Each complaint looks to add in all furloughed employees protected
by the WARN Act. [GN]


ZOGENIX INC: June 11 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood on April 16 disclosed that on April 12, 2019, a
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California against Zogenix, Inc.
(NASDAQ: ZGNX). The complaint alleges violations of federal
securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of
issuing a series of material or false misrepresentations to the
market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price during the Class Period, which is February 6, 2019 through
April 8, 2019.

To learn how to participate in this action, please visit
https://tinyurl.com/y3t6mfty

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Zogenix, Inc.
shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class Period and
are therefore a member of the Class as described above. You may
move the Court no later than Tuesday, June 11, 2019 to serve as a
lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order to do so,
you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights, please contact:

     Robin Hester
     FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
     10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
     Oklahoma City, OK 73120
     Email: rkh@federmanlaw.com
     Web: www.federmanlaw.com [GN]


[*] Accounting Class Action Settlements Hit Near-Record High
------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Iacone, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that class
action settlements involving Petrobras and Wells Fargo & Co. helped
investors secure a near-record $4.5 billion for cases related to
bad accounting or weak internal controls in 2018.

That payout is the second-highest accounting-related settlement
total in the past decade and reflects a trend of investors
targeting ever-larger companies, according to a Cornerstone
Research Inc. review of accounting-related class action litigation
released April 17.

"The increase in the size of those defendant firms is dramatic,"
said Laura Simmons, a senior adviser at Cornerstone Research.

"We're seeing substantially larger defendants both in terms of case
filings as well as settlements," she said.

The median size of a company facing an investor accounting lawsuit
last year was $1.5 billion of market capitalization—more than
double the average since 2009. Of companies that settled, the
median market cap was $957 million, the report said.

A Year of Settlements
Last year, Wilmington Trust Corp, LendingClub Corp., and ComScore
Inc. agreed to settlements of more than $100 million, in addition
to settlements of $3 billion for Petroleo Brasileiro SA, as
Petrobras is formally known, and $480 million for Wells Fargo.

All five cases involved allegations of weak internal controls over
financial reporting. Of those, three of the companies had disclosed
to investors a weakness in internal controls. Four of the cases
involved violations of accounting standards.

Internal control allegations were present in three-quarters of
cases settled in 2018—32 of 41 cases. Auditors were named as
defendants in just four settled cases.

The number of accounting lawsuits filed dropped slightly to 143
cases in 2018 from 165 cases in 2017. Those numbers exceed the
yearly average of 77 cases from 2009 through 2017. The majority of
cases involved mergers and acquisitions and reconciliation of
alternative performance measures to generally accepted accounting
principles.

Accounting remains a central issue in securities class actions,
Simmons said, and such cases continue to result in higher
settlements.

The report said that 260 class actions filed last year didn't
involve accounting. [GN]


[*] UK's Biggest Cos. Reduce Money Set Aside for Legal Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Barney Thompson, writing for The Financial Times, reports that
Britain's biggest companies are reducing the amount of money they
set aside for legal claims and regulatory fines, as some of the
post-crisis wave of scandals and related litigation recedes.

In the past decade, courts and regulators have imposed large fines
for scandals including rigging interest rates and mis-selling
financial products. This drove up the amount FTSE 100 companies set
aside against potential legal costs to GBP34bn in 2016. The
following year, however, that had dropped to GBP24.8bn -- a fall of
27 per cent -- according to Thomson Reuters Practical Law, which
compiled the data from company reports.

Banks accounted for 60 per cent of this total, setting aside
GBP14.8bn for potential costs in 2017. Most recently, Standard
Chartered agreed to a $1.1bn settlement with US and UK authorities
over Iranian sanctions violations.

Thomson Reuters also highlighted the cost to BP of the 2010
Deepwater Horizon disaster -- $65bn by the end of 2017 -- as a
major contributor to total corporate legal liabilities over the
past few years.

But even as costs fall for some companies, lawyers say that class
actions -- individual claims grouped into one lawsuit -- mean big
businesses must continue to keep their legal war chests well
funded.

FTSE 100 companies have faced more than 70 such cases so far,
according to Thomson Reuters. Most were in US courts -- where
awards have historically been higher -- but there have also been
cases in the UK, Argentina, Canada and Mexico.

In the UK, the supermarket chain Morrisons is fighting a high court
ruling that it is liable for a data breach in which the salary and
bank details of 100,000 staff were published online by a former
employee -- the first data leak class action in the UK.

Tesco is also facing a group investor claim over a GBP250m
accountancy scandal, while two years ago RBS settled out of court
with thousands of shareholders over a 2008 share issue.

Many class actions are backed by litigation finance businesses,
which fund claims in return for a share of settlements or damages.

Class actions are also spreading internationally. Law firm Dechert
said in a report in April that non-US companies were becoming
targets of securities class actions filed in the US.

Of the 403 securities class actions filed in the US in 2018, 54
targeted non-US businesses. David Kistenbroker, a securities
litigation partner at Dechert, said the trend was "up
significantly". Between 2010 and 2016, the average number of cases
against non-US issuers was 29.

Class actions can follow EU rulings that competition law has been
broken -- as with the proposed consumer claim against Mastercard.

In the UK, shareholder claims can be brought collectively if, for
example, a company has published false information or not informed
the market of "material developments", leading to a fall in the
share price when the true position becomes known.

Simon Bushell -- simon.bushell@signaturelitigation.com -- a partner
at law firm Signature Litigation, said data breaches also had the
potential to generate class actions for "very sizeable damages".

The big question was if the right to compensation under new data
protection laws could be "bundled together collectively as the
basis for a class action", he added. [GN]



                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***