CAR_Public/190529.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, May 29, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 107

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Hughes Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
3M COMPANY: Jacobs Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
3M COMPANY: Niemczyk Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
3M COMPANY: Norman Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
3M COMPANY: Robinson Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs

ABSOLUTE CONSULTING: Joyce Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
AMPLIPHI BIOSCIENCES: Plumley Sues over Merger Transaction
B&A TOWING: Estrada Suit Alleges Calif. Labor Code Violations
BANK OF AMERICA: Simmons Sues over Autodialled Calls
BEKY BAKERY: Vasco Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages

BUTCHERBOX LLC: Johnson Sues Over Automatic Service Renewal
CAMPANIA FELIX: Oropeza Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
CENTER FOR AUTISM: Andreola Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CHINA FINANCE: Final Judgement in Wang Class Suit Entered
CLUTCH LANDSCAPING: Fails to pay Overtime Wages, Gonzalez Suit Says

COMCAST CABLE: Wainblat Sues over Privacy Rights Issue
CR ENGLAND: Porche Suit Transferred to C.D. Calif.
CRYOGENIC TRANSPORTATION: Forrest Suit Removed to C.D. California
CUBESMART: Settlement Wins Preliminarily Approval
CVS HEALTH: Bewley and Prescott Class Suits Voluntarily Dismissed

CVS HEALTH: Faces Anarkat and Labourers' Pension Fund Suits in NY
CVS HEALTH: Klein Suit Consolidated with In re EpiPen ERISA Suit
CVS HEALTH: Still Defends Corcoran and Podgorny Complaints
DEEP WELL ENERGY: Sosa et al. Seek OT Pay for Welders and Helpers
EAGLE CARPET: Sanchez Seeks Overtime Premium Pay

ENTERPRISE RESTORATION: Castellano Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
EPIC GAMES: Paulino Suit Transferred to Central Dist. of California
ESHAI CORP: Shanklin Suit Transferred to E.D. Pa.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Carrington Sues Over Illegal Fund Transfers
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Patterson Class Action Still Ongoing

HHB HOLDINGS: Esposito Files Suit Over Unlawful Telemarketing Calls
IKEA US RETAIL: Burrell Files Consumer Credit Suit in S.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: C. Johnson Talc Injury Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Gwynne Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hafner Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hall Talc Injury Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hansen Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Happersett Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Harris Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hasting Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Holmes Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hutchinson Talc Injury Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Jerricks Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Johnson Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Mislabels Benecol Spreads, Chamlin Claims

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Hardiman Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Harrison Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Haworth Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Houston Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Howard Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Huntley Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Husman Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Johnson Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Cook Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Croft Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Echols Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Guynes Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Haase Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Hair Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Haney Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Hardesty Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Hargrove Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Hatanaka Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Hauck Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Hough Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Howard Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Joffroy Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Johnson Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal.
K&N ENGINEERING: Minn. Court Allows J. Penrod to Amend Class Suit
KOHN LAW FIRM: Poindexter Sues over Debt Collection Policy

KOPPERS INC: Arkansas High Court Flips Class Certification Order
KRAFT HEINZ: Timber Hill Sues over Inflated Stock Price
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Faces Beyers Suit in S.D. Indiana
LOANME INC: Tbiaa Sues over Credit Background Checks
LOCAL ADVANTAGE: Reasonover Sues over Automated Calls

LYFT INC: Malig Files Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
MAYO CLINIC: Kuhr Sues over Debt Collection Practices
MEDSPA DEL MAR: Mazzariol Suit Moved From S.D. to M.D. Florida
MERCHANTS & MEDICAL: Romonoyske Suit Removed to E.D. New York
MIDLAND CREDIT: Galino FDCPA Suit Removed to E.D. New York

MONSANTO CO: Accused by Bahl Suit of Selling Defective Herbicide
MONSANTO CO: Bailey Seeks Damages Over Roundup(R) Exposure
MONSANTO CO: Choate Sues Over Injuries From Roundup(R) Exposure
MONSANTO CO: Dedrick Sues for Injuries From Use of Roundup(R)
MONSANTO CO: Faces Carpenter Suit for Damages Over Roundup(R)

MONSANTO COMPANY: Hampton Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Rotramel Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Sanders Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Schafer Suit Moved to N.D. California
MONSANTO COMPANY: Serna Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Shultz Suit Moved to N.D. California
MOTT'S LLP: Dalton Files Fraud Class Suit in E.D. New York
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Settlement in Jordan Suit Has Final Okay
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Kohanski Sues over Debt Collection Practices
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Hunter Sues Over Erroneous Collection Calls

NEW YORK: Subway Renovations Violate ADA, Forsee Suit Asserts
NIGHTSTAR THERAPEUTICS: Wheby Sues over Biogen Merger
O'RYAN OIL: Johnson Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
QUIK PICK: Truck Driver Seeks Unpaid Wages, Penalties
RED ROBIN: Frisby Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation

RESTAURANT DEPOT: Goodman Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
SIX STAR: Silva Seeks OT Pay, Reimbursement of Expenses
SOFIA RISTORANTE: Sinchi Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SOUTH CITY GAS: Faces Saravia et al. Labor Suit in Calif.
SPECTRUM BRANDS: SEC Disclosures Misleading, Pension Fund Claims

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Woek Seeks Minimum Wage, Overtime Pay
TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Cox Seeks Minimum Pay for Waitstaff
TJX COMPANIES: Schuchard Sues over Background Checks
TOTAL SYSTEM: Telexfree Securities Suit Underway
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Broom Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Does not Pay Drivers Promised Rates, Says Suit
UNION CITY HOTEL: Vinalay Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay
UTGR INC: Ramer, Morales Seek OT Premium Pay
VISA INC: Bid to Dismiss Injunctive Relief Class Suit Pending
WABCO HOLDINGS: Class Suits over ZF Friedrichshafen Merger Filed

WELLCARE HEALTH: Kent Seeks to Halt Centene Merger Deal
WELLCARE OF FLORIDA: Violates Wage and Hour Laws, Harrison Says

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Hughes Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, TODD HUGHES, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, AEARO
HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE, LLC AEARO, LLC and AEARO
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-01045-SCB-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: Jacobs Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, BRYAN JACOBS, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, AEARO
HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE, LLC AEARO, LLC and AEARO
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-01042 (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: Niemczyk Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, THOMAS NIEMCZYK, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, AEARO
HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE, LLC AEARO, LLC and AEARO
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-01266-MCR-HTC
(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: Norman Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, KENDALL NORMAN, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, AEARO
HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE, LLC AEARO, LLC and AEARO
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-00820 (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


3M COMPANY: Robinson Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JEREMIAH ROBINSON, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, AEARO
HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE, LLC AEARO, LLC and AEARO
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-01041 (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


ABSOLUTE CONSULTING: Joyce Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Michael Joyce, individually and for others similarly situated v.
Absolute Consulting, Inc., and GSE Systems, Inc., Case No.
1:19-cv-00868 (D. Md., March 22, 2019), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the FLSA by
failing to pay overtime wages.

The Plaintiff was an hourly employee of the Defendants from
November 2016 to end of May 2018.

The Defendant GSE bills itself as a total solutions provider for
the energy industry including nuclear power plants, refinery
plants, and fossil power plants. Among other things, it provides
engineering, consulting, and staffing services to its clients.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
       Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
       Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
       JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
       11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
       Houston, TX 77046
       Tel: (713) 352-1100
       Fax: (713) 352-3300
       E-mail: tjones@mybackwages.com
               mjosephson@mybackwages.com
               adunlap@mybackwages.com


AMPLIPHI BIOSCIENCES: Plumley Sues over Merger Transaction
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against AmpliPhi
Biosciences Corporation and its Board of Directors for violation of
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. The case is captioned
PATRICK PLUMLEY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. AMPLIPHI BIOSCIENCES CORPORATION, JEREMY
CURNOCK COOK, LOUIS DRAPEAU, PAUL GRINT, WENDY JOHNSON, MICHAEL
PERRY, and VIJAY SAMANT, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00617 (W.D.
Wash., April 25, 2019).

This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on Jan. 4,
2019, pursuant to which AmpliPhi Biosciences will be acquired by
C3J Therapeutics, Inc. and Ceres Merger Sub, Inc. Plaintiff Patrick
Plumley alleges that the proxy statement filed by the Defendants on
April 4, 2019 omits material information with respect to the
proposed merger transaction. The proxy statement allegedly failed
to disclose AmpliPhi's financial projections and the analyses
performed by the AmpliPhi's financial advisor in connection with
the proposed merger transaction, Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. Inc.

AmpliPhi is a clinical-stage biotechnology company focused on
precisely targeted bacteriophage therapeutics for
antibiotic-resistant infections using its proprietary
bacteriophage-based technology. AmpliPhi is a Washington
corporation and maintains its principal executive offices at 3579
Valley Centre Drive, Suite 100, San Diego, California. AmpliPhi's
common stock is traded on the NYSE American under the ticker symbol
APHB. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roger Townsend, Esq.
     BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND, PLLC
     1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3670
     Seattle, WA 98104
     Telephone: (206) 652-8660
     Facsimile: (206) 652-8290
     E-mail: rtownsend@bjtlegal.com


B&A TOWING: Estrada Suit Alleges Calif. Labor Code Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Carmelo Estrada, Jr., on behalf of himself, and all others
similarly situated v. B&A Towing, Inc. and Does 1 through 50
inclusive, Case No. 19STCV09675 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
March 22, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for violations
of the California Labor Code.

The lawsuit stem from the Defendant's failure to provide
duty-free/uninterrupted meal and rest periods; indemnify Plaintiff
and other similarly situated for the reasonable expenses incurred
during the course of performing their duties, pay all wages earned
for all hours worked at the correct rates of pay, provide accurate
written wage statements, and timely pay final wages upon
termination of employment.

The Plaintiff is a California resident who worked as a tow truck
driver in Los Angeles and San Diego Counties for the Defendants,
from October 17, 2016 to June 26, 2018.

The Defendant B&A Towing is a California towing company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David G. Spivak, Esq.
      Stephanie Greenberg, Esq.
      THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
      16530 Ventura Blvd., Ste 203
      Encino, CA 91436
      Tel: (818) 582-3086
      Fax: (818) 582-2561
      E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com
              stephanie@spivaklaw.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Simmons Sues over Autodialled Calls
----------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Bank of America
Corporation for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act. The case is captioned CHARLES SIMMONS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF
AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00478 (M.D. Fla.,
April 26, 2019).

Plaintiff Charles Simmons brings 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; stop Defendant's
practice of placing calls using an artificial or prerecorded voice
to the cellular and landline telephones of consumers nationwide
without their prior express written consent; 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
obtain redress for all persons injured by BofA's conduct.

Based in Charlotte, North Carolina, Bank of America Corporation is
an American multinational investment bank and financial services
company. Its primary financial services are commercial banking,
wealth management, and investment banking. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
     BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
     2665 S. Bayshore Dr. Ste. 220
     Miami, FL 33133-5402
     Telephone: (305) 330-5512
     Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
     E-mail: scott@bursor.com


BEKY BAKERY: Vasco Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
NANCY VASCO, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. BEKY BAKERY & COFFEE SHOP CORP., TRINIDAD
GONZALEZ NIEVES, and JUANA ROBERTA SANCHEZ, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-02534 (E.D.N.Y., April 30, 2019), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.

The Defendants employed the Plaintiff to work at the Restaurant as
a non-exempt cashier, server/waitress, baker, porter, and car valet
from in or about 2003 until on or about April 29, 2019. The work
performed by the Plaintiff was directly essential to the business
operated by Defendants.

The Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff
her lawfully earned minimum wages in direct contravention of the
FLSA and New York Labor Law, the lawsuit says.

The Defendant owns and operates a bakery and restaurant doing
business as "Beky Bakery & Coffee Shop".[BN]

Attorneys for the the Plaintiff:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          10 Grand Central
          155 East 44 111 Street, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
          E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com

BUTCHERBOX LLC: Johnson Sues Over Automatic Service Renewal
-----------------------------------------------------------
KYLE JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BUTCHERBOX, LLC, a Massachusetts limited
liability company; and DOES 1 - 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00876-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal., May 15, 2019) is a class action on
behalf of Plaintiff and a class of others similarly situated
consisting of all persons in California who, within the applicable
statute of limitations period up to and including the date of
judgment in this action, purchased subscriptions for products (such
as beef and related food products) from Defendant claiming for
damages, restitution, injunctive and/or other equitable relief, and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs arising under California
Business and Professions Code.

The complaint asserts that the Defendant made automatic renewal or
continuous service offers to consumers in California and failed to
provide an acknowledgment that includes the automatic renewal or
continuous service offer terms, cancellation policy, and
information regarding how to cancel in a manner that is capable of
being retained by the consumer in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof.
Code.

Plaintiff purchased a subscription plan from Defendant in
California during the Class Period.

Defendant operates a website which markets beef and related food
products and has made, and continues to make, automatic renewal or
continuous service offers to consumers in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
     PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS, APC
     A Professional Corporation
     4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
     Newport Beach, CA 92660
     Phone: (949) 706-6464
     Fax: (949) 706-6469
     Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com


CAMPANIA FELIX: Oropeza Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO GUZMAN OROPEZA, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CAMPANIA FELIX LLC (D/B/A SAN
MATTEO PIZZERIA E CUCINA), FABIO CASELLA, and RAFAEL DOE,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04430 (S.D. N.Y., May 15, 2019) seeks
unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y.
Labor Law (the "NYLL"), and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage
orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor (herein the "Spread of
Hours Wage Order"), including applicable liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

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

Defendants own, operate, or control a pizzeria, located at 1559
Second Avenue, New York, New York 10028 under the name "San Matteo
Pizzeria e Cucina". Plaintiff Guzman was employed as a delivery
worker at the restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CENTER FOR AUTISM: Andreola Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CENTER FOR AUTISM AND
RELATED DISORDERS. The case is styled as BRANDI ANDREOLA, ON BEHALF
OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. CENTER
FOR AUTISM AND RELATED DISORDERS, LLC A CALIFORNIA LIMITED
LIABILITY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. BCV-19-101364 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Kern Cty., May 17, 2019).

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

The Center for Autism and Related Disorders (CARD) is among the
world's largest and most experienced autism treatment providers and
the third largest non-governmental organization in the United
States contributing to autism research.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by JAMES R HAWKINS, ESQ.



CHINA FINANCE: Final Judgement in Wang Class Suit Entered
---------------------------------------------------------
China Finance Online Co. said in its Form 20-F report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the Company has
received the final judgment as anticipated in the putative
securities class action, Wang, et al., v. China Finance Online Co.
Limited, 1:15-cv-07894-RMB.

The original complaint was filed on June 5, 2015 in the Central
District of California.  The case was subsequently consolidated
with several other similar actions and transferred to the Southern
District of New York, where an amended consolidated complaint was
filed in December 2015. The amended consolidated complaint alleged
that the Company violated Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5
by failing to disclose certain of its transactions involving
Langfang Shengshi Real Estate Development Co. Limited as related
party transactions.

The amended consolidated complaint also made claims under Exchange
Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 against certain of the Company's
current officers and its current and former auditors and under
Exchange Act Section 20(a) against certain of its current officers
and former directors.

Lead plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed (without
prejudice) all defendants other than the Company from the action.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on April 8,
2016, to which plaintiffs filed an opposition on May 6, 2016 and
the Company filed a reply on May 13, 2016.

During a mediation session in May 2016, the parties agreed to
settle the action for $3.0 million. The settlement was
preliminarily approved on November 18, 2016 and notice of the
settlement was provided to putative class members. No class members
objected to the settlement and none requested exclusion.

The settlement includes a release of all claims asserted in the
Complaint (or any of the previous versions of the complaint) or all
claims that could have been asserted based on the same operative
facts at issue in the Complaint. This release applies not only as
to the Company, but also as to individuals and entities included
within the definition of "Releasees", which definition includes,
among others, current and former officers and directors of the
Company.

Following a fairness hearing on March 21, 2017, an order was
entered on March 24, 2017 approving the settlement. The order
reflects that a judgment in the action will be entered after lead
plaintiffs file their motion for final distribution of the
settlement amount. On June 23, 2017, the court granted the lead
plaintiffs' motion for a first distribution of the settlement
amount, less attorneys' fees and expenses.

On June 28, 2017, lead plaintiffs informed the court checks
representing the net settlement amount were mailed to class
members. On April 18, 2018, lead plaintiffs informed the court that
checks representing all but $2,759.76 of the net settlement amount
had been cashed, requested that the court authorize a second and
final distribution for the remaining amount, and requested that the
court enter the judgment. The court has not yet responded to this
request.

On August 10, 2018, the Company received the final judgment as
anticipated by the settlement approval order and there are no
appeals within 30 days after the judgment is entered.

China Finance Online Co. Limited provides Web-based financial
services in the People's Republic of China and Hong Kong. The
company operates through three segments: Commodities Brokerage
Services; Online Financial Information and Advisory Service, and
Other Related Services; and Hong Kong Brokerage Services. The
company was incorporated in 1998 and is based in Beijing, the
People's Republic of China.


CLUTCH LANDSCAPING: Fails to pay Overtime Wages, Gonzalez Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL GONZALEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CLUTCH LANDSCAPING & MAINTENANCE INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01094-DAP (N.D. Ohio, May 15, 2019) is
a "collective action" instituted by Plaintiff as a result of
Defendant's practices and policies of not paying its non-exempt
laborers, including Plaintiff, overtime compensation at the rate of
one and one half times their regular rates of pay for the hours
they worked over 40 each workweek, in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), as well as a "class action" to remedy
violations of the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("OMFWSA").

Plaintiff and other similarly-situated laborers worked more than 40
hours per week, but Defendant failed to pay them overtime
compensation for the hours they worked over 40 each workweek, says
the complaint. Rather than paying overtime compensation, Plaintiff
and other similarly-situated laborers were only paid straight time
for some of the hours they worked over 40 each workweek, in cash,
rather than through a payroll check.

Plaintiff Daniel Gonzalez was employed by Defendant as a laborer
between approximately 2016 and April 2019.

Defendant is a landscaping and snowplowing business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
     Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
     Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
     The Lazzaro Law Firm, LLC
     920 Rockefeller Building
     614 W. Superior Avenue
     Cleveland, OH 44113
     Phone: 216-696-5000
     Facsimile: 216-696-7005
     Email: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
            chastity@lazzarolawfirm.co


COMCAST CABLE: Wainblat Sues over Privacy Rights Issue
------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Comcast Cable
Communications, LLC for violations of the Cable Communications
Policy Act of 1984 and the Massachusetts General Laws. The case is
captioned Robert Wainblat, for himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; and Does 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-10976-FDS (D. Mass., April 25, 2019).

Plaintiff Robert Wainblat alleges that Comcast systematically
violates cable television subscribers' federal statutory privacy
rights, and Massachusetts' consumer protection laws, by gathering,
maintaining, and using consumers' private video viewing data
without consent.

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company with its principal place of business in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. Comcast offers and sells its services and products to
Massachusetts residents. Subscribers pay Comcast a monthly fee
based on the services and products obtained. Comcast owns or leases
property in Massachusetts and has numerous employees located in the
State. Comcast operates 315 storefronts throughout Massachusetts.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Charles F. Ahern III, Esq.
     Kenneth A. Newberg, Esq.
     CORWIN & CORWIN, LLP
     600 Unicorn Park Drive
     Woburn, MA 01801
     Telephone: (617) 742-3420
     Facsimile: (617) 742-2331
     E-mail: cahern@corwinlaw.com
             knewberg@corwinlaw.com


CR ENGLAND: Porche Suit Transferred to C.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------
The case, DANIEL PORCHE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. C.R. ENGLAND, INC., and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CIVDS1904856 (Filed on
Feb. 13, 2019, was transferred from Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Bernardino to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California. The removal are
deemed proper because the diversity of citizenship requirement is
satisfied and because the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or
value $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. The United States
District Court for the Central District of California assigned Case
No. 5:19-cv-00785 to the proceeding.

In the complaint, Plaintiff Daniel Porche alleges that C.R.
England, Inc. has violated the California Labor Code Section 925 by
requiring him and other drivers to execute an agreement to
arbitrate which provides that Utah law shall apply.

Founded in 1920, C.R. England, Inc. is an American family-owned
trucking company that offers temperature-controlled transportation
services throughout North America. [BN]

Attorneys for the Defendant:

     Drew R. Hansen, Esq.
     Seth M. Goldstein, Esq.
     NOSSAMAN LLP
     18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1800
     Irvine, CA 92612
     Telephone: (949) 833-7800
     Facsimile: (949) 833-7878
     E-mail: dhansen@nossaman.com
             sgoldstein@nossaman.com


CRYOGENIC TRANSPORTATION: Forrest Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned JOSEPH E. FORREST, an individual, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CRYOGENIC
TRANSPORTATION LLC; THE KENAN ADVANTAGE GROUP, INC., and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. RIC1826520 was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the
County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on May 15, 2019, and assigned Case
No. 5:19-cv-00911.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to comply with Industrial
Welfare Commission ("IWC")  by failing to provide itemized wage
statements to Plaintiff and the Proposed Wage Statement Class
accurately showing all applicable hourly rates in effect during the
pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each
hourly rate by the employee. Plaintiff seeks for himself, and for
an alleged putative class of current and former truck drivers,
compensatory damages in the form of alleged meal and rest period
penalties, unreimbursed expenses, penalties for accurate itemized
wage statements, other penalties, injunctive and other equitable
relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and interest
thereon.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     KATHERINE HUIBONHOA, ESQ.
     STEPHEN YANG, ESQ.
     CURLEY, HURTGEN & JOHNSRUD LLP
     4400 Bohannon Drive, Suite 230
     Menlo Park, CA 94025
     Phone: 650.600.5300
     Facsimile: 650.323.1002
     Email: khuibonhoa@chjllp.com
            syang@chjllp.com


CUBESMART: Settlement Wins Preliminarily Approval
-------------------------------------------------
CubeSmart said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019, that the settlement agreement in a class
action suit has been preliminarily approved.

On January 11, 2019, a settlement agreement was entered into for a
class action alleging violation of a state specific deceptive and
unfair trade practices act.

During the year ended December 31, 2018, the Company recorded a
$1.8 million charge related to this legal action, which is included
in Accounts payable, accrued expenses and other liabilities on the
Company's consolidated balance sheets and in General and
administrative on the Company's consolidated statements of
operations.

The settlement agreement was preliminarily approved on April 3,
2019.

CubeSmart is a self-administered and self-managed real estate
investment trust. The Company's self-storage properties are
designed to offer affordable, easily accessible and secure storage
space for residential and commercial customers. According to the
2019 Self-Storage Almanac, CubeSmart is one of the top three owners
and operators of self-storage properties in the United States.


CVS HEALTH: Bewley and Prescott Class Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation 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 named plaintiffs in
both the Bewley and Prescott cases have voluntarily dismissed all
of their claims without prejudice, ending both cases.

Bewley, et al. v. CVS Health Corporation, et al. and Prescott, et
al. v. CVS Health Corporation, et al. (both pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington), were filed
against the Company and other PBMs and manufacturers of glucagon
kits (Bewley) and diabetes test strips (Prescott) in May 2017.

Both cases allege that, by contracting for rebates with the
manufacturers of these diabetes products, the Company and other
PBMs caused list prices for these products to increase, thereby
harming certain consumers. The plaintiffs’ primary claims are
made under federal antitrust laws, RICO, state unfair competition
and consumer protection laws and the federal Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").

Both of these cases have been transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey on defendants' motions.

In April 2019, the named plaintiffs in both the Bewley and Prescott
cases voluntarily dismissed all of their claims without prejudice,
ending both cases.

CVS Health Corporation provides health services and plans in the
United States. The company was formerly known as CVS Caremark
Corporation and changed its name to CVS Health Corporation in
September 2014. CVS Health Corporation was founded in 1963 and is
headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.


CVS HEALTH: Faces Anarkat and Labourers' Pension Fund Suits in NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation 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 two putative class action suits entitled, Anarkat v. CVS
Health Corp., et al. and Labourers' Pension Fund of Central and
Eastern Canada v. CVS Health Corp., et al.

In February and March 2019, two putative class action complaints
were filed by putative plaintiffs against the Company and certain
of its current and former officers. Anarkat v. CVS Health Corp., et
al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, and Labourers' Pension Fund of Central and Eastern
Canada v. CVS Health Corp., et al., was filed in the Supreme Court
of the State of New York, County of New York.

The plaintiffs in these cases assert a variety of causes of action
under federal securities laws that are premised on allegations that
the defendants made certain omissions and misrepresentations
relating to the performance of the Company's LTC business unit,
which allegedly injured investors who acquired CVS Health
securities between May 21, 2015 and February 20, 2019.

The Company is defending itself against these claims.

CVS Health Corporation provides health services and plans in the
United States. The company was formerly known as CVS Caremark
Corporation and changed its name to CVS Health Corporation in
September 2014. CVS Health Corporation was founded in 1963 and is
headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.


CVS HEALTH: Klein Suit Consolidated with In re EpiPen ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation 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 class action suit
entitled, Klein, et al. v. Prime Therapeutics, et al. (U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota), has been
consolidated and is now proceeding as In re EpiPen ERISA
Litigation.

This putative class action was filed against the Company and other
PBMs in June 2017 on behalf of ERISA plan members who purchased and
paid for EpiPen or EpiPen Jr. Plaintiffs allege that the PBMs are
ERISA fiduciaries to plan members and have violated ERISA by
allegedly causing higher inflated prices for EpiPens through the
process of negotiating increased rebates from EpiPen manufacturer
Mylan.

This case has been consolidated with a similar matter and is now
proceeding as In re EpiPen ERISA Litigation.

The Company is defending itself against these claims.

CVS Health Corporation provides health services and plans in the
United States. The company was formerly known as CVS Caremark
Corporation and changed its name to CVS Health Corporation in
September 2014. CVS Health Corporation was founded in 1963 and is
headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.


CVS HEALTH: Still Defends Corcoran and Podgorny Complaints
----------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation 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 that the company
continues to defend against the cases, Corcoran et al. v. CVS
Health Corporation (U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California) and Podgorny et al. v. CVS Health Corporation (U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois), which have
consolidated.

These putative class actions were filed against the Company in July
and September 2015. The cases were consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief under the consumer
protection statutes and common laws of certain states on behalf of
a class of consumers who purchased certain prescription drugs.

Several third-party payors filed similar putative class actions on
behalf of payors captioned Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 20 Welfare
and Benefit Fund v. CVS Health Corp. and Plumbers Welfare Fund,
Local 130 v. CVS Health Corporation (both pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Rhode Island) in February and
August 2016.

In all of these cases the plaintiffs allege the Company overcharged
for certain prescription drugs by not submitting the price
available to members of the CVS Health Savings Pass program as the
pharmacy’s usual and customary price.

In the Corcoran case, the U.S. District Court granted summary
judgment to CVS on plaintiffs' claims in their entirety and
certified certain subclasses in September 2017. The Corcoran
plaintiffs have appealed the District Court's decision to the Ninth
Circuit.

The Sheet Metal Workers plaintiffs have amended their complaint to
assert a claim under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO") premised on an alleged conspiracy
between the Company and other PBMs.

The Company is defending itself against these claims.

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

CVS Health Corporation provides health services and plans in the
United States. The company was formerly known as CVS Caremark
Corporation and changed its name to CVS Health Corporation in
September 2014. CVS Health Corporation was founded in 1963 and is
headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.


DEEP WELL ENERGY: Sosa et al. Seek OT Pay for Welders and Helpers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Deep Well Energy
Services, LLC, Camino Agave Inc., and/or Embark Holdings, LTD for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The case is
captioned JACOB SOSA and AUSTIN BUTLER, et al., Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, DEEP WELL
ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, CAMINO AGAVE, INC., and EMBARK HOLDINGS, LTD,
Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00428 (W.D. Tex., April 25, 2019).

Plaintiffs Jacob Sosa and Austin Butler allege that the Defendants
misclassified them and other workers, including welders and
welder's helpers, as independent contractors to avoid paying
employment taxes, workers' compensation insurance, benefits and
overtime. Defendants allegedly failed to pay overtime compensation
at a rate of one-and-a-half times the appropriate regular rate. In
further violation of the FLSA, Defendants failed to maintain
accurate employee pay records, including the number of hours worked
per workweek by Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees.

Deep Well Energy Services, LLC is a foreign limited liability
company with its principal place of business Waynesboro,
Mississippi. As an oilfield services company, Deep Well Energy
Services specializes in rig moving, oilfield production and
construction services, pipeline or long hauling services. Deep Well
has field offices in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, Texas, and West Virginia. Deep Well typically has
welding crews running at any given time, each employing 8 workers
per crew. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


EAGLE CARPET: Sanchez Seeks Overtime Premium Pay
------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
Eagle Carpet Restoration, Inc. for violation of the overtime
provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The case is
captioned WALTER S. SANCHEZ and other similarly-situated
individuals, Plaintiff(s), v. EAGLE CARPET RESTORATION, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-21577-BB (S.D. Fla., April 25, 2019).
Plaintiff Walter S. Sanchez seeks to recover overtime hours at the
rate of time and a half his regular rate, for every hour in excess
of 40 that he worked in every week period, liquidated damages, and
any other relief as allowable by law.

Eagle Carpet Restoration is a company specialized in providing
carpet cleaning, carpet restorations, janitorial and maintenance
services to commercial accounts. The company has place of business
at 3389 Sheridan Street #186, Hollywood, Florida but performed
business in Miami-Dade County. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ENTERPRISE RESTORATION: Castellano Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Castellano, Marlene Castellano Delgado and Rene Rodriguez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. John W. Adams, III, CEO/PRESIDENT, ENTERPRISE
RESTORATION SERVICES, L.L.C., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-10424
(E.D. La., May 15, 2019) is a collective action brought by
Plaintiffs seeking unpaid overtime compensation and other relief
allowed by law for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, (the
"FLSA").

The Defendant employs individuals for various types of restoration
work and pays those individuals on an hourly basis. Plaintiffs and
all others similarly situated work or worked for Defendants as
manual laborers and have routinely worked more than 40 hours per
workweek without being paid an overtime rate of one and one-half
times their regular hourly rate of pay for hours worked in excess
of 40 hours per workweek, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs have worked for Defendants as manual laborers on various
restoration projects both inside and outside of the state of
Louisiana.

Enterprise Restoration provides a variety of services to its
clients in the state of Louisiana and nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Cesar R. Burgos, Esq.
     Robert J. Daigre, Esq.
     Gabriel O Mondino, Esq.
     George McGregor, Esq.
     BURGOS & ASSOCIATES, L.L.C.
     3535 Canal Street, Suite 200
     New Orleans, LA 70119-6135
     Phone: (504) 488-3722
     Facsimile: (504) 482-8525


EPIC GAMES: Paulino Suit Transferred to Central Dist. of California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JOAN CATHERYN PAULINO, an individual, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
MARSHALLS OF CA, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00099, was transferred from the the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Western
Division - Los Angeles) on April 30, 2019. The Central District of
California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03618-MWF-E to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Michael W.
Fitzgerald.

The complaint targets Defendant's failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to furnish timely and
accurate wage statements, and violation of California's Unfair
Competition Act.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Graham Lambert, Esq.
          Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
          HAFFNER LAW PC
          445 South Figueroa Street Suite 2625
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 514-5681
          Facsimile: (213) 514-5682
          E-mail: gl@haffnerlawyers.com
                  jhh@haffnerlawyers.com

Attorneys for the Defendant:

          Julie A. Dunne, Esq.
          Amy Todd-Gher, Esq.
          Matthew B. Riley, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          501 W. Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101.3577
          Telephone: 619 232 0441
          Facsimile: 619 232 4302
          E-mail: jdunne@littler.com
                  atodd-gher@littler.com
                  mriley@littler.com

ESHAI CORP: Shanklin Suit Transferred to E.D. Pa.
-------------------------------------------------
The case, William Shanklin v. Eshai Corporation d/b/a Courier
Distribution Systems and Courier Distribution Systems, LLC, Case
No. 1903-03034 (Filed on March 25, 2019), was transferred from the
Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, Civil
Division, to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on April 26, 2019. The removal was based
on the grounds that the federal court has subject matter
jurisdiction by way of diversity jurisdiction over Plaintiff's
claims. In addition, there is complete diversity of citizenship
between Plaintiff and Defendants and the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000. In this complaint, Plaintiff William Shanklin
asserts claims for unpaid overtime wages under the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act.

Eshai is a Wisconsin corporation, with its headquarters and
principal place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia. Courier
Distribution Systems is a Georgia limited liability company with
its headquarters and principal place of business located in
Atlanta, Georgia. It is a single member limited liability company
that is wholly-owned by Eshai. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrea M. Kirshenbaum, Esq.
     POST & SCHELL, P.C.
     Four Penn Center
     1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, 14th Floor
     Philadelphia, PA 19103-2808
     Telephone: (215) 587-1126
     Facsimile: (215) 320-4711
     E-mail: akirshenbaum@postschell.com


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Carrington Sues Over Illegal Fund Transfers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS CARRINGTON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS
INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00398 (W.D. Wis., May 15, 2019)
seeks redress for collection practices that violate the Electronic
Funds Transfer Act (the "EFTA"), the Wisconsin Consumer Act (the
"WCA"), the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act (the "WDTPA"),
and common law principles of contract law.

According to the complaint, every month, Experian continues to
initiate electronic funds transfer in the amount of $26.99 from
Plaintiff's account. At some point prior to August of 2018,
Plaintiff noticed the charges had been deducted from his checking
account with U.S. Bank by "Experian."

Plaintiff does not recall authorizing the electronic funds
transfers or entering into any agreement with Experian for goods or
services in exchange for the funds subject to the electronic funds
transfers. In the event Plaintiff did enter into such agreement,
such agreement would be subject to the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing. In attempt to cancel the services
associated with such electronic funds transfers, Plaintiff called
the toll free number for Experian, and reached a telephone
recording which explained that in order to cancel the payments, he
needed to send a written letter with details including his driver's
license, social security number, and address.

On September 30, 2018, and for several months thereafter, again
notwithstanding Plaintiff's attempts to contact Defendant both
orally and in writing to cancel the automated electronic funds
transfers from his account, Defendant initiated another electronic
funds transfer in the amount of $26.99 from Plaintiff's account,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff Dennis Carrington is an individual who resides in the
Eastern District of Wisconsin (Milwaukee County).

Experian Information Solutions, Inc. ("Experian") provides
information, analytical, and marketing services to organizations
and consumers to manage risk and reward of commercial and financial
decisions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert K. O'Reilly, Esq.
     Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
     Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
     Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
     ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
     3620 East Layton Avenue
     Cudahy, WI 53110
     Phone: (414) 482-8000

     Fax: (414) 482-8001
     Email: roreilly@ademilaw.com
            meldridge@ademilaw.com
            jfruchter@ademilaw.com
            bslatky@ademilaw.com

FIDELITY NATIONAL: Patterson Class Action Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26,
2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the
company continues to defend a class action suit entitled,
Patterson, et al. v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, et
al.

In a class action captioned Patterson, et al. v. Fidelity National
Title Insurance Company, et al., Case No. GD 03-021176, originally
filed on October 27, 2003 and pending in the Court of Common Pleas
of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, plaintiffs allege the named
Company underwriters violated Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices
and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL") by failing to provide
premium discounts in accordance with filed rates in refinancing
transactions.

Contrary to rulings in similar federal court cases that considered
the rate rule and agreed with the Company's position, the court
held that the rate rule should be interpreted such that an
institutional mortgage in the public record is a "proxy" for prior
title insurance entitling a consumer to a discount rate when
refinancing when there is a mortgage of record within the number of
years required by the rate rule.

The rate rule requires sufficient evidence of a prior policy, and
because not all institutional mortgages were insured, the Company's
position is that a recorded first mortgage alone does not
constitute sufficient evidence of an earlier policy entitling
consumers to a discounted rate.

The court certified the class refusing to follow prior Pennsylvania
Supreme Court and appellate court decisions holding that the UTPCPL
requires proof of reliance, an individual issue which precludes
certification. After notice to the class, plaintiffs moved for
partial summary judgment on liability, and defendants moved for
summary judgment.

On June 27, 2018, the court entered an order granting plaintiffs'
motion for partial summary judgment on liability, and denying the
Company's motion finding that the Company failed to advise its
agents on how to interpret the rate rule so that it would be
uniformly applied, thereby having engaged in "deceptive conduct."

The Company plans to seek an interlocutory appeal of the summary
judgment order. The court approved the parties' stipulation in
which they agreed that before interlocutory review is appropriate,
the court will first determine which party should bear the burden
of ascertaining the class and calculating damages, and determine
whether the damages should be trebled.

Following briefing and oral argument on these issues, the court
held that a multiplier of 1.5, not treble, should be applied to the
amount of damages, if any, proven by class members at trial. The
court also held that plaintiffs should bear the responsibility of
identifying class members and calculating damages. The
interlocutory appeal of the summary judgment order will now
proceed.

Fidelity National said, "There has been no determination as to the
size of the class. It is unknown whether plaintiffs will seek
statutory or actual damages, whether the judge will exercise
discretion to award treble damages or award prejudgment interest,
or what plaintiffs’ counsel will seek as reasonable attorneys'
fees. Accordingly, damages are not reasonably estimable at this
time. We will continue to vigorously defend this matter, and we do
not believe the result will have a material adverse effect on our
financial condition."

Fidelity National Financial, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
provides various insurance products in the United States. The
company operates in Title, and Corporate and Other segments.
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. was founded in 1847 and is
headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida.


HHB HOLDINGS: Esposito Files Suit Over Unlawful Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Esposito, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. HHB Holdings, Inc. and Kevin
Campbell, both d/b/a Look Great MD, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-02108-GAM (E.D. Pa., May 15, 2019) is a putative class
action brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA"), and the Pennsylvania Telemarketer Registration Act
("TRA") and stems from Defendants' practice of harassing consumers
nationwide with automated and prerecorded telemarketing calls.

To drum-up new business, Defendants engage in intrusive and
unlawful telemarketing campaigns, says the complaint. The
Defendants' illegal telemarketing activities target individual
consumers, without their prior express consent and with little
regard for their privacy.

Through this putative class action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive
relief to halt the Defendants' illegal conduct, which has resulted
in the harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of
thousands of individuals.

Plaintiff is a natural person who was a citizen of Pennsylvania.

Defendants own and operate a full service "medical spa" business
that sells aesthetic and cosmetic treatments to consumers at its
four locations in Delaware and Pennsylvania.[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


IKEA US RETAIL: Burrell Files Consumer Credit Suit in S.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ikea US Retail LLC.
The case is styled as Antonia Burrell on behalf of herself, the
General Public, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Ikea US Retail LLC, a Virginia Corporation, Ikea North America
Services, LLC, a Virginia Corporation, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-00929-JLS-BLM (S.D. Cal., May 17, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit.

IKEA North America Services, LLC operates a chain of home
furnishing retail stores in North America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lindsay Christine David, Esq.
     Brennan & David Law Group
     2888 Loker Avenue, Suite 302
     Carlsbad, CA 92010
     Phone: (760) 730-9408
     Fax: (760) 888-3575
     Email: lcdavid@sdlawoffices.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: C. Johnson Talc Injury Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the matter entitled CANDACE JOHNSON,
individually v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing
business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.,
a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC., F/K/A LUZENCA AMERICA; PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS
COUNCIL F/K/A COSMETIC, TOILETRY, AND FRAGRANCE ASSOCIATION; 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-03412 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on January 6, 2017, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, and was
assigned Case No. BC645974.

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:

          Peter Kaufman, Esq.
          PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP
          11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 477-1700
          Facsimile: (310) 477-1699
          E-mail: pkaufman@psblaw.com

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

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Gwynne Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit styled Alicia Gwynne, 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-03501 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on July 27, 2017, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Sutter, and was assigned
Case No. CVCS17-0001456.

The Plaintiff alleges that she 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:

          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: michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hafner Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the matter styled MARGIE D. HAFNER, 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-03499 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. 17CV318651.

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:

          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: michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hall Talc Injury Suit Moved to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the matter captioned LAURA HALL, AS
PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF CAROLYN WHITE 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-03495 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on April 10, 2018, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Santa Clara, and was
assigned Case No. 18CV326338.

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:

          Lee Cirsch, Esq.
          Michael Akselrud, Esq.
          THE LANIER LAW FIRM, PC
          21550 Oxnard Street, 3rd Floor
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (310) 277-5100
          Facsimile: (310) 277-5103
          E-mail: lee.cirsch@lanierlawfirm.com
                  michael.akselrud@lanierlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Susanne Scovern, Esq.
          Joseph McPeak, Esq.
          SCOVERNLAW
          201 Spear St., Suite 1105
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (888) 725-1890
          E-mail: scovern@scovernlaw.com
                  joseph_mcpeak@scovemlaw.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: Hansen Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit entitled MARYANN HANSEN, 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-03494 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on January 19, 2017, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Ventura, and was assigned
Case No. 56-2017-00491724-CU-PL-VTA.

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: Happersett Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit styled Janelle Happersett,
et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., 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-03500 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on October 28, 2016, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Santa Clara, and was
assigned Case No. 16CV301835.

The lawsuit is a products liability action against the Defendants
because the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs' Decedents have suffered
from and/or have passed away from the severe effects of Ovarian
Cancer caused by Johnson & Johnson's baby powder and
Shower-to-Shower products, which were manufactured, mined, and/or
marketed by the Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Akselrud, Esq.
          THE LANIER LAW FIRM, PC
          10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 400
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 277-5100
          Facsimile: (310) 277-5103
          E-mail: michael.akselrud@lanierlawfirm.com

               - and -

          W. Mark Lanier, Esq.
          Richard Meadow, Esq.
          THE LANIER LAW FIRM, PC
          6810 FM 1960
          Houston, TX 77069
          Telephone: (713) 659-5200
          Facsimile: (713) 659-2204
          E-mail: wml@lanierlawfirm.com
                  Richard.Meadow@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: Harris Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the matter styled PRESTON HARRIS, as
surviving statutory beneficiary for the wrongful death of SHEILA
HARRIS, 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/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-03503 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on March 13, 2018, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, and was
assigned Case No. BC697943.

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 was diagnosed with metastatic
papillary serious carcinoma of ovarian or fallopian tube primary
resulting in death.[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:

          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: Hasting Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit captioned Y-VONNIE HASTING,
an individual v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER
COMPANIES, INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. f/k/a LUZENAC AMERICA,
INC.; 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-03504 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on February 28, 2018, in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara, and was
assigned Case No. 18CV323996.

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:

          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 -

          Ted G. Meadows, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, PC
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (800) 898-2034
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          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
          Facsimile: (601) 952-1426
          E-mail: allen@smith-law.org

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: Holmes Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the matter captioned AUBREY HOLMES
individually and as next of kin to MERIDITH HOLMES, 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-03508 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on November 2, 2017, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Alameda, and was assigned
Case No. HG17880973.

The claim in this action is a direct and proximate result of the
alleged 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
the Decedent's developing ovarian cancer, 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:

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

               - and -

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

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

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hutchinson Talc Injury Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit entitled SARA HUTCHINSON v.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.;
IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., F/K/A LUZENAC AMERICA, INC.; and DOES
1-10 inclusive, and each of them, 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-03482 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on March 29, 2017, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Santa Clara, and was
assigned Case No. 17CV308012.

The claims in the action arise from the Plaintiff's use of
"Johnson's Baby Powder" and the alleged contributing factors the
usage had in the development of her ovarian cancer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachel B. Abrams, Esq.
          Meghan McCormick, Esq.
          LENIN SIMES LLP
          44 Montgomery St., 32nd Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 426-3000
          Facsimile: (415) 426-3001
          E-mail: rabrams@levinsimes.com
                  mmccormick@levinsirnes.com

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

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Jerricks Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the matter titled Deborah Jerricks, et
al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., 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-03420 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on November 2, 2016, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, and was
assigned Case No. BC639513.

As a direct and proximate result of their use of the Defendants'
products, including Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder and Shower to
Shower, the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs' Decedents developed
serious and/or permanent adverse effects, including death, ovarian
cancer and attendant side effects, the Plaintiffs allege.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert A. Mosier, Esq.
          Timothy M. Clark, Esq.
          Lauren A. Welling, Esq.
          Rachel N. Van, 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:

          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: michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Johnson Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit styled DIANE JOHNSON, 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-03433 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on February 10, 2017, in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of San Francisco, and was
assigned Case No. CGC-17-557035.

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 J. Bloom, Esq.
          James R. Dugan, II, Esq.
          Douglas R. Plymale, Ph.D., Esq.
          Mekel Alvarez Smith, Esq.
          THE DUGAN LAW FIRM
          409 N. Pacific Coast Hwy., Suite 626
          Redondo Beach, CA 90277
          Telephone: (323) 825-8529
          Facsimile: (323) 457-2120
          E-mail: mark@dugan-lawfirm.com
                  jdugan@dugan-lawfirm.com
                  dplymale@dugan-lawfirm.com
                  mekel@dugan-lawfirm.com

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

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Mislabels Benecol Spreads, Chamlin Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Johnson & Johnson
and McNeil Nutritionals, LLC for breach of express warranty, breach
of the implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment,
violations of New York's General Business Law, negligent
misrepresentation, and fraud. The case is captioned MATTHEW
CHAMLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON and McNEIL NUTRITIONALS,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03852-UA (S.D.N.Y., April 30,
2019).

Plaintiff Matthew Chamlin alleges that the Defendants are engaged
in false and misleading labeling of Benecol Regular and Light
Spreads. The Defendants allegedly claimed that their products did
not contain trans fat or trans fatty acids and is generally
recognized as safe for human consumption. However, Benecol Spreads
contain trans fat through the use of partially hydrogenated oils.
In addition, the Food and Drug Administration has concluded that
partially hydrogenated oils -- the same oils found in Benecol
Spreads -- are not generally recognized as safe for use in human
food due to coronary heart disease by contributing to the buildup
of plaque inside the arteries that may cause a heart attack.

Johnson & Johnson is a New Jersey corporation with its principal
place of business at One Johnson & Johnson Plaza, New Brunswick,
New Jersey. Johnson & Johnson is an international medical device,
pharmaceutical, and consumer goods manufacturer founded in
1886. Its common stock is a component of the Dow Jones Industrial
Average, and the company is listed in the Fortune 500. Johnson &
Johnson has manufactured, marketed, and sold Benecol Spreads.
McNeil Nutritionals, LLC is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Pennsylvania, and is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson. McNeil is subject to Johnson &
Johnson's control, and the companies share employees, resources,
and accounts. McNeil represents that it "is a global marketer of
innovative nutritional products," as it markets Splenda sweetener
products, Viactiv dietary supplements, and Lactaid milk
supplements. McNeil has manufactured, marketed, and sold Benecol
Spreads. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
     Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
     BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
     888 Seventh Avenue
     New York, NY 10019
     Telephone: (646) 837-7150
     Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
     E-mail: scott@bursor.com
             jmarchese@bursor.com

             - and -

     Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
     Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
     BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
     1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
     Walnut Creek, CA 94596
     Telephone: (925) 300-4455
     Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
     E-mail: fklorczyk@bursor.com
             ndeckant@bursor.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Hardiman Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the matter captioned LAMONT HARDIMAN
individually and on Behalf the ESTATE or BARBARA LYNN PERRY
HARDIMAN v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, JOHNSON & JOHNSON COMPANIES, INC.;
IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., F/K/A LUZENAC AMERICA, INC.; PERSONAL
CARE PRODUCTS COUNSEL, F/K/A COSMETIC, TOILETRY, AND FRAGRANCE
ASSOCIATION; and DOES 1-10 inclusive, and each of them, 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-03502 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on May 9, 2016, in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Santa Clara, and was assigned
Case No. 16CV294911.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants failed and continue to
fail to inform its customers and end users of Johnson & Johnson's
products, including Shower to Shower body powder and Baby Powder,
of a known catastrophic health hazard associated with the use of
its products.  The Plaintiff alleges that as a direct and proximate
result of the Defendants' calculated and reprehensible conduct,
Decedent Barbara Lynn Perry Hardiman contracted ovarian cancer
caused by exposure to talc, from which the Decedent died on May 7,
2014.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachel B. Abrams, Esq.
          Meghan McCormick, Esq.
          LEVIN SIMES LLP
          44 Montgomery St., 32nd Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 426-3000
          Facsimile: (415) 426-3001
          E-mail: rabrams@levinsimes.com
                  mmccormick@levinsimes.com

               - and -

          Adam Pulaski, Esq.
          PULASKI LAW FIRM
          2925 Richmond, Suite 1725
          Houston, TX 77098
          Telephone: (713) 664-4555
          Facsimile: (713) 664-7543
          E-mail: adam@pulaskilawfirm.com

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

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Harrison Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit titled KATRINA K. HARRISON,
Individually and as surviving daughter of KATHALEEN A. HARRISON,
DECEDENT v. IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with
its principal place of business in the state of California; JOHNSON
& JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California;
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey
corporation doing business in California; and DOES 1 through 100,
Case No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03507 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on March 5, 2018, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, and was
assigned Case No. BC696316.

All claims in this 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 contends.  According to the complaint, the
Plaintiff and the Plaintiff's Decedent have suffered from, and the
Decedent has passed away from, the severe effects of ovarian cancer
caused by Johnson & Johnson's baby powder and Shower-to-Shower
products, which were manufactured, mined, and/or marketed by the
Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Baum, Esq.
          Nicole K.H. Maldonado, Esq.
          Robert Brent Wisner, Esq.
          BAUM HEDLUND ARISTEI & GOLDMAN, P.C.
          12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 207-3233
          Facsimile: (310) 820-7444
          E-mail: mbaum@bhlaw.us
                  nmaldonado@bhlaw.us
                  rbwisner@bhlaw.us

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

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Haworth Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the matter titled MELISSA F. HAWORTH, an
individual v. IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation
with its principal place of business in the state of California;
JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in
California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New
Jersey corporation doing business in California; and DOES 1 through
100, Case No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03466 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on June 1, 2018, in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Luis Obispo, and was
assigned Case No. 18CV-0334.

All claims in this action are a direct and proximate result of the
alleged 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.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Baum, Esq.
          Nicole Maldonado, Esq.
          Robert Brent Wisner, Esq.
          BAUM HEDLUND ARISTEI & GOLDMAN, P.C.
          12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 207-3233
          Facsimile: (310) 820-7444
          E-mail: mbaum@bhlaw.us
                  nmaldonado@bhlaw.us
                  rbwisner@bhlaw.us

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

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Houston Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit styled JASON HOUSTON,
Individually, and as Successor-in-Interest on behalf of the ESTATE
OF MARY E. WRIGHT v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER
INC. F/KJA JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; and IMERYS
TALC AMERICA, INC. F/K/A LUZENAC AMERICA, INC., Case No. JCCP 4872,
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03404 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on April 3, 2018, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Santa Clara, and was
assigned Case No. 18CV325815.

The lawsuit is a products liability action against the Defendants
because the Plaintiff has suffered from the severe effects of
Ovarian Cancer caused by Johnson & Johnson's baby powder and
Shower-to-Shower consumer products, which were manufactured, mined,
and/or marketed by the Defendants.  The Plaintiff seeks recovery
for damages as a result of the Decedent's developing ovarian
cancer, which was directly and proximately caused by such wrongful
conduct by Defendants, the unreasonably dangerous and defective
nature of the products and talcum powder, and the attendant effects
of developing ovarian cancer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

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

          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: michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Howard Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the matter styled STEVEN HOWARD
individually and as next of kin to BERTHA HOWARD, 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-03400 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on November 2, 2017, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Alameda, and was assigned
Case No. HG17880966.

The claim in this action is a direct and proximate result of the
alleged 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
the Decedent's developing ovarian cancer, 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:

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

               - and -

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

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

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Huntley Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit styled JANA HUNTLEY and
BRUCE HUNTLEY v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing
business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/KJA
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-03396-RSWL-E to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on September 19, 2018, in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, and was
assigned Case No. BC722125.

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
Plaintiffs seek recovery for damages as a result of ovarian and/or
fallopian tube cancer, which was directly and proximately caused by
wrongful conduct by Defendants, the unreasonably dangerous and
defective nature of talcum powder, and the attendant effects of
developing ovarian and/or fallopian tube cancer.[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:

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

               - and -

          Alexander A. 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 Husman Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit captioned HEIDI HUSMAN, an
individual v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER
COMPANIES, INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. f/k/a LUZENAC AMERICA,
INC.; 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-03505 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. 17CV318667.

The Plaintiff alleges that she 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 Plaintiff 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:

          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

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

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Johnson Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit entitled CONSTANCE JOHNSON
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-03427 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on October 31, 2017, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Contra Costa, and was
assigned Case No. C17-02143.

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, including
Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder and Shower to Shower.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

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

          Michael Carl Zellers, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          515 South Flower Street 42nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430-3400
          Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
          E-mail: michael.zellers@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 captioned KYNDA COOK 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-03407-JAK-PJW to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on October 31, 2017, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, and was
assigned Case No. BC681547.

The claim in this action is allegedly 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
developing ovarian cancer, which was directly and proximately
caused by 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:

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

               - and -

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

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

          Amanda Villalobos, Esq.
          Caroline Toole, Esq.
          Michael C. Zellers, Esq.
          Nicholas Janizeh, 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: amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com
                  caroline.toole@tuckerellis.com
                  michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com
                  nicholas.janizeh@tuckerellis.com

               - and -

          Alexander A. 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 Croft Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit styled GLENDA CROFT, an
Individual, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., 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-03446 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on November 2, 2016, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles.

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 Plaintiffs allege that the use of the products can cause
ovarian cancer and other serious health.  The Plaintiffs contend
that they used the products and as a result, they suffered ovarian
cancer and other injuries.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James A. Morris, Esq.
          MORRIS LAW FIRM
          6310 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 360
          Los Angeles, CA 90048
          Telephone: (323) 302-9488
          E-mail: jmorris@jamlawyers.com

               - and -
          Derek Potts, Esq.
          Rachal Rojas, Esq.
          POTTS LAW FIRM
          3737 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 1900
          Houston, TX 77098
          Telephone: (713) 963-8881
          E-mail: dpotts@potts-law.com
                  rrojas@potts-law.com

               - and -

          Zona Jones, Esq.
          PROVOST UMPHREY, LLP
          490 Park Street
          Beaumont, TX 77701
          Telephone: (409) 835-6000
          E-mail: zjones@provostumphrey.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 Echols Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the matter titled KEMO ECHOLS, 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-03424-CJC-JC to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on April 9, 2018, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, and was
assigned Case No. BC701474.

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:

          Nicholas Janizeh, Esq.
          Amanda Villalobos, Esq.
          Caroline Toole, Esq.
          Michael C. Zellers, 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: nicholas.janizeh@tuckerellis.com
                  amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com
                  caroline.toole@tuckerellis.com
                  michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com

               - and -

          Alexander A. 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 Guynes Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the matter entitled PAUL KEITH GUYNES,
an Individual, and as Successor in Interest for LOIS A. GUYNES;
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-03479 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on July 30, 2018, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Amador, and was assigned
Case No. 18-CV-10687.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
          ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC.
          19 Corporate Plaza Drive
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 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:

          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 Haase Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit styled JUSTINE HAASE, an
individual v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER
COMPANIES, INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. f/k/a LUZENAC AMERICA,
INC.; 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-03493 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on December 24, 2018, in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Orange, and was
assigned Case No. 30-2018-01040095-CU-PL-CXC.

The Plaintiff alleges that she 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:

          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

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 Hair Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the matter titled LARAINE HAIR v.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.,
IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. F/K/A LUZENAC AMERICA, INC., SAFEWAY,
INC.; RITE-AID CORPORATION, CVS PHARMACY, INC.; THE KROGER COMPANY
(d/b/a RALPHS); PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS COUNCIL f/k/a COSMETIC,
TOILETRY, AND FRAGRANCE ASSOCIATION (CFTA); And DOES 1-300, 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-03496 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on June 17, 2016, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Alameda, and was assigned
Case No. AG16820181.

The case is brought by Laraine Hair as a result of her having been
diagnosed with ovarian cancer caused by repeated and chronic
exposure to the talc in Defendant Johnson & Johnson's "Johnson's
Baby Powder" and/or "Johnson's Shower to Shower" distributed,
promoted, supplied and/or sold by the Defendants.  The Plaintiff in
this action seeks recovery for damages as a result of developing
ovarian cancer, which was directly and proximately caused by such
wrongful conduct by the Defendants, the unreasonably dangerous and
defective nature of talc, and the attendant effects of developing
ovarian cancer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jackie Kruger, Esq.
          THE KRUGER LAW FIRM
          485 S. Robertson Blvd., Suite 4
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 550-1234
          Facsimile: (310) 550-6904
          E-mail: Info@TheKrugerLawFirm.com

               - and -

          Stephen T. Blackburn, Esq.
          STANCHLY HAMILTON, LLP
          325 N. St. Paul Street
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone (214) 734-7900
          Facsimile: (214) 234-7400
          E-mail: sblackburn@hamiltonwingo.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 Haney Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the matter entitled DEBRA HANEY v.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON &
JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; and IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC.
F/K/A LUZENAC AMERICA, INC., Case No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03498 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on February 23, 2018, in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara, and was
assigned Case No. 18CV323905.

The lawsuit is a products liability action against the Defendants
because the Plaintiff has suffered from the severe effects of
Ovarian Cancer caused by Johnson & Johnson's baby powder and
Shower-to-Shower consumer products, which were manufactured, mined,
and/or marketed by the Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

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

          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 Hardesty Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit titled HESPERANSA HARDESTY,
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-03506 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on March 27, 2018, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Solano, and was assigned
Case No. FCS050568.

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:

          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: michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Hargrove Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the matter entitled TONI HARGROVE 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-03483 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on October 31, 2017, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of San Diego, and was
assigned Case No. 37-2017-00041678-CU-PL-CTL.

The claim in this action is allegedly 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
developing ovarian cancer, which was directly and proximately
caused by 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:

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

               - and -

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

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

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Hatanaka Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit entitled SARA K. HATANAKA,
an individual v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER
COMPANIES, INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. f/k/a LUZENAC AMERICA,
INC.; 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-03392 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on June 21, 2016, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, and was
assigned Case No. BC624643.

The Plaintiff brings this products liability case against the
Defendants because she allegedly developed ovarian cancer and
suffered injuries from her use of tale-based products manufactured,
designed, marketed, promoted, labeled, tested, distributed, and/or
sold by the Defendants.  The Plaintiff contends that they
Defendants substantially contributed to the manufacture, design,
distribution, promotion, marketing, labeling, testing, and selling
of the talc-based products she used, products known as Johnson's
Baby Powder and Shower to Shower.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Helen Zukin, Esq.
          Melanie Meneses Palmer, Esq.
          Nicole Ramirez, 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
                  ramirez@kiesel.law

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

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Hauck Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the matter styled DOLORES HAUCK,
Individually, and as Successor-in-Interest on behalf of the ESTATE
OF DEBRA GARCIA v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER
INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC. and IMERYS
TALC AMERICA, INC. F/K/A LUZENAC AMERICA, INC., Case No. JCCP 4872,
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03450 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. 18CV327347.

The lawsuit is a products liability action against the Defendants
because Decedent Debra Garcia suffered from and died due to the
severe effects of Ovarian Cancer caused by Johnson & Johnson's baby
powder and Shower-to-Shower consumer products, which were
manufactured, mined, and/or marketed by the Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

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

          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 Hough Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit entitled MARI JO HOUGH AND
NICK LOWE 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-03461 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on May 22, 2018, in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Bernardino, and was
assigned Case No. CIVDS1812541.

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 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: Removes Howard Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit title LAKISHIA HOWARD, an
individual v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER
COMPANIES, INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. f/k/a LUZENAC AMERICA,
INC.; 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-03463 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. 17CV318663.

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:

          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

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 Joffroy Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit captioned LISA JOFFROY, an
individual; BRANDY BURROWS, 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., f/k/a LUZENAC
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-03408 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on October 13, 2016, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, and was
assigned Case No. BC637233.

The complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs are 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

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

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Johnson Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the matter entitled CAROLINA JOHNSON, 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-03423 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit was filed on February 15, 2018, in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, and was
assigned Case No. BC694135.

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, including
Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder and Shower to Shower.[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:

          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: michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com


K&N ENGINEERING: Minn. Court Allows J. Penrod to Amend Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed the case styled John Penrod, Gus Erpenbach, and
Juan Welsh, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. K&N Engineering, Inc.,
Defendant, No. 18-cv-02907 (ECT/LIB)(D. Minn.), in federal district
court seeking to represent a nationwide class -- or, alternatively,
state-specific classes -- of persons who sustained damages caused
by the Defendant's allegedly defective oil filters.

The Plaintiffs assert only state-law claims and allege there is
subject-matter jurisdiction over this case on the basis of the
Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").  Defendant K&N Engineering
seeks dismissal of the case on several grounds, including that the
Plaintiffs' claims do not satisfy CAFA's $5 million
amount-in-controversy threshold.

Because the Plaintiffs' complaint does not allege facts plausibly
establishing this jurisdictional requirement, Judge Eric C. Tostrud
of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
dismissed the complaint.  The Plaintiffs will be permitted to file
an amended complaint.

A full-text copy of the Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yxoen6fn from Leagle.com.

John Penrod, individually and on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated & Juan Welsh, individually and on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Catherine Sung-Yun K. Smith, Esq. --
csmith@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel E.
Gustafson, Esq. -- dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek
PLLC, Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. -- dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com --
Gustafson Gluek PLLC, David Christopher Wright, McCune Wright
Arevalo, LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph B. Kenney, Sauder Schelkopf LLC,
pro hac vice, Ling Shan Wang, Esq. -- lwang@gustafsongluek.com --
Gustafson Gluek pLLC & Matthew D. Schelkopf, Sauder Schelkopf, LLC,
pro hac vice.

Gus Erpenbach, individually and on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Catherine
Sung-Yun K. Smith, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel E. Gustafson,
Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel C. Hedlund, Gustafson Gluek PLLC,
Joseph B. Kenney, Sauder Schelkopf LLC, pro hac vice & Ling Shan
Wang, Gustafson Gluek pLLC.

K&N Engineering, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amanda M.
Cialkowski, Esq. -- acialkowski@nilanjohnson.com -- Nilan Johnson
Lewis PA, Anne Marilyn Kelts, Baker McKenzie LLP, pro hac vice,
Leah N. Kippola-Friske, Esq. -- lkippola-friske@nilanjohnson.com --
Nilan Johnson Lewis PA & Mark C. Goodman, Esq. --
mark.goodman@bakermckenzie.com -- Baker McKenzie, pro hac vice.


KOHN LAW FIRM: Poindexter Sues over Debt Collection Policy
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Kohn Law Firm S.C.
for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case
is captioned JESSICA POINDEXTER, individually on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. KOHN LAW FIRM S.C.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00608-WCG (E.D. Wis., April 26, 2019).

Plaintiff Jessica Poindexter alleges that Kohn Law Firm sent her a
collection letter that falsely implies to the unsophisticated
consumer that interest and other charges could accrue on the
charged-off debt.

Kohn Law Firm S.C. is for-profit service corporation formed under
the laws of the State of Wisconsin. It maintains its principal
business address at 735 N. Water St., Suite 1300, City of
Milwaukee, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. The company regularly
engages in the collection of defaulted consumer debts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KOPPERS INC: Arkansas High Court Flips Class Certification Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
Koppers, Inc., took an appeal before the Supreme Court of Arkansas
from the Pulaski County Circuit Court's order certifying a class
action lawsuit filed by Koppers employees Kelvin Trotter, Nathane
Davis, Lonzo Allen, and Ken Piggee, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated (collectively referred to as
employees).  The appellate case is captioned KOPPERS, INC.,
Appellant, v. KELVIN TROTTER, NATHANE DAVIS, LONZO ALLEN, AND KEN
PIGGEE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Appellees, No. CV-18-228 (Ark.).

Employees sued Koppers pursuant to the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act
(AMWA), Ark. Code Ann. Sections 11-4-201 et seq. for unpaid
overtime.  They claimed that Koppers violated the AMWA by failing
to compensate them for time spent donning and doffing their
uniforms and protective equipment and walking to and from their
workstations. After filing their complaint, employees moved to
certify a class of:

     [a]ll individuals who were, are, or will be employed by
Defendant as hourly paid employees at the Koppers plant in North
Little Rock, Arkansas, at any time within the three years prior to
the filing of this Complaint through the date of the final
disposition of this action, and who were, are, or will be required
to perform donning and doffing activities.

Koppers contends that the circuit court failed to provide any
reasoning supporting class certification, precluding meaningful
review and requiring reversal.  Alternatively, Koppers contends
that employees did not meet their burden of proving the
requirements for class certification.

The Supreme Court of Arkansas held that the lower court's order in
the present case is akin to the order in Industrial Welding
Supplies of Hattiesburg, LLC v. Pinson, 2017 Ark. 315, 530 S.W.3d
854.  The order stated in relevant part, "[T]he court finds that
the requirements of Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 23 are
satisfied and therefore grants the motion for class certification."
Like the order in Pinson, the Trotter order defined the class, but
it failed to define the class claims, issues, or defenses.
Further, the order, like the one in Pinson, failed to provide any
analysis of the six factors under Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure
23 (2018).

Therefore, in conformity with Pinson, the state Supreme Court
remands the case with instructions to enter an order that complies
with Rule 23.  The circuit court must conduct an analysis to
determine whether the Rule 23 requirements have been met, and that
analysis must be reflected in the circuit court's order.  Further,
the order must define the class and class claims, issues, or
defenses.

A full-text copy of the Opinion penned by Chief Justice John Dan
Kemp is available at https://tinyurl.com/y347bqpt from Leagle.com.

Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull PLLC, by: E.B. Chiles IV, Esq. --
cchiles@qgtlaw.com -- Joseph R. Falasco, Esq. --
jfalasco@qgtlaw.com -- and Sarah E. DeLoach, Esq., for appellant.

For appellees:

     John Holleman, Esq.
     Timothy A. Steadman, Esq.
     Jerry Garner, Esq.
     Holleman & Associates, P.A.
     1008 West Second Street
     Little Rock, AR 72201
     Tel: (501) 975-5040
     Fax: (501) 975-5043
     Email: jholleman@johnholleman.net


KRAFT HEINZ: Timber Hill Sues over Inflated Stock Price
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Kraft Heinz and its
certain current and former senior executives and directors for
violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. The case is
captioned TIMBER HILL LLC, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. THE KRAFT HEINZ COMPANY, BERNARDO
HEES, PAULO BASILIO, DAVID H. KNOPF, GEORGE EL ZOGHBI, CHRISTOPHER
R. SKINGER, VINCE GARLATI, ALEX BEHRING and 3G CAPITAL INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02807 (N.D. Ill., April 25, 2019).

Plaintiff Timber Hill, LLC alleges that Kraft has made materially
false and misleading statements and omissions of material facts
regarding its value and business prospects. Timber Hill brings this
action on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated
investors that purchased Kraft Heinz common stock, purchased call
options on Kraft Heinz common stock, sold put options on Kraft
Heinz common stock and/or purchased futures on Kraft Heinz common
stock during the period July 6, 2015 through Feb. 21, 2019.

This action arises from Kraft Heinz's February 21, 2019
announcements that it: (i) would be taking a $15.4 billion goodwill
impairment write-down primarily relating to its Kraft and Oscar
Mayer brands; (ii) had received an SEC subpoena related to an
investigation into the Kraft Heinz's accounting and controls; and
(iii) was cutting its quarterly dividend from $0.625 cents per
share to $0.40 cents per share. Kraft Heinz further announced it
would be delaying the filing of its annual report on Form 10-K for
fiscal year 2018. Together, these disclosures caused the price of
Kraft Heinz's common stock to drop significantly erasing more than
$16 billion in market capitalization.

Kraft Heinz is a Delaware corporation formed in July 2015. Kraft
Heinz's common stock is traded on the NASDAQ Global Select Market
under the symbol KHC. Kraft Heinz has headquarters in both Chicago,
Illinois and Pittsburg, Pennsylvania. [BN]
  
The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq.
     ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
     500 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1900-16
     Austin, TX 78701
     Telephone: (512) 710-5960
     E-mail: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com

             - and -


     299 Park Avenue, 20th Floor
     New York, NY 10171
     Telephone: (212) 894-7200

              - and -

     Robert N. Cappucci, Esq.
     Sean M. Riegert, Esq.
     Andrew M. Sher, Esq.
     ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
     299 Park Avenue, 20th Floor
     New York, NY 10171
     Telephone: (212) 894-7200
     
              - and -

     Michael H. Moirano, Esq.
     MOIRANO GORMAN KENNY, LLC
     135 S. LaSalle St., Suite 2200
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Telephone: (312) 614-1260
     E-mail: mmoirano@mgklaw.com


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Faces Beyers Suit in S.D. Indiana
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Liberty Mutual
Insurance. The case is captioned as WILLIAM BEYERS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv01601-TWP-DLP
(S.D. Ind., April 22, 2019). The case is assigned to Judge Tanya
Walton Pratt and referred to Magistrate Judge Doris L. Pryor.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company provides insurance products and
services in the United States and internationally. Liberty Mutual
Insurance Company was formerly known as Massachusetts Employees'
Insurance Association and changed its name to Liberty Mutual
Insurance Company in August 1917. The company was founded in 1912
and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Liberty Mutual
Insurance Company operates as a subsidiary of Liberty Mutual Group,
Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Syed Ali Saeed, Esq.
          SAEED & LITTLE LLP
          1 W Vermont Street
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 721-9214
          Facsimile: (888) 422-3151
          E-mail: ali@sllawfirm.com


LOANME INC: Tbiaa Sues over Credit Background Checks
----------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against LoanMe, Inc. for
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the
California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CCCRAA). The
case is captioned VINCENT TBIAA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. LOANME, INC.; and DOES
1-10, Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00790 (April 26, 2019).

The complaint alleges that LoanMe, Inc. pulled Plaintiff Vincent
Tbiaa's and similarly situated class members' credit reports and
shared private, credit reporting information with third parties
without his authorization or consent in violation of the FCRA and
CCCRAA. In addition, Defendant allegedly implemented a systemic
policy and practice to run hard inquiries on consumer credit
reports.

Founded in 2013, LoanMe is a California-based lender that offers
unsecured installment loans to qualified borrowers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
     Meghan E. George, Esq.
     Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
     21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Telephone: (323) 306-4234
     Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
     E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
             abacon@toddflaw.com
             mgeorge@toddflaw.com
             twheeler@toddflaw.com


LOCAL ADVANTAGE: Reasonover Sues over Automated Calls
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Local Advantage,
Inc. for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
The case is captioned CASEY REASONOVER on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LOCAL ADVANTAGE, INC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10985 (D. Mass., April 25, 2019). Local
Advantage, Inc. allegedly made automated and pre-recorded
telemarketing calls to cellular telephone numbers, including the
Plaintiff, which is prohibited by the TCPA. Accordingly, Plaintiff
Casey Reasonover seeks redress for the Defendant's wide scale
illegal telemarketing practices.

Local Advantage, Inc. is a California corporation with its
principal place of business of 2166 W. Broadway, Suite 543 in
Anaheim, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
     PARONICH LAW, P.C.
     350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
     Hingham, MA 02043
     Telephone: (508) 221-1510
     E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com

             - and -

     Alex M. Washkowitz, Esq.
     Jeremy Cohen, Esq.
     CW LAW GROUP, P.C.
     188 Oaks Road Framingham, MA 01701
     Telephone: (508) 309-4880
     Facsimile: (508) 597-7722
     E-mail: alex@cwlawgrouppc.com


LYFT INC: Malig Files Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------
MATIAS MALIG, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE MALIG FAMILY TRUST, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. LYFT
INC.; LOGAN GREEN; JOHN ZIMMER; BRIAN ROBERTS; PRASHANT (SEAN)
AGGARWAL; BEN HOROWITZ; VALERIE JARRETT; DAVID LAWEE; HIROSHI
MIKITANI; ANN MIURA-KO; MARY AGNES (MAGGIE) WILDEROTTER; J.P.
MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC;
JEFFERIES LLC; UBS SECURITIES LLC; STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY,
INCORPORATED; RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC; KEYBANC CAPITAL MARKETS
INC.; COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC; RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC.;
CANACCORD GENUITY LLC; EVERCORE GROUP L.L.C.; PIPER JAFFRAY & CO.;
JMP SECURITIES LLC; WELLS FARGO SECURITIES, LLC; KKR CAPITAL
MARKETS LLC; ACADEMY SECURITIES, INC.; BLAYLOCK VAN, LLC; PENSERRA
SECURITIES LLC; SIEBERT CISNEROS SHANK & CO., L.L.C.; THE WILLIAMS
CAPITAL GROUP, L.P.•; CASTLEOAK SECURITIES, L.P.; C.L. KING &
ASSOCIATES, INC.; DREXEL HAMILTON, LLC; GREAT PACIFIC SECURITIES;
LOOP CAPITAL MARKETS LLC; MISCHLER FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.; SAMUEL A
RAMIREZ & COMPANY, INC.; R. SEELAUS & CO., LLC; and TIGRESS
FINANCIAL PARTNERS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-02690-HSG
(N.D. Cal., May 17, 2019) asserts claims against all Defendants for
violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the
"Securities Act").

According to the complaint, the issuance of Lyft common stock in
connection with an initial public offering ("IPO" or "Offering")
was registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
pursuant to Lyft's registration statement on Form S-1 (File No.
333-229996) declared effective on March 28, 2019 (the "Registration
Statement"). This case arises from untrue statements of material
fact as well as the omission of other facts necessary in order to
make statements contained in the Registration Statement not
materially false or misleading.

Lyft is a ridesharing company. Beginning in 2012, Lyft sought to
revolutionize transportation by launching its peer-to-peer
marketplace for on-demand ridesharing. In November 2018, Lyft
acquired Bikeshare Holdings LLC's ("Motivate") technology and
corporate functions for $251 million. In 2017, Motivate was the
largest bikeshare operator in North America with revenue of
approximately $100 million. This acquisition enabled Lyft to add
bikes to its suite of services. According to its Form S-1, Lyft
acquired Motivate to "establish a solid foothold in the bikeshare
market and offer access to new transportation options on the Lyft
Platform." On March 28, 2019, Lyft offered 32.5 million shares to
the public through an IPO at a price of $72.00 per share for total
proceeds of $2.34 billion.

According to the Registration Statement and Prospectus filed in
connection with the IPO, Lyft estimated that its ridesharing
marketplace "is available to over 95% of the U.S. population, as
well as in select cities in Canada." Lyft represented that its
"U.S. ridesharing market share was 39% in December 2018, up from
22% in December 2016." Lyft's focus on its market share gain and
position were key selling points to IPO investors. Unbeknownst to
investors, however, the Registration Statement's representations
were materially inaccurate, misleading, and/or incomplete because
they failed to disclose, among other things, that: (1) Lyft's
claimed ridesharing position was overstated; (2) more than 1,000 of
the bicycles in Lyft's rideshare program suffered from safety
issues that would lead to their recall; (3) Lyft's drivers were
becoming disincentivized from driving for Lyft; and (4) Lyft failed
to warn investors that a labor disruption could affect its
operations, says the complaint.

Accordingly, the price of the Company's shares was artificially and
materially inflated at the time of the Offering. As the true facts
emerged in the wake of the Offering, the Company's shares fell
sharply from $72.00 to under $57.00 on April 15, 2019.

By this action, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and other Class
Members who also acquired the Company's shares pursuant or
traceable to the Offering, now seeks to obtain a recovery for the
damages suffered as a result of Defendants' violations of the
Securities Act.

Plaintiff purchased 50 shares of the Company's common stock on
March 29, 2019, at a price of $72.00 per share.

Lyft is a transportation network company based in San Francisco,
California. Lyft's shares are listed and trade on the NASDAQ under
the ticker symbol "LYFT".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
     Jacob A. Walker, Esq.
     BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
     260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
     Boston, MA 02110
     Phone: (617) 398-5600
     Email: jake@blockesq.com


MAYO CLINIC: Kuhr Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------
NATLIE KUHR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MAYO CLINIC JACKSONVILLE and PROFESSIONAL
SERVICE BUREAU, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2019-CA-000218 (Fla.
Cir., Duval Cty., April 22, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Mayo Clinic Jacksonville Inc. operates an academic medical center
in Florida. The company’s facilities include exam rooms;
outpatient surgery center equipped for general anesthesia;
laboratory; pharmacy; patient-education library; endoscopy suite;
and auditorium for patient, staff, and student education programs.
It also offers programs in cancer treatment and organ
transplantation. The company was founded in 1986 and is based in
Jacksonville, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan A. Shaw, Esq.
          Kimberly A. Slaven, Esq.
          ZEBERSKY PAYNE SHAW LEWENZ, LLP
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 2150
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 989-6333
          Facsimile: (954) 989-7781
          E-mail: jshaw@zpllp.com
                  kslaven@zpllp.com
                  mperez@zpllp.com
                  jgarcia@zpllp.com


MEDSPA DEL MAR: Mazzariol Suit Moved From S.D. to M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled CAROL N. MAZZARIOL, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MEDSPA DEL MAR,
LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-10015,
was transferred on April 26, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida (Ft. Myers).

The Middle District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-00276-SPC-UAM to the proceeding.  The lawsuit is assigned
to Judge Sheri Polster Chappell.

Ms. Mazzariol brings this action against MedSpa to secure redress
for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Through this action, she seeks injunctive relief to halt the
Defendant's illegal conduct--unsolicited marketing--which has
resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and
disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner Carol N. Mazzariol, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jordan David Utanski, Esq.
          Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          2875 NE 191st Street, Suite 703
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: utanski@edelsberglaw.com
                  scott@edelsberglaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
          E-mail: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com

Defendant-Respondent Medspa Del Mar, LLC, a Florida Limited
Liability Company, is represented by:

          David M. Landis, Esq.
          MATEER & HARBERT, PA
          P.O. Box 2854
          Orlando, FL 32802
          Telephone: (407) 425-9044
          Facsimile: (407) 423-2016
          E-mail: rpinkston@mateerharbert.com

               - and -

          Jordan Scott Cohen, Esq.
          Michael Gene Polatsek, Esq.
          WICKER, SMITH, O'HARA, MCCOY & FORD, PA
          515 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
          PO Box 14460
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 847-4800
          Facsimile: (954) 760-9353
          E-mail: jcohen@wickersmith.com
                  MPolatsek@wickersmith.com


MERCHANTS & MEDICAL: Romonoyske Suit Removed to E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Sharon Romonoyske, on Behalf of
Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Merchants & Medical
Credit Corporation, Inc., Case No. 624012/2018 was removed on April
26, 2019, from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County
of Suffolk, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York (Central Islip).

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-02451 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit.[BN]

Defendant Merchants & Medical Credit Corporation, Inc., is
represented by:

          Matthew Brady Johnson, Esq.
          STRADLEY RONON STEVENS & YOUNG
          100 Park Avenue, Suite 2000
          10017-5546, Suite 2000
          New York, NY 10017-5546
          Telephone: (212) 812-4124
          Facsimile: (646) 682-7180
          E-mail: mjohnson@stradley.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Galino FDCPA Suit Removed to E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Virginia Galino, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit
Management, Inc., Case No. 623495/2018, was removed on April 26,
2019, from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
Suffolk, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-02442 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.[BN]

Defendant Midland Credit Management, Inc., is represented by:

          Dana Brett Briganti, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 471-6200
          Facsimile: (212) 935-1166
          E-mail: dbriganti@hinshawlaw.com


MONSANTO CO: Accused by Bahl Suit of Selling Defective Herbicide
----------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Bahl v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-01007 (E.D. Mo.,
April 28, 2019), arises from the Defendant's alleged negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use.

Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place
of business in St. Louis, Missouri.  Monsanto is a multinational
agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading
producer of glyphosate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO CO: Bailey Seeks Damages Over Roundup(R) Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------
Gloria Bailey v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-01010 (E.D.
Mo., April 28, 2019), is brought for damages allegedly suffered by
the Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's
negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing,
advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide
Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use.

Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place
of business in St. Louis, Missouri.  Monsanto is a multinational
agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading
producer of glyphosate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO CO: Choate Sues Over Injuries From Roundup(R) Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lanny Choate v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-01005 (E.D. Mo.,
April 28, 2019), is brought for personal injuries allegedly
sustained by exposure to Roundup(R).

The lawsuit is brought for damages allegedly suffered by the
Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's
negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing,
advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide
Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.  The
Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective,
dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and
sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to
the dangers associated with its use.

Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place
of business in St. Louis, Missouri.  Monsanto is a multinational
agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading
producer of glyphosate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO CO: Dedrick Sues for Injuries From Use of Roundup(R)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Dedrick v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-01011 (E.D.
Mo., April 28, 2019), alleges that the Plaintiff suffered injuries
as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use.

Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place
of business in St. Louis, Missouri.  Monsanto is a multinational
agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading
producer of glyphosate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO CO: Faces Carpenter Suit for Damages Over Roundup(R)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Carpenter v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-01016 (E.D.
Mo., April 28, 2019), is brought for damages allegedly suffered by
the Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's
negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing,
advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide
Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use.

Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place
of business in St. Louis, Missouri.  Monsanto is a multinational
agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading
producer of glyphosate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Hampton Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
VIRGIL R. HAMPTON, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01056 (E.D. Mo., April 30, 2019), seeks
to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Rotramel Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
Debbie Rotramel, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-01055 (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: Sanders Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Wayne Sanders, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01053 (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: Schafer Suit Moved to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled JOHN SCHAFER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02292, 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-02169-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: scady@molllawgroup.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Serna Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
Larry Serna, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-01058 (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: Shultz Suit Moved to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled NICHOLE SHULTZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02304, 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-02190-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


MOTT'S LLP: Dalton Files Fraud Class Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mott's LLP. The case
is styled as Sharise Dalton, Nancy Bierly, Paula Leblanc,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Mott's LLP, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02960 (E.D.
N.Y., May 17, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending.

Mott's is an American company involved primarily in producing
apple-based products, particularly juices and sauces.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Settlement in Jordan Suit Has Final Okay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas O. Rice of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Washington granted final approval to the class
action settlement in the case captioned LAURA ZAMORA JORDAN, as her
separate estate, and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, Defendant, and FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY,
Intervenor, No. 2:14-CV-0175-TOR (E.D. Wash.).

This case arises from actions taken by Defendant Nationstar
Mortgage LLC affecting Washington homeowners' residential
properties in default.  In her Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff
and Class Representative Laura Zamora Jordan asserted the following
causes of action: trespass; intentional trespass, RCW 4.24.630;
violation of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), RCW 19.86 et seq.;
and breach of contract. ECF No. 2-19 at 10-16. The Chelan County
Superior Court certified the class under Washington Civil Rule 23
on May 19, 2014.  Thereafter, Defendant removed the action to this
Court and moved to decertify the class.  This Court denied
Defendant's motion and certified the following class:

     All persons who own or owned real property in Washington
subject to a deed of trust or a mortgage serviced or held by
Nationstar, whose property Nationstar or its agents deemed vacant
prior to the completion of a foreclosure sale and between April 3,
2008 and July 31, 2016.

Under the settlement, Class Counsel estimates that Class Members
will receive awards ranging between $75 and $52,165.34.

One objection to the settlement was timely filed but the Court said
the objection is overruled.

The terms set forth in the settlement are approved as being fair,
adequate, and reasonable in light of the degree of recovery
obtained in relation to the risks faced by the Settlement Class in
litigating the claims. The Settlement Class is properly certified
as part of this settlement. The relief provided to the Settlement
Class under the settlement agreement is appropriate as to the
individual members of the Settlement Class and as a whole.

The Class Administrator shall deduct and receive its fees and costs
in full payment for its services, not to exceed $45,000 from the
Settlement Fund.

The Plaintiffs' Motion for Order Granting Award of Attorneys' Fees
and Costs and the Special Master's Request for Approval of Payment
of Fees and Costs are granted.  The Court approves the payment of
$4,250,000 in attorneys' fees to Class Counsel as fair and
reasonable.  The Court approves the payment of $208,245.67 to Class
Counsel as reimbursement for litigation costs. The Court approves
the payment of $63,864.50 in fees and $1,191.65 in costs to Special
Master Bruce Kreigman, both deducted from the Settlement Fund.

The Court approves the service award of $20,000 to Laura Zamora
Jordan as Class Representative.

Four individuals have timely and properly excluded themselves from
the Settlement Class: Jack Grant, Kimberly Smack, Pamela Turner,
and Richard Rutkowski. ECF No. 389-5. Aside from those four
identified individuals, all members of the Settlement Class are
bound by this Order.

Bruce P Kriegman, Special Master, pro se.

Laura Zamora Jordan, as her separate estate, and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Beth E.
Terrell, Esq. -- bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell Marshall
Law Group PLLC, Clay M. Gatens, Esq. -- clayg@jdsalaw.com --
Jeffers Danielson Sonn & Aylward PS, Michelle A. Green, Esq. --
michelleg@jdsalaw.com -- Jeffers Danielson Sonn and Aylward PS &
Blythe H. Chandler, Esq. -- bchandler@terrellmarshall.com --
Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Michael D. Daudt, Esq.
     Daudt Law PLLC
     2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1250
     Seattle, WA 98121-1820
     Tel: (206) 445-7733
     Fax: (206) 445-7399

Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Defendant, represented by John Alan Knox,
Esq. -- jknox@williamskastner.com -- Williams Kastner & Gibbs,
Andrew Weiss Noble, Severson & Werson APC, Jan T. Chilton, Esq. --
jtc@severson.com -- Severson & Werson PC, pro hac vice, Mark
Douglas Lonergan, Esq. -- mdl@severson.com -- Severson & Werson
APC, pro hac vice & Mary Kate Sullivan, Esq. -- mks@severson.com --
Severson & Werson PC, pro hac vice.

State of Washington, Washington State Attorney General, Interested
Party, represented by Amy Chia-Chi Teng, Attorney Generals Office.

Michael P Klein, Real Party in Interest on behalf of the bankruptcy
estates of In re Caspers and In re Bentley, Trustee, pro se.

Federal Housing Finance Agency, Intervenor, represented by Asim
Varma, Esq. -- asim.varma@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold & Porter LLP,
pro hac vice, Daniel J. Gibbons, Witherspoon Kelley, David B.
Bergman, Esq. -- david.bergman@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold & Porter
LLP, pro hac vice & Howard N. Cayne, Esq --
howard.cayne@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold & Porter LLP, pro hac
vice.


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Kohanski Sues over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Nationwide Credit
Inc. (NCI) for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA). The case is captioned BARBARA KOHANSKI, also known as
BARBARA PAULSON-KOHANSKI, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. NATIONWIDE CREDIT, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00600 (E.D. Wis., April 25, 2019).

Plaintiff Barbara Kohanski alleges that NCI has violated FDCPA by
engaging in abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection
practices. Kohanski allegedly received NCI's collection letter that
falsely suggests to the unsophisticated consumer that a settlement
offer was a one-time take-it-or-leave-it offer.

NCI maintains its principal business address at 1000 Abernathy Rd.,
Suite 200, City of Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia. NCI's agent of
service in Wisconsin is the Corporation Service Company, 8040
Excelsior Dr., Suite 400, Madison, Wisconsin. The company is
engaged in the collection defaulted consumer debts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Hunter Sues Over Erroneous Collection Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Hunter, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. Navient Solutions, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00557 (E.D. Va., May 8, 2019), seeks
compensatory damages including interest, reasonable costs and
expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert
fees, rescission or a rescissory measure of damages and such
equitable/injunctive or other relief under the Telephone Consumers
Protection Act.

Defendants attempted to collect a debt incurred by another person
not known to Hunter using an automatic telephone dialing system
with a pre-recorded or artificial voices, notes the complaint.

Navient Solutions, Inc. provides loan management, servicing and
asset recovery solutions to clients in higher education and
business clients, as well as federal, state, and local governments.
The company offers financial services in the areas of education
loan, private student loan and asset recovery. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Yanchunis, Esq.
      Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
      201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Tel: (813) 223-5505
      Fax: (813) 223-5402
      Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
             jcohen@ForThePeople.com

             - and -

      John G. Harnishfeger, Esq.
      One South Street, 23rd Floor
      Baltimore, MD
      Tel: (410) 951-8744
      Fax: (410) 539-6599
      Email: john.harnishfeger@murphyfalcon.com


NEW YORK: Subway Renovations Violate ADA, Forsee Suit Asserts
-------------------------------------------------------------
LISA FORSEE, VINCENT RUSSELL, JEAN RYAN, BRONX INDEPENDENT LIVING
SERVICES, BROOKLYN CENTER FOR INDEPENDENCE OF THE DISABLED, CENTER
FOR INDEPENDENCE OF THE DISABLED, NEW YORK, DISABLED IN ACTION OF
METROPOLITAN NEW YORK, HARLEM INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, PATRICK FOYE, in his
official capacity as chair and chief executive officer of the
Metropolitan Transportation Authority, NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT
AUTHORITY, ANDY BYFORD, in his official capacity as President of
the New York City Transit Authority, and the CITY OF NEW YORK,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04406 (S.D. N.Y., May 15, 2019) is a
class-action lawsuit challenging the Defendants' ongoing
discriminatory practice of renovating New York City subway stations
without installing elevators or other stair-free routes in blatant
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").

People with mobility disabilities have been protesting the
inaccessibility of the subway and the Metropolitan Transportation
Authority's ("MTA's") practice of renovating stations without
making them accessible for decades. The subway is the backbone of
New York City's transportation network. Millions of people rely on
it every day to get to work, school, public services, shops, parks,
places of entertainment, social and cultural events, and everything
else the City has to offer. However, nearly three decades after the
passage of the ADA, less than 25% of New York City's subway
stations are accessible to persons with mobility disabilities—the
lowest rate of any subway system in the United States. As a
consequence, people with mobility disabilities are often excluded
from the City's subway system entirely, asserts the complaint.

According to the complaint, the ADA clearly states that when a
public entity alters "an existing facility or part thereof" in a
way that "affects or could affect" usability, it must ensure that
the altered portion is "readily accessible to and usable by
individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use
wheelchairs. Failure to abide by this requirement is unlawful
"discrimination" against people with disabilities. There is no
exception for cost: if a required access improvement is technically
feasible, Defendants must make it. The MTA's repeated failure to do
so, or even to adequately assess whether it could, is a
longstanding and ongoing discriminatory practice that has played
out in Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens. If the MTA had
followed the law requiring it to install stair-free routes in these
renovated stations whenever feasible, the New York City subway
system would be much more accessible today.

Nonetheless, the requirement that the MTA take all feasible steps
to make its renovated stations accessible, which is rooted in this
basic observation and congressional intent, has been ignored.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring suit to end the MTA's discriminatory
practice of renovating stations without regard to accessibility,
and to seek remediation for past violations, so that people with
disabilities can use the subway system like everyone else.

Plaintiffs are persons with disabilities making the use of stairs
difficult, dangerous, or impossible.

The MTA operates the largest transportation network in North
America, serving a population of 15.2 million people in the 5,000
square mile area covering New York City, Long Island, southeastern
New York State, and Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Michelle Caiola, Esq.
     Maia Goodell, Esq.
     DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES
     655 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 644-8644
     Fax: (212) 644-8636
     Email: mcaiola@dralegal.org
            mgoodell@dralegal.org

          - and -

     Daniel L. Brown, Esq.
     SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
     30 Rockefeller Plaza
     New York, NY 10112
     Phone: (212) 634-3095
     Fax: (212) 655-1768
     Email: dlbrown@sheppardmullin.com


NIGHTSTAR THERAPEUTICS: Wheby Sues over Biogen Merger
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Nightstar
Therapeutics PLC and its board of directors and corporate officers
for alleged violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.
The case is captioned EARL M. WHEBY, JR., Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. NIGHTSTAR
THERAPEUTICS PLC, PAULA COBB, DAVID FELLOWS, CHRIS HOLLOWOOD, DAVID
LUBNER, JAMES MCARTHUR, DAVID MOTT, SCOTT WHITCUP, and BIOGEN INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00761-UNA (D. Del., April 26, 2019).

Plaintiff Earl M. Wheby, Jr. alleges that the Defendants filed a
Proxy Statement that contains false and misleading information in
connection with the proposed acquisition by affiliates of Biogen
Inc. Among other things, the Proxy Statement allegedly failed to
disclose Nightstar's financial projections and the analyses
performed by Centerview Partners in connection with the
acquisition.

Nightstar is an England and Wales public limited company and
maintains its principal executive offices at 10 Milford Place, 2nd
Floor, London W1T 5BJ United Kingdom. Nightstar's common stock is
traded on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the ticker symbol
NITE.

Biogen Inc. is a Delaware corporation based in Cambridge,
Massachusetts. It is an American multinational biotechnology
company that specializes in the discovery, development, and
delivery of therapies for the treatment of neurodegenerative,
hematologic, and autoimmune diseases. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and –

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


O'RYAN OIL: Johnson Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Glendale Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. Ryan C. Hoerauf, Inc. and Ryan C. Hoerauf,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00205, (E.D. Tex., May 8, 2017), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, all available
equitable relief, attorney fees, and litigation expenses/costs,
including expert witness fees and expenses under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendants operate as O'Ryan Oil & Gas and Big "R" Gas Plant in
Henderson County, Texas, where Johnson worked as an operator. He
regularly works in excess of 40 hour per work week without being
compensated the appropriate rate, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      William S. Hommel, Jr., Esq.
      HOMMEL LAW FIRM
      5620 Old Bullard Road, Suite 115
      Tyler, TX 75703
      Tel: (903) 596-7100
      Fax: (469) 533-1618
      Email: info@hommelfirm.com


QUIK PICK: Truck Driver Seeks Unpaid Wages, Penalties
-----------------------------------------------------
JUAN HERNANDEZ on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. QUIK PICK EXPRESS, LLC, a California
corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
19STCV16799 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 15, 2019) is an
action pursuant to the California Code of Regulations, and any
other applicable Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Orders,
seeking unpaid lawful wages, unpaid rest and meal period
compensation, penalties and other equitable relief, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs.

The complaint notes that Defendants enforced shift schedules,
employment policies and practices, and workload requirements
wherein Plaintiff and all other Non-Exempt Employees: (1) were not
paid proper wages they earned for all hours they worked including
minimum wage and/or proper overtime compensation; (2) were not
permitted to take their full statutorily authorized rest and meal
periods, or had their rest and meal periods shortened and/or
provided to them late due to the scheduling and work load and time
requirements placed upon them by Defendants. Defendants also failed
to pay such employees one hour of pay at the employees' regular
rate of compensation for each workday that the meal period and/or
rest period was not properly provided.

The Defendants further failed to maintain accurate itemized records
reflecting total hours worked and have failed to provide Non Exempt
Employees with accurate, itemized wage statements reflecting total
hours worked and appropriate rates of pay for those hours worked,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by QUIK PICK as a truck driver in or about
October 2017 and currently occupies said non- exempt, hourly
position.

QUIK PICK is a California corporation which is headquartered in
Carson, California and engaged in providing, among others,
trucking, warehousing and shipping services throughout
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RED ROBIN: Frisby Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------
ZACHARY FRISBY, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. RED ROBIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-01787 (S.D. Tex., May 15, 2019) is a collective
action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

The complaint alleges that Defendant failed to pay overtime for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week and Defendant failed to
pay for work performed off-the-clock.

Plaintiff was initially employed as a Server (aka Waiter) and later
he split time as a Server and Shift Supervisor from approximately
July, 2017 through October, 2018.

Defendant is an American chain of casual dining restaurants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kevin S. Dunagan, Esq.
     The Dunagan Law Firm, P.C.,
     13231 Champion Forest Dr., Suite 112
     Houston, TX 77069
     Phone: (713) 828-0619
     Facsimile: (281) 809-4587


RESTAURANT DEPOT: Goodman Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES GOODMAN AND DOMINIC SCHROEDER, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. RESTAURANT DEPOT, LLC,
AND JETRO HOLDINGS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00399 (W.D.
Wis., May 15, 2019) seeks redress for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA").

Plaintiffs worked over forty hours per week on numerous occasions.
However, they were paid overtime based on their incorrect hourly
rate, and they did not receive all of the overtime pay they were
entitled to, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs are individuals who resides in the Eastern District of
Wisconsin (Milwaukee County) and worked for Defendants.

Restaurant Depot is an independent distributor of restaurant
supplies, with over 130 service centers located throughout the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Robert K. O'Reilly, Esq.
     Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
     Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
     Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
     ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
     3620 East Layton Avenue
     Cudahy, WI 53110
     Phone: (414) 482-8000
     Fax: (414) 482-8001
     Email: roreilly@ademilaw.com
            meldridge@ademilaw.com
            jfruchter@ademilaw.com
            bslatky@ademilaw.com


SIX STAR: Silva Seeks OT Pay, Reimbursement of Expenses
-------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
Six Star Transportation, Inc. and Artur Bazyan for alleged
violations of the Massachusetts General Laws. The case is captioned
Mario Silva, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. Six Star Transportation, Inc. & Artur
Bazyan, Defendants, Case No. 19:1178 (Mass. Cmmw., Middlesex Cty.,
April 26, 2019).

Plaintiff Mario Silva alleges that the Defendants have
misclassified him and other workers as independent contractors,
rather than employees. As a result of this misclassification, the
Defendants have failed to pay the Plaintiff and putative Class
Members overtime compensation and failed to provide reimbursement
for transportation expenses. Plaintiff and the putative class seek
to recover unpaid overtime wages, unlawful deductions taken from
their wages, unreimbursed transportation expenses, benefits to
which they would have been entitled had they been properly
classified as employees, statutory treble damages, prejudgment
interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and any other relief permitted
by law.

Six Star, located in Randolph, Massachusetts, provides
non-emergency medical transportation services to individuals. These
services generally include driving individuals to and from doctor's
appointments, to and from clinical facilities, and to and from
other related non-emergency medical appointments. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Adam J. Shafran
     RUDOLPH FRIEDMANN LLP
     92 State Street
     Boston, MA 02109
     Telephone: (617) 723-7700
     Facsimile: (617) 227-0313
     E-mail: ashafran@rflawyers.com


SOFIA RISTORANTE: Sinchi Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
SEGUNDO LUIS JERES SINCHI, individually and on behalf of all other
employees similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 8406 THIRD AVE REST
CORP. d/b/a SOFIA RISTORANTE ITALIANO and PAUL BAVARO, jointly and
severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02882 (S.D. N.Y., May 15,
2019) is an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to
remedy Defendants' wrongful withholding of Plaintiff's earned wages
and overtime compensation. Plaintiff also brings these claims under
New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), as well as the supporting New York
State Department of Labor Regulations for violations of minimum
wage and overtime wage requirements, and notice and record-keeping
requirements.

The Defendants engaged in their unlawful conduct pursuant to a
corporate policy of minimizing labor costs and denying employees
compensation by knowingly violating the FLSA and NYLL, says the
complaint. The Defendants repeatedly suffered or permitted
Plaintiff to work in excess of 40 hours per week without paying him
the appropriate premium overtime pay of one and one half times the
statutory minimum wage, it adds.

Plaintiff was formerly employed by Defendants from June 2004 to
February 1, 2019, and worked at their restaurant.

8406 THIRD AVE REST CORP. owns and operates an Italian restaurant
called SOFIA RISTORANTE ITALIANO located at 8406 Third Avenue, Bay
Ridge, Brooklyn, NY 11209.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ariadne Panagopoulou, Esq.
     Pardalis & Nohavicka, LLP
     950 Third Avenue, 5th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: (718) 777-0400
     Facsimile: (718) 777-0599


SOUTH CITY GAS: Faces Saravia et al. Labor Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
South City Gas, Inc. for violations of the California Labor Code
and the California Business and Professions Code. The case is
captioned MANUEL ANTONIO SARAVIA, an individual; REBECCA AGUILAR,
an individual; ALEJANDRA CHAVEZ, an individual; on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated; Plaintiffs, v. SOUTH
CITY GAS, INC., a California Corporation; HUMBERTO FLORES, an
individual; and DOES 1-100, inclusive; Defendants, Case No.
19STCVH499 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 25, 2019).

Saravia et al. allege that South City Gas failed to pay minimum and
overtime wages and failed to provide rest and meal breaks to its
employees. In addition, Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant used
non-compliant wage statements, failed to compensate all hours they
worked, and engaged in unfair business practices.

Owned and managed by Humberto Flores, South City Gas, Inc. operates
gasoline stations in California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Sarkis Sirmabekian, Esq.
     SIRMABEKIAN LAW FIRM, PC
     3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
     Los Angeles, CA 90010
     Telephone: (818) 473-5003
     Facsimile: (818) 476-5619
     E-mail: contact@slawla.com

        - and -

     Daniel Srourian, Esq.
     SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
     3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
     Los Angeles, CA 90010
     Telephone: (310) 601-3131
     Facsimile: (310) 388-8444
     E-mail: daniel@slfla.com


SPECTRUM BRANDS: SEC Disclosures Misleading, Pension Fund Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
WEST PALM BEACH FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION FUND, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
SPECTRUM BRANDS LEGACY, INC. f/k/a SPECTRUM BRANDS HOLDINGS, INC.,
ANDREAS R. ROUVE, DAVID M. MAURA, and DOUGLAS L. MARTIN, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00347 (W.D. Wisc., April 30, 2019),
asserts violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and seeks an award of damages to compensate Spectrum
stockholders for the Defendants' misrepresentations.

The Plaintiff brings this securities class action on behalf of all
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of
Spectrum Brands Legacy, Inc. between June 14, 2016 and November 16,
2018, inclusive.

On June 14, 2016 and February 3, 2017, Spectrum announced that it
was consolidating the operations of its GAC and HHI businesses into
two brand-new distribution centers in Dayton, Ohio and Edgerton,
Kansas, respectively (the "Consolidations"). These were time- and
capital-intensive projects on which analysts and other
market-watchers commented extensively. Once operational, the Dayton
and Edgerton facilities would impact every aspect of the GAC and
HHI businesses.

From June 2016 through April 2018, Spectrum and its senior
management gave real-time updates about the status of the
Consolidations that presented the Company's execution as
unreservedly positive and effective. For example, Rouve and Martin
routinely described the "good progress," asserted that the
Consolidations were "on track" to "reduce expenses and inventory in
the back half of 2017 and in 2018," and characterized any problems
faced as "temporary," "transitional," "short-term," and "quickly
addressed."

In late 2017, Spectrum announced that the GAC project was complete
and that the HHI project was nearing completion. Rouve told the
market that the operational improvements were already manifest,
saying in a November 11, 2017 press release that Spectrum had
"delivered strong continuous improvement savings along with major
efficiency enhancement programs in GAC and HHI." On February 8,
2018, Rouve reiterated that the GAC consolidation was complete,
which "[wa]s important as we head into the peak spring and summer
period." 1

These statements were materially misleading, falsely conveying to
the market that the new facilities were already improving the cost
profile and ready, willing, and able to execute on Spectrum's
seasonal spring and summer demand.

In truth, the execution of the Consolidations had been flawed and
the Company knew those projects were far from complete. On April
26, 2018, the Company announced poor earnings for the second
quarter of 2018 and revised its full-year 2018 EBITDA guidance
downward by about 9%. Spectrum also announced that it had fired
Rouve as CEO and replaced him with Maura, then Chairman of the
Board of Directors. The Company admitted that its disastrous
quarter was largely driven by bad execution on the consolidation
projects, even though Rouve and Martin had assured the market that
the projects were completed effectively as recently as two months
earlier. As a result, Spectrum's share price declined by about
22.1%.

Despite acknowledging problems with the Consolidations, the
Defendants continued to falsely assure investors that those
problems had been resolved. During the second quarter 2018 earnings
call, and the subsequent third quarter earnings call on July 26,
2018, Maura and Martin represented that the problems at the
distribution centers were "largely behind" the Company.

Then, on November 19, 2018, Spectrum surprised the market by
announcing a $92.5 million goodwill write down on the GAC business.
Maura said that this was necessary to clean up the inventory and
balance sheet mess caused by the poorly executed Consolidations. In
other words, the November 2018 write down constituted additional
economic harm to the Company stemming from the inadequately
performed consolidation projects. After the April 2018 disclosures,
Spectrum should have disclosed to investors that the problems
related to the Consolidations had not been resolved and that the
Company's bottom line would continue to suffer, instead of falsely
insisting that the worst was over. Because of the November 2018
write down and related disclosures regarding the Consolidations,
Spectrum's share price declined by another 19%.

Spectrum is a Wisconsin-based company. Its primary business is
manufacturing and marketing consumer products, which it then
distributes largely to "big-box" retailers like Home Depot. During
the Class Period, Spectrum owned the trademarks or held licenses
for well-known household brands like Armor All, Kwikset, and Black
& Decker. Spectrum was organized into five divisions, of which two
-- Global Auto Care ("GAC") and Home & Hardware Improvement ("HHI")
-- are relevant here.  Spectrum relied heavily on its "distribution
centers" – physical plants where Spectrum manufactured, packaged,
and/or distributed its products.[BN]

counsel for West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund:

          Douglas M. Poland, Esq.
          RATHJE WOODWARD LLC
          10 East Doty St., Ste. 507
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 960-7430
          E-mail: dpoland@rathjewoodward.com
                  astites@rathjewoodward.com

               - and -

          Avi Josefson, Esq.
          Michael Blatchley, Esq.
          Edward G. Timlin, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
          & GROSSMANN LLP
          875 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (312) 373-3880
          E-mail: avi@blbglaw.com
                  michaelb@blbglaw.com
                  edward.timlin@blbglaw.com

               - and -

          Robert D. Klausner, Esq.
          Bonni S. Jensen, Esq.
          KLAUSNER KAUFMAN JENSEN & LEVINSON
          7080 Northwest 4th Street
          Plantation, FL 33317
          Telephone: (954) 916-1202
          E-mail: bob@robertdklausner.com
                  bonni@robertdklausner.com

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Woek Seeks Minimum Wage, Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Swift
Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC for minimum wage and hour
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case is captioned
RICHARD D. WOEK JR., an individual, Plaintiff, v. SWIFT
TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-05342 (W.D. Wash., April 25,
2019). Plaintiff Richard D. Woek Jr. alleges that Swift failed to
pay its driver employees for all hours worked.

Plaintiff and the collective class were allegedly paid by Swift
based on the number of miles driven. As a result, Plaintiff and the
class' compensation was tied to the distance travelled. Plaintiff
was not paid for on duty time when not driving. For over-the-road
trips, this resulted in significant uncompensated on-duty time. In
many weeks, Plaintiff and other Swift drivers were paid less than
the minimum wage for each hour that they worked.

Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC is a transportation
company that is authorized to conduct and is actually conducting
business in the state of Washington. Swift designates its main
office Arizona. The company specializes in moving goods in trucks
throughout the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
     445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2625
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Telephone: (213) 514-5681
     Facsimile: (213) 514-5682
     E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com


TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Cox Seeks Minimum Pay for Waitstaff
----------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Texas Roadhouse,
Inc. and Texas Roadhouse Delaware, LLC for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards
Act (OMFWSA). The case is captioned CHELSEA COX, on Behalf of
Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. TEXAS ROADHOUSE, INC.
and and TEXAS ROADHOUSE DELAWARE, LLC, Case No.
2:19-cv-01688-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio, May 8, 2019).

Plaintiff Chelsea Cox alleges that the Defendants pay their tipped
employees, including servers and bartenders, below the minimum wage
rate by taking advantage of the tip-credit provisions of the FLSA
and, in Ohio, the OMFWSA. However, Defendants failed to correctly
inform Plaintiff of the desire to rely on the tip credit to meet
its minimum wage obligations. In addition, Defendants required the
Plaintiff to pay from her tips for customer walkouts, shortages, or
errors in customer orders.

Texas Roadhouse, Inc., is a foreign for-profit corporation,
organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware,
which does business in Ohio. Texas Roadhouse Delaware, LLC is a
Delaware limited liability company and a subsidiary of Texas
Roadhouse, Inc. Defendants operate a nationwide chain of
restaurants with the name "Texas Roadhouse" under the control of
the same senior level management. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL L. FRADIN
     8401 Crawford Avenue, Suite 104
     Skokie, IL 60076
     Telephone: (847) 644-3425
     Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
     E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com

             - and -

     Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
     Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
     Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
     THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
     920 Rockefeller Building
     614 W. Superior Avenue
     Cleveland, OH 44113
     Telephone: 216-696-5000
     Facsimile: 216-696-7005
     E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
             chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
             lori@lazzarolawfirm.com

             - and –

     Don J. Foty, Esq.
     KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
     4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
     Houston, TX 77006
     Telephone: (713) 523-0001
     Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
     E-mail: dfoty@kennedyhodges.com


TJX COMPANIES: Schuchard Sues over Background Checks
----------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against The TJX Companies,
Inc et al for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case
is captioned VLADIMIR SCHUCHARD, on behalf of himself, all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. THE TJX COMPANIES, INC., a
Delaware corporation; HOMEGOODS, INC., a Delaware corporation; T.J.
MAXX OF CA, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company; MARSHALLS OF
CA, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company; MARSHALLS OF MA,
INC., a Massachusetts corporation; SIERRA TRADING POST, INC., a
Wyoming corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 19STCV14308 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 25,
2019).

Plaintiff Vladimir Schuchard alleges that Defendants routinely
acquire consumer, investigative consumer and/or consumer credit
reports to conduct background checks on Plaintiff and other
prospective, current and former employees and use information from
credit and background reports in connection with their hiring
process without providing proper disclosures and obtaining proper
authorization in compliance with the law.

Headquartered in Framingham, Massachusetts, The TJX Companies, Inc.
describes itself as the leading multinational off-price apparel and
home fashions retailer in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shaun Setareh, Esq.
     William M. Pao, Esq.
     Alexandra R. McIntosh, Esq.
     SETAREH LAW GROUP
     315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315
     Beverly Hills, CA 90212
     Telephone: (310) 888-7771
     Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
     E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com  
             william@setarehlaw.com
             alex@setarehlaw.com


TOTAL SYSTEM: Telexfree Securities Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------
Total System Services, 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 court in the case
entitled, In Re: Telexfree Securities Litigation
(4:14-md-02566-TSH) (D. Mass.), has held a scheduling conference on
March 20, 2019, but has not yet entered an order setting the case
schedule.

ProPay, Inc. ("ProPay"), a subsidiary of the Company, has been
named as one of a number of defendants (including other merchant
processors) in several purported class action lawsuits relating to
the activities of TelexFree, Inc. and its affiliates and
principals.

TelexFree is a former merchant customer of ProPay. With regard to
TelexFree, each purported class action lawsuit generally alleges
that TelexFree engaged in an improper multi-tier marketing scheme
involving voice-over Internet protocol telephone services.

The plaintiffs in each of the purported class action complaints
generally allege that the various merchant processor defendants,
including ProPay, aided and abetted the improper activities of
TelexFree. TelexFree filed for bankruptcy protection in Nevada. The
bankruptcy proceeding was subsequently transferred to the
Massachusetts Bankruptcy Court.

Specifically, ProPay has been named as one of a number of
defendants (including other merchant processors) in each of the
following purported class action complaints relating to TelexFree:
(i) Waldermara Martin, et al. v. TelexFree, Inc., et al. (Case No.
BK-S-14-12524-ABL) (Bankr. D. Nev.); (ii) Anthony Cellucci, et al.
v. TelexFree, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 4:14-BK-40987) (Bankr. D.
Mass.); (iii) Maduako C. Ferguson Sr., et al. v. Telexelectric,
LLP, et. al (Case No. 5:14-CV-00316-D) (E.D.N.C.); (iv) Todd Cook
v. TelexElectric LLP et al. (Case No. 2:14-CV-00134) (N.D. Ga.);
(v) Felicia Guevara v. James M. Merrill et al., CA No.
1:14-cv-22405-DPG) (S.D. Fla.); (vi) Reverend Jeremiah Githere, et
al. v. TelexElectric LLP et al. (Case No. 1:14-CV-12825-GAO) (D.
Mass.); (vii) Paulo Eduardo Ferrari et al. v. Telexfree, Inc. et
al. (Case No. 14-04080) (Bankr. D. Mass); (viii) Magalhaes v.
TelexFree, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-12437 (D. Mass.); (ix) Griffith
v. Merrill et al., No. 14-CV-12058 (D. Mass.); (x) Abelgadir v.
Telexelectric, LLP, No. 14-09857 (S.D.N.Y.); and (xi) Rita Dos
Santos, v. TelexElectric, LLP et al., 2:15-cv-01906-NVW (D. Ariz.)
(together, the "Actions").

On October 21, 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
("JPML") transferred and consolidated the Actions filed before that
date to the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts (the "Consolidated Action"). The JPML subsequently
transferred the remaining Actions to the Consolidated Action. The
Consolidated Action is styled In Re: Telexfree Securities
Litigation (4:14-md-02566-TSH) (D. Mass.).

The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action filed a First
Consolidated Amended Complaint on March 31, 2015 and filed a Second
Consolidated Amended Complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint") on
April 30, 2015.

The Second Amended Complaint, which supersedes the complaints filed
prior to consolidation of the Actions, purports to bring claims on
behalf of all persons who purchased certain TelexFree
“memberships” and suffered a "net loss" between January 1, 2012
and April 16, 2014.

With respect to ProPay, the Second Amended Complaint alleges that
ProPay aided and abetted tortious acts committed by TelexFree, and
that ProPay was unjustly enriched in the course of providing
payment processing services to TelexFree. Several defendants,
including ProPay, moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on
June 2, 2015. The court held a hearing on the motions to dismiss on
November 2, 2015.

On January 29, 2019, the court granted in part and denied in part
ProPay's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The court
dismissed plaintiffs' claim that ProPay was unjustly enriched by
the alleged TelexFree fraud, but denied ProPay's motion to dismiss
the plaintiffs' claim that ProPay allegedly aided and abetted
TelexFree's purported scheme.

The court's ruling does not reflect any determination of the merits
of the plaintiffs' aiding and abetting claim against ProPay, but
instead is merely a ruling that the plaintiffs have alleged facts
that could potentially entitle them to relief from ProPay if those
facts were true. ProPay denies that it had any knowledge of
TelexFree's alleged fraud or that it aided and abetted that fraud
in any way.

After deciding the motions to dismiss filed by ProPay and some of
the other defendants in the litigation, the court lifted the stay
on discovery that had been in place since the outset of the
Consolidated Action. Approximately 50 defendants remain in the
litigation. The Court held a scheduling conference on March 20,
2019, but has not yet entered an order setting the case schedule.

Total System Services, Inc. provides payment processing, merchant,
and related payment services to financial and nonfinancial
institutions worldwide. The company operates through three
segments: Issuer Solutions, Merchant Solutions, and Consumer
Solutions. Total System Services, Inc. was founded in 1982 and is
headquartered in Columbus, Georgia.


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Broom Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems,
Inc. The case is styled as Wayne Broom individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Transworld Systems,
Inc., MSW Capital, LLC, John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-00581-BJD-PDB (M.D. Fla., May 17, 2019).

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

Transworld Systems Inc. provides accounts receivable, debt
recovery, and past due accounts services for businesses, medical
companies, dental companies, education facilities, Fortune 500
companies, and small businesses in the United States and
internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Justin Zeig, Esq.
     Zeig Law Firm, LLC
     3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
     Hollywood, FL 33024
     Phone: (754) 217-3084
     Fax: (754) 217-3084
     Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Does not Pay Drivers Promised Rates, Says Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bart Haynie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-00336, (E.D. Ark., May 8, 2019) seeks declaratory judgment,
monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil
penalties and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees for
failure to pay lawful minimum and overtime wages as required by the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

Uber Technologies operates a transport network company via a
cellphone application. Haynie is an Uber driver within Little Rock.
He claims that Uber did not pay him the promised rate that was set.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNION CITY HOTEL: Vinalay Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Union City Hotel
Management Corporation for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the California Business and Professions Code. The case is
captioned DIANA VINALAY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. UNION CITY HOTEL MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
37-2019-00021559-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty.). In the
complaint, Plaintiff Diana Vinalay alleges several causes of action
against the Defendant, including for failure to pay minimum and
overtime wages, failure to provide rest and meal periods, and for
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements under the
FLSA.

Union City Hotel Management Corporation operates several hotels in
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
     Kashif Haque, Esq.
     Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
     AEGIS LAWFIRM, PC
     9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
     Irvine, CA 92618
     Telephone: (949) 379-6250
     Facsimile: (949) 379-6251


UTGR INC: Ramer, Morales Seek OT Premium Pay
--------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against UTGR, Inc., d/b/a
Twin River Casino, for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and the Rhode Island Payment of Wages Act (RIPWA). The case
is captioned RYAN RAMER AND JULIE MORALES, individually and on
behalf of other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v.
UTGR, INC. d/b/a TWIN RIVER CASINO, alias Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00218 (D.R.I., April 26, 2019).

Plaintiffs Ryan Ramer and Julie Morales allege that the Defendant
willfully and repeatedly violated the FLSA as well as the RIPWA by
employing them and Class Plaintiffs for more than 40 hours per
workweek without compensating them at a rate not less than one and
one-half times the regular rate at which they were employed.
Accordingly, Ramer and Morales seek compensatory, liquidated, and
punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and other equitable
relief arising out of violations of the FLSA and RIPWA.

UTGR, Inc. is a corporation duly organized under the laws of
Delaware and doing business in the State of Rhode Island, with a
principal place of business located at 100 Twin River Road in the
Town of Lincoln, County of Providence, and State of Rhode Island.
The company operates Twin River Casino, which offers 162,000
square-feet of gaming space with over 5,000 gaming positions. The
casino operates over 4,200 slot machines and virtual table games,
as well as 119 live table games including blackjack, roulette,
craps, a poker room and more. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Thomas J. Enright, Esq.
     ENRIGHT LAW LLC
     696 Reservoir Avenue
     Cranston, RI 02910
     Telephone: (401) 526-2620
     Facsimile: (401) 457-7117
     E-mail: tom@enrightlawoffice.com


VISA INC: Bid to Dismiss Injunctive Relief Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019, that the motion to dismiss the Injunctive
Relief class action suit in the Interchange Multidistrict
Litigation (MDL), is pending.

On December 6, 2018, the district court held a hearing on the
Damages Class plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the
Amended Settlement Agreement, and on January 24, 2019, the district
court granted preliminary approval.

Settlement discussions with plaintiffs purporting to act on behalf
of the putative Injunctive Relief Class are ongoing.

On January 16, 2019, the bank defendants moved to dismiss the
claims brought against them by the Injunctive Relief Class, on the
grounds that plaintiffs lack standing and fail to state a claim
against the bank defendants.

Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide. The
company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and
information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions,
businesses, strategic partners, and government entities. Visa Inc.
was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco,
California.

WABCO HOLDINGS: Class Suits over ZF Friedrichshafen Merger Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
WABCO Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company has been
named as defendant in two class action suits related to its merger
with ZF Friedrichshafen AG, entitled, Collier v. WABCO Holdings
Inc., et al. and Kent v. WABCO Holdings Inc., et al.

On March 28, 2019, WABCO entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the Merger Agreement) with ZF Friedrichshafen AG (ZF), a
stock corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
Federal Republic of Germany, and Verona Merger Sub Corp., a
Delaware corporation and indirect wholly owned subsidiary of ZF,
pursuant to which ZF will acquire 100% of the issued and
outstanding shares of WABCO common stock (the Merger). Consummation
of the Merger is subject to approval by WABCO's shareholders,
customary closing conditions, and regulatory approvals and is
expected to close in early 2020.

Following the announcement of the execution of the Merger
Agreement, two putative class action complaints were filed against
the Company and the Board of Directors. On April 23, 2019, the
first putative class action complaint was filed against the Company
and the Board of Directors in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware under the caption Collier v. WABCO
Holdings Inc., et al., No. 1:19-cv-00729 (D. Del.).

On April 24, 2019, the second putative class action complaint was
filed against the Company and the Board of Directors in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware under the
caption Kent v. WABCO Holdings Inc., et al., No. 1:19-cv-00735 (D.
Del.).

Both actions allege violations of federal securities laws and
regulations due to allegedly material and misleading statements and
omissions in the preliminary proxy statement filed in connection
with the Merger, including with respect to the financial analyses
of the Company's financial advisors and financial projections
prepared by the Company's management.

The actions seek to enjoin the special meeting and the closing, as
well as damages, costs and attorneys' fees.

WABCO Holdings said, "The defendants believe that the lawsuits are
without merit."

WABCO Holdings Inc., together with its subsidiaries, supplies
electronic, mechanical, electro-mechanical, and aerodynamic
products worldwide. WABCO Holdings Inc. was founded in 1869 and is
headquartered in Brussels, Belgium.


WELLCARE HEALTH: Kent Seeks to Halt Centene Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kent, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Wellcare Health Plans, Inc., Christian P.
Michalik, Richard C. Breon, Kenneth A. Burdick, Amy
Compton-Phillips, H. James Dallas, Kevin F. Hickey, Bobby Jindal,
Glenn D. Steele, Jr., William L. Trubeck, Kathleen E. Walsh, Paul
E. Weaver, Centene Corporaton, Wellington Merger Sub I, Inc., and
Wellington Merger Sub II, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00865
(D. Del., May 8, 2019), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons
acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating or
closing the acquisition of WellCare Health Plans, Inc. by Centene
Corporation, Wellington Merger Sub I, Inc. and Wellington Merger
Sub II, Inc., rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the
merger, rescissory damages, costs of this action, including
reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees
and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

Under the transaction, WellCare's stockholders will receive 3.38
shares of Parent and $120.00 in cash for each share of WellCare
common stock they own.

The complaint asserts that the registration statement filed in
connection with the merger failed to include critical financial
analysis performed by its financial advisor, Goldman Sachs & Co.
LLC, needed by the shareholders to make an informed decision on the
merger deal.

WellCare focuses primarily on providing government-sponsored
managed care services to families, children, seniors, and
individuals with complex medical needs primarily through Medicaid,
Medicare Advantage, and Medicare Prescription Drug Plans, as well
as individuals in the Health Insurance Marketplace. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
      RM LAW, P.C.
      1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Tel: (484) 324-6800
      Email: rm@maniskas.com



WELLCARE OF FLORIDA: Violates Wage and Hour Laws, Harrison Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
DEBORAH HARRISON and CHERYL MILLER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLCARE OF FLORIDA,
INC. d/b/a STAYWELL HEALTH PLAN OF FLORIDA and COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH
MANAGEMENT, INC, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00222-RH-CAS (N.D.
Fla., May 15, 2019) is a collective and class action brought by
Individual and Representative Plaintiffs who are or were denied
overtime pay required by federal wage and hour laws. These
employees are similarly situated under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").

The Defendants suffered and permitted Plaintiff, Opt-In Plaintiffs,
and the Putative Collective Class members to work more than 40
hours per week without overtime pay, asserts the complaint. The
Defendants have been aware, or should have been aware, that
Plaintiffs, Opt-In Plaintiffs, and the Putative Collective Class
members performed non-exempt work that required payment of overtime
compensation.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek relief for the Opt-In Plaintiffs and
Collective Class under the FLSA to remedy Defendants' failure to
pay appropriate overtime compensation.

Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as Case Managers
delivering and performing case management and care coordination
services.

STAYWELL is a Florida for-profit corporation doing business
throughout Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     JEREMIAH J. TALBOTT, ESQ.
     Jeremiah J. Talbott, P.A.
     900 East Moreno Street
     Pensacola, FL 32503
     Phone: (850) 437-9600
     Fax: (850) 437-0906
     Email: jjtalbott@talbottlawfirm.com

          - and -

     SEAN CULLITON, ESQ.
     Sean Culliton, LLC
     150 John Knox Road
     Tallahassee, FL 32303
     Phone: (850) 385-9455
     Fax: (813) 441-1999
     Email: Sean@seancullitonlaw.com

          - and -

     JOHN C. DAVIS, ESQ.
     Law Office of John C. Davis
     623 Beard Street
     Tallahassee, FL, 32303
     Phone: (850) 222-4770
     Fax: (850) 222-3119
     Email: john@johndavislaw.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 ***