CAR_Public/190528.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, May 28, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 106

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Andrews Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
3M COMPANY: Bennett Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
3M COMPANY: Grant Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
3M COMPANY: Rowe Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Krieger Sues Over Merger with Waste Management

ALL OREGON: Landscapers Seeks Proper Overtime Wages
AMGEN INC: Bid to Consolidate Sensipar(R) Related Suits Underway
AMGEN INC: Humira(R) Biosimilar Antitrust Class Actions Ongoing
ARCONIC INC: Still Awaits Court Order on Bid to Dismiss Howard Suit
B.J. MASPETH: Huertero Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Damages

BLUE CANARY: Vaccaro Sues over Unwanted Cellular Telephone Calls
BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS: Hannon Files FLSA Suit in South Carolina
BRENNTAG NORTH AMERICA: Carrera Removes Own Suit to E.D. Calif.
BUY-LOW MARKET: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Gonzalez Suit Says
CLEARLAKE VILLAGE: Matter et al. Suit Transferred to M.D. Fla.

CLIENT SERVICES: Kennedy Suit Asserts TCPA Breach
COAST PROFESSIONAL: Cheatom Sues over Debt Collection Practices
COFIROUTE USA: Faces Thompson Suit over Civil Rights Violations
COLLABORATIVE ADVISORS: Violates FLSA, Nurse Assistant's Suit Says
COMPETITIVE EDGE: Huertas Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

CONFIROUTE USA: Faces Skogebo et al. Suit in C.D. California
COSTCO WHOLESALE: 2nd Cir. Affirms Mislabeling Suit Dismissal
CREDIT CONTROL: Tkachenko Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
DALIAN WANDA: Faces Lao Suit over Drop in Share Price
DOORDASH INC: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Farran Alleges

DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EPIC GAMES: Krohm Suit Transferred to E.D. North Carolina
EVOLENT HEALTH: Torres Seeks Overtime Pay for Call Center Agents
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Manley Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA
EXTRA SPACE STORAGE: Johnson et al Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.

FINANCIAL RECOVERY: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed in De La Cruz Suit
FIRST STUDENT: Court Seeks More Briefing on Cy Pres Beneficiaries
FLAGSHIP CREDIT: Court Demands Factual Material in R. Ward's Suit
FLIPDADDY'S LLC: Turner & Dorsey Sue over Tip Credit, OT Pay
FRONTLINE ASSET: Marshall Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Indiana

GEICO INDEMNITY: Moe Suit Removed to Montana Dist. Ct.
GOLDEN RULE INSURANCE: Perrong Suit Asserts TCPA Breach
GOLDEN THAI: Castillo Seeks Overtime, Minimum Pay
GRANDVISION USA: Golan Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
GRATE LAKE: Cali Hits Unpaid Compensation, Missed Breaks

HAROLD CLARKE: Court Quashes Witness Subpoenas in Riggleman
HASBRO INC: Class Suit Over Toys R Us Disclosure Ongoing
HEALTH AND PSYCHIATRIST: Maloy Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
HEARTLAND HOUSING: Turner Sues over Apartment Lease
HOOVESTOL INC: $100K Settlement in Truck Drivers' Suit Has Final OK

IDS PROPERTY: 9th Cir. Vacates Achziger Class Certification Denial
IOC-BOONVILLE: Nicholson Seeks Overtime, Minimum Wage
JHB COMPANIES: Rivera Files Class Suit in C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Appeal in REMICADE Antitrust Litigation Pending
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bradfield Talc Injury Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Cantley Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Collison Talc Injury Suit Moved to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Corbett Talc Injury Suit Moved to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Cunningham Talc Injury Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Dantinne Talc Injury Suit Moved to C.D. Calif.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Bral Talc Injury Suit to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Canzoneri Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Carbajal Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Creswell Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Crobarger Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves El-Atrache Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Aitchison Suit to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Campbell Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Clifton Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Coleman Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Conte Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Cook Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Crismon Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Cumby Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Davies Suit to S.D. New York

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Ellis Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Test Strip-Related Suit Voluntarily Withdrawn
KEOLIS TRANSIT: Dawes Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
LEPRINO FOODS: Court OKs Excuse Appearance in Velasquez
LONGHORN PIZZA: Matthews Sues to Recover Unpaid Min., Overtime Pay

MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES: Faces 9 Tesla-Merger Related Class Suits
MDL 2656: Court Approves $60MM Settlement in Antitrust Litigation
MDL 2885: Gomez Suit over Combat Arms Earplugs Consolidated
MEDDOCLIVE LLC: Gregory Long Seeks OT Pay for Consultants
MIDLAND CREDIT: Dunn Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia

MIDLAND CREDIT: Tuitasi Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. California
MNET FINANCIAL: Hewlett Sues Over TCPA Violation
MOLSON COORS: Bid to Consolidated Colorado Class Suits Pending
MONSANTO COMPANY: Chafin Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Forrest Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Hobbs Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Mitchell Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Moore Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Rosier Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Smith Suit Moved to N.D. California

MONSANTO COMPANY: Staples Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Kohn Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: DeVivo Associates Asserts Breach of Contract
NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Courts OKs Case Caption Change in Mulquin
NFL: Court Lays Out Doctor Restrictions in Concussion Deal

NUTRINOX REVOLUTION: Esposito Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing
ORIGINAL GRAIN: Smith Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
PARAGON SYSTEMS: Underpays Security Guards, Williams Says
POINT QUEST INC: Faces Veronie's Labor Suit in Calif.
RED WING BRANDS: Southam Files FCRA Suit in S.D. Florida

REVLON INC: Lachman Seeks Damages Over False, Misleading Reports
S&S UTILITIES ENGINEERING: Morgan Seeks Minimum Wage for Laborers
S.A.W. ENTERTAINMENT: Court Compels Arbitration to Non-PAGA Claims
SCRIPPS HEALTH: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Leman Says
STEVENS TRANSPORT: Parr Seeks Pay for Non-driving Work Activities

TASTY BAKING: Caddick Hits Misclassification, Illegal Deductions
TCF FINANCIAL: Faces Nelson Suit over Proposed Merger
TRANSUNION RENTAL: $425K Settlement in CIPA Suit Has Final Approval
UNITED STATES: Judge Certifies Suit Over Anti-Immigration Policies
UNITED STATES: US Marshall Faces Kowalski Suit in N.D. Illinois

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: Lawyers Revise $240MM Sexual Abuse Deal
VCCHEF LLC: Diaz Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Retained Tips
WASHINGTON: Chief of State Patrol Faces Class Suit
WILLIAMS & FUDGE: Siano Sues over Debt Collection Practices

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Andrews Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, MORRIS ANDREWS JR., the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-01047-MSS-TGW (M.D. Fla., April 30,
2019), seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing loss or damage the
plaintiff allegedly suffered while serving variously in the U.S.
military, including during foreign conflicts. The Plaintiff
contends that Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2 ("CAEv2")
manufactured and sold by Aearo were defectively designed and failed
to provide adequate hearing protection. 3M denies these
allegations.

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

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

3M COMPANY: Bennett Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ERIC BENNETT, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, AEARO
HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE, LLC AEARO, LLC and AEARO
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-01265-MCR-EMT
(N.D. Fla., April 30, 2019), seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing
loss or damage the plaintiff allegedly suffered while serving
variously in the U.S. military, including during foreign conflicts.
The Plaintiff contends that Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2
("CAEv2") manufactured and sold by Aearo were defectively designed
and failed to provide adequate hearing protection. 3M denies these
allegations.

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Michael W. Gaines, Esq.
          Tim L. Bowden, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TIM BOWDEN
          306 Northcreek Blvd., Suite 200
          Goodlettsville, TN 37072
          Telephone: (615) 859-1996
          Facsimile: (615) 859-1921
          E-mail: mwgaines01@gmail.com
                  bowden_law@bellsouth.net

3M COMPANY: Grant Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, ANDRE GRANT, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, AEARO
HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE, LLC AEARO, LLC and AEARO
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-01046-MSS-AAS
(M.D. Fla., April 30, 2019), seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing
loss or damage the Plaintiff allegedly suffered while serving
variously in the U.S. military, including during foreign conflicts.
The Plaintiff contends that Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2
("CAEv2") manufactured and sold by Aearo were defectively designed
and failed to provide adequate hearing protection. 3M denies these
allegations.

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

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



3M COMPANY: Rowe Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
---------------------------------------------------------
The case, VERNON ROWE, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, AEARO
HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE, LLC AEARO, LLC and AEARO
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-01040 (M.D.
Fla., April 30, 2019), seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing loss or
damage the plaintiff allegedly suffered while serving variously in
the U.S. military, including during foreign conflicts. The
Plaintiff contends that Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2
("CAEv2") manufactured and sold by Aearo were defectively designed
and failed to provide adequate hearing protection. 3M denies these
allegations.

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

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

ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Krieger Sues Over Merger with Waste Management
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LAWRENCE KRIEGER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ADVANCED DISPOSAL SERVICES, INC.,
RICHARD BURKE, ERNEST J. MROZEK, B. CLYDE PRESLAR, MICHAEL J.
HOFFMAN, E. RENAE CONLEY, TANUJA M. DEHNE, and MICHAEL KOEN,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00904-UNA (D. Del., May 14, 2019) is
an action brought as a class action by Plaintiff on behalf of
himself and the other public holders of the common stock of
Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. ("Advanced Disposal" or the
"Company") against the Company and the members of the Company's
board of directors for their violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the proposed
merger (the "Proposed Transaction") between Advanced Disposal and
Waste Management, Inc. ("Waste Management").

On April 14, 2019, the Board caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger ("Merger Agreement"), pursuant to
which the Company's shareholders stand to receive $33.15 in cash
for each share of Advanced Disposal stock they own (the "Merger
Consideration"). On May 10, 2019, in order to convince Advanced
Disposal shareholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction,
the Board authorized the filing of a  Form PREM14A Preliminary
Proxy Statement (the "Proxy") with the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC").

While touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the
Company's shareholders in the Proxy, Defendants have failed to
disclose certain material information that is necessary for
shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed
Transaction, thereby violating SEC rules and regulations and
rendering certain statements in the Proxy materially incomplete and
misleading, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a holder of Advanced Disposal common stock.

Advanced Disposal is a provider of non-hazardous solid waste
collection, transfer, recycling and disposal services operating
primarily in secondary markets or under exclusive
arrangements.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Van Gorder, Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 201
     Wilmington, DE 19807
     Phone: (302) 482-3182
     Email: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com

          - and -

     Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
     James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 983-9330
     Fax: (212) 983-9331
     Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
            jwilson@faruqilaw.com


ALL OREGON: Landscapers Seeks Proper Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------
MARTIN LOPEZ CHAVEZ, RAUL GOMEZ, ET. AL. Plaintiffs, v. ALL OREGON
LANDSCAPING, INC., CRAIG PRUNTY, an individual, and TONY PRUNTY, an
individual, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00719-SI (D. Ore., May 8,
2019) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages
equal to the amounts of overtime wages paid late as well as the
amount of unpaid overtime, and costs, disbursements, and attorney
fees, as individuals, as well as on behalf of the collective group
of Landscapers seeking to represent all similarly situated
employees of Defendants in their FLSA claims.

The Defendants willfully failed to pay Landscapers 1.5 times their
regular rate for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week,
asserts the complaint. The Defendants also willfully failed to
timely pay Landscapers wages for time worked in excess of 40 hours
per week, and instead paid straight-time wages for hours in excess
of 40 per week sporadically and infrequently.

Plaintiff Lopez-Chavez worked as a Landscape Crew Leader for
Defendants until late January, 2019.

Plaintiff Gomez worked as a Landscape Crew Member for defendants
until about mid-February, 2018.

Defendants sustain a landscaping business using instrumentalities
of interstate commerce, including performing landscaping services
in more than one state and using interstate freeways and
highways.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Quinn E. Kuranz, Esq.
     The Office of Q.E. Kuranz, Attorney at Law, LLC
     65 SW Yamhill St., Suite 300
     Portland, OR 97204
     Phone: 503-914-3930
     Fax: 503-200-1289
     Email: quinn@kuranzlaw.com


AMGEN INC: Bid to Consolidate Sensipar(R) Related Suits Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amgen Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019, that a motion to consolidate four class
action suits related to the direct or indirect purchasers of
Sensipar(R)

From February 21, 2019, to April 10, 2019, four plaintiffs filed
putative class action lawsuits against Amgen and various entities
affiliated with Teva alleging anticompetitive conduct in connection
with settlements between Amgen and manufacturers of generic
cinacalcet product.

Two of those actions were brought in the Delaware District Court,
captioned UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund v. Amgen Inc., et al.
(February 21, 2019) (Local 1500) and Cesar Castillo, Inc. v. Amgen
Inc., et al. (February 26, 2019) (Castillo).

The third action was brought in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey (the New Jersey District Court), captioned
Teamsters Local 237 Welfare Fund, et al. v. Amgen Inc., et al.
(March 14, 2019) (Local 237) and the fourth action was brought in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(the Eastern Pennsylvania District Court), captioned KPH Healthcare
Services, Inc. a/k/a Kinney Drugs, Inc. v. Amgen Inc., et al (April
10, 2019) (KPH).

Each of the lawsuits is brought on behalf of a putative class of
direct or indirect purchasers of Sensipar(R) and alleges that the
plaintiffs have overpaid for Sensipar(R) as a result of Amgen's
conduct that allegedly improperly delayed market entry by
manufacturers of generic cinacalcet products.

The lawsuits focus predominantly on the settlement among Amgen,
Watson and Teva of the parties' patent infringement litigation.
Each of the lawsuits seeks, among other things, treble damages,
equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs.

On April 10, 2019, the plaintiff in the KPH lawsuit filed a motion
seeking to have the four lawsuits consolidated and designated as a
multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Eastern Pennsylvania District
Court, and the plaintiff in the Local 1500 lawsuit filed a motion
seeking to have the four lawsuits, along with Cipla Ltd. v. Amgen
Inc., consolidated and designated as a MDL in the Delaware District
Court.

Amgen Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and delivers human
therapeutics worldwide. It offers products for the treatment of
oncology/hematology, cardiovascular, inflammation, bone health, and
neuroscience. Amgen Inc. was founded in 1980 and is headquartered
in Thousand Oaks, California.


AMGEN INC: Humira(R) Biosimilar Antitrust Class Actions Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amgen Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend
Humira(R) Biosimilar Antitrust Class Actions

From March 18, 2019, to April 19, 2019, ten purported class actions
against Amgen, along with AbbVie Inc. and AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd.
(collectively, AbbVie), were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois.

The cases are captioned: UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund v. AbbVie
Inc., et al. (March 18, 2019) (Local 1500); Fraternal Order of
Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund v. AbbVie Inc., et al.
(March 20, 2019); Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. AbbVie
Inc., et al. (March 22, 2019); Pipe Trades Services MN Welfare Fund
v. AbbVie Inc., et al. (March 29, 2019); St. Paul Electrical
Workers’ Health Plan v. AbbVie Inc., et al. (March 29, 2019);
Welfare Plan of the International Union of Operating Engineers
Locals 137, 137A, 137B, 137C, and 137R v. AbbVie Inc., et al.
(April 1, 2019); Law Enforcement Health Benefits, Inc. v. AbbVie,
Inc., et al. (April 9, 2019) (Law Enforcement); Kentucky Laborers
District Council Health and Welfare Fund v. AbbVie, Inc., et al.
(April 16, 2019); Sheet Metal Workers’ Local Union No. 28 Welfare
Fund v. AbbVie, Inc., et al. (April 19, 2019) (Sheet Metal
Workers’); and Locals 302 & 612 of The International Union of
Operating Engineers-Employers Construction Industry Health And
Security Trust Fund v. AbbVie Inc., et al. (April 25, 2019)
(Construction Industry) (collectively, Humira(R) Antitrust Class
Actions).

In each of the Humira(R) Antitrust Class Actions, the plaintiffs
bring federal antitrust claims along with various state law claims
under state common law and state antitrust, consumer protection,
and unfair competition statutes. In each case, the plaintiffs
specifically allege that AbbVie has unlawfully monopolized the
alleged market for Humira(R) and biosimilars of Humira(R),
including by creating an allegedly unlawful so-called patent
thicket around Humira(R).

In the Local 1500, Sheet Metal Workers' and Construction Industry
cases, the plaintiffs further allege that AbbVie entered into
allegedly unlawful market division agreements with Amgen and other
companies that had developed Humira(R) biosimilars, including
Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd., Mylan Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
Sandoz, Inc., Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, Pfizer Inc. and Momenta
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., in connection with the settlement of patent
litigation relating to Humira(R), whereby Amgen and the other
defendants that have developed Humira(R) biosimilars were permitted
to market those products in Europe as early as October 2018, while
remaining off the market in the United States until 2023.

In each of the Humira(R) Antitrust Class Actions other than the
Local 1500 and Construction Industry cases, the plaintiffs allege
that AbbVie and Amgen entered into an allegedly unlawful settlement
agreement under which Amgen allegedly agreed to delay its entry
into the U.S. market with AMGEVITATM, its Humira(R) biosimilar, in
exchange for an alleged promise of exclusivity as the sole
Humira(R) biosimilar in that market for five months, beginning in
January 2023.

In each of the Humira(R) Antitrust Class Actions, plaintiffs seek
injunctive relief, treble damages and attorney's fees on behalf of
a putative class of third-party payers and/or consumers that have
indirectly purchased, paid for or provided reimbursement for
Humira(R) in the United States.

Defendants' responses to the first six complaints were stayed by
the court and a status hearing is set for May 2, 2019.

Amgen Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and delivers human
therapeutics worldwide. It offers products for the treatment of
oncology/hematology, cardiovascular, inflammation, bone health, and
neuroscience. Amgen Inc. was founded in 1980 and is headquartered
in Thousand Oaks, California.


ARCONIC INC: Still Awaits Court Order on Bid to Dismiss Howard Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a class action against Arconic Inc. are awaiting a
court decision on the motion to dismiss the case, the company said
in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 1, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2019.

A purported class action complaint (Howard v. Arconic Inc. et al.)
related to the Grenfell Tower fire was filed on August 11, 2017 in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania against Arconic Inc. and Klaus Kleinfeld.

A related purported class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on
August 25, 2017, under the caption Sullivan v. Arconic Inc. et al.,
against Arconic Inc., two former Arconic executives, several
current and former Arconic directors, and banks that acted as
underwriters for Arconic's September 18, 2014 preferred stock
offering (the "Preferred Offering").

The plaintiff in Sullivan had previously filed a purported class
action against the same defendants on July 18, 2017 in the Southern
District of New York and, on August 25, 2017, voluntarily dismissed
that action without prejudice.

On February 7, 2018, on motion from certain putative class members,
the court consolidated Howard and Sullivan, closed Sullivan, and
appointed lead plaintiffs in the consolidated case.

On April 9, 2018, the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated purported
class action filed a consolidated amended complaint. The
consolidated amended complaint alleges that the registration
statement for the Preferred Offering contained false and misleading
statements and omitted to state material information, including by
allegedly failing to disclose material uncertainties and trends
resulting from sales of Reynobond PE for unsafe uses and by
allegedly expressing a belief that appropriate risk management and
compliance programs had been adopted while concealing the risks
posed by Reynobond PE sales.

The consolidated amended complaint also alleges that between
November 4, 2013 and June 23, 2017 Arconic and Kleinfeld made false
and misleading statements and failed to disclose material
information about the Company's commitment to safety, business and
financial prospects, and the risks of the Reynobond PE product,
including in Arconic's Form 10-Ks for the fiscal years ended
December 31, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016, its Form 10-Qs and
quarterly financial press releases from the fourth quarter of 2013
through the first quarter of 2017, its 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016
Annual Reports, and its 2016 Annual Highlights Report.

The consolidated amended complaint seeks, among other things,
unspecified compensatory damages and an award of attorney and
expert fees and expenses.

On June 8, 2018, all defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint for failure to state a claim. Briefing on that
motion is now closed and the parties await a ruling.

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

Arconic Inc. engineers, manufactures, and sells lightweight metals
worldwide. The company operate in three segments: Engineered
Products and Solutions, Global Rolled Products, and Transportation
and Construction Solutions. The company was founded in 1888 and is
based in New York, New York.


B.J. MASPETH: Huertero Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO HUERTERO, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiff, v. B.J. MASPETH RESTAURANT
INC. d/b/a PEGGY DEMPSEY'S, BJR RESTAURANT INC. d/b/a BRIAN
DEMPSEY'S, BRIAN MCGUINNESS and JOSE FUNES, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-02850 (E.D. N.Y., May 14, 2019) alleges, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law
("NYLL"), that he and others similarly situated are entitled to
recover from Defendants unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime wages,
unpaid spread of hours premium, liquidated damages, statutory
penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Throughout his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff FRANCISCO
HUERTERO was never paid the overtime premium of one-and-one half
times his regular rate of pay for his hours worked in excess of 40
per week, as required under the FLSA and NYLL, asserts the
complaint.

The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with
a policy of not paying Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and
Class Members overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 per
workweek at the proper overtime rate that is at least
one-and-one-half times the regular rate of pay, in violation of the
FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint.

Plaintiff FRANCISCO HUERTERO was employed by Defendants to work as
a busser at "Peggy Dempsey's" from June 8, 2018 until October 9,
2018.

Defendants own and operate an enterprise comprised of two
restaurants in New York City with names Peggy Dempsey's and Brian
Dempsey's (collectively, "Dempsey's Restaurants").[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     C.K. Lee, Esq.
     Anne Seelig, Esq.
     LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
     148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
     New York, NY 10011
     Phone: (212) 465-1188
     Fax: (212) 465-1181


BLUE CANARY: Vaccaro Sues over Unwanted Cellular Telephone Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVE VACCARO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BLUE CANARY SERVICES, LLC  d/b/a TRUST
ARROW; DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-03668 (C.D. Cal., April 30, 2019), seeks damages and any
other available legal or equitable resulting from the illegal
actions of Blue Canary Services, LLC, in negligently, knowingly,
and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular
telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

Beginning on or around July 16, 2018, the Defendant contacted
Plaintiff on his cellular telephone, ending in -3928, in an effort
to sell or solicit its services. The Defendant used an "automatic
telephone dialing system", as defined 17 by 47 U.S.C. section
227(a)(1) to place its daily calls to Plaintiff seeking to sell or
solicit its business services. At one or more instance during these
calls, the Defendant utilized "artificial or prerecorded voice" as
prohibited by 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A).

THe Defendant's calls constituted calls that were not for emergency
purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A). The calls
were placed to telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone
service for which Plaintiff incurs a charge for incoming calls
pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1).

The Plaintiff is not a customer of Defendant's services and has
never provided any personal information, including his cellular
telephone number, to Defendant for any purpose whatsoever.
Accordingly, Defendant never received Plaintiff's "prior express
consent" to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing
system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on his cellular
telephone pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A), the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, 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
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com

BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS: Hannon Files FLSA Suit in South Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bojangles'
Restaurants Inc, et al. The case is styled as Ricky Alan Hannon,
individually and on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other
similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff v.
Bojangles' Restaurants Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Bojangles'
Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants, Case No.
0:19-cv-01448-JMC (D. S.C., May 17, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Bojangles' Inc. is a Southeastern United States regional chain of
fast food restaurants, specializing in cajun seasoning, fried
chicken, and buttermilk biscuits.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jacob John Modla, Esq.
     Jake Modla Law PLLC
     454 South Anderson Road, Suite 303
     Rock Hill, SC 29730
     Phone: (803) 328-0898
     Email: jm@jakemodlalaw.com



BRENNTAG NORTH AMERICA: Carrera Removes Own Suit to E.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the case of DANA CARRERA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff 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.); BRENNTAG SPECIALTIES, INC. f/k/a
MINERAL PIGMENT SOLUTIONS, INC. (sued individually and as
successor-in-interest to WHITTAKER CLARK & DANIELS, INC.);
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY; COTY, INC.; CYPRUS AMAX MINERALS COMPANY
(sued individually, doing business as, and as successor to AMERICAN
TALC COMPANY, METROPOLITAN TALC CO. INC. and CHARLES MATHIEU INC.
and SIERRA TALC COMPANY and UNITED TALC COMPANY); DAP PRODUCTS,
INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. (sued individually and as
successor-in-interest to LUZENAC AMERICA, INC.
successor-in-interest to CYPRUS INDUSTRIAL MINERALS COMPANY and
WINDSOR MINERALS, INC. and METROPOLITAN TALC CO.); JOHNSON &
JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC., a subsidiary of JOHNSON &
JOHNSON; PFIZER INC.; R. T. VANDERBILT HOLDING COMPANY, INC. (sued
individually and as successor-in-interest to R. T. VANDERBILT
COMPANY, INC.); UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; VANDERBILT MINERALS, LLC
(sued as successor-by- merger to R. T. VANDERBILT COMPANY, INC.);
WHITTAKER CLARK & DANIELS, INC.; and DOES 1-450, Defendants, filed
a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Fresno (Case No. 18CEG02088) to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California on April 23,
2019. The clerk of court for the Eastern District of California
assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00536-LJO-SKO. The case is assigned to
Judge Lawrence J. O'neill and referred to Magistrate Judge Sheila
K. Oberto.

Brenntag North America, Inc. distributes chemical and ingredients.
It offers products for life science, material science, and
environmental industries. The company was founded in 1991 and is
based in Reading, Pennsylvania. Brenntag North America, Inc.
operates as a subsidiary of Brenntag AG. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander G. Calfo, Esq.
          Julia E. Romano, Esq.
          Amy P. Zumsteg, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1700
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443 4355
          Facsimile: (213) 443 4310
          E-mail: acalfo@kslaw.com
                  jromano@kslaw.com
                  azumsteg@kslaw.com


BUY-LOW MARKET: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Gonzalez Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE L. GONZALEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BUY-LOW MARKET, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 19STCV16707 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 14, 2019)
is a representative action, pursuant to the Private Attorneys
General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"), on behalf of Plaintiff and all other
aggrieved employees employed by or formerly employed by Defendants
within the State of California.

The Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to provide
Plaintiff and other similarly aggrieved employees or former
employees within the State of California a 30-minute uninterrupted
meal period for days on which the employees worked more than 5
hours in a work day and a second 30-minute uninterrupted meal
period for days on which employees worked in excess of 10 hours in
a work day, and failing to provide compensation for such unprovided
meal periods as required by California wage and hour laws. The
Defendants have further failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly
aggrieved employees the full amount of their wages owed to them
upon termination and/or resignation as required by Labor Code
sections 201 and 202, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt employee by the Defendants
at their facilities in the State of California.

BUY-LOW MARKET, INC. is a corporation organized and existing under
and by virtue of the laws of the State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Nourmand, Esq.
     James A. De Sario, Esq.
     Melissa M. Kurata, Esq.
     THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
     8822 West Olympic Boulevard
     Beverly Hills, CA 90211
     Phone: (310) 553-3600
     Fax: (310) 553-3603


CLEARLAKE VILLAGE: Matter et al. Suit Transferred to M.D. Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Matter et al v. Clearlake Village Homeowner's
Association, Inc. et al, Case No. 05-2016-CA-053089 (Filed on Dec.
23, 2016), was transferred from Brevard County Circuit Court to the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on
April 24, 2019. Filed against Clearlake Village Homeowner's
Association, Inc. and Association Financial Services, L.C., this
consumer credit-related suit is assigned to Hon. Judge Gregory A.
Presnell. The United States District Court for the Middle District
of Florida assigned Case No. 6:19-cv-00777-GAP-TBS to the
proceedings.

Clearlake Village Homeowner's Association, Inc. is located in
Brevard County, Florida. Association Financial Services, L.C. is a
financial services company that helps condominium and homeowner
associations, property managers, and association attorneys in
improving and maintaining their financial condition. [BN]

Attorneys for the Defendants:

     S. Jonathan Vine, Esq.
     COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA
     Esperante Building
     222 Lakeview Ave Ste 120
     West Palm Beach, FL 33401-6146
     Telephone: (561) 383-9203
     Facsimile: (561) 683-8977
     E-mail: jonathan.vine@csklegal.com

            - and -

     Mary Grace Dyleski, Esq.
     Rachel Malkowski Ortiz, Esq.
     Ernest H. Kohlmyer, III, Esq.
     SHEPARD, SMITH, KOHLMYER & HAND, P.A.
     2300 Maitland Center Pkwy, Suite 100
     Maitland, FL 32751
     Telephone: (407) 245-8352
     Facsimile: (407) 245-8361
     E-mail: mdyleski@shepardfirm.com
     E-mail: rortiz@shepardfirm.com
     E-mail: skohlmyer@shepardfirm.com


CLIENT SERVICES: Kennedy Suit Asserts TCPA Breach
-------------------------------------------------
Edgar Kennedy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Client Services Inc., Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-00905-H-BGS (S.D. Cal., May 14, 2019) is an action for
damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of
Defendant, in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting
Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") thereby invading
Plaintiff's privacy.

Prior to November 6, 2018, Plaintiff obtained representation from
Attorney, Daniel G. Shay. On or about November 6, 2018, Mr. Shay
sent a cease and desist letter to Defendant through fax and mail
advising Defendant of Plaintiff's representation and demanding
Defendant cease all communications with Plaintiff. Mr. Shay's
letter expressly "revoked any prior express consent that may have
been given to receive telephone calls especially to Plaintiff's
cellular telephone, from an automated telephone dialing system or
an artificial or pre-recorded voice, as outlined in the TCPA."

Despite this unequivocal, explicit admonishment, on November 6,
2018, Defendant called Plaintiff's cellular telephone. The
Defendant's November 6, 2018, call was an "abandoned call"
indicating the use of an automated telephone dialing system
("ATDS"). These telephone calls made by Defendant were in violation
of the TCPA, and invaded Plaintiff's privacy, asserts the
complaint.

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

Defendant was a Missouri corporation that regularly conducts
business within the State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
     Yana A. Hart, Esq.
     HYDE & SWIGART, APC
     2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
     San Diego, CA 92108-3609
     Phone: (619) 233-7770
     Fax: (619) 297-1022
     Email: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
            yana@westcoastlitigation.com

          - and -

     Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
     409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101B
     San Diego, CA 92108
     Phone: (619) 222-7429
     Fax: (866) 431-3292
     Email: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com


COAST PROFESSIONAL: Cheatom Sues over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA CHEATOM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COAST PROFESSIONAL INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01778-MHC-CMS (N.D., Ga., April 22,
2019) seeks to stop the Defendants' unfair and unconscionable means
to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge Mark H. Cohen and
referred to Magistrate Judge Catherine M. Salinas.

Coast Professional, Inc. offers educational receivable collection
services. The company provides loan consolidation, default account
rehabilitation, contingency collection, borrower tracing, password
assistance, and online account management services. Additionally,
it offers FACSWeb, a web-based tool for uploading accounts. Coast
Professional, Inc. was founded in 1976 and is based in West Monroe,
Louisiana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Braxton Mason, Esq.
          MASON LAW GROUP, LLC - GA
          1100 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 200
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 920-8040
          Facsimile: (404) 920-8039
          E-mail: jmason@atlshowbizlaw.com


COFIROUTE USA: Faces Thompson Suit over Civil Rights Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Cofiroute USA, LLC,
Orange County Transportation Authority and Riverside County
Transportation Commission for civil rights violations. The case is
captioned Harvey J Thompson v. Cofiroute USA, LLC et al, Case No.
8:19-cv-00769-DDP-FFM (C.D. Cal., April 26, 2019). It is assigned
to Hon. Judge Dean D. Pregerson.

Cofiroute USA is a tolling and express lanes operator specializing
in the design, integration, management and maintenance of express
lane systems. The company's office is located at 200 Spectrum
Center Drive, Ste 1650 Irvine, California. [[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew S. Sepuya, Esq.
     MCGRANE PC
     Four Embarcadero Center Suite 1400
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Telephone: (415) 292-4807
     E-mail: matthew.sepuya@mcgranepc.com

             - and -     

     Michael John Hassen, Esq.
     REALLAW APC
     1981 North Broadway Suite 280
     Walnut Creek, CA 94596
     Telephone: (925) 359-7500
     Facsimile: (925) 557-7690
     E-mail: mjhassen@reallaw.us

             - and –

     Michael J. Walsh, Esq.
     WALSH AND WALSH PC
     38 Corporate Park
     Irvine, CA 92606
     Telephone: (949) 724-1350
     E-mail: thewalshfirmpc@gmail.com

             - and –

     William McGrane, Esq.
     MCGRANE PC
     Four Embarcadero Center Suite 1400
     San Francisco, CA 94111-4164
     Telephone: (415) 292-4807
     Facsimile: (415) 276-5762
     E-mail: william.mcgrane@mcgranepc.com


COLLABORATIVE ADVISORS: Violates FLSA, Nurse Assistant's Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
TERESA PRESTON on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. COLLABORATIVE ADVISORS, INC. D/B/A SYNERGY HOMECARE,
and CRAIG MAURER, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01083 (N.D. Ohio,
May 14, 2019) is a case challenging the policies and practices of
Defendants that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, (the "FLSA")
as well as the Ohio overtime compensation statute, and the Ohio
Prompt Pay Act.

Synergy is a provider of home healthcare services. Plaintiff worked
as a State Tested Nursing Assistant ("STNA") of Defendants.

Plaintiff's job responsibilities required her to travel between
various homes of Defendants' clients throughout her workday.
However, the Defendants' failed to compensate Plaintiff for the
time spent traveling between work assignments which resulted in
unpaid overtime in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher J. Lalak, Esq.
     NILGES DRAHER LLC
     614 W. Superior Ave., Suite 1148
     Cleveland, OH 44113
     Phone: 216.230.2955
     Email: clalak@ohlaborlaw.com

          - and -

     Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
     7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
     Massillon, OH 44646
     Phone: 330.470.4428
     Email: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com


COMPETITIVE EDGE: Huertas Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
EMILY HUERTAS and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
COMPETITIVE EDGE GROUP, INC., d/b/a COMPETITIVE EDGE LANDSCAPING, a
Florida Profit Corporation, and FRED R. BOOTHBY, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 6:19-cv-00915 (M.D. Fla., May 14, 2019) is an
action arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), to
recover all wages owed to Plaintiff, and those similarly situated
to Plaintiff, during the course of their employment.

The complaint asserts that Defendants refused to compensate
Plaintiff at the proper overtime rate of time-and-one-half, as
required by the FLSA, for all hours worked in excess of forty (40)
during the relevant time period. The Defendants were expressly
aware of the overtime work performed by Plaintiff, but nevertheless
required Plaintiff to continue working without receiving the proper
overtime rate for any hours worked during the relevant period of
her employment. The Defendants have unlawfully deprived Plaintiff,
and all other employees similarly situated, of minimum wage and
overtime compensation during the course of their employment, the
complaint says.

Plaintiff began working for Defendants in August 2014 and continued
to do so until about August 2018.

COMPETITIVE EDGE provides landscaping services in the State of
Florida, and has done so since at least 2014.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     JORDAN RICHARDS, ESQ.
     MELISSA SCOTT, ESQ.
     USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
     805 E. Broward Blvd. Suite 301
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: (954) 871-0050
     Email: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
            Melissa@jordanrichardspllc.com
            Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com
            Stephanie@jordanrichardspllc.com
            Mike@usaemploymentlawyers.com


CONFIROUTE USA: Faces Skogebo et al. Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cofiroute USA, LLC.
The case is captioned as MATHEW SKOGEBO; and SANKET VINOD THAKUR,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. COFIROUTE USA, LLC; RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION; and ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Defendants,
Case No. 8:19-cv-00739-AG-JDE (C.D. Cal., April 22, 2019). The case
is assigned to Judge Andrew J. Guilford and referred to Magistrate
Judge John D. Early.

Cofiroute USA, LLC was founded in 2006. The company's line of
business includes providing the inspection and weighing of goods in
connection with transportation or in the operation of fixed
facilities for motor vehicle transportation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William McGrane, Esq.
          MCGRANE PC
          Four Embarcadero Center Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4164
          Telephone: (415) 292-4807
          Facsimile: (415) 276-5762
          E-mail: ecf-8116edf28c97@ecf.pacerpro.com

              - and -

          Matthew S Sepuya, Esq.
          MCGRANE PC
          Four Embarcadero Center Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 292-4807
          E-mail: matthew.sepuya@mcgranepc.com

              - and -

          Michael John Hassen, Esq.
          REALLAW APC
          1981 North Broadway Suite 280
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 359-7500
          Facsimile: (925) 557-7690
          E-mail: mjhassen@reallaw.us

               - and -

          Michael J Walsh, Esq.
          THE WALSH FIRM PC
          38 Corporate Park
          Irvine, CA 92606
          Telephone: (949) 724-1350
          Facsimile: (714) 544-6621
          E-mail: thewalshfirmpc@gmail.com



COSTCO WHOLESALE: 2nd Cir. Affirms Mislabeling Suit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, issued an Order
affirming the District Court's judgment granting Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss the appeals case captioned Mary La Vigne, Kristen
Hessler, Kathleen Hogan, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Costco Wholesale
Corporation, Defendant-Appellant. No. 18-415-cv. (2nd Cir.).

Plaintiffs-Appellants Mary La Vigne, Kristen Hessler, and Kathleen
Hogan appeal the district court's dismissal of their putative class
action against Costco Wholesale Corporation (Costco) pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

The Appellants allege that by failing to disclose the percentage of
water in the name of its product Kirkland Signature Premium Chunk
Chicken Breast (Kirkland Canned Chicken) Costco has engaged in
unfair and deceptive commercial practices in violation of New York
General Business Law Section 349, Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law  and Massachusetts General
Law Chapter 93A. The district court held that
Plaintiffs-Appellants' claims concerning the Kirkland Canned
Chicken label are preempted by the Poultry Products Inspection Act
(PPIA) and that Plaintiffs-Appellants' remaining allegations failed
to state a plausible claim to relief.

The Court reviews de novo a grant of a motion to dismiss pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(6), accepting the complaint's factual allegations as
true and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's
favor.

Under the PPIA's express preemption provision, marking, labeling,
packaging, or ingredient requirements in addition to, or different
than, those made under this chapter may not be imposed by any State
or Territory or the District of Columbia.

The Appellants argue that their labeling claims are based on
Costco's alleged failure to satisfy a PPIA regulation promulgated
by the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) in the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA), because Kirkland Canned
Chicken is comprised of approximately 44% water. That FSIS
regulation requires that products containing less than 80 percent
but more than 50 percent cooked, deboned poultry meat include the
total amount of added liquid in the product name.  

The Appellants contend that their complaint merely seeks to enforce
a federal standard, as opposed to imposing additional or different
labeling requirements via state tort law, and that their labeling
claims are accordingly not preempted.

Table II of the relevant PPIA regulation provides that the
percentages of chicken and water upon which Plaintiffs rely shall
be calculated on the basis of the total ingredients used in the
preparation of the product.

The district court found the regulation inapplicable to Plaintiffs'
allegations, which complain not of the chicken and water ratios
used in the preparation of the product, but, rather, challenge the
amount of chicken meat and water present in a can of Kirkland
Canned Chicken when opened by a consumer.

In response to a request from this Court, the United States has
submitted an amicus brief that addresses, inter alia, whether the
phrase used in the preparation of the product includes the volume
of water added during the canning process. The government avers
that the district court's analysis was correct, explaining that the
phrase shall be calculated on the basis of the total ingredients
used in preparation of the product refers to ingredients used to
make the portion of the product that is intended to be consumed
such as marinade injected into chicken or broth that may be
consumed with the chicken, not to materials used for packing
purposes.

Because packing water is not an ingredient used in product
preparation, it is not intended to factor into the Table II
percentages and accordingly, the government represents that the
Kirkland Canned Chicken label is consistent with the regulation as
it applies to canned boned poultry.  

In any event, the Court is persuaded by the arguments in the
government's brief that its interpretation is the most reasonable
reading of the relevant regulation. Therefore, the district court
did not err in dismissing Plaintiffs' state tort claims to the
extent that they are premised on seeking damages for purported PPIA
violations.

The Court also agrees with the district court that while
Appellants' remaining claims concerning the packaging, unit
pricing, can size, and other materials related to Kirkland Canned
Chicken are not preempted by the PPIA, they fail to state a claim
under each of the applicable consumer protection laws.

The Appellants' argument that Costco packs its product in such
large cans that are filled with useless water, conveying the
impression that the cans will have a substantial amount of chicken,
fails to establish that a reasonable consumer would have been
misled by the can size, packaging or unit pricing. As the district
court properly found, the Kirkland Canned Chicken label and
packaging accurately disclose: (1) that the chicken is Packed in
Water (2) the net weight per can and (3) the number of total
servings of drained chicken in each six-pack and therefore do not
misrepresent the product's contents or otherwise tend to deceive a
reasonable consumer.

The Court has considered the Appellants' remaining arguments and
find them to be without merit. The Court, accordingly, affirms the
judgment of the district court.

A full-text copy of the Second Circuit's May 9, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yyqwagz2 from Leagle.com.

MATTHEW INSLEY-PRUITT -- MInsley-Pruitt@wolfpopper.com -- (Patricia
I. Avery -- pavery@wolfpopper.com -- on the brief), Wolf Popper
LLP, New York, NY., for Appellant.

WILLIAM N. WITHROW, JR. -- bill.withrow@troutman.com -- (Lindsey B.
Mann -- lindsey.mann@troutman.com -- W. Alex Smith --
alex.smith@troutman.com -- on the brief), Troutman Sanders LLP,
Atlanta, GA, Richard P. O'Leary -- richard.oleary@troutman.com --
Troutman Sanders LLP, New York, NY, for Appellee.

Alisa B. Klein, James Y. Xi, Attorneys, Appellate Staff, Joseph H.
Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, United States
Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Stephen Alexander Vaden,
General Counsel, United States Department of Agriculture,
Washington, DC, Geoffrey S. Berman, United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York, New York, NY, for the United States
as Amicus Curiae.


CREDIT CONTROL: Tkachenko Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control, LLC.
The case is styled as Yelena Tkachenko individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Credit Control, LLC
doing business as: Credit Control & Collections, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-02954 (E.D. N.Y., May 17, 2019).

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

Credit Control is a St. Louis credit collection service that offers
debt collections, accounts receivables management, security &
more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DALIAN WANDA: Faces Lao Suit over Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------
LINDA LAO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DALIAN WANDA GROUP CO., LTD.; WANDA AMERICA
ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; WANDA AMERICA INVESTMENT HOLDING CO. LTD; WANG
JIANLIN; SILVER LAKE GROUP, L.L.C.; SILVER LAKE ALPINE, L.P.; ADAM
ARON; HOWARD W. KOCH, JR.; ANTHONY SAICH, Defendants, and AMC
ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS, INC., Nominal Defendants, Case No.
2019-0303-JRS (Del. Ch., April 25, 2019) is an action arising from
a allegedly conflicted three-part transaction involving AMC, the
Company's majority stockholder, Wanda, and Silver Lake. The action
seeks to redress the Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties and
other violations of law.

On September 14, 2018, AMC issued a Form 8-K announcing the final
terms of the Transactions, which closed that day. The Transaction
was announced before the start of trading on September 14, 2018.

Specifically, AMC announced that it has entered into an agreement
with Silver Lake, the global leader in technology investing. Under
the agreement, AMC has issued $600 million senior unsecured
convertible notes due 2024, bearing interest at 2.95% and
convertible into AMC Class A common shares at $20.50 per share,
before giving effect to a special dividend also announced that day.
At $20.50 per share, the pre-dividend conversion price reflects a
17.1% premium to the Reference Price.  The Convertible Notes were
issued September 14, 2018.

A portion of the proceeds from the Convertible Notes has been used
to repurchase 24,057,143 AMC Class B Common shares from, Dalian
Wanda Group Co., Ltd., which represents 31.7% of the AMC Class B
common shares held by Wanda, at a price of $17.50 per share. Wanda
now owns 51,769,784 AMC Class B Common shares.  A portion of the
proceeds from the Convertible Notes will also be used to pay a
$1.55 per share special dividend on September 28, 2018 to all AMC
Class A Common and Class B Common shareholders of record as of
September 25, 2018. The remainder of the proceeds will be used for
transaction expenses and general corporate purposes.

As part of the transaction, Silver Lake will appoint one director
to the AMC Board of Directors. AMC has also agreed to add a new
independent director to its Board who will have significant
technology experience and knowledge, with support from Silver Lake.
Additionally, Silver Lake has a two-year right of first refusal on
certain future transfers of AMC shares by Wanda, reflecting Silver
Lake's confidence in AMC.  As part of the deal, Lee Wittlinger, a
Silver Lake Managing Director, joined the AMC Board of Directors.

The financial instruments are $600 million of senior unsecured
convertible notes bearing interest at 2.95% and convertible into
AMC Class A common shares at $20.50 per share ($18.95 per share
giving effect to the special dividend).  Silver Lake generally
cannot convert the Convertible Notes into equity in the first year
after issuance.

Approximately $421 million of the proceeds from the Convertible
Notes have been used to acquire 24,057,143 AMC Class B common
shares held by Wanda at a price of $17.50 per share which is 12.9%
below the market close on September 13, 2018.  The repurchase
reflects an immediate reduction in Wanda's ownership stake of AMC.
As of September 14, 2018, Wanda owned 50.01% of AMC through its
51,769,784 Class B Common shares.  Assuming full conversion of the
Convertible Notes into AMC Class A Common shares, based on the
current conversion price and shares outstanding, Wanda would own
approximately 38% of AMC shares.

In either case, with the rights of its Class B common shares, Wanda
retains voting control of AMC.

Approximately $160 million of the proceeds from the Convertible
Notes will fund a $1.55 per share special dividend to all AMC Class
A and Class B shareholders. The dividend will be payable on
September 28, 2018 to all shareholders of record as of September
25, 2018.

After a substantial and thorough review of the transaction by a
special committee of the AMC Board of Directors, with the
assistance of its legal and financial advisors, the transaction was
unanimously recommended by the Special Committee for the subsequent
approval of the AMC Board of Directors.

According to a report by Reuters' Liana B. Baker and Greg
Roumeliotis, the move is "the latest sign of how Wanda, like many
of its Chinese peers, is under pressure from the country's
regulators to reduce overseas holdings after embarking on a major
acquisition spree in the United States and Europe."

According to the lawsuit, AMC's stock price dropped approximately
1.5% on the news, closing at $19.80 per share, down from $20.10 at
the close of trading on September. This represented a loss of
approximately $38.3 million of market capitalization. The drop was
likely attributable to the market's recognition that the
Transaction would increase AMC's leverage and interest expense,
potentially negatively impacting the Company's already
near-junk-status credit ratings and potentially diluting the
Company's existing stockholders due to the Convertible Notes.

In sum, there was never any need for the Company to engage in the
Transactions. The Transactions were fundamentally an accommodation
to AMC's ultimate controlling stockholders, Wanda Parent and Wang,
to enable Wanda to deleverage by causing AMC to overleverage. The
Transactions could only be effectuated with the Company's
participation and approval by its Board. Yet neither the special
committee, nor the full AMC Board used that leverage to ensure that
the Transactions were effectuated on terms that were fair to the
Company or its minority stockholders. Instead, they approved a
sweetheart deal for the Silver Lake Entities to ensure that Wanda
Parent and Wang would be able to satisfy their own parochial
needs.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC and Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP acted as
advisor and legal counsel to the Company. Moelis & Company LLC and
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP acted as advisor and legal
counsel to the Special Committee of the AMC Board of Directors.
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP acted as advisor and legal counsel
to Silver Lake.

AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: AMC), through its direct
and indirect subsidiaries, including American Multi-Cinema, Inc.
and its subsidiaries, is principally involved in the theatrical
exhibition business and owns, operates or has interests in theatres
located in the United States and Europe.  Holdings is an indirect
subsidiary of Dalian Wanda Group Co., Ltd., a Chinese private
conglomerate.

Dalian Wanda Group Co., Ltd. operates real estate business. The
Company develops commercial property including commercial centres,
urban pedestrian streets, hotels, office buildings, and apartments.
Dalian Wanda Group also operates tourism investment, cultural, and
department store businesses.

As of March 31, 2019, Wanda owned approximately 49.85% of AMC
Entertainment Holdings' outstanding common stock and 74.89% of the
combined voting power of Holdings' outstanding common stock and has
the power to control Holdings' affairs and policies, including with
respect to the election of directors (and, through the election of
directors, the appointment of management), entering into mergers,
sales of substantially all of the Company's assets and other
extraordinary transactions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kurt M. Heyman, Esq.
          Aaron M. Nelson, Esq.
          HEYMAN ENERIO GATTUSO & HIRZEL LLP
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 200
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 472-7300

               - and -

          Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
          Joel Fleming, Esq.
          Amanda Crawford, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398-5600


DOORDASH INC: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Farran Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
SUHAIL FARRAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DOORDASH, INC.; and DOES 1-100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 19STCV13945 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
April 23, 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.

The Plaintiff Farran was employed by the Defendants as delivery
driver.

DoorDash, Inc. provides restaurant food delivery services. The
Company develops technology to connect customers with merchants
through an on-demand food delivery application. DoorDash serves
customers in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kashif Haque, Esq.
          Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          Daniel J. Hyun, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
          9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 379-6250
          Facsimile: (949) 379-6251
          E-mail: khaque@aegislawfirm.com
                  swong@aegislawfirm.com
                  icampbell@aegislawfirm.com
                  dhvun@aegislawfirm.com


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dreamworks Animation
L.L.C. The case is styled as Lynette Tatum-Rios, Individually and
on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Dreamworks Animation L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04588
(S.D. N.Y., May 18, 2019).

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

DreamWorks Animation LLC is an American animation studio that is a
subsidiary of Universal Pictures, a division of Comcast through its
wholly owned subsidiary NBCUniversal. It is based in Glendale,
California and produces animated feature films, television programs
and online virtual games.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EPIC GAMES: Krohm Suit Transferred to E.D. North Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------
The case, ERIC KROHM, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. EPIC GAMES, INC., a
Maryland corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02353, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
North Carolina (Western Division) on April 30, 2019. The E.D. North
Carolina Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-00173-BO to the
proceeding. The  case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Terrence W.
Boyle.

The complaint alleges violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act including breach of contract,
breach of implied contract, and negligence, seeking actual,
compensatory, punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys'
fees.[BN]

Attorneys for Eric Krohm:

          Myles McGuire, Esq.
          Jad Sheikali, Esq.
          Timothy P. Kingsbury, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Dr., 9th Fl.
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893-7002
          E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
                  jsheikali@mcgpc.com
                  tkingsbury@mcgpc.com

Attorneys for Epic Games, Inc.:

          Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Esq.
          Matthew C. Luzadder, Esq.
          Constantine Koutsoubas, Esq.
          KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP
          333 West Wacker Drive, 26 th Fl.
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: 312-857-7070
          Facsimile: 312-857-7095

EVOLENT HEALTH: Torres Seeks Overtime Pay for Call Center Agents
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN TORRES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. EVOLENT HEALTH LLC, the Defendant Case
No. 1:19-cv-02887 (N.D. Ill., April 30, 2019), alleges that
Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated
persons all earned overtime pay for all time worked under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

The Defendant is a publicly traded company that works with health
care providers and health insurance companies to provide health
plan administration, network performance management and pharmacy
benefit management. The Plaintiff worked as a telephone-dedicated
customer service representative at Defendant's Chicago, Illinois
call center.

According to the complaint, the Defendant required Plaintiff and
similarly situated telephone-dedicated customer service
representatives to be ready to handle a call from the call queue at
the start of their scheduled shift times. In order to be ready to
handle a call at the start of their scheduled shift time, Plaintiff
and similarly situated customer service representatives had to
first boot up their computers, open various software programs
necessary for handling a call and read work email regarding
services and information for the day's calls. Plaintiff and the
putative collective did this work before the start of their
scheduled shift time. Under its policies and practices, Defendant
regularly failed to pay these workers for their pre-shift work.

Additionally, under Defendant's policies and practices, Plaintiff
and similarly situated telephone-dedicated employees had to be
available to handle a call until the end of their scheduled shift
time. As a result, they regularly worked past the end of their
scheduled shift time when completing customer calls, closing their
software programs and securing confidential information.

The Defendant knowingly required and/or permitted Plaintiff and
other similarly situated telephone-dedicated customer service
representatives to perform unpaid work before and after their
scheduled shift times. This unpaid pre-shift work includes logging
into Defendant's computers and network, initializing several
software programs, and reading company issued emails and
instructions at the beginning of their shifts. The unpaid
post-shift work includes completing customer service calls,
securing their workstations, and securing any customer or
proprietary information at and after the end of their shifts. The
amount of uncompensated overtime Plaintiff and those similarly
situated to him spend or have spent on these unpaid work activities
averages approximately 15 minutes per day, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Plaintiff's Attorneys:

          James X. Bormes, Esq.
          Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.
          8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephoner: (312) 201-0575

               - and -

          Thomas M. Ryan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C.
          35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 726-3400

EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Manley Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA
-----------------------------------------------------------
CURTIS MANLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00302-JAG (E.D. Va., April 22, 2019)
alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case is
assigned to District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc., an information services
company, provides information, analytical, and marketing services
to organizations and consumers to manage risk and reward of
commercial and financial decisions. Experian Information Solutions,
Inc. was formerly known as Information Systems and Services, Inc.
and changes its name to Experian Information Solutions, Inc. in
September 1996. The company was incorporated in 1992 and is based
in Costa Mesa, California with additional locations in New York,
New York; Parsippany, New Jersey; Burlington, Massachusetts;
Lincoln, Nebraska; Atlanta, Georgia; Costa Mesa, California;
Schaumburg, Illinois; Allen, Texas; Dublin, Ireland; Nottingham and
London, United Kingdom; and Sao Paulo, Brazil. Experian Information
Solutions, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Experian plc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
          Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq.
          Elizabeth W. Hanes, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES
          763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com
                  craig@clalegal.com
                  elizabeth@clalegal.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Branden Sand, Esq.
          WEINER & SAND LLC
          7 Piedmont Center, 3rd Floor
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 205-5029
          Facsimile: (866) 800-1482
          E-mail: js@atlantaemployeelawyer.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 several
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


FINANCIAL RECOVERY: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed in De La Cruz Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Luz Maria De La Cruz filed an appeal from the District
Court's order issued on March 28, 2019, in the lawsuit styled De La
Cruz v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc., et al., Case No.
17-cv-9931, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (New York City).

The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was initiated on December 20, 2017.

Financial Recovery offers collection services to mid-size companies
across the United States.

The appellate case is captioned as De La Cruz v. Financial Recovery
Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-1152, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Luz Maria De La Cruz, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
          555 5th Avenue
          New York, NY 07444
          Telephone: (646) 459-7971
          Facsimile: (646) 459-7973
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com

Defendant-Appellee Financial Recovery Services, Inc., is
represented by:

          Aleksander Powietrzynski, Esq.
          WINSTON & WINSTON, P.C.
          708 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 532-2700
          E-mail: Alex@winstonandwinston.com


FIRST STUDENT: Court Seeks More Briefing on Cy Pres Beneficiaries
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order requiring Suplemental Briefing in the
case captioned BHANU VIKRAM, Plaintiff, v. FIRST STUDENT
MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant. Case No. 17-cv-04656-KAW. (N.D. Cal.).

The Court granted Plaintiff Bhanu Vikram's motion for preliminary
approval of a class settlement. The parties filed a stipulation to
modify the class settlement, such that uncashed settlement checks
would not go to the California Department of Industrial Relations
(DIR) because the DIR was no longer accepting uncashed class action
settlement checks.  

Instead, the uncashed settlement checks would go to California
Rural Legal Assistance, a non-profit organization providing civil
legal services to low income individuals.  

The Court requires supplemental briefing as to why California Rural
Legal Assistance is an appropriate cy pres beneficiary. In general,
the cy pres doctrine allows a court to distribute unclaimed or
non-distributable portions of a class action settlement fund to the
next best' class of beneficiaries. Thus, the cy presbeneficiary
must account for the nature of the plaintiffs' lawsuit, the
objectives of the underlying statutes, and the interests of the
silent class members, including their geographic diversity.

Here, it is unclear that the proposed cy pres beneficiary is
sufficiently related to the subject matter of the lawsuit and the
geographic diversity of the class members, particularly when it
appears that California Rural Legal Assistance focuses on providing
assistance to rural communities. Thus, the parties shall explain
why California Rural Legal Assistance fulfills the requirements for
cy pres beneficiaries, as stated above. The parties shall also
identify any relationships the parties or their counsel have with
California Rural Legal Assistance. The parties' supplemental brief
is due no later than May 20, 2019.

Additionally, the Court notes that it is unavailable on August 15,
2019, as stated on the Court calendar. The Court is, however,
available on August 29, 2019. The parties shall state in their
supplemental brief if they are available on August 29, 2019, or if
a later date is required.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 9, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2uqt3gv from Leagle.com.

Bhanu Vikram, an individual, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Aparajit
Bhowmik -- aj@bamlawlj.com -- Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik,
Kyle Roald Nordrehaug -- kyle@bamlawca.com -- Blumenthal,
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, Molly Ann DeSario --
Molly.DeSario@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, Norman B.
Blumenthal -- norm@bamlawca.com -- Blumentha, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik,
Ruchira Piya Mukherjee -- piya@bamlawlj.com -- Blumenthal
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, Victoria Bree Rivapalacio --
victoria@bamlawca.com -- Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik &
Ricardo Ramon Ehmann -- rico@bamlawca.com -- Blumenthal Nordrehaug
Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

First Student Management, LLC, a Limited Liability Company,
Defendant, represented by David J. Dow -- ddow@littler.com, Littler
Mendelson, P.C., Jeffrey J. Mann -- jmann@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, P.C. & Alexis Anne Sohrakoff -- aknapp@littler.com --
Littler Mendelson, P.C..


FLAGSHIP CREDIT: Court Demands Factual Material in R. Ward's Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum and Order requiring Counsel to
File Additional Factual Material in Response to Order in the case
captioned ROBERT WARD, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, v. FLAGSHIP CREDIT ACCEPTANCE LLC. Civil Action
No. 17-2069. (E.D. Pa.).

This case is somewhat unusual because of the fact that no Answer
was ever filed to the Complaint, and the Court never held a Rule 16
pretrial conference. Rather, counsel stipulated for extensions of
time to respond to the Complaint, lasting approximately fifteen
months. At the end of the last extension, the Plaintiffs filed a
Motion for Preliminary Approval, which noted that there had been
extensive negotiations between counsel and exchange of data, and
that Plaintiffs had taken one deposition of a technical employee of
the Defendant.

In the Motion for Preliminary Approval, at pages 18-20, there is a
list of prior TCPA settlements, showing the amount per claim
ranging from a low of approximately $20 to a high of $200. However,
this case list does not show the total amount of settlement in any
of these cases. The Motion shows one TCPA settlement of
approximately $7.5 million, but this is the only indication of a
reported settlement amount.

In the Memorandum supporting the Motion for Final Approval, at page
14, counsel cite another TCPA settlement for $34 million, in a
class of more than 32 million individuals. In the Memorandum in
support for Attorneys' Fees, at page 7, counsel cite TCPA
settlements worth $3 million and $10 million. What makes $4 million
reasonable and fair in this case?

After review of all of the papers submitted by Plaintiffs, there
are insufficient details to allow the Court to conclude that this
settlement is fair and reasonable. A supporting Declaration from
the class administrator indicates that based on the mailings and
returns by the post office, there are approximately 316,000 class
members in this case who received notice. The number of claims
filed are approximately 57,000 showing a return of approximately
17%, which counsel assert is a very high participation rate.

As the Court discussed with counsel at the recent hearing, also of
concern in this case is the very large amount of attorneys' fees
being sought as a percentage of recovery, compared to the
anticipated net return to each class member who filed a claim.  

The Court will require additional detailed information as to the
strength or weakness of the Plaintiffs' claims, and the Defendant's
anticipated defenses, the Defendant's resources, and a projection
of damages that Plaintiffs would have been able to prove if the
case had gone to trial. The class papers satisfactorily discuss the
legal issues, but there is very little factual information.

For these reasons, counsel shall file additional factual material
in response to this Order.  An extension will be granted upon
request, indicating how much additional time is necessary to secure
and file the requested information.

A full-text copy of the District Court’s May 9, 2019 Memorandum
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6dns8j8 from
Leagle.com

ROBERT WARD, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by SERGEI LEMBERG, LEMBERG LAW LLC
& STEPHEN F. TAYLOR, LEMBERG LAW LLC.

FLAGSHIP CREDIT ACCEPTANCE LLC, Defendant, represented by GERALD E.
ARTH, FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP & STEVEN JOSEPH DAROCI, II, FOX ROTHSCHILD
LLP.


FLIPDADDY'S LLC: Turner & Dorsey Sue over Tip Credit, OT Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
CAROL TURNER and BAILEY DORSEY on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. FLIPDADDY'S, LLC Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00314-TSB (S.D. Ohio., April 30, 2019), seeks to
recover minimum and overtime wages that Flipdaddy's LLC owes to
them and have failed to pay, in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is not entitled to apply
a tip credit toward the Plaintiffs and the Class Members' minimum
wages, as Defendant has failed to inform Plaintiffs and the Class
Members that it would take a tip credit, and has failed to ensure
that Plaintiffs and the Class Members retained all the tips they
received, except for any tips included in a tipping pool among
employees who customarily and regularly receive tips.

In addition, Plaintiffs and the Class Members seek to recover
minimum wages Defendant owes to them and have failed to pay, in
violation of Kentucky Wage and Hour laws, specifically KRS 337.275,
and further request that the court impose civil penalties upon
Defendant for illegally requiring Plaintiffs and the Class members
to participate in a tip pool, failing to maintain complete and
accurate records of Plaintiffs' and the Class members work time,
refusing to permit Plaintiffs and the Class members to take
required meal and rest breaks and failing to timely pay Plaintiffs
and the Class Members as required by KRS 337.065, KRS 337.320, KRS
337.355, and KRS 337.990(1),(5), (7), and (10).

Ms. Carol Turner is a former employee of Defendant and an
individual residing at 1125 Columbia Street, Newport, KY 41071.
Bailey Dorsey is a former employee of Defendant and an individual
residing at 1565 Fairway Drive, Lawrenceburg, IN 47025.

The Defendant operates a chain of restaurants located in the states
of Kentucky and Ohio. The Defendant employed Plaintiff Turner at
its restaurant located at 165 Pavilion Parkway, Newport, KY 41071,
as a server at its restaurant located at 165 Pavilion Parkway,
Newport, KY 41071, from approximately May 2017 until the November
2018 for between approximately 23 hours a week. The Defendant
employed Plaintiff Dorsey as a server at its restaurant located at
165 N. Parkway, Newport, KY 41071 from approximately May 2018 to
March 18, 2019, for approximately 30 to 42 hours a week.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Jessica R. Doogan, Esq.
          Trent R. Taylor, Esq.
          Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
          BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE
          WENTZ MCINERNEY PEIFER, LLP
          250 East Broad Street, 10th Floor
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 221-4221
          Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
          E-mail: jdoogan@barkanmeizlish.com
                  ttaylor@barkanmeizlish.com
                  bderose@barkanmeizlish.com



FRONTLINE ASSET: Marshall Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Indiana
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FRONTLINE ASSET
STRATEGIES. The case is styled as KAREN MARSHALL, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRONTLINE
ASSET STRATEGIES, LVNV FUNDING, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-00107-RLY-MPB (S.D. Ind., May 17, 2019).

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

Frontline Asset Strategies provides third-party collection services
and first-party business process outsourcing services for many
different types of accounts.

LVNV Funding LLC, ("LVNV") purchases portfolios of both domestic
(U.S.) and international consumer debt owned by credit grantors
including banks and finance companies, and by other debt
buyers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
     MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
     701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
     Asbury Park, NJ 07712
     Phone: (732) 695-3282
     Fax: (732) 298-6256
     Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com

The Defendants appear pro se.


GEICO INDEMNITY: Moe Suit Removed to Montana Dist. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
The class action styled as Brandon L. Moe individually and on
behalf of all individuals of the class similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Geico Indemnity Co., John Does I – XX, Defendant,
Case No. DV-18-1324B filed in state court was removed from Montana
Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Montana on May 17, 2019, and
assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-00023-BMM-JCL.

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance.

GEICO Indemnity Company operates as a property and casualty
insurer. GEICO Indemnity Company was formerly known as Criterion
Insurance Company Ltd. and changed its name to GEICO Indemnity
Company in June 1986.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Daniel Patrick Buckley, Esq.
     BUCKLEY LAW OFFICE
     125 West Mendenhall
     Bozeman, MT 59715
     Phone: (406) 587-3346
     Fax: (406) 587-0475
     Email: dbuckley@danbuckleylaw.com

          - and -

     Mark J. Luebeck, Esq.
     ANGEL COIL BARTLETT
     125 West Mendenhall, Suite 201
     Bozeman, MT 59715
     Phone: (406) 586-1926
     Fax: (406) 586-7654
     Email: mluebeck@angelcoilbartlett.com

The Defendants are represented by:

     Ian McIntosh, Esq.
     William M. Morris, Esq.
     CROWLEY FLECK, PLLP - BOZEMAN
     1915 South 19th Avenue
     PO Box 10969
     Bozeman, MT 59719-0969
     Phone: (406) 556-1430
     Fax: (406) 556-1433
     Email: imcintosh@crowleyfleck.com
            wmorris@crowleyfleck.com


GOLDEN RULE INSURANCE: Perrong Suit Asserts TCPA Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW PERRONG, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. GOLDEN RULE INSURANCE COMPANY and AMERICAN SELECT
PARTNERS, LLC Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01940-JPH-DML (S.D.
Ind., May 14, 2019) seeks to enforce the consumer-privacy
provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), a
federal statute enacted in 1991 in response to widespread public
outrage about the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance
telemarketing practices.

Mr. Perrong alleges that Golden Rule Insurance Company ("Golden
Rule Insurance") commissioned automated telemarketing calls to him
and other putative class members without their prior express
written consent. These calls were made pursuant to an arrangement
between Golden Rule Insurance and American Select Partners, LLC
("American Select Partners"), a telemarketing agent for Golden Rule
Insurance, says the complaint.

Mr. Perrong and putative class members never consented to receive
these calls. For this reason, Mr. Perrong brings this action on
behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons who received
illegal telemarketing calls from or on behalf of Golden Rule
Insurance.

Plaintiff Andrew Perrong currently resides in Pennsylvania.

Golden Rule Insurance, Inc. is a domestic corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
     PARONICH LAW, P.C.
     350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
     Hingham, MA 02043
     Phone: (617) 485-0018
     Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com


GOLDEN THAI: Castillo Seeks Overtime, Minimum Pay
-------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Golden Thai Inc.,
Coco Thai Inc., Thai Me Inc., and John Vasconez for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The case
is captioned ERNESTO MUNGUIA CASTILLO, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, -against- GOLDEN THAI INC.
(D/B/A GOLDEN THAI), COCO THAI INC. (D/B/A COCO THAI), THAI ME INC.
(D/B/A THAI ME), JOHN VASCONEZ, and JANE DOE, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-02421 (E.D.N.Y., April 25, 2019). Plaintiff Ernesto Munguia
Castillo alleges that the Defendants maintained a policy and
practice of requiring him and other employees to work in excess of
40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime
compensation required by federal and state law and regulations.

Golden Thai Inc., Coco Thai Inc., Thai Me Inc., and John Vasconez
own, operate, or control three Thai restaurants in Brooklyn, New
York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GRANDVISION USA: Golan Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE GOLAN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. GRANDVISION USA RETAIL HOLDING CORPORATION,
FOR EYES OPTICAL CO, INC.: FOR EYES OPTICAL CO. OF CALIFORNIA, INC:
and FOR EYES OPTICAL COMPANY OF COCONUT GROVE, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-21937-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 14, 2019) seeks all
relief available under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
("FLSA") on behalf of Plaintiff and all current and former overtime
exempt classified Store Managers ("SMs"), who elect to opt into
this action pursuant to the FLSA (the "Putative FLSA Collective")
who worked at any of Defendants' For Eyes locations in the United
States within the 3 year period preceding the filing of this
action.

Plaintiff and the Putative FLSA Collective, all of whom regularly
worked more than 40 hours in a workweek, were employed as SMs by
Defendants at their For Eyes locations. The Defendants were aware
that Plaintiff and the Putative FLSA Collective worked more than 40
hours per workweek. Yet, they failed to pay them for the hours they
worked over 40, asserts the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a Store Manager from August
2017 until May 2018.

GrandVision is a corporation organized and existing under the laws
of Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
     Camar R. Jones, Esq.
     SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
     951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
     Boca Raton, FL 33431
     Phone: (561) 447-8888
     Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
     Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
            cjones@shavitzlaw.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
     Phone: (212) 545-1199
     Facsimile: (212) 532-3801
     Email: mhepworth@hgrlawyers.com
            cgershbaum@hgrlawyers.com
            droth@hgrlawyers.com
            rpredovan@hgrlawyers.com


GRATE LAKE: Cali Hits Unpaid Compensation, Missed Breaks
--------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN CALI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. GRATE LAKE RESTAURANTS I, LLC dba SMITTY'S
GRILL, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES l through
100, inclusive,, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV16711 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Los Angeles Cty., May 14, 2019) is an action pursuant to the
California Labor Code seeking unpaid overtime, meal and rest period
compensation, penalties, injunctive, and other equitable relief,
and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

The complaint alleges that Plaintiff and the Defendants' non-exempt
employees were not properly paid for all wages earned and for all
wages when working more than 8 hours in any given day and/or more
than 40 hours in any given week. Moreover, the Defendants failed to
provide Plaintiff and the Class with lawful meal and rest periods
and forced employees to work off the clock and to incur unpaid
overtime as employees were required to work after clocking out for
their meal period to fold cloth napkins and other side work, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt employee by the Defendants.

GRATE LAKE RESTAURANTS I, 10 LLC dba SMITTY'S GRILL, is a Delaware
limited liability company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     RICHARD E. QUINTILONE II, ESQ.
     GEORGE A. ALOUPAS, ESQ.
     ANDREW H. HAAS, ESQ.
     QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES
     22974 El Toro Road Suite 100
     Lake Forest, CA 92630-4961
     Phone: (949) 458-9675
     Facsimile: (949) 458-9679
     Email: reo@ouintlaw.com
            gaa@ouintlaw.com
            ahh@ouintlaw.com


HAROLD CLARKE: Court Quashes Witness Subpoenas in Riggleman
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Virginia, Harrisonburg Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion
granting Non-parties VCU Health System (VCUHS) and Richard K.
Sterling, M.D.'s Motion to Quash Witness Subpoenas in the case
captioned TERRY A. RIGGLEMAN, Plaintiff, v. HAROLD CLARKE, ET AL.,
Defendants. Case No. 5:17-CV-00063. (W.D. Va.).

Before the Court is Non-parties VCU Health System (VCUHS) and
Richard K. Sterling, M.D.'s Motion to Quash Witness Subpoenas and
to Permit Previous Deposition Testimony to be Used at Trial.  

The Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section
1983, requesting declaratory and injunctive relief (Count III) and
attorneys' fees (Count IV) against Defendants in their official
capacities.  

Both parties subpoenaed non-parties Richard K. Sterling, M.D., and
Reena Cherian, N.P., to testify at trial. Both Dr. Sterling and Ms.
Cherian moved to quash the subpoenas and to permit their respective
previously taken deposition testimony to be used at trial, and for
reasonable attorneys' fees associated with their motions to quash.
Both Dr. Sterling and Ms. Cherian cited previously-scheduled
patient bookings and the impact on patients and staff of cancelling
appointments as grounds to quash the subpoenas.  

At the hearing, Plaintiff's counsel initially stated that he was
not entirely opposed to reading the deposition transcripts and that
the day before he offered to read in those excerpts of Sterling and
Cherian if the Defendants would agree to read in Dr. Gaglio's
deposition transcript but noted that "They didn't want to do
that."

Plaintiff's counsel stated that he had not addressed that with
counsel for Dr. Sterling and Ms. Cherian because the Defendants
would not agree with what he was offering. Plaintiff's counsel then
stated, however, that he agreed to read Dr. Sterling's testimony in
at trial if that was the best way to go about it. Plaintiff's
counsel expressed a concern that a particular exhibit used in Ms.
Cherian's deposition was important to Plaintiff and that while
Defendants had objected to its authenticity and foundation, Ms.
Cherian authenticated it and laid the foundation in her deposition
and that her deposition transcript could be used in the court.
Defendants stated that they had no objection to using the
depositions of Dr. Sterling and Ms. Cherian at trial.

At the hearing, counsel for VCUHS, Dr. Sterling, and Ms. Cherian,
stated that she tried to resolve issues related to the subpoenas
prior to filing the motions to quash. She stated that Defendants'
counsel told her before she filed the motions to quash that they
would agree to the use of deposition testimony. She stated,
however, that the hearing was the first time she had heard from the
Plaintiff's side that there might be an agreement to not have the
witnesses appear live. She renewed the request in the motions to
quash for the costs of bringing the motions before the Court. It
appears that while Defendants communicated they were willing to use
deposition testimony at trial in lieu of live testimony before the
motions to quash were filed, Plaintiff did not. As recently as the
day before the hearing, Plaintiff was trying to leverage the
situation to get Defendants to agree to read Dr. Gaglio's
deposition transcript.  

At the hearing, the Court stated that the non-parties' request for
their reasonable attorneys' fees associated with the respective
motions to quash will be taken under advisement. The Court,
therefore, will grant the motions to quash and permit previous
deposition testimony to be used at trial but will take the
attorneys' fee request under advisement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 9, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yy8doget from
Leagle.com.

Terry A. Riggleman, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Ready Tate,
Nexus Derechos Humanos Attorneys, Inc., pro hac vice & Mario
Bernard Williams, Nexus Derechos Humanos Attorneys, Inc., 113 Mill
Place Parkway #105A. Verona, VA 24482

Harold Clarke, in his individual and official capacities & Mark
Amonette, in his individual and official capacities, Defendants,
represented by Edward J. McNelis, III -- emcnelis@sandsanderson.com
-- Sands Anderson, PC & Elizabeth Martin Muldowney --
emuldowney@sandsanderson.com -- Sands Anderson, PC.


HASBRO INC: Class Suit Over Toys R Us Disclosure Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Hasbro, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a putative securities class action lawsuit over the
company's alleged misleading statements with the financial
condition of Toys"R"Us, Inc.

On or about September 28, 2018, a putative securities class action
complaint was filed against the Company and certain of the
company's officers and/or directors (the "Defendants") in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Rhode Island, on behalf of all
purchasers of Hasbro common stock between April 24, 2017 and
October 23, 2017, inclusive.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, alleging that
Defendants purportedly made materially false and misleading
statements in connection with the financial condition of Toys"R"Us,
Inc. and its impact on the Company, as well as the financial impact
on the Company's business of economic conditions in the United
Kingdom and Brazil.

Hasbro said, "Defendants deny liability and intend to vigorously
defend the action."

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

Hasbro, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a play
and entertainment company. Hasbro, Inc. was founded in 1923 and is
headquartered in Pawtucket, Rhode Island.


HEALTH AND PSYCHIATRIST: Maloy Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
LORETTA MALOY, individually, and as the class representative of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HEALTH AND PSYCHIATRIST
CONSULTANTS, LLC D/B/A HEALTH AND MEDSPA and USMAN EZAD,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-01156 (N.D. Fla., May
14, 2019) is an action for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA") for failure to pay minimum wage compensation.

The complaint asserts that Defendants unlawfully misclassified
Plaintiff MALOY as an exempt employee to avoid compensating her
minimum wages. The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff in accordance
with the FLSA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a receptionist from
approximately March 12, 2019 until April 18, 2019.

HEALTH AND PSYCHIATRIST CONSULTANTS, LLC, is a Florida Limited
Liability company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Peter A. Sartes, Esq.
     TRAGOS, SARTES & TRAGOS, PLLC
     601 Cleveland Street, Suite 800
     Clearwater, FL 33755
     Phone: (727) 441-9030
     Facsimile: (727) 441-9254
     Email: peter@greeklaw.com
            linda@greeklaw.com


HEARTLAND HOUSING: Turner Sues over Apartment Lease
---------------------------------------------------
The case, BILLY TURNER, Individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons, the Plaintiff, vs. HEARTLAND HOUSING, INC.
HOLLYWOOD HOUSE, L.P., the Defendants, Case No. 2019CH05474,
alleges the Defendant, Case No. 2019CH05474 (Ill. Cir., April, 30,
2019), seeks judgment in favor of Palintiff and against Defendants,
jointly and severally, in the amount of $100 per class member, plus
costs, attorney fees, and whatever other relief this Court deems
valid and just under the circumstances.

Billy Turner is a residential tenant of the Defendants'  multi-unit
apartment complex located at 5700 North Sheridan Road, Apt. 417 in
Chicago, Illinois.  The Plaintiff moved in on November 1, 2014 to
the unit. The Plaintiff signed yearly leases. The Plaintiff paid
Defendants a security deposit in the amount of $607.

The property is a multi-unit residential apartment high-rise
complex each containing approximately 250 residential rental units
covering 19 floors, 12 Units per floor. The property is alternately
commonly known and/or marketed as Hollywood House.

The Defendants advertise the property as a low-income and/or
subsidized housing project which participates in the Section 8
Housing Program administered by the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") for senior citizens. Turner
has been a participant in the Section 8 Housing Program
administered by HUD. At all times relevant herein, one or both
Plaintiffs were beneficiaries and/or recipients of Housing
Assistance Payments through and federally funded by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development Housing Choice Voucher
Program, Section 8, locally administered by the Chicago Housing
Authority.

The building is entirely occupied by Section 8 certified tenants,
sometimes called a Section 8 project building.

Each year between 2014 and 2019, based on recertification,
Heartland Housing, Inc. and Hollywood House, L.P. presented
Plaintiff with a new copy of a form lease with boilerplate language
for Turner to sign.  That Form Lease is the same, or substantially
similar to, the leases used by Heartland Housing, Inc. and
Hollywood House, L.P. for most or all other tenants in the
building.

Turner has continued to comply with all provisions of his last
lease agreement, including the payment of rent. Turner has not
received interest on his security deposit from any Defendant by
cash or rent credit in 2017 or 2018 or 2019. The lease does not
contain information where the security deposit is held or the bank
name. The standard Form Lease and its addenda do not provide or
include e a complete and current RLTO summary and interest rate
disclosure, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Berton N. Ring, Esq.
          BERTON N. RING, P.C.
          123 West Madison Street, 15th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 781-0290
          E-mail: bring@bnrpc.com

HOOVESTOL INC: $100K Settlement in Truck Drivers' Suit Has Final OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion
for Final Settlement Approval in the case captioned RICHARD TERRY,
Plaintiff, v. HOOVESTOL, INC., Defendant. Case No. 16-cv-05183-JST.
(N.D. Cal.).

Before the Court are Plaintiff Richard Terry's unopposed motions
for final settlement approval.

Plaintiff Richard Terry is a former truck driver for Defendant
Hoovestol, Inc. Hoovestol hauls bulk mail for the United States
Postal Service (USPS) and employs truck drivers in California.
Terry brings this putative wage and hour class action on behalf of
himself and other hourly truck drivers employed by Hoovestol in
California for violations of California Labor Code.

The Proposed Settlement

The Settlement Agreement defines the class as:

     All persons who are or have been employed by Defendant in the
State of California as hourly truck drivers at any time between
July 20, 2012, to the date the Court issues an order granting
preliminary approval of the settlement and who did not execute an
individual release of the claims.

Under the terms of the agreement, Defendant agrees to pay no more
than $100,000 as the gross settlement amount, without admitting
liability.  

In exchange for the settlement awards, class members will release
Hoovestol from:

     all known and unknown state law claims that both: (1) were
alleged or that could have been alleged based on the facts plead in
the complaints filed in the matter; and ([2]) concern, arise out
of, relate to, or are based upon Defendant's failure to pay all
wages, including straight time and overtime wages; failure to
provide meal and rest periods; knowing and intentional failure to
comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions; failure to
pay all wages timely, including wages due at the time of
termination; and violations of California's Unfair Competition
Law.

The Settlement Agreement further provides that when checks mailed
to participating class members are not redeemed or deposited within
ninety days, the settlement administrator will mail a reminder
postcard. Ninety days after the reminder notice is mailed, funds
from any unredeemed checks will be paid to the United Way of
California.

Adequacy of Notice

A court must direct notice of a proposed class settlement in a
reasonable manner to all class members who would be bound by the
proposal. The class must be notified of a proposed settlement in a
manner that does not systematically leave any group without
notice.

Although the Court expresses some concern as to how an individual
was erroneously excluded from the notice list, the Court concludes
that overall, the notice procedures followed here were adequate.
Due process requires notice reasonably calculated, under all the
circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the
action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.
Under these circumstances, the Court finds the parties have
provided adequate notice to the class.

Fairness, Adequacy, and Reasonableness

Strength of Plaintiff's Case and Risks of Litigation

The first factor, the strength of Plaintiff's case, favors
settlement. Hoovestol has raised numerous factual and legal
defenses that could prevent class certification or recovery in this
case. In response to Terry's assertions of wage-and-hour
violations, Hoovestol insists that it has a legally compliant meal
and rest break policy and emphasizes that it received no complaints
from any drivers for not being able to take duty-free meal and rest
periods away from their vehicles. Substantial evidence introduced
in connection with an earlier, contested motion for class
certification supported Defendant's assertion that its trailer
safety policy did not interfere with drivers' ability to take meal
and rest breaks and did not compel them to work overtime. Terry
maintains that each side evaluated the strengths and weaknesses of
their case and independently concluded that this settlement
represents a responsible means of addressing Plaintiff's claims and
Defendant's defenses.

The Court agrees with the parties that, taking into account the
uncertainty and costs of further litigation, resolution of this
action through settlement is appropriate.  

This factor weighs in favor of final approval.

Settlement Amount

After deducting attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and Terry's
service award from the gross settlement amount, approximately
$50,206.32 will remain to be distributed among the participating
class members. This will yield an average estimated payment of
$660.61 for each of the seventy-six class members, with the highest
individual share estimated at $2,626.76. While this represents only
a fraction of class members' potential recovery should this matter
proceed to trial, given the risks inherent in further litigation,
the Court concludes that the recovery for the class weighs in favor
of approval.

Extent of Discovery

In the context of class action settlements, formal discovery is not
a necessary ticket to the bargaining table where the parties have
sufficient information to make an informed decision about
settlement. However, the extent of discovery completed supports
approval of a proposed settlement, especially when litigation has
proceeded to a point at which both plaintiffs and defendants have a
clear view of the strengths and weaknesses of their cases.

Here, the Court is persuaded that the parties conducted sufficient
discovery to make an informed decision about the adequacy of the
settlement. At the time of settlement, the parties had spent almost
two years engaged in litigation, including special interrogatories,
requests for production of documents, and multiple depositions, as
well as an attempt at private mediation.   

This factor therefore weighs in favor of approval.

Counsel's Experience

Here, Class Counsel have extensive experience litigating complex
class action and employment cases under California law. That they
endorse the proposed settlement weighs in favor of approval.

Presence of Governmental Participant

Pursuant to CAFA, Hoovestol sent notice of the proposed settlement
to the United States Attorney General and the Attorney General of
the State of California on October 5, 2018. No Attorney General has
submitted a statement of interest or objection in response to these
notices. Because there is no governmental participant in this case,
the Court need not consider this factor.

Absence of Collusion

As explained in its prior Order, the Court finds that the
settlement here was achieved through arms-length negotiation and
was not collusive.  

Reaction of the Class

Finally, class members' positive reaction to a settlement weighs in
favor of settlement approval. The absence of a large number of
objections to a proposed class action settlement raises a strong
presumption that the terms of a proposed class settlement action
are favorable to the class members.

Here, the reaction of the class was highly favorable. No class
member has filed an objection to the settlement, and only four
class members representing five percent of the eighty-person
potential settlement class have chosen to opt out. The Court
therefore concludes this factor weighs in favor of approval.  

After balancing all the relevant factors, the Court finds that
final settlement approval is supported here. Accordingly, the Court
hereby finds that the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable,
and grants Terry's motion for final approval.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 9, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y3hxpy5m from Leagle.com.

Richard Terry, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff,
represented by Jill Marie Vecchi -- jvecchi@maralawfirm.com -- Mara
Law Firm, PC, David Thomas Mara -- dmara@maralawfirm.com --  Mara
Law Firm, PC, Gwendolyne Nicole Trenner, Mara Law Firm, PC, Matthew
Evan Crawford, Mara Law Firm, PC & William David Turley, Mara Law
Firm, PC, 311 E Liberty St, Reno, Nevada 89501

Hoovestol, Inc., Defendant, represented by Cathy L. Arias --
carias@burnhambrown.com -- Burnham Brown, APC, Kristy Ann Fahland
-- kfahland@messerlikramer.com -- Messerli & Kramer P.A., pro hac
vice & Raymond A. Greene, III  -- Rgreene@burnhambrown.com --
Burnham Brown, APC.


IDS PROPERTY: 9th Cir. Vacates Achziger Class Certification Denial
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit issued a
Memorandum vacating the District Court's judgment denying the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned
GENE ACHZIGER, individually and as the representative of all
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. IDS PROPERTY
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, AKA Ameriprise, Defendant-Appellee. No.
17-35996. (9th Cir.).

The Plaintiffs appeal the District Court's class certification
denial.

After a 2013 car accident, Gene Achziger filed a claim with his
auto insurance provider, IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company
(IDS). Relying on Moeller III, Achziger filed a class action
complaint alleging that IDS breached its contract and violated the
Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA), when IDS failed to inform
Achziger about the availability of coverage for diminished value
and failed to adjust his loss to include diminished value.  

In Moeller v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Wash., 267 P.3d 998 (Wash. 2011)
("Moeller III"), the Supreme Court of Washington held that a
Farmers auto insurance policy covered not only the cost of repair
to a vehicle but any diminution in value between a preaccident and
postrepair vehicle.

Typicality

The test of typicality is 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.

The district court found atypicality on two grounds, neither of
which is supported by the record.

First, the district court found an absence of typicality because
Achziger seeks to represent a class of insureds who have different
IDS policies than him. It is true that there are two types of
coverage at issue in this case: collision and/or comprehensive
coverage and UIM coverage.

But the two coverage provisions are not materially different.
Although the provisions are worded differently, both cover
diminished value and do so in the same way. Moeller III found
diminished value coverage after concluding that the insurance
provision at issue was ambiguous and that a reasonable insured
would expect coverage of diminished value under the provision. The
same logic applies to both provisions at issue here, with the same
result.

The district court recognized that Moeller III controls when it
granted Achziger's motion for summary judgment on the issue of
whether his policy covers diminished value. Moreover, as made clear
both in the briefs and at oral argument, IDS uses the same formula
to calculate diminished value under both provisions. Given these
commonalities in coverage and calculation, the district court erred
in concluding that some members will need to make different legal
arguments than Achziger to state a breach of contract claim.

Second, the district court concluded that IDS's claims handling
practices and procedures changed over the proposed class period
such that each class member's CPA claim does not arise from the
same course of events. But IDS's process for adjusting for
diminished value did not change over the class period. When IDS
adjusted for diminished value, it always used the same formula to
do so. Because of this, Achziger's claims are reasonably
co-extensive with those of absent class members.

Predominance

The Rule 23(b)(3) predominance inquiry asks the court to make a
global determination of whether common questions prevail over
individualized ones.

The district court found an absence of predominance in part because
the proposed class definition in this case encompasses different
types of coverage. As discussed above, however, the type of
coverage under the two provisions is not different. The district
court also emphasized that coverage under the UIM provision
"requires an individual factual assessment of the fault of the
insured driver. But for every claim that requires a determination
of driver fault, IDS has already made such a determination and
recorded it in its records.

The Court concludes that the district court abused its discretion
by giving more weight to potential individual damages disputes than
common questions of liability. These common question include
whether IDS failed to inform class members of their right to
receive diminished value compensation, whether IDS's formula for
assessing diminished value is unfair, and whether the compensation
that members received, if any, was inadequate.

Superiority

The superiority inquiry involves a comparative evaluation of
alternative mechanisms of dispute resolution. The district court
found that a class action was not superior because individual
issues currently predominate over common issues[.]" But, as we
conclude above, the district court abused its discretion in
concluding that individual issues predominate. The district court
also found that some class members could potentially be
undercompensated. This finding, however, is without support in
inferences that may be drawn from the facts in the record.

The district court abused its discretion in reaching its
conclusions as to typicality, predominance, and superiority. The
Court vacates the district court's denial of class certification
and remand for further consideration consistent with this
disposition.1

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's May 9, 2019 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y3fg7dd6 from Leagle.com.


IOC-BOONVILLE: Nicholson Seeks Overtime, Minimum Wage
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against IOC-Boonville, Inc.
for violations of the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law. The
case is captioned CAROLYN M. NICHOLSON, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. IOC-BOONVILLE, INC.
D/B/A ISLE OF CAPRI CASINO HOTEL BOONVILLE, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-4084 (W.D. Mo., April 25, 2019).

Plaintiff Carolyn M. Nicholson alleges that the Defendant failed to
pay her, and other similarly situated employees, the mandated
federal and/or state minimum wage rate for all hours worked and
overtime for all hours worked over 40 in a single workweek.
Nicholson asserts that the IOC-Boonville, Inc. used time-clock
rounding policy, procedure, and practice to avoid paying its
employees the proper overtime compensation for all time worked.

In addition, IOC-Boonville, Inc. allegedly failed to properly
inform its tipped employees of the required tip credit provisions.
It also made improper deductions from its employees' paychecks for
gaming license fees and other deductions which reduced its
employees' compensation below the required minimum wage and, in
some situations, overtime rate under state and federal law for all
hours worked.

Located in Boonville, Missouri, IOC-Boonville, Inc. operates Isle
of Capri Casino Hotel Boonville, a 140-room hotel that houses three
restaurants and features nearly 900 slot and video poker machines.
IOC-Boonville, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of
the state of Nevada and is registered to do business and conduct
business in the state of Missouri. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JHB COMPANIES: Rivera Files Class Suit in C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JHB Companies LLC.
The case is styled as Brianna Rivera, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JHB Companies LLC, a
Florida limited liability company, DOES 1 to 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-04311 (C.D. Cal., May 17, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Jhb Companies is a privately held company in Boca Raton, FL and is
a Single Location business, categorized under Management
Services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Appeal in REMICADE Antitrust Litigation Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that an appeal from the
denial of defendants' motion to dismiss the direct purchaser case
in the Remicade Antitrust Litigation is pending in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Beginning in September 2017, multiple purported class actions of
direct and indirect purchasers were filed against Johnson & Johnson
and Janssen Biotech, Inc. (collectively, Janssen) alleging that
Janssen's REMICADE(R) contracting strategies violated federal and
state antitrust and consumer laws and seeking damages and
injunctive relief.

In November 2017, the cases were consolidated for pre-trial
purposes in United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania as In re Remicade Antitrust Litigation. Motions to
dismiss were denied in both cases.

An appeal from the denial of defendants' motion to dismiss the
direct purchaser case is pending in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated
in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bradfield Talc Injury Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit entitled SARAH BRADFIELD,
Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of RONDA
JOHNSTON 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-03405 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on November 16, 2017, in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara, and was
assigned Case No. 17CV318626.

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.

The Plaintiff in this action seeks recovery for damages as a result
of developing ovarian cancer in Decedent, Ronda Johnston, which was
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 Plaintiff is represented by:

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

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

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Cantley Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit titled LINDA CANTLEY, 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-03489 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on July 25, 2018, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, and was
assigned Case No. BC715158.

The lawsuit is an action for damages relating to the Defendants'
design, manufacture, sale, marketing, advertising, promotion, and
distribution of Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder and Shower to Shower.
The Plaintiff contends that the use of the products can cause
ovarian cancer and other serious health conditions.  She alleges
that she used the products and as a result of her use of the
products she suffered injuries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert A. Mosier, Esq.
          Lauren A. Welling, Esq.
          SANDERS PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
          16755 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92606
          Telephone: (516) 741-5600
          E-mail: rmosier@thesandersfirm.com
                  lwelling@thesandersfirm.com

               - and -

          Brian J. McCormick, Jr., Esq.
          Dena R. Young, Esq.
          ROSS FELLER CASEY, LLP
          One Liberty Place
          1650 Market St., Suite 3450
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (877) 704-8050
          Facsimile: (215) 231-3750
          E-mail: bmccormick@rossfellercasey.com
                  dyoung@rossfellercasey.com

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

          Caroline A. Toole, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          515 South Flower Street 42nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430-3400
          Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
          E-mail: caroline.toole@tuckerellis.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Collison Talc Injury Suit Moved to C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit captioned LINDA COLLISON, 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; TMERYS 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-03395 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on July 27, 2018, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Fresno, and was assigned
Case No. 18CECG02789.

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
          Telephone: (213) 430-3400
          Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
          E-mail: amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Corbett Talc Injury Suit Moved to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit titled LINDSEY CORBETT, an
individual, as Successor in Interest for BARBARA CORBETT 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-03411 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on February 17, 2017, in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, and was
assigned Case No. BC 651027.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Frank R. Trechsel, Esq.
          Joshua D. Wilson, Esq.
          KING AND BALLOW
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
          Century City, CA 90067
          Telephone: (424) 253-1255
          Facsimile: (888) 688-0482
          E-mail: ftrechsel@kingballow.com
                  jwilson@kingballow.com

               - and -

          Wesley H. Southerland, Esq.
          SOUTHERLAND LAW FIRM, PLLC
          5214 Maryland Way, Suite 402
          Brentwood, TN 37027
          Telephone: (615) 767-2271
          Facsimile: (615) 376-2626
          E-mail: wes@southerland-law.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
          Telephone: (213) 430-3400
          Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
          E-mail: amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Cunningham Talc Injury Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit titled CATHY CUNNINGHAM,
Individually and as Personal Representative for NORMA JEAN
CUNNINGHAM, deceased v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation
doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES,
INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS
TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, 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-03486 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on May 1, 2018, in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Santa Clara, and was assigned
Case No. 18CV327526.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Helen Zukin, Esq.
          Melanie Meneses Palmer, Esq.
          Cherisse Heidi A. Cleofe, Esq.
          KIESEL LAW LLP
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
          Telephone: (310) 854-4444
          Facsimile: (310) 854-0812
          E-mail: zukin@kiesel.law
                  palmer@kiesel.law
                  cleofe@kiesel.law

               - and -

          Anna Dean Kamins, Esq.
          DANIEL & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          2409 Commerce Street
          Houston, TX 77003
          Telephone: (713) 589-3539
          Facsimile: (713) 481-9884
          E-mail: anna@dpdlawfirm.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
          Telephone: (213) 430-3400
          Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
          E-mail: amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Dantinne Talc Injury Suit Moved to C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit captioned BASIL DANTINNE,
Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of TERESITA
DANTINNE, deceased v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation
doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES,
INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS
TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, 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-03487 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on June 1, 2018, in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Santa Clara, and was assigned
Case No. 8CV327533.

The Plaintiff, Basil Dantinne, is the spouse of Decedent Teresita
Dantinne, who allegedly sustained personal injuries and damages as
a result of Decedent's use of the Defendants' talc based products,
including Johnson & Johnson's Shower to Shower and/or Johnson's
Baby Powder.  The Plaintiff's Decedent developed ovarian
cancer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Helen Zukin, Esq.
          Melanie Meneses Palmer, Esq.
          Cherisse Heidi A. Cleofe, Esq.
          KIESEL LAW LLP
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
          Telephone: (310) 854-4444
          Facsimile: (310) 854-0812
          E-mail: zukin@kiesel.law
                  palmer@kiesel.law
                  cleofe@kiesel.law

               - and -

          Anna Dean Kamins, Esq.
          DANIEL & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          2409 Commerce Street
          Houston, TX 77003
          Telephone: (713) 589-3539
          Facsimile: (713) 481-9884
          E-mail: anna@dpdlawfirm.com

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

          Caroline A. Toole, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          515 South Flower Street 42nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430-3400
          Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
          E-mail: caroline.toole@tuckerellis.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Bral Talc Injury Suit to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit captioned FEREIDUN (FRED)
BRAL, Individually, an as Successor in Interest to MOJGAN BRAL,
deceased 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 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-03413-JAK-SS to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on October 10, 2017, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, and was
assigned Case No. BC678850.

The Plaintiff brings this action for claims arising from the direct
and proximate result of the Defendants' and/or their corporate
predecessors' negligent, willful, and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of their talc products, which include Johnson & Johnson Baby
Powder and Shower to Shower.  The Plaintiff seeks recovery for
damages caused by the Decedent's development of ovarian cancer and
death, which were 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 Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Low, IV, Esq.
          THE LAW FIRM OF JOSEPH H. LOW IV
          100 Oceangate, 12th Floor
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 901-0840
          Facsimile: (562) 901-0841
          E-mail: joseph@jhllaw.com

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

          Nicholas Vaughan Janizeh, Esq.
          Amanda Villalobos, Esq.
          Caroline A. Toole, Esq.
          Michael Carl Zellers, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          515 South Flower Street, 42nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430-3400
          Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
          E-mail: nicholas.janizeh@tuckerellis.com
                  amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com
                  caroline.toole@tuckerellis.com
                  michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com

               - and -

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Canzoneri Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit captioned BECKY CANZONERI,
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-03491 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on February 23, 2018, in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, and was
assigned Case No. BC695024.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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

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

          Caroline Toole, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          515 South Flower Street, Forty-Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430-3400
          Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
          E-mail: caroline.toole@tuckerellis.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Carbajal Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit entitled LIDIA LIZBETH
CARBAJAL, 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-03492 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. 17CV318633.

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:

          Caroline A. Toole, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          515 South Flower Street 42nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430-3400
          Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
          E-mail: caroline.toole@tuckerellis.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Creswell Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit captioned NICOLE CRESWELL,
an Individual, and as Successor in Interest for ARTIE CRESWELL 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-03425 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on October 24, 2018, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Contra Costa, and was
assigned Case No. C18-02142.

The lawsuit alleges that the Plaintiff's Decedent developed ovarian
cancer, and suffered effects and sequelae therefrom, as a direct
and proximate result of the unreasonably dangerous and defective
nature of talcum powder, the main ingredient of the Defendants'
products, which include Shower to Shower body powder and Johnson &
Johnson's Baby Powder.  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
          Telephone: (213) 430-3400
          Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
          E-mail: amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Crobarger Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit entitled KALA RE CROBARGER,
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-03443 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on July 6, 2018, in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Diego, and was assigned
Case No. 37-2018-00033875-CU-PL-NC.

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
          Telephone: (213) 430-3400
          Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
          E-mail: amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves El-Atrache Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit entitled DEDE EL-ATRACHE 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, 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-03445 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on August 22, 2017, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of San Diego, and was
assigned Case No. 37-2017-00031394-CU-MT-CTL.

The lawsuit alleges that the Plaintiff's Decedent, Susan Carpenter,
sustained fatal injuries as a result of her use of the Defendants'
talc based products, including Johnson & Johnson's Shower to Shower
and/or Johnson's Baby Powder.  The Decedent was diagnosed with
ovarian cancer, stage 4, and underwent chemotherapy, thoracentesis,
debulking surgery, and other treatments for said ovarian
cancer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas J. Brandi, Esq.
          Terence D. Edwards, Esq.
          Brian J. Malloy, Esq.
          THE BRANDI LAW FIRM
          354 Pine St., Third Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 989-1800
          E-mail: tjb@brandilaw.com
                  tde@brandilaw.com
                  bjm@brandilaw.com

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

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Aitchison Suit to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case of JACQUELINE AITCHISON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.;
IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. f/k/a LUZENAC AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the
lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of San Bernardino (Case No. JCCP 4872) to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on April 23, 2019. The clerk
of court for the Central District of California assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-03194.

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 Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Chase, Esq.
          Tom G. Antunovich, Esq.
          BISNAR CHASE
          1301 Dove Street, Suite 120
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 752-2999
          Facsimile: (949) 752-2777
          E-mail: bchase@bisnarchase.com
                  tantunovich@bisnarchase.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Campbell Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit styled EMILY CAMPBELL, 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, 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-03485 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on May 8, 2018, in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Diego, and was assigned
Case No. 37-2018-00022863-CU-MT-CTL.

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: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                  bking@ahdootwolfson.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 CHAREST 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:

          Caroline A. Toole, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          515 South Flower Street 42nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430-3400
          Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
          E-mail: caroline.toole@tuckerellis.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Clifton Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit styled SIMONIA CLIFTON, an
Individual, and as Successor in Interest for JOYCE CLIFTON 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-03389 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on March 22, 2018, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Alameda, and was assigned
Case No. 18897918.

The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff's Decedent developed
ovarian cancer, and suffered effects and sequelae therefrom, as a
direct and proximate result of the unreasonably dangerous and
defective nature of talcum powder, the main ingredient of the
Defendants' products, which include Shower to Shower body powder
and Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder.  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
          Telephone: (213) 430-3400
          Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
          E-mail: amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Coleman Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit titled ANTOINE COLEMAN, as
surviving statutory beneficiary for the wrongful death of
ANTOINETTE JONES, deceased, individually, and on behalf of all
other heirs of decedent v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER, INC. F/N/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC,;
IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. F/KJA 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-03391 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on March 27, 2018, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, and was
assigned Case No. BC699912.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Decedent regularly used the
Defendants' products, which include Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder
and Shower to Shower, in her perineal region and suffered from
severe physical, economic and emotional injuries as a result of
such use, which led to Ovarian Cancer and death.  The Plaintiff
contends that the Defendants acted in concert with one another to
fraudulently convey false and misleading information concerning the
safety and efficacy of the products and to conceal from the public,
the Plaintiff, physicians, and other healthcare providers the risks
of serious adverse effects events, ovarian cancer and its attendant
side effects, and other adverse effects associated with the
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert A. Mosier, Esq.
          Timothy M. Clark, Esq.
          Lauren A. Welling, Esq.
          SANDERS PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
          2860 Michelle Drive, Suite 220
          Irvine, CA 92606
          Telephone: (877) 480-9142
          Facsimile: (213) 330-0346
          E-mail: rmosier@thesandersfirm.com
                  tclark@thesandersfirm.com
                  lwelling@thesandersfirm.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
          Telephone: (213) 430-3400
          Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
          E-mail: amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Conte Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit entitled FRANK CONTE,
individually and as Successor in Interest of SHIRLEYMAE CONTE 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-03398 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on February 14, 2018, in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Monterey, and was
assigned Case No. 18CV000583.

According to the complaint, the claim in the action is 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.  The Plaintiff
seeks recovery for damages as a result of ovarian cancer in the
Decedent, 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 Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq.
          PRATT & ASSOCIATES
          1871 The Alameda, Suite 425
          San Jose, CA 95126
          Telephone: (408) 429-6506
          Facsimile: (408) 369-0752
          E-mail: pgore@prattattorneys.com

               - and -

          Sterling Starns, Esq.
          DON BARRETT, P.A.
          404 Court Square North
          P.O. Box 927
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (662) 834-2488
          Facsimile: (662) 834-2628
          E-mail: sstarns@barrettlawgroup.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
          Telephone: (213) 430-3400
          Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
          E-mail: amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Cook Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit styled STEVEN COOK,
Individually, and as Heir at Law v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON &
JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES,
INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. F/K/A LUZENAC AMERICA, INC. and
DOES 1 - 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-03402 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on January 18, 2018, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles Superior
Court, and was assigned Case No. BC690498.

The Plaintiff asserts that Decedent Sharon Cook used the
Defendants' products, which include Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder
and Shower to Shower, to dust her perineum for feminine hygiene
purposes.  The Plaintiff alleges that as a direct and proximate
result of her use of the products, Decedent Sharon Cook developed
serious and/or permanent adverse effects, including ovarian cancer
and attendant side effects.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Morris, Esq.
          Shane E. Greenberg, Esq.
          MORRIS LAW FIRM
          4111 W. Alameda Avenue, Suite 611
          Burbank, CA 91505
          Telephone: (747) 283-1144
          Facsimile: (747) 283-1143
          E-mail: jmorris@jamlawyers.com
                  sgreenberg@jamlawyers.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
          Telephone: (213) 430-3400
          Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
          E-mail: amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Crismon Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit titled ERNEST CRISMON, an
Individual, and as Successor in Interest for CYNTHIA CRISMON 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-03422-CJC-E to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on September 27, 2018, in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Riverside, and was
assigned Case No. RIC 1819719.

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

The Plaintiffs are 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.
          Caroline A. Toole, Esq.
          Michael Carl Zellers, Esq.
          Nicholas Vaughan Janizeh, 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
                  caroline.toole@tuckerellis.com
                  michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com
                  nicholas.janizeh@tuckerellis.com

               - and -

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Cumby Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit styled JAMES CUMBY,
individually and as Successor-in-interest of LAVERNE CUMBY,
deceased v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing
business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.,
a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of
business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100, 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-03488 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on May 14, 2018, in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Diego, and was assigned
Case No. 37-2018-00023869-CU-MT-CTL.

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.

The Plaintiff in this action seeks recovery for damages as a result
of the Decedent's 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 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: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                  bking@ahdootwolfson.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 CHAREST 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
          Telephone: (213) 430-3400
          Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
          E-mail: amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Davies Suit to S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of LYNN DAVIES, individually and as the
Executrix of the Estate of MICHAEL DAVIES, Plaintiffs v. JOHNSON &
JOHNSON; and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC., Defendants, filed a
notice to remove the lawsuit from the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, County of New York (Case No. 190348/2017) to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on April 22,
2019. The clerk of court for the Southern District of New York
assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-03531-KPF. The case is assigned to
Katherine Polk Failla.

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 Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas P. Kurland, Esq.
          Michelle M. Bufano, Esq.
          PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP
          1133 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036-6710
          Telephone: (212) 336-2000
          Facsimile: (212) 336-2222
          E-mail: mmbufano@pbwt.com
                  tkurland@pbwt.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Ellis Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit styled CHRISTINE ELLIS AND
MARK ELLIS 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-03438 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on April 27, 2018, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Santa Clara, and was
assigned Case No. 8CV327292.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff's Spouse
or the Plaintiffs Decedent developed ovarian cancer, and suffered
effects and sequelae therefrom, as a direct and proximate result of
the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of talcum powder,
the main ingredient of the products, and the Defendants' wrongful
and negligent conduct in the research, development, testing,
manufacture, production, formulation, processing, packaging,
promotion, distribution, marketing, and sale of the products and/
or the talcum powder that comprises the products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are 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

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

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Test Strip-Related Suit Voluntarily Withdrawn
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that plaintiffs have
withdrawn their lawsuits related to the company's sale of diabetes
test strip products.

In May 2017, a purported class action was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington
against LifeScan Inc., Johnson & Johnson, other diabetes test strip
manufacturers and certain Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs).

The complaint alleges that consumers paid inflated prices for
glucose monitor test strips as a consequence of undisclosed rebates
and other incentives paid by manufacturers to PBMs. The complaint
includes RICO, ERISA, and state consumer protection claims. The
complaint seeks equitable relief and damages.

In November 2017, the case was ordered transferred to United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey. The LifeScan
business was divested in October 2018 and Johnson & Johnson
retained liability that may result from these claims prior to the
closing of the divestiture. In April 2019, plaintiffs voluntarily
withdrew their complaints.

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated
in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.


KEOLIS TRANSIT: Dawes Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------
LINDA E. DAWES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. KEOLIS TRANSIT SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; KEOLIS TRANSIT AMERICA, INC., a Delaware
corporation; DIVERSIFIED TRANSPORTATION, LLC, a California limited
liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 19STCV16716 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 14,
2019) is an action pursuant to the California Labor Code seeking
overtime and minimum wages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs.

Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees have not been
paid, during the relevant liability periods, wages for all time
worked, including overtime wages, as a result of, including but not
limited to, unevenly rounding time worked which in the aggregate
deprived employees of earned wages. Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees or former employees at all times pertinent
hereto were not exempt from the overtime provisions of California
law, and the implementing rules and regulations of the IWC
California Wage Orders, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt employee driver by the
Defendants.

KEOLIS TRANSIT SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
provided transportation services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Nourmand, Esq.
     James A. De Sario, Esq.
     Melissa M. Kurata, Esq.
     THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
     8822 West Olympic Boulevard
     Beverly Hills, CA 90211
     Phone (310) 553-3600
     Facsimile (310) 553-3603


LEPRINO FOODS: Court OKs Excuse Appearance in Velasquez
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Request to Excuse
Appearance in the case captioned ISAIAS VASQUEZ and LINDA HEFKE on
behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v.
LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation; LEPRINO FOODS DAIRY
PRODUCTS COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants. Case No. 1:17-cv-00796-AWI-BAM. (E.D. Cal.).

The Court, having considered the Plaintiffs' Request to Excuse R.
Rex Parris' and John M. Bickford's Attendance at the May 17, 2019
Appearance and good cause appearing, ordered that R. Rex Parris'
and John M. Bickford's personal attendance is excused.

Although the Court has excused the appearance of Mr. Parris and Mr.
Bickford on this occasion, the parties are cautioned that the
purpose of personal appearances is to refocus the efforts of
counsel in resolving their disputes without Court intervention. If
the parties fail to proceed productively in this action, including
with meet and confer efforts, sanctions may be imposed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 9, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y3qogvlg from Leagle.com.

Isaias Vasquez, on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals & Linda Hefke, on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiffs, represented by Cory Lee, The
Downey Law Firm, LLC,  9595 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 900. Beverly
Hills, CA 90212, Kitty Kit Yee Szeto -- kszeto@parrislawyers.com --
Parris Law Firm, Philip A. Downey, The Downey Law Firm, LLC, 9595
Wilshire Blvd. Suite 900. Beverly Hills, CA 90212, pro hac vice,
Robert Gibson, Law Offices of Robert W. Sink, 1600 John F Kennedy
Blvd, Philadelphia, PA 19103, pro hac vice, Eric Daniel Rouen --
rouenlaw@att.net -- Law Office of Eric D. Rouen, John M. Bickford
-- jbickford@parrislawyers.com -- Parris Law Firm, R. Rex Parris,
Parris Law Firm, 43364 10th St W, Lancaster, CA 93534-6002, Randall
Martin Rumph, Law Office of Randy Rumph & Ryan Crist --
rcrist@parrislawyers.com -- Parris Law Firm.

Leprino Foods Company, a Colorado corporation & Leprino Foods Dairy
Products Company, a Colorado corporation, Defendants, represented
by Lisa M. Pooley -- lpooley@hansonbridgett.com -- Hanson Bridgett
LLP, Sandra L. Rappaport -- srappaport@hansonbridgett.com -- Hanson
Bridgett LLP, Daniel Robert Lentz, Hanson Bridgett LLP, Molly L.
Kaban -- mkaban@hansonbridgett.com -- Hanson Bridgett LLP & Kyle
Aaron Mabe -- kmabe@hansonbridgett.com -- Hanson Bridgett LLP.


LONGHORN PIZZA: Matthews Sues to Recover Unpaid Min., Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------------
LORI MATTHEWS, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. LONGHORN PIZZA, INC., RICHARD HAFNER, and
JOSEPH ROMANO individually, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01159-B
(N.D. Tex., May 14, 2019) is a collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), to recover unpaid minimum wages and
overtime hours owed to Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery
drivers employed by Defendants at their Domino's stores.

The Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own
automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their
customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the
reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles,
Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates
that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable
approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers'
unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal
minimum wage during some or all workweeks, says the complaint.

Plaintiff has been employed by Defendants since approximately March
2019 as a delivery driver at Defendants' Domino's store.

Defendants operate several Domino's Pizza franchise stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J. Forester, Esq.
     Matthew Haynie, Esq.
     FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
     1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210
     Dallas, TX 75202
     Phone: (214) 210-2100
     Fax: (214) 346-5909
     Email: www.foresterhaynie.com


MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES: Faces 9 Tesla-Merger Related Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maxwell Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company has been
named as defendant in nine class action suits related to its merger
deal with Tesla, Inc.

On February 3, 2019, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Tesla, Inc., a Delaware
corporation ("Tesla") and Cambria Acquisition Corp., a Delaware
corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Tesla ("Merger Sub"),
which contemplates the acquisition of the Company by Tesla, through
Merger Sub.

The Merger Agreement requires that Tesla commence an all stock
exchange offer for all of the issued and outstanding shares of the
Company (the "Offer"), followed by a merger of Merger Sub with and
into the Company pursuant to which the Company will survive as a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Tesla (the "Merger").

In connection with the merger agreement and the transactions
contemplated thereby, nine purported class action lawsuits have
been filed.

Five complaints, captioned Kip Leggett v. Maxwell Technologies,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00377 (filed February 26, 2019),
Shiva Stein v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:19-cv-00395 (filed February 26, 2019), Joel Rosenfeld IRA v.
Maxwell Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00413 (filed
March 1, 2019), Franck Prissert v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc., et
al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00429 (filed March 4, 2019) and Jonathan
Mantak v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc., et. al., Case No.
3:19-cv-00451 (filed March 7, 2019) were filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California.

Two complaints, captioned John Solak v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00448 (filed March 4, 2019) and Sabatini
v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00443
(filed March 1, 2019), were filed in the United States District
Court District of Delaware.

One complaint, captioned Davis Rodden v. Steven Bilodeau, et al.,
Case No. 2019-0176 (filed March 4, 2019), was filed in the Delaware
Chancery Court and was voluntarily dismissed on April 3, 2019.

One complaint, captioned Jack Phillipps v. Maxwell Technologies,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01927 (filed February 28, 2019), was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

In general, the complaints assert claims against the Company and
the Company's Board, with Tesla and Cambria Acquisition Corp. and
as additional defendants in the Kip Leggett v. Maxwell
Technologies, Inc., et al., Sabatini v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc.,
et al., and John Solak v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc., et al.
complaints.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants
failed to make adequate disclosures in the Schedule 14D-9 filed by
Maxwell Technologies on February 20, 2019. The complaints seek,
among other things, to enjoin the proposed transaction, rescission
of the proposed transaction should it be completed, and other
equitable relief.

Maxwell said, "The Company believes the respective allegations
against it in these complaints lack merit, and the Company intends
to vigorously defend the actions. As such, the Company cannot
determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that a loss
will be incurred nor can it estimate the range of any such
potential loss. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued an amount
for any potential loss associated with this action, but an adverse
result could have a material adverse impact on its financial
condition and results of operation."

Maxwell Technologies, Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets
energy storage and power delivery products worldwide. The company
was formerly known as Maxwell Laboratories, Inc. and changed its
name to Maxwell Technologies, Inc. in 1996. Maxwell Technologies,
Inc. was founded in 1965 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California. As of May 15, 2019, Maxwell Technologies, Inc. operates
as a subsidiary of Tesla, Inc.

MDL 2656: Court Approves $60MM Settlement in Antitrust Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia
issued a Memorandum Opinion granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Final
Approval of Settlement Agreements with Southwest Airlines Co. and
American Airlines, Inc.IN RE DOMESTIC AIRLINE TRAVEL ANTITRUST
LITIGATION This Document Relates To: ALL CASES MDL Docket No. 2656,
Misc. No. 15-1404 (CKK). (D.D.C.).

Presently before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final
Approval of Settlement Agreements with Southwest Airlines Co. and
American Airlines, Inc.

The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the
Panel) consolidated 23 actions pending in seven districts involving
claims that four major airlines, Southwest, American, Delta Air
Lines, Inc. (Delta), and United Airlines, Inc. (United) violated
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1, by colluding to
limit capacity and increase prices for domestic airfares.  

The Settlements with Southwest and American

Pursuant to the Southwest Settlement Agreement, Southwest
stipulates to the certification of the following Settlement Class:

     All persons and entities that purchased air passenger
transportation services for flights within the United States and
its territories and the District of Columbia from Defendants or any
predecessor, subsidiary or affiliate thereof, at any time between
July 1, 2011 and December 20, 2017. Excluded from the class are
governmental entities, Defendants, any parent, subsidiary or
affiliate thereof, Defendants' officers, directors, employees, and
immediate families and any judges or justices assigned to hear any
aspect of this action.

The Southwest Settlement Agreement is considered an ice-breaker
settlement because it is the first settlement in the litigation.
The Southwest Settlement Agreement requires Southwest to make a $15
million cash payment.  

The Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Settlement with Defendant American Airlines, Inc., which included a
declaration by counsel in support of the motion, and a copy of the
Settlement Agreement with American (American Settlement Agreement).


Pursuant to American Settlement Agreement, American stipulates to
the certification of the following Settlement Class:

     All persons and entities that purchased air passenger
transportation services for flights within the United States and
its territories and the District of Columbia from Defendants or any
predecessor, subsidiary or affiliate thereof, at any time between
July 1, 2011 and June 14, 2018. Excluded from the class are
governmental entities, Defendants, any parent, subsidiary or
affiliate thereof, Defendants' officers, directors, employees, and
immediate families and any judges or justices assigned to hear any
aspect of this action.

The settlement with American requires it to make a $45 million cash
payment. American is required further to significantly cooperate
with Plaintiffs regarding the pursuit of their case against the
Non-Settling Defendants by: (1) responding to questions regarding
American's documents and transactional data; (2) using its best
efforts to make available for depositions up to three current or
former American employees; (3) using its best efforts to make
available current and former American employees, for the provision
of declarations, certifications, and affidavits regarding the
authenticity and certification of documents; and (4) at Plaintiffs'
request, meet and confer regarding additional deposition,
declarations and/or affidavits.  

This Court granted preliminary approval of the Plaintiffs'
settlement with Defendant American. Order granting Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Settlement with Defendant American
Airlines, Inc.

Class Notice

This case involves a class of approximately 100 million Class
Members. Notice was provided to potential Class Members consistent
with the Settlement Notice Program approved by the Court via direct
email, paid media and online outreach.

ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

Is the Settlement Fair, Reasonable and Adequate?

A presumption of fairness, adequacy and reasonableness may attach
to a class settlement reached in arm's-length negotiations between
experienced, capable counsel after meaningful discovery.

Adequacy of Settlement

To determine whether relief is adequate, pursuant to Rule 23,
courts look at: (1) the costs, risk and delay of trial (2) the
effectiveness of the proposed means of distributing relief to the
class, including the processing of claims (3) the terms of any
award of attorneys' fees, including the timing, and (4) any
agreements identified in connection with the settlement.  

Costs, Risks, and Delay of Trial

Counsel for Southwest agreed that each side pointed out the
weaknesses and strengths of its positions, as well as the risks
that the other side faced. Southwest was distinguished by its
Counsel as a low-cost carrier operating on a point-to-point network
as compared to the legacy airlines operating on a hub-and-spoke
network. Counsel noted that Southwest's focus was on "low costs,
low fares and all-inclusive pricing," and furthermore, Southwest
increased its capacity during the class period, which flies in the
face of claims about limiting capacity.  

According to Settlement Class Counsel, balancing potential
weaknesses of Plaintiffs' case and risks of failure against the
strengths and merits of their case was done with an eye toward
opportunities for settlement, which would result in payment of
money for the Class Members and cooperation by the settling
Defendants.  Settlement Class Counsel considered that the
cooperation proffered by Southwest would provide significant
resource information as to the nature, scope and operation of the
industry which would be of assistance  in the further prosecution
of the case.

The Southwest Settlement also had the distinction of being an
"icebreaker settlement, demonstrated by the fact that four months
after the Southwest Settlement, American started negotiating with
the Plaintiffs.  

This Court finds that the cost and risk analysis undertaken by
Settlement Class Counsel, in connection with counsel for Southwest
and American, weighs in favor of approving the Settlements as
adequate. The Settlements were negotiated over time, by competent
and experienced counsel who had access to a large body of
information through discovery. Settlement Class Counsel weighed the
costs and risks of continued litigation versus entering into an
"icebreaker" settlement with Southwest and a subsequent settlement
with American, both of which provided Settlement Funds for the
Class Members as well as continued cooperation to aid Plaintiffs in
their litigation against the Non-Settling Defendants. Furthermore,
the Settlements do not limit the Class Members' ability to obtain
joint and several liability and treble damages against those
Non-Settling Defendants, which would increase the Total Funds
Available for Distribution.

Accordingly, evaluation of the costs and risks factor favors
finding the Settlements adequate.

Effectiveness of proposed means of distribution and processing of
claims

Settlement Class Counsel indicated that the distribution of the
Settlement Funds will be deferred until the end of the entire case
when there is a better indication of the Total Funds Available for
Distribution (total money collected based on the resolution of the
case against all four Defendants) and amount of damages suffered by
Class Members, so that Settlement Class Counsel will be better able
to compute what value in proportion to the damage is available for
class reimbursement.

The Settlement Agreements provide that Defendants Southwest and
American take no position with respect to such proposed plan of
allocation or such plan as may be approved by the Court.

Settlement Class Counsel argued that it's not an impediment to
approval of the settlement that the actual amount to be distributed
to class members is not known at this time.  

In a case such as this, involving a large number of Class Members
and two Non-Settling Defendants, it would be inefficient to
distribute and process claims until the entire case has been
resolved through litigation or otherwise and the Total Funds
Available for Distribution are known. The Court finds that
Settlement Class Counsel has demonstrated the adequacy of the
Settlements with regard to their proposed means of distributing and
processing claims, which will be done through a second notice to
Class Members, followed by a right to object and/or file a claim.

Attorneys' Fees

The Plaintiffs requested previously that this Court hold in
abeyance their request for $15 million in attorneys' fees until
Settlement Class Counsel presents the Court with a motion to
distribute the Total Funds Available for Distribution, and the
Court granted that request. At the beginning of the March 22, 2019
Fairness Hearing, the Court noted that the issue of attorneys' fees
is not under consideration in connection with approval of the
Southwest and American Settlements.

Accordingly, this factor of attorneys' fees does not weigh into any
adequacy determination by the Court.

OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENTS

In approving class action settlements, courts gauge the reaction of
the class by looking at the number of objections as compared to the
overall size of the class. In this case, the settlement class is
comprised of approximately 100 million Class Members, and there
were initially 23 responses objecting to the settlement
(Objections) filed on behalf of 25 Class Members.  

One Objection was withdrawn because it dealt primarily with legal
fees and future litigation expenses, and the Court had stayed
consideration of attorneys' fees and future litigation expenses.
See Shimshon Wexler's Withdrawal of Objection, There were a number
of other similarly premature Objections relating to the amount and
timing of payment of attorneys' fees Class Members' Objections
regarding attorney's fees were deemed premature because the
attorneys' fees issue will not be addressed until the entire case
has been resolved. Similarly, uncertainty about the settlement
amounts to be received by Class Members is also a premature basis
for an objection until such time as the case against the remaining
two Defendant airlines has been resolved and the Total Funds
Available for Distribution are known

Size of Settlement Amounts

Mr. Suessmann did not dispute that experienced counsel negotiated
an arm's length settlement before arriving at the Settlement Funds
amounts, which together with the Defendants' cooperation, provide
relief for the Class Members; rather, he appeared curious about any
formula that was used to arrive at the $15 million and $45 million
amounts. As explained in Section III (A)(1)(a) herein, these
ultimate numbers were derived through extensive negotiations
between counsel who all have a great deal of experience in
litigating class action antitrust lawsuits.  

The Court rejects the objections of the Class Members and grants
approval of the Southwest Settlement and the American Settlement on
the basis that they are fair, reasonable, and adequate as to and in
the best interest of the Class Members, within the meaning of and
in compliance with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23, and considering the factors discussed in the Vitamins
case.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 9, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yyvlj34q from
Leagle.com.

INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION, Non-Party Respondent,
represented by Thomas J. Lang -- thomas.lang@haynesboone.com --
HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP & Michael James Scanlon --
michael.scanlon@haynesboone.com -- HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP.

WILLIAM YOUMANS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Kit A. Pierson --
kpierson@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC.

SHAWN JAIN, Plaintiff, represented by Gary Edward Mason --
gmason@wbmllp.com -- WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP.

RACHEL GOLIAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated & ISRAEL KATZ, Plaintiffs, represented by Ronald J.
Aranoff -- raranoff@wmd-law.com -- Wollmuth Maher & Deutsch LLP.

DELTA AIRLINES, INC, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, represented
by James Peter Denvir, III, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP, John F.
Cove, Jr., BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP,Michael S. Mitchell,
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP, Abby L. Dennis, BOIES, SCHILLER &
FLEXNER LLP, Martha Lea Goodman, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP,
Rory L. Skaggs, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP, William A.
Isaacson, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP &Brent K. Nakamura, BOIES
SCHILLER FLEXNER, LLP, 1401 New York Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20005,
pro hac vice.

UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Defendant, represented by Kent Alan Gardiner
-- kgardiner@crowell.com -- CROWELL & MORING LLP, Paul Laurence Yde
-- paul.yde@freshfields.com -- FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US
LLP, Britton Dale Davis -- bdavis@crowell.com -- CROWELL & MORING
LLP, Cheryl Anne Falvey -- cfalvey@crowell.com -- CROWELL & MORING
LLP, David Martin Schnorrenberg -- dschnorrenberg@crowell.com --
CROWELL & MORING LLP, Joseph Lee Meadows -- jmeadows@beankinney.com
-- BEAN, KINNEY & KORMAN, P.C. & Luke Peter Van Houwelingen --
lvanhouwelingen@crowell.com -- CROWELL & MORING LLP.


MDL 2885: Gomez Suit over Combat Arms Earplugs Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Adam Gomez, the Plaintiff, v. 3M
COMPANY, AEARO HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE, LLC, AEARO, LLC,
and AEARO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 6:19-cv-03062
(Filed Feb. 136, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Missouri to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola) on April 29,
2019. The Northern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:19-cv-00842-MCR-GRJ to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M liable for hearing loss or damage
they allegedly suffered while serving variously in the U.S.
military, including during foreign conflicts. They contend that
Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2 ("CAEv2") manufactured and sold
by Aearo were defectively designed and failed to provide adequate
hearing protection. 3M denies these allegations.

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

The Gomez case is being consolidated with MDL 2885 in re: 3M Combat
Arms Earplug Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by
Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on April 3, 2019. These actions share common factual
questions and centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on Daubert issues and other
pretrial matters; and conserve the resources of the parties, their
counsel, and the judiciary.

In the April 3, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in
this MDL involve common questions arising out of allegations that
the Defendants' Combat Arms earplugs were defective, causing
plaintiffs to develop hearing loss and/or tinnitus. Issues
concerning the design, testing, sale, and marketing of the Combat
Arms earplugs are common to all actions. Presiding Judge in the MDL
is Hon. Judge M. Casey Rodgers. The lead case is
3:19-md-02885-MCR-GRJ.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          George A. Hanson, Esq.
          Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
          Abby E. McClellan, Esq.
          Crystal Cook Leftridge, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MI 64112
          Telephone: 816 714 7100
          Facsimile: 816 714 7101
          E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
                  siegel@stuevesiegel.com
                  mcclellan@stuevesiegel.com
                  cook@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          Amy M. Zeman, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          505 14th Street, Suite 1110
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: 510.350.9710
          E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com
                  amz@classlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Mark H. Troutman, Esq.
          Gregory M. Travalio, Esq.
          Shawn K. Judge, Esq.
          ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, LLC
          Two Miranova Place, Ste. 700
          Columbus, OH 43215‐5098
          Telephone: 614.221.2121
          Facsimile: 614.365.9516
          E-mail: mtroutman@isaacwiles.com
                  gtravalio@isaacwiles.com
                  sjudge@isaacwiles.com

MEDDOCLIVE LLC: Gregory Long Seeks OT Pay for Consultants
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against MedDocLive, LLC for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and California
state law. The case is captioned GREGORY LONG, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MEDDOCLIVE,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02780 (N.D. Ill., April 25, 2019).
Plaintiff Gregory Long alleges that he and other similarly-situated
consultants were knowingly and improperly classified as independent
contractors, and, as a result, did not receive overtime pay for
hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. On behalf of himself
and other similarly situated, Plaintiff Long seeks liquidated
damages for the failure to pay overtime wages, as well as
attorneys' fees and costs.

MedDocLive is an Illinois corporation which provides information
technology educational services for the healthcare industry across
the United States. MedDocLive has its headquarters at 1306 West
Barry Avenue, Chicago, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bradley Manewith, Esq.
     Marc J. Siegel, Esq.
     SIEGEL & DOLAN LTD.
     150 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1100
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Telephone. (312) 878-3210
     Facsimile: (312) 878-3211
     E-mail: bmanewith@msiegellaw.com
             msiegel@msiegellaw.com

             - and -

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

             -  and –

     Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
     Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
     Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
     BERGER MONTAGUE PC
     1818 Market Street, Suite 1600
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Telephone: (215) 875-3000
     Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
     E-mail: scarson@bm.net
             sschalman-bergen@bm.net
             apiazza@bm.net

             - and –

     David M. Blanchard, Esq.
     Frances J. Hollander, Esq.
     BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC
     221 North Main Street, Suite 300
     Ann Arbor, MI 48104
     Telephone: 734.929.4313
     E-mail: blanchard@bwlawonline.com
             hollander@bwlawonline.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Dunn Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Barry Dunn individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Midland
Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02264-TWT-AJB
(N.D. Ga., May 19, 2019).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Misty Oaks Paxton, Esq.
     The Oaks Firm
     3895 Brookgreen Pt.
     Decatur, GA 30034
     Phone: (404) 725-5697
     Fax: (775) 320-3695
     Email: attyoaks@yahoo.com

          - and -

     Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
     Marcus Zelman, LLC -NJ
     701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
     P.O. Box 07712
     Asbury Park, NJ 07712
     Phone: (845) 367-7146
     Fax: (732) 298-6256
     Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Tuitasi Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as LOLOSEA TUITASI,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-02718-DMR (N.D. Cal., May 19, 2019).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan A Stieglitz, Esq.
     11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 750
     Los Angeles, CA 90064
     Phone: (323) 979-2063
     Fax: (323) 488-6748
     Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com



MNET FINANCIAL: Hewlett Sues Over TCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------
KINAYA HEWLETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MNET FINANCIAL, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-00864-JAM-EFB (E.D. Cal., May 14, 2019) is brought against
Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA").

Plaintiff brought this Complaint to stop Defendant's practice of
placing calls using an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS")
to the cellular telephones of consumers nationwide without their
prior express written consent; to enjoin Defendant from continuing
to place calls using an ATDS to consumers who did not provide their
prior express written consent to receive them; and to obtain
redress for all persons injured by its conduct.

Plaintiff Kinaya Hewlett is a resident of Sacramento, California,
and at all times mentioned herein, was a citizen of the State of
California.

MNet conducts business in this District and throughout the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
     BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
     1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
     Walnut Creek, CA 94596
     Phone: (925) 300-4455
     Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
     Email: ltfisher@bursor.com

          - and -

     Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
     BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
     2665 S. Bayshore Dr. Ste. 220
     Miami, FL 33133-5402
     Phone: (305) 330-5512
     Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
     Email: scott@bursor.com


MOLSON COORS: Bid to Consolidated Colorado Class Suits Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Molson Coors Brewing Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that motions to consolidate
and appoint a lead plaintiff have been  filed in each purported
class action suits pending before the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado.

On February 15, 2019, two purported stockholders filed
substantially similar putative class action complaints against the
Company, Mark R. Hunter, and Tracey I. Joubert (the "Defendants")
in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado
(the "Colorado District Court"), and in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

On February 21, 2019, another purported stockholder filed a
substantially similar complaint in the Colorado District Court. The
plaintiffs purport to represent a class of the Company's
stockholders and assert that the Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by allegedly making false and
misleading statements or omissions regarding the Company's
restatement of consolidated financial statements for the years
ended December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2017, and that the Company
purportedly lacked adequate internal controls over financial
reporting.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an unspecified amount of
damages and reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other
costs.

On April 16, 2019, motions to consolidate and appoint a lead
plaintiff were filed in each case.

Molson Coors said, "We intend to defend the claims vigorously. A
range of potential loss is not estimable at this time."

Molson Coors Brewing Company manufactures, markets, and sells beer
and other malt beverage products in the United States, Canada,
Europe, and internationally. Molson Coors Brewing Company was
founded in 1786 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado.


MONSANTO COMPANY: Chafin Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
Bard Chafin, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-01061 (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: Forrest Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Forrest, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-01066 (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: Hobbs Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Hobbs, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-01052 (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: Mitchell Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Mitchell, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-01064 (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: Moore Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
ESTATE OF LARRY MOORE, by and through his representative Sheila
Moore, and SHEILA MOORE, surviving spouse of Larry Moore on behalf
of all legal heirs of Larry Moore, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01062 (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. Larry Moore'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, Larry
Moore 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: Rosier Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
Claude Rosier, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-01060 (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: Smith Suit Moved to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled RICKY SMITH, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02289, was removed from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
April 23, 2019. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02168-VC to the proceeding. The Case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria.

Monsanto Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
agricultural products for farmers worldwide. The company was
formerly known as Monsanto Ag Company and changed its name to
Monsanto Company in March 2000. Monsanto Company was founded in
2000 and is based in St. Louis, Missouri. As of June 7, 2018,
Monsanto Company operates as a subsidiary of Bayer
Aktiengesellschaft. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen Cady, Esq.
          MOLL LAW GROUP
          22 W Washington Street, 15th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 462-1700
          Facsimile: (312) 756-0045
          E-mail: kmoll@molllawgroup.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Staples Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sharon Staples, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-01164 (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

NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Kohn Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
Usher Kohn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-02839 (E.D. N.Y., May 14, 2019) seeks to recover for
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").

In its efforts to collect an alleged Debt, Defendant contacted
Plaintiff by letter ("the Letter") dated November 11, 2018. The
Letter fails to identify by name and label any entity as
"creditor," "current
creditor," "account owner," or "creditor to whom the debt is owed."
Because the Letter can reasonably be read by the least
sophisticated consumer to have two or more meanings concerning the
owner of the alleged Debt, one of which is inaccurate, it is
deceptive within the meaning of the FDCPA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Usher Kohn is a natural person allegedly obligated to pay
a debt.

Defendant is regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection of
debts allegedly owed by consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: DeVivo Associates Asserts Breach of Contract
---------------------------------------------------------------
DeVIVO ASSOCIATES, INC. and DENNIS J. DeVIVO on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of a similarly-situated Class, Plaintiffs
v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-02593 (E.D. N.Y., May 2, 2019) seeks expedited treatment
with respect to legal issues, which are pure contract
interpretation questions, because of upcoming deadlines imposed by
Nationwide which threaten irreparable damage.

Nationwide operates a property and casualty insurance business
throughout the United States. Plaintiff Dennis J. DeVivo has been a
Nationwide exclusive agent since 1976, selling Nationwide Insurance
policies for more than 42 years.

The complaint relates that exclusive agents have agreed to place
clients eligible for Nationwide insurance products exclusively with
Nationwide over the course of an entire career. Over the past four
decades, individual exclusive agents have produced premium totals
for Nationwide typically exceeding tens of millions and up to
hundreds of millions of dollars. In exchange for that long-term
exclusive commitment and resulting high premium amounts, exclusive
agent contracts include major deferred compensation provisions,
called Agency Security Compensation ("ASC") Plans in most cases,
which increase over the life of the contract as the agent's
business grows and are payable upon retirement or other
cancellation of the contract. Nationwide characterizes these plans
as "substantial deferred income" and a "unique" incentive for
committing to a long-term exclusive relationship. Nationwide has
assured the exclusive agents in the past that Nationwide is
"committed to continuing these valuable benefits."

In April of 2018, Nationwide announced that it would end all of its
exclusive agent contracts as of Ju1y 1, 2020 and replace all of the
exclusive contracts with independent contracts. As Nationwide's
existing exclusive and independent contracts are written, payment
of accumulated deferred compensation amounts would be due upon
Nationwide's cancellation of the exclusive contracts, and the
exclusive agents, under new independent contracts, would have the
freedom to place business with other carriers. Over the ensuing
months, however, Nationwide has demonstrated that it does not
intend to follow the existing contracts as written. Instead,
Nationwide is pressuring the exclusive agents to enter into a
program Nationwide has devised called the "Agent Contract Exchange"
("ACE") Program, under which the exclusive agents would have to
agree to purchase the right to operate as independent agents under
a new form of contract (at a price calculated on the basis of an
entire year's earnings) and also subject themselves to severe
restrictions imposed by additional separate contracts which would
keep them under Nationwide's control for years, even though they
would be nominally classified by Nationwide as "independent"
agents, notes the complaint.

As part of a campaign to coerce the exclusive agents into the ACE
Program, Nationwide has announced that, on August 1, 2019, it will
begin to "phase out" a major component of the ASC Plans that would
be payable upon Nationwide's cancellation on July 1, 2020, reducing
the amount by one twelfth (1/12) each month. For those agents who
might try to weather the pressure, reject the ACE Program, and
finish the exclusive contract as written, Nationwide has recently
stated that, upon cancelling the contract, it will use
post-cancellation restrictions to disable agents who attempt to
service their clientele as independents, even though it is
Nationwide that is carrying out amass at-will termination to force
the agents to enter into new contractual arrangements, says the
complaint.

Accordingly, this class action for declaratory and injunctive
relief challenges the legality of the tactics that Nationwide is
using to force the ACE Program on the entire class of exclusive
agents--the phased elimination of a component of the ASC Plans
prior to cancellation and disabling the agent's continuing business
after cancelling the contracts without cause. By coercing the
exclusive agents to "buy" the right to act as independent agents
after Nationwide switches the contracts, Nationwide is breaching
the existing contracts with the proposed Plaintiff Class. By
threatening to terminate the exclusive agents and disable them with
restrictive covenants if they fail to enter into new and more
onerous business arrangements that are not contemplated by the
existing contracts, Nationwide is in further breach of the existing
contracts, adds the complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     JEANNE E. MIRER, ESQ.
     MIRER MAZZOCHI & JULIEN PLLC
     150 Broadway, Suite 1200
     New York, NY 10038
     Phone: (212) 231-2235
     Email: jmirer@mmsjlaw.com

          - and -

     THOMAS H. GEOGHEGAN, ESQ.
     MICHAEL P. PERSOON, ESQ.
     DEPRES, SCHWARTZ & GEOGHEGAN, LTD.
     77 West Washington Street, Suite 711
     Chicago, IL 60602-3271
     Phone: (312) 372-2511
     Email: tgeoghegan@dsgchicago.com
            mpersoon@dsgchicago.com

          - and -

     WILLIAM P. TEDARDS, JR., ESQ.
     1101 30th Street, NW, Suite 500
     Washington, DC 20007
     Phone: (202) 797-9135
     Email: BT@tedards.net


NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Courts OKs Case Caption Change in Mulquin
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, Oakland Division, issued an Order granting Joint
Stipulation to Change Case Captioned in the case captioned JOHN
MULQUIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS, HOWARD W. ROBIN, and GIL M.
LABRUCHERIE, Defendants. Case No. 4:18-cv-06607-HSG. (N.D. Cal.).

Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, and El Paso
Firemen & Policemen's Pension Fund were named Lead Plaintiffs in
the matter and the Court approved Lead Plaintiffs' selection of
Labaton Sucharow LLP and Wagstaffe, von Loewenfeldt, Busch &
Radwick, LLP as counsel.

The Jointly Moving Parties now, in accordance, propose that every
pleading filed in this action shall bear the following caption:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND DIVISION Case No. 4:18-cv-06607-HSG CLASS ACTION IN RE
NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS SECURITIES LITIGATION Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam,
Jr.

Therefore, the Court grants the Joint Stipulation. This case will
now be captioned: In re Nektar Therapeutics Securities Litigation.
The Clerk is directed to edit the docket accordingly.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 9, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y5m7oakh from Leagle.com.

John Mulquin, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by 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.

Nektar Therapeutics, Howard W. Robin & Gil Labrucherie, Defendants,
represented by Sara B. Brody -- SBRODY@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin
LLP, Alison Fiona Dame-Boyle -- adameboyle@sidley.com -- Sidley
Austin, Matthew James Dolan -- mdolan@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin
LLP & Robin Eve Wechkin -- rwechkin@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin
LLP, pro hac vice.

Lynn Ronnebaum, Movant, represented by Adam Marc Apton --
aapton@zlk.com -- Levi Korsinsky, LLP.


NFL: Court Lays Out Doctor Restrictions in Concussion Deal
----------------------------------------------------------
ESPN reports that retired NFL players seeking testing as part of a
$1 billion concussion settlement must see a doctor close to home to
prevent fraud and "doctor shopping," the federal judge overseeing
the case ruled on May 17.

Lawyers for thousands of ex-players complain their clients agreed
to the 2013 class-action settlement largely because they could
choose their own doctors after a history of mistrust with the NFL.
Their lawsuits had alleged the NFL long hid what it knew about
concussion risks and brain injuries.

The new rule will require most former players to see a doctor
within 150 miles or a neurologist within 200 miles. The claims
administrator can grant exceptions, perhaps for men living in rural
areas.

Lawyers for the retirees say that in many parts of the country,
there aren't enough neurologists taking part in the program. And
some clients hope to see subspecialists to deal with their
particular medical issues.

"It's patently unfair," said lawyer Craig Mitnick, Esq. --
contact@mitnicklawoffice.com -- of Haddonfield, New Jersey, on May
17. "It's not what their understanding was of the terms of what
they were agreeing to. I think that's problematic."

Senior U.S. District Judge Anita B. Brody, in Philadelphia, has
overseen the case since 2011, and guided the two sides toward a
settlement that initially capped the NFL's cost at $765 million
over 65 years. That cap was later lifted as she grew concerned the
fund would run dry far ahead of schedule.

The payouts in the two years the program has been up and running
reached $500 million this month, while another $160 million in
awards has been approved but not yet paid.

The plan offers more than 20,000 retired players baseline testing
and compensation of up to $5 million for the most serious illnesses
linked to football concussions, including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's,
amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and deaths involving chronic
traumatic encephalopathy (CTE).

Of the 872 awards paid to date, the average is just under $575,000,
according to Brown's latest online report. They include an average
of $2.4 million for ALS (36 cases); $1.2 million per death with CTE
(73 cases); $610,000 for Parkinson's disease (111); and $435,000
for Alzheimer's disease (244 cases).

Many of those more serious -- and more straightforward -- claims
were settled first. Now the two sides are battling over the more
contested dementia diagnoses. Brody, along with claims
administrator Orran Brown, has suspected some fraudulent diagnoses
and "doctor shopping" amid a flurry of dementia claims from four
doctors now banned from the program.

"A few were brought to my attention where we had a lawyer from
Pennsylvania and a player from Florida going to a doctor in Texas.
And that was a red flag," Brody said at a court hearing last week.

The fund paid out $46 million in claims signed by the four doctors
before spotting the problem, Brown told her.

Less than 15 percent of the 1,700 dementia claims filed so far have
been approved and paid. Many others are still in the evaluation
process. To get a financial award, a player must receive a "Level
2.0" or "Level 1.5" diagnosis, with "2" considered moderate and
"1.0" mild.

The average award so far has been just under $800,000 for a Level 2
claim and just over $500,000 for a Level 1.5 claim.

Philadelphia lawyer Gene Locks, who represents some 1,100 retired
players, urged Brody last week not to limit his clients' choice of
doctors.

"They had bad experiences with the NFL benefit program, both during
their playing time and after their playing time, when they felt
they were used and abused," he said.[GN]


NUTRINOX REVOLUTION: Esposito Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Esposito, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Nutrinox Revolution, Inc. d/b/a NXR GLobal,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02084-TJS (E.D. Pa., May 14, 2019) is a
putative class action brought under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"), and the Pennsylvania Telemarketer
Registration Act ("TRA") stemming from Defendant's practice of
harassing consumers in Pennsylvania and throughout the United
States with automated and prerecorded telemarketing calls and/or
unsolicited telemarketing text messages.

To drum-up new business, Defendant engages in intrusive and
unlawful telemarketing campaigns, notes the complaint. The
Defendant's illegal telemarketing activities target individuals
nationwide, without their prior express consent and with little
regard to their privacy.

Throughout this putative class action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive
relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in
harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of
Plaintiff as well as thousands of individuals nationwide, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff is a natural person who, at all times relevant to this
action, was a citizen of Pennsylvania.

Defendant purports to sell subscription TV and video streaming
srvices in exchange for a monthly fee to consumer nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shane T. Prince, Esq.
     Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
     DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
     1515 Market Street, Suite 1200
     Philadelphia, PA 19102
     Phone: 215-564-1721
     Email: cdenittis@denittislaw.com
            sprince@denittislaw.com


ORIGINAL GRAIN: Smith Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------
SILVIA SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ORIGINAL GRAIN, INC., a Delaware
Company, the Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-61085-UU (S.D. Fla., April
30, 2019), seeks to recover for damages, injunctive relief, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the
illegal actions of Original Grain, Inc. in negligently or willfully
contacting the Plaintiff on her cellular telephone, in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading the
Plaintiff's privacy.

On or before about April 24, 2019, Original Grain sent unsolicited
text message to Plaintiff's cellular telephone ending in "5009." At
no time did Plaintiff provide Plaintiff's cellular phone number to
Original Grain through any medium, nor did Plaintiff consent to
receive such an unsolicited text message.

The Plaintiff has never signed-up for, and has never used, Original
Grain's services, and has never had any form of business
relationship with Original Grain.

Through the unsolicited SPAM text message, Original Grain contacted
Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone regarding an
unsolicited service via an "automatic telephone dialing system".

The TCPA was designed to prevent calls like the ones described
within this complaint, and to protect the privacy of citizens like
the Plaintiff. "Voluminous consumer complaints about abuses of
telephone technology -- for example, computerized calls dispatched
to private homes -- prompted Congress to pass the TCPA.

Original Grain is a manufacturer and online retailer of watches and
accessories and touts itself as a "world-class creator of watches
and accessories". Original Grain promotes and markets its
merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to
wireless phone users.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
          EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC
          425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954 524 2820
          Facsimile: 954 524 2822
          E-mail: seth@epllc.com

               - and -

          Scott D. Owens, Esq.
          E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com
          SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
          3800 S. Ocean Dr., Suite 235
          Hollywood, FL 33019
          Telephone: 954-589-0588
          Facsimile: 954-337-0666

PARAGON SYSTEMS: Underpays Security Guards, Williams Says
---------------------------------------------------------
TOMIKA WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PARAGON SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
___________ (D.C., April 23, 2019) seeks to recover from the
Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.

The Plaintiff Williams was employed by the Defendant as security
guard.

Paragon Systems Inc. is a United States-based private security and
investigation firm, and is headquartered in Herndon, Virginia.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas Woodfield, Esq.
          R. Scott Oswald, Esq.
          Andrew D. Howell, Esq.
          THE EMPLOYMENT LAW GROUP, PC
          888 7th Street NW, 9th Floor
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 261-2812
          Facsimile: (202) 261-2835
          E-mail: nwoodfield@employmentlawgroup.com
                  soswald@employmentlawgroup.com
                  dhowell@employmentlawgroup.com


POINT QUEST INC: Faces Veronie's Labor Suit in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
Point Quest Inc. The case is captioned Nichole Veronie vs. Point
Quest Inc., Case No. 34-2019-00255123-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super.,
Sacramento Cty., April 24, 2019).

Founded on March 8, 2016, Point Quest, Inc. is organized under the
laws of the state of California. The company is headquartered at
6600 44th Street, Sacramento, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq.
     ARNOLD LAW FIRM
     865 Howe Avenue,
     Sacramento, CA 95825
     Telephone: (916) 777-7777
     Facsimile: (916) 924-1829

          - and -

     Darren Guez, Esq.
     THE DARREN GUEZ LAW FIRM
     836 57th St Ste 457
     Sacramento, CA 95819-3327
     Telephone: (916) 520-0988
     E-mail: darren@guezlaw.com


RED WING BRANDS: Southam Files FCRA Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Red Wing Brands of
America, Inc. The case is styled as James Lucas Southam,
individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. Red Wing Brands of America, Inc. doing
business as: Red Wing Shoe Store, a Minnesota corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-61255-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 17, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Red Wing Shoes (Red Wing Shoe Company, LLC) is an American footwear
company based in Red Wing, Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bret Leon Lusskin, Jr., Esq.
     Bret Lusskin, P.A.
     20803 Biscayne Blvd., Ste 302
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Phone: (954) 454-5841
     Fax: (954) 454-5844
     Email: blusskin@lusskinlaw.com


REVLON INC: Lachman Seeks Damages Over False, Misleading Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
THEODORE LACHMAN, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. REVLON, INC., PAUL MEISTER, DEBRA
PERELMAN, VICTORIA DOLAN, WENDEL F. KRALOVICH, LORENZO DELPANI,
ROBERTO SIMON, SIOBHAN ANDERSON, FABIAN T. GARCIA, and JUAN R.
FIGUEREO, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02859 (E.D. N.Y., May 14,
2019) is a class action on behalf of persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Revlon securities
from March 12, 2015 through March 28, 2019, inclusive. Plaintiff
seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

On March 12, 2015, Revlon filed its annual report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2014 with the SEC (the "2014 10-K").
The 2014 10-K was signed by Defendants Delpani, Simon, and
Anderson. The 2014 10-K contained signed certifications pursuant to
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("SOX") by Defendants Delpani and
Simon attesting to the accuracy of financial reporting, the
disclosure of any material changes to the Company's internal
controls over financial reporting, and the disclosure of all
fraud.

However, the complaint asserts that Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Revlon
failed to create measures to monitor the 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.

Plaintiff purchased Revlon securities during the Class Period and
was economically damaged thereby.

Revlon purports to manufacture, market, distribute, and sell beauty
and personal care products worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Phillip Kim, Esq.
     Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
     275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 686-1060
     Fax: (212) 202-3827
     Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com
            lrosen@rosenlegal.com


S&S UTILITIES ENGINEERING: Morgan Seeks Minimum Wage for Laborers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against S&S Utilities
Engineering, LLC and Stephen C. Smith for violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act. The case is captioned PAUL MORGAN, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. S&S
UTILITIES ENGINEERING, LLC A Florida Limited Liability Company, and
STEPHEN C. SMITH, individually, Defendants, Case No.
0:19-cv-61048-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 25, 2019). Plaintiff Paul
Morgan alleges that the Defendants have failed to pay its laborers
with the proper minimum wage compensation.

S&S is a Florida limited liability company with its principal place
of business in Boca Raton, Florida. The company subcontracts
installation works from AT&T. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Noah E. Storch, Esq.
     Richard Celler, Esq.
     RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A
     10368 W. SR 84, Suite 103
     Davie, FL 33324
     Telephone: (866) 344-9243
     Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
     E-mail: Richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com
             noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com


S.A.W. ENTERTAINMENT: Court Compels Arbitration to Non-PAGA Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division, issued an Order granting
Defendant's Motion to Compel All Plaintiffs to Submit All Non-Paga
Claims to Binding Arbitration in the case captioned NICOLE HUGHES,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. S.A.W. ENTERTAINMENT, LTD, et al.,
Defendants. ELANA PERA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. S.A.W. ENTERTAINMENT
LTD., Defendant. Case Nos. 16-cv-03371-LB, 17-cv-00138-LB (C.D.
Cal.).

The defendants move to compel all the plaintiffs (including Round 2
Plaintiffs) to submit all non-PAGA claims (including claims against
SFBSC Management) to binding arbitration.

These two actions, Hughes v. S.A.W. Entertainment, Ltd. and Pera v.
S.A.W. Entertainment, Ltd. are putative class- and
collective-action wage-and-hour labor disputes brought by exotic
dancers suing the companies that managed and operated the
nightclubs where they worked.

In Hughes, named plaintiffs Nicole Hughes, Angelynn Hermes, Penny
Nunez, and Diana Tejada and opt-in plaintiffs Poohrawn Mehraban1
and Dora Marchand2 are suing named defendants S.A.W. Entertainment,
Ltd. and SFBSC Management, LLC, a Nevada company that allegedly
maintains management authority and control over the operations of
the Hustler Club and the Gold Club.

In Pera, named plaintiffs Elana Pera and Sarah Murphy and opt-in
plaintiffs Gypsy Vidal, Tiffany Zoumer, and Dora Marchand5 are
suing defendant S.A.W. Entertainment Ltd. (d/b/a Condor Gentleman's
Club). In both cases, the plaintiffs are pursuing class- and
collective-action claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),
the California Labor Code, and the California Unfair Competition
Law (UCL).  

The Federal Roe Action

In August 2014, a former exotic dancer filed a putative class and
collective action against SFBSC Management before the undersigned:
Roe v. SFBSC Management., LLC, No. 3:14-cv-03616-LB (N.D. Cal.
filed Aug. 8, 2014) (Federal Roe). In November 2014, the complaint
was amended to (among other things) add a second plaintiff. The
court allowed the two plaintiffs to remain anonymous under the
pseudonyms Jane Roe 1 and Jane Roe 2. Roe v. SFBSC Mgmt., LLC, 77
F.Supp.3d 990 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (Federal Roe I).

The Hughes and Pera Actions

In June 2016, plaintiff Nicole Hughes filed the Hughes action
against S.A.W. Entertainment. In October 2016, Ms. Hughes, joined
by named plaintiffs Angelynn Hermes and Penny Nunez, filed a First
Amended Complaint against S.A.W. Entertainment and Gold Club.38 In
December 2016, Mses. Hughes, Hermes, and Nunez filed a Second
Amended Complaint against S.A.W. Entertainment and Gold Club.39 In
January 2017, plaintiffs Elana Pera and Sarah Murphy filed the Pera
action against S.A.W. Entertainment.

The State Roe Action

In May 2018, four exotic dancers filed a putative class and
collective action against numerous defendants, including S.A.W.
Entertainment and Gold Club (but not SFBSC Management), before the
California Superior Court for San Diego County: Roe v. Deja Vu
Services, Inc., No. 37-2018-00028044-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct. San
Diego Cty. filed May 31, 2018). The Superior Court allowed the
dancers to remain anonymous under the pseudonyms Jane Roe 1 through
Jane Roe 4.

The Round 1 Plaintiffs Must Submit All Claims (Other Than PAGA
Claims) Against S.A.W. Entertainment and Gold Club to Arbitration

The Court Grants the Motions to Enforce the August 2018 Arbitration
Order

Governing law

Absent a stay, 'all orders and judgments of courts must be complied
with promptly. Disregard of a court order would undermine the
court's ability to control its docket and reward the indolent and
the cavalier.If parties believe that a court order should be
modified or vacated based on new factual developments or an
intervening change in the law, the proper avenue is for them to
move the issuing court to stay or reconsider its order (or to
appeal the order and move the appellate court for a stay pending
the appeal.  

Application

In August 2018, this court ordered the Round 1 Plaintiffs  Nicole
Hughes, Angelynn Hermes, Penny Nunez, Elana Pera, Sarah Murphy, and
Dora Marchand to submit all claims other than PAGA claims to
binding arbitration. Absent this court's (or the Ninth Circuit's)
staying or vacating that order, the Round 1 Plaintiffs must comply
with it.

The plaintiffs make several arguments why they should not be
compelled to submit their claims to arbitration. None excuses their
failure to comply with the court's August 2018 arbitration order.

First, the plaintiffs claim that they were dragged into State Roe
by Defendants in order to protect their rights and prevent a
release of their claims. That is not so. Even assuming that these
plaintiffs were part of the proposed State Roe settlement class,
they could have protected their rights and prevented a release of
their claims by opting out of settlement. These plaintiffs chose to
litigate in State Roe instead of complying with the court's order
to arbitrate their claims.

Second, the plaintiffs contend that the court's August 2018
arbitration order, which held that the defendants did not waive
their right to arbitration through their conduct in Hughes, Pera,
and Federal Roe, was superseded by the Superior Court's subsequent
order that the defendants waived arbitration by their conduct in
State Roe, and that the subsequent Superior Court order binds this
court. It does not. This court ordered the plaintiffs to submit
their claims to arbitration and did not merely find no waiver of
the right to arbitrate.  The plaintiffs cite no authority that
compels a conclusion that they can disregard that order.  

In sum, as the court ordered previously, the Round 1 Plaintiffs
Mses. Hughes, Hermes, Nunez, Pera, Murphy, and Marchand must submit
all claims other than PAGA claims to arbitration.

The Round 2 Plaintiffs Must Submit Their Claims (Other Than Ms.
Tejada's Post-January 2017 Claims) Against S.A.W. Entertainment and
Gold Club to Arbitration

The Court Grants the Motion to Compel Poohrawn Mehraban, Gypsy
Vidal, and Tiffany Zoumer to Submit Their Claims to Arbitration

Poohrawn Mehraban, Gypsy Vidal, and Tiffany Zoumer all signed
performer contracts with S.A.W. Entertainment, and Ms. Mehraban
signed a performer contract with Gold Club. In the contracts, the
parties agreed to resolve all disputes through arbitration.

The plaintiffs oppose arbitration with respect to S.A.W.
Entertainment and Gold Club on the grounds that (1) the defendants
waived their rights to arbitration through their representations
and conduct in Hughes, Pera, and State Roe, (2) this court is bound
by the Superior Court's decision in State Roeholding that the
defendants have waived their rights to arbitration, (3) the
defendants waived their rights to arbitration by refusing to pay
arbitration fees for Ms. Mehraban's unlawful-retaliation claim, and
(4) the arbitration agreements are unconscionable and
unenforceable.

The court previously rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the
defendants waived arbitration by their conduct in Hughes and Pera
and that the arbitration agreements are unconscionable. That
holding applies here. As discussed earlier in this order, the
defendants did not waive arbitration by their conduct in State Roe
or in positions about payment of arbitration fees.

The court grants the defendants' motions to compel Mses. Mehraban,
Vidal, and Zoumer to submit their claims against S.A.W.
Entertainment and Gold Club to arbitration.

The Court Grants the Motion to Compel Diana Tejada to Submit Her
Claims Arising Before or During January 2017 to Arbitration But
Denies the Motion to Compel Her to Submit Her Claims Arising After
January 2017 to Arbitration

The analysis is somewhat different with respect to Diana Tejada.
Until January 2017, Ms. Tejada signed annual performer contracts
with S.A.W. Entertainment that provided that the parties would
resolve all disputes through arbitration. The last of these
performer contracts terminated on January 31, 2017.

Both S.A.W. Entertainment and Ms. Tejada signed the overall
contract. Ms. Tejada did not initial or mark any of the boxes
relating to arbitration or class- or collective-action waiver.

The parties offer competing arguments about how Ms. Tejada's
performer contracts and arbitration provisions should be construed,
both with respect to claims arising before the termination of her
pre-2017 performer contracts (i.e., January 31, 2017) and claims
arising after.

Claims arising on or before January 31, 2017

Ms. Tejada's claims arising on or before January 31, 2017 are
subject to her pre-2017 performer contracts, which contain
arbitration provisions, and thus are subject to arbitration for the
same reasons as the other plaintiffs' claims.

Contrary to Ms. Tejada's arguments, the arbitration provisions in
her pre-2017 performer contracts survive those contracts'
termination dates and continue to apply to any claims that arose
under those contracts, i.e., claims that arose on or before January
31, 2017. Ms. Tejada argues that her 2017 performer contract
supersedes her prior performer contracts, but this argument is
unavailing. Ms. Tejada's 2017 performer contract does not expressly
or by clear implication negate any of her prior performer
contracts' arbitration provisions.

The court grants the defendants' motions to compel Ms. Tejada to
submit her Pre-January-2017 Claims to arbitration.

Claims arising after January 31, 2017

The defendants have not identified a contract in which Ms. Tejada
agreed to arbitrate claims arising after January 31, 2017.

The defendants argue that Ms. Tejada's failure to sign either the
boxes accepting or rejecting arbitration was mere silence, and that
silence should not be construed as a rejection. It is true that Ms.
Tejada did not sign the box rejecting arbitration either. But as
the parties seeking to compel arbitration, it is the defendants'
burden to prove the existence of an agreement between the parties
to arbitrate in the first instance. Ms. Tejada's unchecked 2017
performer contract is not an agreement to arbitrate, and the
defendants identify no other agreement to arbitrate that covers
claims Ms. Tejada's Post-January-2017 Claims.

The defendants argue that by signing the 2017 performer contract,
Ms. Tejada agreed to all its terms, including its arbitration
provision. This argument fails for at least two reasons.

First, where an employer's contract calls for a separate signature
agreeing to an arbitration provision in addition to a signature for
the contract as a whole, the arbitration provision is severable,
and the employee's signing the contract as a whole does not evince
an agreement to arbitrate if the employee did not separately sign
the arbitration provision.  The 2017 performer contract called for
Ms. Tejada to separately sign her initials if she agreed to
arbitrate. Her signature at the end of the contract as a whole does
not evince an agreement to arbitrate in the absence of her
separately signed initials next to the arbitration provision.

Second, even if Ms. Tejada's signature at the end of the could be
construed as accepting all provisions in the contract, the
provisions do not say the parties will arbitrate all disputes they
say, IF YOU AGREE TO ARBITRATION, the parties will arbitrate all
disputes. The terms of the 2017 performer contract, even if Ms.
Tejada accepted them in their entirety, do not provide for the
defendants' compelling Ms. Tejada to arbitrate absent her
agreement.

The court denies the defendants' motions to compel Ms. Tejada to
submit her Post-January-2017 Claims to arbitration.

The Plaintiffs Must Submit Their Claims (Other Than PAGA Claims and
Ms. Tejada's Post-January 2017 Claims) Against SFBSC Management to
Arbitration

SFBSC Management is not a signatory to the plaintiffs' performer
contracts or arbitration provisions. The defendants nonetheless
contend that SFBSC Management has standing to enforce the
arbitration provisions (1) under the doctrine of equitable estoppel
and (2) as S.A.W.

Entertainment's and Gold Club's agent.

The court holds that SFBSC Management may enforce the arbitration
provisions under the doctrine of equitable estoppel (and does not
reach the issue of agency).

Governing Law

The United States Supreme Court has held that a litigant who is not
a party to an arbitration agreement may invoke arbitration under
the [Federal Arbitration Act if the relevant state contract law
allows the litigant to enforce the agreement. Under California law,
the doctrine of equitable estoppel may allow a nonsignatory to an
arbitration agreement to nonetheless enforce the agreement under
two circumstances.

First, a nonsignatory may invoke equitable estoppels when a
signatory must rely on the terms of the written agreement in
asserting its claims against the nonsignatory or the claims are
intimately founded in and intertwined with the underlying contract.
  

Second, a nonsignatory may invoke equitable estoppel when the
signatory alleges substantially interdependent and concerted
misconduct by the nonsignatory and another signatory and 'the
allegations of interdependent misconduct are founded in or
intimately connected with the obligations of the underlying
agreement.' Under this second prong, the doctrine of equitable
estoppel may apply in certain cases where a signatory to an
arbitration agreement attempts to evade arbitration by suing
nonsignatory defendants for `claims that are based on the same
facts and are inherently inseparable from arbitrable claims against
signatory defendants.

Application

The reasoning in Garcia controls here. The plaintiffs' claims
against SFBSC Management are founded in and intertwined with their
relationships with S.A.W. Entertainment and Gold Club. The
plaintiffs do not distinguish between SFBSC Management, on the one
hand, and S.A.W. Entertainment or Gold Club, on the other. All
claims against SFBSC Management are based on the same facts alleged
against S.A.W. Entertainment or Gold Club.

As discussed earlier in this order, the plaintiffs must submit
their claims against S.A.W. Entertainment and Gold Club to
arbitration. It would be inequitable to prevent SFBSC from
participating in that arbitration process and to allow the
plaintiffs instead to bring in litigation identical claims based on
identical facts against SFBSC. Cf. Garcia, 11 Cal. App. 5th at
786-88.

The plaintiffs' claims against SFBSC Management are identical to
their claims against S.A.W. Entertainment and Gold Club. Thus,
SFBSC Management may, under the doctrine of equitable estoppel,
enforce the arbitration provisions in the performer contracts that
the plaintiffs signed with S.A.W. Entertainment and Gold Club. The
court grants the defendants' motions to compel the plaintiffs to
submit their claims (other than Ms. Tejada's Post-January-2017
Claims) against SFBSC Management to arbitration.

The court grants the defendants' motion to enforce its August 2018
arbitration order against the Round 1 Plaintiffs. The court grants
all pending motions to compel arbitration except that it denies the
motion to compel with respect to Ms. Tejada's Post-January-2017
Claims. In sum, the court orders Nicole Hughes, Angelynn Hermes,
Penny Nunez, Diana Tejada, Poohrawn Mehraban, Dora Marchand, Elana
Pera, Sarah Murphy, Gypsy Vidal, and Tiffany Zoumer to submit all
claims other than PAGA claims and Ms. Tejada's Post-January-2017
Claims to binding arbitration.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 9, 2019 Order is
available at  https://tinyurl.com/yy947x2z from Leagle.com.

Nicole Hughes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Angelynn Hermes, Penny Nunez & Diana Tejada, Plaintiffs,
represented by Shannon Liss-Riordan -- sliss@llrlaw.com -- Lichten
& Liss-Riordan, P.C.

S.A.W. Entertainment, LTD, doing business as Larry Flynt's Hustler
Club, Defendant, represented by April Pineda Santos, Long & Levit
LLP, Douglas J. Melton, Long & Levit LLP &Shane Michael Cahill,
Long & Levit, LLP, 65 California Street, 5th Floor. San Francisco,
California 94104.

Gold Club-SF, LLC, doing business as Gold Club San Francisco,
Defendant, represented byDouglas J. Melton, Long & Levit LLP &
Shane Michael Cahill, Long & Levit, LLP.

SFBSC MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant, represented by Shane Michael
Cahill, Long & Levit, LLP.

Jane Roe 1, Jane Roe 2 & Jane Roe 3, Interested Partys, represented
by Steven Gregory Tidrick -sgt@tidricklaw.com -- The Tidrick Law
Firm.


SCRIPPS HEALTH: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Leman Says
------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Scripps Health for
violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business
and Professions Code. The case is captioned OLESYA LEMAN, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, vs. SCRIPPS HEALTH, a California corporation; and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
37-2019-00021453-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., April 25,
2019). Among other things, Plaintiff Olesya Leman alleges that
Scripps Health failed to pay employees minimum wages for all hours
worked less than eight hours in a day and/or less than 40 hours in
a workweek. Leman also accuses Scripps Health of failing to provide
its employees with accurate itemized wage statements.

Scripps Health is a California non-profit corporation that
maintains operations in the state of California, including
locations in San Diego, California. The company provides medical
care as well as preventive services and wellness screenings. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Larry W. Lee, Esq.
     Kristen M. Agnew, Esq.
     Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq.
     Mai Tulyathan, Esq.
     DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
     515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Telephone: (213) 488-6555
     Facsimile: (213) 488-6554

          - and -

     William L. Marder, Esq.
     POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP
     501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
     Hollister, CA 95023
     Telephone: (831) 531-4214
     Facsimile: (831) 634-0333


STEVENS TRANSPORT: Parr Seeks Pay for Non-driving Work Activities
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Parr, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff, v.
Stevens Transport, Inc., Stevens Transport T L., Inc, Stevens
Transport CO. Inc., Stevens Transport CD, Inc. (dba Stevens
Transport), Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-02610 (N.D. Cal., May 14,
2019) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage and other relief for
violations of the California Labor Code and California's Industrial
Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 9 ("IWC Wage Order No. 9").

According to the complaint, the Defendants had a policy of
willfully and unlawfully paying Plaintiff and other Rule 23
California Class members a mileage rate only, without separate
compensation for non-driving work activities, thereby failing to
pay them the minimum wage for all hours worked, in violation of
state law.

Specifically, and by way of example, Defendants' mileage-based
compensation scheme did not provide separate payment for
Plaintiff's time spent fueling his truck or for time spent
performing required inspections on his truck, says the complaint.
Defendants also required that Plaintiff and other truck drivers
have their truck cleaned between deliveries, but did not provide
separate payment for that work task. Defendants also required that
Plaintiff and other truck drivers stay with their truck while it
was being loaded and unloaded, but did not pay Plaintiff or other
truck drivers for this work time unless the loading or unloading
lasted more than two hours, and then Defendants only paid for the
time past two hours, the complaint asserts.

Plaintiff worked as a truck driver for Defendants from
approximately August 25, 2018 through April 26, 2019.

Stevens Transport is engaged in the hauling and delivery of freight
across the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
     Daniel S. Brome, Esq.
     NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
     235 Montgomery Street, Suite 810
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Phone: (415) 277-7235
     Facsimile: (415) 277-7238
     Email: Helland@nka.com
            dbrome@nka.com

          - and -

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


TASTY BAKING: Caddick Hits Misclassification, Illegal Deductions
----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM CADDICK, STEPHEN HOPKINS, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. TASTY BAKING
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02106-HB (E.D. Pa., May 15,
2019) is a "hybrid" class/collective action lawsuit arising from
Defendant Tastykake's misclassification of its delivery drivers as
"independent contractors."

Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Tastykake has: (i) failed to pay
them overtime premium compensation in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"); (ii) subjected them to improper pay
deductions in violation of the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and
Collection Law ("PWPCL"); and (iii) been unjustly enriched under
Pennsylvania common law.

The Defendant requires Plaintiffs and other Distributors to assume
many of Defendant's general business expenses, asserts the
complaint. For example, Defendant requires Distributors to pay for
gasoline and all vehicle expenses, insurance, and maintenance
expenses. Plaintiffs also pay for their own cell phone, which they
use for business purposes. Defendant does not provide workers'
compensation and unemployment insurance to Plaintiffs and other
Distributors. The Defendant has never sought or obtained the
Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry's approval for the
above pay deductions or any other types of pay deductions, the
complaint relates.

Plaintiffs and other Distributors also work long hours. Yet, they
do not receive any extra overtime premium compensation for hours
worked over 40 per week. In failing to pay the overtime premium to
Plaintiffs and other Distributors, Defendant acted willfully and
with reckless disregard of clearly applicable FLSA provisions, says
the complaint.

Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant as delivery drivers.

Tastykake is in the business of manufacturing, distributing, and
selling food products, including all fresh baked pies, cakes,
donuts, soft cookies and/or similar fresh baked products to all
retail stores whose principal business is the sale of food to the
general public and all mass merchandising accounts, including all
restaurant and institutional accounts except multi-outlet
restaurants and institutional accounts requiring bulk shipment to
central locations throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Simon B. Paris, Esq.
     Patrick Howard, Esq.
     Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
     Jeffrey Goodman, Esq.
     SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C.
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: (215) 496-8282
     Facsimile: (215) 496-0999
     Email: sparis@smbb.com
            phowards@smbb.com
            ckocher@smbb.com
            jgoodman@smbb.com



TCF FINANCIAL: Faces Nelson Suit over Proposed Merger
-----------------------------------------------------
EDWARD NELSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TCF FINANCIAL CORPORATION; CRAIG R. DHAL;
PETER BELL; WILLIAM F. BIEBER; THEODORE J. BIGOS; KAREN L.
GRANSTAND; GEORGE G. JOHNSON; RICHARD H. KING; VANCE K. OPPERMAN;
ROBERT J. SIT; JULIE H. SULLIVAN; BARRY N. WINSLOW; and THERESA
M.H. WISE, Defendants, Case No. 27-cv-19-6519 (Minn. Dist., 4th
Judicial, Hennepin County, April 23, 2019) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff and on behalf of the holders of TCF
Financial Corporation's common stock against TCF, the Company's
Board of Directors, arising out of the proposed merger of TCF with
Chemical Financial Corporation through an unfair buyout.

According to the complaint, on March 29, 2019, the Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties when they caused a materially
incomplete and misleading a Form S-4 Registration Statement in
connection with the Proposed Transaction.

The Registration Statement fails to provide adequate disclosure of
material information concerning: (i) financial projections for TCV;
(ii) the valuation analyses performed by TCF's financial advisor,
J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, in support of its fairness opinion; and
(iii) the potential conflict of interest J.P. Morgan faced as a
result of the prior work it performed for TCF.

TCF Financial Corporation operates as the bank holding company for
TCF National Bank that provides various financial products and
services in the United States and Canada. As of December 31, 2018,
the company had 314 branches consisting of 189 traditional
branches, 122 supermarket branches, and 3 campus branches in
Illinois, Minnesota, Michigan, Colorado, Wisconsin, Arizona, and
South Dakota. TCF Financial Corporation was founded in 1923 and is
headquartered in Wayzata, Minnesota. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Russell M Spence, Jr., Esq.
          PARKER DANIELS KIBORT LLC
          888 Colwell Building
          123 North Third Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 355-4100
          Facsimile: (612) 355-4101
          E-mail: spence@parkerdk.com


TRANSUNION RENTAL: $425K Settlement in CIPA Suit Has Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motions
for Final Approval of a Proposed Class Action Settlement in the
case captioned KELISSA RONQUILLO-GRIFFIN; KHOI NGUYEN; and RUSSELL
SMITH, Plaintiffs, v. TRANSUNION RENTAL SCREENING SOLUTIONS, INC.
and TRANSACTEL (BARBADOS), INC., Defendants. Case No. 17cv129 JM
(BLM). (S.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Kelissa Ronquillo-Griffin, Khoi Nguyen, and Russell
Smith filed unopposed motions for final approval of a proposed
class action settlement.  

This is a putative class action arising out of Defendants' alleged
recording of calls to class members without their permission, in
violation of California's Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA). The crux
of the Second Amened Complaint is that acting on TURSS's behalf,
called class members who had requested copies of their credit
reports from TURSS and recorded those calls without consent.  

Class Certification for Settlement Purposes

The court preliminarily and conditionally certified the following
class for settlement purposes -- All persons in California who,
during the period from January 24, 2016 through February 8, 2017,
were called by Transactel on behalf of TURSS on their cellular
telephones and spoke with a representative. Excluded from the
Settlement Class are the Judges to whom the Action is assigned and
any members of the Judges' staff or immediate family.

Numerosity

This requirement is satisfied if the class is so numerous that
joinder of all members is impracticable. A class greater than forty
members often satisfies this requirement. Here, notice packets were
mailed to 611 potential class members. Joinder of all these
potential plaintiffs would be impracticable. Accordingly, this
requirement is met.

Commonality

This requirement is satisfied if "there are questions of law or
fact common to the class. To satisfy this commonality requirement,
plaintiffs need only point to a single issue common to the class.
Here, the commonality requirement is satisfied because all of the
class claims involve common questions of law and fact surrounding
whether Defendants recorded class members' calls without their
permission.

Typicality

This requirement is satisfied if the claims or defenses of the
representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the
class. The test of typicality is 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, the typicality requirement is satisfied because the claims of
lead Plaintiffs and the class are the same. The wrongful conduct
alleged in the complaint is not unique to the class
representatives, and the damages to the class members, if any, are
similar insofar as they relate to violations of CIPA.

Adequacy of Class Representative and Class Counsel

The final Rule 23(a) requirement is that the representative parties
will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. This
requires the court to address two questions: (a) do the named
plaintiffs and their counsel have any conflicts of interest with
other class members and (b) will the named plaintiffs and their
counsel prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class.

Here, the Plaintiffs do not have any known conflicts of interest
with other class members. There are no obvious conflicts between
Plaintiffs' interests and those of the class members. Additionally,
class counsel do not have any known conflicts with the Plaintiffs.
Furthermore, no class member has filed an objection challenging the
adequacy of the representative parties. The court is unaware of any
reason that would warrant altering its earlier determination that
Plaintiffs and class counsel can adequately represent the interest
of the class. Accordingly, this element is satisfied for the
purposes of certification of the settlement class.

Predominance and Superiority

Rule 23 (b)(3) permits a party to maintain a class action if the
court finds that questions of law or fact common to class members
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members,
and that a class action is superior to other available methods for
fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.   

Here, as the court preliminarily found, the proposed class meets
the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3). All of the class members were
allegedly subject to Defendants' purported CIPA violations. The
legal and factual questions common to each class member's claim
predominate over any questions affecting individual class members.
The common questions of whether Defendants recorded class members'
calls without their permission and whether Defendants failed to
provide a call recording disclosure at the beginning of the call
predominate over individual questions. A class action is superior
to other forms of adjudication because the class consists of
approximately 665 people, does not present management issues, and
likely damage awards to individual plaintiffs are relatively small
compared to the burden and expense of individual litigation.

Accordingly, the predominance and superiority inquiries are
satisfied. The court certifies the class for settlement purposes.

Final Approval of Settlement

In assessing a settlement proposal, the district court is required
to balance a number of factors, namely: the strength of the
plaintiff's case; the risk, expense, complexity, and likely
duration of further litigation; the risk of maintaining class
action status throughout the trial; the amount offered in
settlement; the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the
proceedings; the experience and views of counsel; the presence of a
governmental participant; and the reaction of the class members to
the proposed settlement.

Adequacy of Notice

The court approved notice of this class action and proposed
settlement in the Preliminary Approval Order. The claims
administrator directly mailed 611 notice packets to class members,3
created a settlement website that contained the terms of the
settlement and allowed class members to submit a claim, and
established a toll-free telephone number claimants could call to
obtain information about the settlement. The notice sent to class
members clearly explains how to opt out of the class or object to
the settlement and fairly summarizes the parties' settlement
agreement.  

Accordingly, the class received adequate notice.

Strength of Plaintiffs' Case; Risk of Further Litigation; and Risk
of Maintaining Class Action Status

As a result of the preferable nature of settlement over the
uncertainties, expense and length of litigation when assessing the
strength of plaintiff's case, the court does not reach any ultimate
conclusions regarding the contested issues of fact and the law that
underlie the merits of this litigation.

Here, the parties reached an agreement after two years of
litigation. Defendants vigorously contested Plaintiffs' claims. If
litigation were to continue, Defendants have indicated that they
would challenge each Plaintiff's adequacy as class representative,
TURSS would likely assert a defense that Transactel was an
independent contractor, and Defendants may challenge class
certification on the basis that some class members were outside of
California at the time they received the call from Transactel.
Proceeding with this case presents very real risks regarding class
certification, summary judgment, and proving liability at trial,
including a possible unfavorable decision on the merits.  While
Plaintiffs believe in the merits of their case, Defendants have
strong defenses to class certification and liability, and there is
no guarantee that Plaintiffs will prevail.

These risks weigh in favor of settlement.

Amount Offered in Settlement

Basic to the process of deciding whether a proposed settlement is
fair, reasonable and adequate is the need to compare the terms of
the compromise with the likely rewards of litigation.

Here, the Settlement Agreement establishes a $425,000
non-reversionary common fund. The common fund is allotted as
follows: Named Plaintiffs each receive a service award of $3,000
($9,000 total for all Plaintiffs). Class counsel applied for a fee
and cost award of $123,250 (29 percent of the common fund). Claims
administration costs are estimated at $22,384. The remainder of the
common fund will be divided equally among class members that submit
valid claims. This remainder is estimated at $270,366. As of March
9, 2019, 73 valid claims have been submitted. Assuming only the 73
claims are submitted, each of these class members will receive a
payment of approximately $3,703.64. This amount reaches close to
the $5,000 in statutory damages each class member may have been
entitled to under Cal. Penal Code § 637.2 if they ultimately
succeeded.  

Cy Pres Funds

A cy pres remedy, sometimes called `fluid recovery, is a settlement
structure wherein class members receive an indirect benefit
(usually through defendant donations to a third party rather than a
direct monetary payment. The cy pres doctrine allows a court to
distribute unclaimed or non-distributable portions of a class
action settlement fund to the `next best' class of beneficiaries.

Here, Plaintiffs allege violations of CIPA. This statute was
designed to protect against invasion of the right to privacy and
provide those who suffer an infringement of this aspect of their
personal liberty a means of vindicating their right. The Settlement
Agreement provides that after a second distribution of funds has
been made to class members any unclaimed funds will be donated to
New Media Rights, a program at California Western School of Law.  

Accordingly, the substantial nexus requirement is satisfied.

Extent of Discovery and Stage of Proceedings

When assessing a settlement courts focus on whether the "parties
have sufficient information to make an informed decision about
settlement.

Here, the settlement was negotiated after two years of litigation
and meaningful discovery. The Plaintiffs filed an original
complaint, First Amended Complaint, and Second Amended Complaint.
After a motion to dismiss and an answer to the First Amended
Complaint were filed, the parties engaged in substantial discovery.
Both parties served several rounds of discovery on each other and
engaged in several discovery disputes. After this discovery, the
parties engaged in an arms-length private mediation session and
confirmatory discovery following the mediation. Ultimately, the
parties settled following mediation. This history evidences the
parties' significant knowledge regarding the relevant facts, law,
and strengths and weaknesses of their claims and defenses.
Consequently, this factor weighs in favor of approval of the
settlement.

Experience of Counsel

The recommendations of the plaintiffs' counsel should be given a
presumption of reasonableness. Here, class counsel provided a
declaration detailing their experience in litigating consumer class
actions and CIPA cases. Class counsel declares that their support
of the settlement is based on an assessment of the burdens,
uncertainty and risks inherent in class action litigation, as well
as the time and expense of trial. In light of this, this factor
weighs in favor of the settlement.

Reaction of Class Members

It is established that the absence of a large number of objections
to a proposed class action settlement raises a strong presumption
that the terms of a proposed class settlement are favorable to the
class members. Here, no class members have opted out of the class
and no objections to the settlement have been received.  

Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of settlement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 9, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y49cqlbm from Leagle.com.

Kelissa Ronquillo-Griffin, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Khoi Nguyen, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated & Russell Smith, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Abbas Kazerounian -- ak@kazlg.com -- Kazerounian Law Group, APC,
Jason A. Ibey -- jason@kazlg.com -- Kazerouni Law Group, APC,
Joshua B. Swigart -
josh@westcoastlitigation.com -- Hyde & Swigart, Yana A. Hart --
yana@westcoastlitigation.com -- Hyde & Swigart, Daniel G. Shay ,
Law Office of Daniel G. Shay & Nicholas Ryan Barthel --
nicholas@kazlg.com -- Kazerouni Law Group APC.

TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Cristina Anastassia Guido -- cguido@stroock.com -- Stroock &
Stroock & Lavan LLP, Julia Beatrice Strickland --
jstrickland@stroock.com -- Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP & Stephen
J. Newman –snewman@stroock.com -- Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP.

Transactel (Barbados), Inc., Defendant, represented by Amanda
Catherine Fitzsimmons -- amanda.fitzsimmons@dlapiper.com -- DLA
Piper LLP, Edward D. Totino --
edward.totino@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP & Perrie M. Weiner --

perrie.weiner@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP.


UNITED STATES: Judge Certifies Suit Over Anti-Immigration Policies
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan J. Farrick, writing for Legal Reader, reports that a federal
judge has ruled that a Guatemalan woman's class action lawsuit can
move forward.

According to WPRI, the lawsuit initially had but five plaintiffs.
But with Thursday's decision, other immigrants in New England can
join the class, too.

Filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, the
complaint challenges the Trump administration's harsh
anti-immigration policies. At the center of the suit is Lilian
Calderon, a Guatemalan native, mother and Providence, Rhode Island
resident.

Although Calderon came to the United States as a toddler, she isn't
yet a legal permanent resident. She'd tried changing that early
last year, seeking a marriage review at a Johnston immigration
office.

While Calderon thought she was on the right path to becoming a
citizen, she was detained by the Immigration and Customs
Enforcement agency in January 2018 shortly afterward.  Facing
deportation, she remained in ICE custody for a month.

Former U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen
Nielsen was named as a defendant in the suit.

Only in February of 2018 was Calderon released, in large part due
to the ACLU of Massachusetts' advocacy on her behalf -- the
organization, working with its counterpart in Rhode Island, argued
that her detention was unconstitutional.

Calderon was released within a week, and in April of 2018, the ACLU
and law firm WinterHale filed a class action on behalf of the woman
and other migrants facing similar predicaments.

Along with Calderon and her husband, Luis Gordillo -- a U.S.
citizen -- four other couples were included in the ACLU's original
complaint. WPRI reports that all of the plaintiffs faced obstacles,
arrest and the threat of deportation as they strove to acquire
citizenship or legal residency.

The ACLU's website notes that, last August, a federal judge refused
a government request to dismiss the lawsuit.

"Unsealed documents and depositions show the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), which oversees the USCIS and ICE, has used its own
regulations -- which were designed to protect the families of
noncitizens from unnecessary separation during the legalization
process -- to target individuals for detention and deportation,"
the ACLU of Massachusetts wrote on its website.

The American Civil Liberties Union believes it's yet another
instance of the Trump administration overstepping its boundaries,
attempting to separate families trying to do the right thing.

"This class certification is about ensuring that families stay
together," said ACLU-Massachusetts executive director Carol Rose.

But Calderon, who's been free for more than a year, still hasn't
been naturalized.

"I'm trying to do the best I can, I'm trying to follow
regulations," she wrote in a February 2019 opinion piece, published
in The Providence Journal. "Here I am, still a year later,
undocumented."

Throughout spring, Calderon has been stuck in a bureaucratic maze,
denied the opportunity to seek employment, work or even drive.

"It's always a waiting game," her husband said. "As time gets
closer, I guess you could say to the deadline, the anxiety builds
up, the stress builds up because we don't know if we're going to be
together."

But on May 15, Calderon's patience finally paid off -- after a trip
to Guatemala, a country she'd scarcely seen since childhood, the
U.S. consulate granted her a visa to return home and pursue
citizenship without the looming threat of deportation. [GN]


UNITED STATES: US Marshall Faces Kowalski Suit in N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the U.S. Marshall.
The case is captioned as ROBERT M. KOWALSKI, and all other Federal
Detainees of Jerome Combs Detention Center of Kankakee County, v.
UNITED STATES MARSHALL, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02800 (N.D.
Ill., April 23, 2019). The case is assigned to Honorable Robert M.
Dow, Jr.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          AUSA - Chicago
          United States Attorney's Office
           (NDIL-Chicago)
          219 South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: USAILN.ECFAUSA@usdoj.gov


UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: Lawyers Revise $240MM Sexual Abuse Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that lawyers who
struck a $240 million agreement with the University of Southern
California over a sexual abuse scandal involving its former campus
gynecologist filed a revised deal on May 17 after a federal judge
flagged several problems about the class action settlement.

The amended settlement, reached for victims of George Tyndall, who
worked for decades as USC's campus gynecologist, attempted to
address concerns that Judge Stephen Wilson of the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California had about the
deal—most prominently, that the settlement was short on critical
facts.

"Simply put, the court is not a vessel for expediency in the
parties' efforts to reach a class action settlement, and any
agreement for which the parties seek approval from the court should
be finalized to the maximum extent possible prior to a motion for
court approval," wrote Wilson in rejecting preliminary approval of
the deal on April 18.

On May 17, lead plaintiffs attorneys for the settlement issued a
statement supporting the revisions: "This settlement gives every
single woman who saw Tyndall a choice in how they want to
participate and hold USC accountable, while also forcing the school
to change to ensure this doesn't happen again. We are confident our
renewed motion for preliminary approval will answer the court's
questions, lead to approval of this agreement and provide these
survivors the relief and measure of closure they deserve."

They have asked for a June 3 hearing for preliminary approval of
the revised settlement.

The USC filing also comes one day after lawyers representing
victims of Larry Nassar, the former sports doctor at Michigan State
University and physician for USA Gymnastics, raised their own
concerns about another sexual abuse settlement. On May 16, 25 law
firms wrote a letter to Michigan's auditor general asking to
investigate the $500 million settlement with MSU, which they say
does not adequately compensate more than 100 victims who filed
their suits after school officials reached the deal a year ago.
"The fund is not sufficient," said Megan Bonanni, Esq. --
mbonanni@pittlaw.com -- whose firm, Pitt McGehee Palmer & Rivers in
Royal Oak, Michigan, is one of the 25 that signed the letter. She
said the $75 million allocated under the settlement for future
claimants isn't enough. "We are requesting and demanding that MSU
treat this second group with parity to their sister survivor
group."

Both settlements come in a raft of cases tied to incidences of
sexual abuse claims at colleges and universities. The USC
plaintiffs, most of whom sued anonymously, claim Tyndall made
inappropriate remarks and performed unnecessary procedures on
female students. They allege that USC knew about the complaints but
did nothing about them. The MSU plaintiffs, all gymnasts, said
Nassar sexually abused them during doctor visits.

But there is a key legal difference between the USC and MSU
settlements. The MSU settlement resolved individual claims, which
is more common in sexual abuse cases because of the myriad types of
injuries or circumstances for each victim. The USC settlement,
which includes $25 million in attorney fees and costs, and a $215
million fund that would compensate hundreds of women, comes in a
class action.

Plaintiffs' co-lead counsel Steve Berman, Esq. -- STEVE@HBSSLAW.COM
-- filed the case as a class action, despite the fact that most of
the lawsuits against USC are individual cases in Los Angeles
Superior Court. With the #MeToo movement and heightened awareness
of sexual assault and harassment, some lawyers have found
opportunities to file class actions. Berman's firm, Seattle's
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, also has brought a class action
against movie producer Harvey Weinstein.

The lead counsel in the MSU deal, John Manly, Esq. --
jmanly@manlystewart.com -- of Manly Stewart & Finaldi in Irvine,
California, has objected to the USC class action settlement,
stating that it failed to account for the school's liability in the
Tyndall matter. He said the deal, which offers a maximum individual
payout of $250,000, "sells survivors down the road."

"This is a case where it was well known for 30 years what he was
doing, and they just threw women to the meat grinder," he said.
"The only cases where you see those kind of low numbers are cases
where there's really no assets available, or there's a huge legal
impediment, and we don't have that here."

In court documents supporting the settlement, Berman has said a
class action settlement allowed victims the opportunity to make
claims while not having to relive their traumatic experiences in
court.

Many of Wilson's concerns about the USC deal, however, revolved
around aspects of the Dec. 1 amendments to the Federal Rule 23 of
Civil Procedure, which govern class action settlements. In his
order rejecting preliminary approval, the judge, who had not
certified the class, said there was not enough information to
provide adequate notices to class members.

"To be sure, the court takes no issue with the substantive terms of
settlement between plaintiffs and defendants, and the court
believes that the proposed settlement, as is, ultimately may be
fair and reasonable under the prevailing standards," he wrote.

But, he concluded, the settlement failed to provide enough detail
to certain class members about how much they would get. The
settlement offers three tiers of claims. All class members would be
Tier 1 claimants who could receive checks for $2,500 each. A
special master would review claims in Tier 2 and Tier 3, which
offer payouts of up to $250,000 but would require women to describe
their experiences and its impact on them. Tier 3 claims would
require the special master to work with a "team of experts,"
including a forensic psychologist, to interview the women.

Under the original settlement, lawyers had suggested appointing one
of two retired judges as special master: Judge Irma Gonzalez of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California or
Judge Irma Raker of the Maryland Court of Appeals, who was special
master in the $190 million class action settlement involving a
former gynecologist at John Hopkins University.

But the settlement also provides for "pro rata adjustments" to Tier
2 and Tier 3 claims, in the event that the $215 million fund is too
much or not enough -- something that Wilson said wasn't fully
explained to class members in the notice. That's even more
relevant, he wrote, because the settlement did not estimate how
many claimants could be in Tier 2 or Tier 3.

"If it is substantially likely that enough claimants may become
eligible for a Tier 3 claim that would easily exhaust the
settlement balance, the court would be concerned about class
members being misled into believing that their award will be higher
than their actual amount of compensation received, based on the
representations in the settlement agreement," he wrote.

Moreover, he wrote, having the special master decide the payment
amounts on her own also "invites the possibility of arbitrary
decision-making and inequitable treatment of class members for
non-meritorious reasons."

He suggested that the settlement instead have three individuals
deciding the settlement payouts for Tier 2 and Tier 3 claimants --
perhaps a special master, a gynecologist and a forensic
psychologist.

In the revised deal, Berman adopted the idea of a three-person
panel. He also clarified the average amount that each tier of
claimants could potentially get and how that would change under the
"pro rata adjustment." Estimating about 15,000 claimants, he
calculated that about $170 million of the settlement fund would pay
for the top two most expensive tiers.

Wilson also asked for more information on what changes USC would
make going forward to prevent future sexual abuse by staff—a
request that prompted lawyers in the revised settlement to cite
"sweeping reforms at USC and its health facilities."

Another concern of Wilson's based on the Rule 23 amendments was
that the settlement did not adequately address the risks of going
forward with the litigation based on the strength of plaintiffs'
claims and USC's defenses. For instance, Wilson wrote, what
information do plaintiffs' attorneys have that "would implicate USC
for having knowledge of Dr. Tyndall's wrongdoing?" He ordered
plaintiffs' attorneys to submit actual complaints against Tyndall
under seal.

And, if class members didn't participate, Wilson wrote, what risks
would they have in bringing a lawsuit on their own?

"Nowhere in the settlement documents is there a legitimate
assessment of what a potential class member might be able to
recover in an individual action, even in vague or broadly estimated
terms," he wrote.

In the revised settlement, Berman wrote that a jury's calculation
of damages, especially in cases involving emotional and
psychological trauma, were uncertain and that Tyndall has denied
that his practice "departed from the standard of care."

"All these women were harmed, and all are entitled to compensation,
but the reality is that a jury might not assign a high dollar value
to these claims, especially in an individual case," he wrote in a
renewed motion for preliminary settlement approval on May 17.

Manly and two other lawyers representing USC victims raised similar
concerns in separate court filings (although Wilson rejected the
objections outright as premature). In court documents, Manly called
the $2,500 minimum payout "grotesque" under the circumstances.

He told Law.com that, even though he had not yet seen the amended
version filed on Friday, he would likely opt out of the class
action settlement so that his clients could pursue their claims on
their own.

"If you represent survivors, and you understand the law, and care
about survivors, you don't file class cases like this," he said.
"The only ones who benefit are the class lawyers and the
institutions."

In the MSU case, the letter on May 16 said the 332 victims who
resolved their claims each received nearly $1.3 million based on a
$425 million fund in last year's settlement. But 168 victims
remain, of whom 110 haven't settled. Those victims stood to get
$410,000 each.

Such discrepancies, the letter said, are unfair.

"We just know it's not a sufficient amount of money, and we've been
asking MSU to come to the table to have that discussion, and they
refuse," Bonanni said.

When asked about the MSU settlement, Manly said he negotiated on
behalf of victims who had pending suits at the time, not future
claimants. The $75 million was MSU's arbitrary number, not a cap,
he said.

"Quite honestly, I think all of our clients hope that those women
are successful and that they get justice," he said. "If the state
of Michigan and MSU had any lick of sense, they would settle with
those women and pay them a fair amount and be done with it."[GN]


VCCHEF LLC: Diaz Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Retained Tips
-------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL A. DIAZ, on behalf of himself and the Class, Plaintiff, v.
VCCHEF LLC d/b/a Coarse NY, VAI UWS, LLC d/b/a Vai Restaurant, IC
FOOD & BEVERAGE LLC d/b/a Filament, and VINCENT CHIRICO,
Defendants, Case No. 154886/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., May
14, 2019) alleges that, pursuant to the New York Labor Law
("NYLL"), Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendants unpaid
minimum wages due to improper tip credit deductions, improper meal
credit deductions, unlawfully retained tips, liquidated damages and
statutory penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Throughout Plaintiff's employment by Defendants, Defendants failed
to provide proper wage and hour notice to Plaintiff as required
under the New York Labor Law. Specifically, Defendants failed to
provide proper wage statements informing Plaintiff and Tipped
Subclass members of the proper regular rate of pay or the amount of
tip credit taken for each payment period.

The Defendants also deducted invalid meal credits from Plaintiff's
and Class members' wages, in violation of the New York Labor Law,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff MIGUEL A. DIAZ was hired by Defendants and/or their
predecessors, as applicable, to work as a waiter at their Coarse NY
restaurant in or about May 2018.

VAI UWS, LLC d/b/a Vai Restaurant is a domestic limited liability
company organized under the laws of New York State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     C.K. Lee, Esq.
     Anne Seelig, Esq.
     LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
     148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
     New York, NY 10011
     Phone: (212) 465-1188
     Fax: (212) 465-1181


WASHINGTON: Chief of State Patrol Faces Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the Washington State
Patrol. The case is captioned as JOHN DOE 1 and JOHN DOE 2,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. JOHN R. BASTISTE, in his official capacity as Chief of
the Washington State Patrol; and GRETCHEN DOLAN, in her official
capacity as a Public Records Officer with the Risk Management
Division of the Washington State Patrol, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-05334-BHS (W.D. Wa., April 23, 2019). Judge Benjamin H.
Settle oversees the case.

The Washington State Patrol is the state police agency for the U.S.
state of Washington. Organized as the Washington State Highway
Patrol in 1921, it was renamed and reconstituted in 1933. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel B Ard, Esq.
          ARD LAW GROUP PLLC
          PO Box 11633
          Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
          Telephone: (206) 701-9243
          E-mail: Joel@ard.law

               - and-

          Brian W Barnes, Esq.
          David H Thompson, Esq.
          Nicole F Reaves, Esq.
          P Davis Cooper, Esq.
          Peter A Patterson, Esq.
          COOPER & KIRK PLLC
          1523 New Hampshire Ave NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 220-9600
          E-mail: bbarnes@cooperkirk.com
                  dthompson@cooperkirk.com
                  nreaves@cooperkirk.com
                  pdcooper@cooperkirk.com
                  ppatterson@cooperkirk.com

The Defendants are represented by:

         Shelley Anne Williams, Esq.
         WASHINGTON STATE ATTORNEY
         GENERAL'S OFFICE
         PO BOX 40124
         Olympia, WA 98504
         Telephone: (206) 389-3807
         Facsimile: (206) 587-5088
         E-mail: shelleyw1@atg.wa.gov


WILLIAMS & FUDGE: Siano Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW SIANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WILLIAMS & FUDGE, INC.; and STUDENT LOAN
SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00480-GLS-DEP
(N.D.N.Y., April 23, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to
Senior Judge Gary L. Sharpe and referred to Magistrate Judge David
E. Peebles.

Williams & Fudge, Inc. provides financial services. The Company
offers tuition, institutional, health profession, nursing, private
education loans, and other miscellaneous receivables. Williams &
Fudge operates in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
          OFFICE OF MITCHELL L. PASHKIN
          775 Park Avenue, Suite 255
          Huntington, NY
          Telephone: (631) 629-7709
          Facsimile: (631) 824-9328
          E-mail: mpash@verizon.net



                            *********

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 ***