CAR_Public/190530.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, May 30, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 108

                            Headlines

3M CO: 96 Suits Related to Aqueous Film Forming Foam Underway
3M CO: Minn. High Court Denies Petition for Review in Bair Hugger
3M CO: Suits over Defective Combat Earplugs Consolidated
3M COMPANY: Brock Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
3M COMPANY: Cohen Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs

3M COMPANY: Fleuricourt Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
3M COMPANY: Hanson Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
3M COMPANY: Hieb Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
3M COMPANY: Hudgens Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
3M COMPANY: Pratt Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs

71TH MNY CORP: Hernandez Seeks Spread of Hours Premium
801 CONKLIN: Estrada, Wright Seek Minimum Wage, Overtime Premium
A/G 727: Khan Seeks Overtime Premium Pay
AAC HOLDINGS: Caudle Hits Share Price Drop Over False Reports
ABB OPTICAL: Removes Lewis Suit to N.D. California

ACADIA PHARMA: Has Until May 31 to Respond to Amended Complaint
ADJUSTABLE BEDDING: Faces Naiman Suit over Autodialed Calls
ANTARES PHARMA: Motion to Dismiss Smith Class Suit Still Pending
ANTHEM COMPANIES: Canaday Seeks Overtime Premium Pay
APOGEE ENTERPRISES: Mayer Class Action Ongoing

ARS NATIONAL: Deutsch Sues Over Confusing Collection Letters
AUTO GALLERY OF TAMPA: Shiffman Sues over SUV Defective Brake
BANK BRADESCO: Cert. Bid in Operacao Zelotes-Related Suit Underway
BBVA COMPASS: Chattopadhyay Suit Asserts Discrimination
BHARTI CORP: Kordbacheh Suit Removed to S.D. Florida

BOB EVANS: Jensen Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
BOX HOUSE EVENTS: Fischler Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
BRF SA: Bid to Amend Second Amended Complaint Pending
BROWN DINING: Implements Policy Changes Following Class Action
BUREAU OF ACCOUNTS: Lichter Sues Over FDCPA Violation

BURGER KING: Kang Sues over Website's Limited Accessibility
BURLINGTON COAT: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Kang Alleges
CANADA: NDP MP Responds to Coerced Sterilization Amid Lawsuit
CARRIAGE SERVICES: Court OK on Settlement of Faria Suit Underway
CHARLOTTE TILBURY BEAUTY: Haggar Sues over ADA Violations

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Removes Marcelino Suit to S.D. California
CHICO'S FAS: Fisher Sues over False Discounts
CITIGROUP INC: Bid for Leave to Amend LIBOR Suit Narrowed
CITIGROUP INC: Faces GSE Bonds Antitrust Suit
CITIGROUP INC: Stachon Class Action Stayed

CITIGROUP INC: Suits over ICE LIBOR Consolidated with Putnam Case
CKE RESTAURANTS HOLDINGS: Chapman Sues over Inaccessible Premises
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Cyber Attack Claims Due Aug. 1
CONTAINER STORE: Newman Sues over Autodialed Text Messages
COOPER WORKS: Underpays Construction Workers, Rodriguez Alleges

COSAN LIMITED: Employees Class Action Related Suits Ongoing
COSAN LIMITED: Environmental Class Action in Brazil Still Stayed
COSTCO: Employee Benefits Program Unlawful, Kimmel Suit Says
CSX INTERMODAL TERMINALS: Rogers Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill.
DCD CONSTRUCTION: Castillo, Merced Seek OT Premium Pay

DERA RESTAURANT: Diaz Seeks Overtime, Minimum Pay
DOUGLAS COUNTY, WA: Rivera-Ruiz Files Civil Rights Class Suit
DOYLE'S WORK: Faces Olmos Labor Suit in California
DYNAGAS LNG: Epelbaum Files Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Auguste Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida

EURO PAINTING AND WALLCOVERING: Veres Seeks OT, Minimum Pay
EXLSERVICE HOLDINGS: Remainder of Settlement Amount Already Paid
FAIRFAX BEHAVIORAL HEALTH: Faces Suit over ADA Violations
FIC RESTAURANTS: Does not Pay Proper Wages, Lowe Suit Says
FIDELITY NATIONAL: 401(k) Plan Related Suit v. Unit Ongoing

FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Faces Suit Over Confusing Collection Letter
FRINGE BENEFIT GROUP: Fenello Sues over Automated Telemarketing Cal
GARY'S KINGS'S: Burke Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
GENERAL MOTORS: Parker Sues Over Defective Steering System
GLOBAL NET: Dembski Files Suit in Arizona

GRG USA LLC: Boling Files Tort Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
HILL'S PET: Connary Sues Over Product's False and Misleading Labels
IMDB.COM INC: Jones Sues Over Deaf-Inaccessible Website
INTEGRITY RECOVERY: Costa Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
ITURAN LOCATION: Court Hearing in Subscriber Suit Set for June 2019

JAB HOLDING: Pension Fund Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Abott Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
JPAY INC: Inmates Sue over Digital Music, Audio Books Purchases
KEN'S SUSHI: Zhang Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Settlement in NY Suit Still Awaits Court Approval

LENNOX INDUSTRIES: Baker Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Damages
LIBERTY CAPITAL: Ellis Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
LIFE ALERT EMERGENCY RESPONSE: Cinta Sues over Automatic Contract R
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Appeal in Formaldehyde & Abrasion MDL Pending
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Class Certification Bid in Mason Still Pending

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Court OKs Supervised Notice in A. Mason Suit
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: MOU Reached in Gold Class Action
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Steele Class Action Underway in Ontario
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Still Defending Kramer Class Action
MARCOS: DOJ Backs OSG in Opposing Settlement Agreement

MARKEL CORP: Class Suits  in New York Consolidated
MASTERCARD INC: ATM Surcharge-Related Suits Still Ongoing
MASTERCARD INC: Canadian Suit over Point-of-Sale Acceptance Ongoing
MASTERCARD INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing in November
MASTERCARD INC: Shift Fraud Liability Suit Still Ongoing

MASTERCARD INC: TCPA Class Suit in Florida Still Stayed
MDL 2433: Court Consolidates 5 C-8 PI Cases for Trial
MDL 2741: Washington v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2885: Matney Suit over Combat Arms Earplugs Consolidated
MENDY'S ATRIUM: Pablo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages

MIAMI SWIM WEEK: Faces Acquamoda Suit over Breach of Contract
MIDLAND CREDIT: Misreports Interest & Fees, Yavorka et al. Claim
MIDLAND CREDIT: NJ Court Denies Arbitration Bid in Schultz
MIDTOWN EAST: Clemente Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
MIDTOWN LOFT: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

MILLENIA HOUSING: Alexandre Seeks Overtime Pay
MOLEX LLC: Gross Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Appeal in Steamfitters Class Suit Pending
MONSANTO COMPANY: Batherson Suit Moved to N.D. California
MONSANTO COMPANY: Holts Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Lovelace Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Sanderses Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Schwabs Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Stone Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Suit by Estate of James Hall Moved to C.D. Cal.

MONSANTO COMPANY: Sutliff Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Washington Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Williams Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Woodwards Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MOSQUITO SQUAD: Lenorowitz Suit Asserts TCPA Breach

NATIONAL PLAN ADVISORS: Davis Seeks Overtime Pay
NATURAL HEALTH: Continues to Defend Kauffman Class Action
NESTLE USA: Faces Walker Suit over Deceptive Labeling
NFL: Concussion Claims Process Getting More Arduous
NORTHLAND GROUP: George Sues over Unfair Debt Collection Practices

NUTANIX INC: Mauter Sues over Artificially Inflated Stock Price
NY BAGEL BOYS: Gitterman Seeks Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
OHIO BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES: Ventura Sues over Lamination Fee
ONTARIO: Collingwood Sued Over Coyote Co-Existence Policies
PAPA MURPHY'S HOLDINGS: Swan Sues over Tender Offer

PEE DEE CORP: Gabino Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Fike Sues Over Deceptive Proofs of Claim
PORTLAND GENERAL: Appeal in Trojan Class Action Still Pending
PRECISION CASTPARTS: Cottrell Seeks Overtime Pay
PRO CUSTOM SOLAR: Murrell et al. Sue over Racist Conduct

REBL CORP: Faces Class Action Following Collapse
RED LION HOTEL: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ROHR INC: Morgan's Labor Suit Transferred to E.D. Calif.
SJW GROUP: Suits Related to CTWS Merger Stayed
SKECHERS USA: Guajardo Files Suit Over Defective Footwear for Kids

SLEEP NUMBER: Continues to Defend Cassels and Cadenas Suit
SLEEP NUMBER: Dismissal of Spade Class Action Now Final
SODEXO INC: Cerrano Seeks Final Wages, Penalties
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON: Thomas & Koenigstein Fire Suits Ongoing
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON: Woolsey Fire Litigation Ongoing

STEINHOFF INT'L: Opens Door for Settlements with Shareholders
STERLING JEWELERS: Desmond, Lodge Sue over Deceptive Practices
SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATIONS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Says
THIRTYNINE COLLINS: Honeywell et al Sue over ADA Violations
TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Patras Suit over Defective Losartan

UNITED PARCEL: Hughes Class Action Ongoing in Kentucky
UNITED STATES: Class Actions Over PACER Fees Ongoing
VANGELDEREN SERVICES: Solovey Sues over Debt Collection Practices
VILLAGE SUPER MARKET: Lee et al. Seek OT Pay
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Settlement of Gas Price Index Suits Okayed

WOLF AND SHEPHERD: Haggar et al. Sue over ADA Violations
XEROX CORP: May 31 Oral Argument in 2nd Circuit Appeal
YINGLI GREEN: Settlement in Calif. Consolidated Suit Wins Okay
ZF FRIEDRICHSHAFEN: Croft Sues Over Defective Airbag Control Units
[*] Legislation to Protect College Students from Fraud Passed

[] Consumers Can't Create Class Actions Under Proposed Ill. Bill

                            *********

3M CO: 96 Suits Related to Aqueous Film Forming Foam Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company 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 as of March 31, 2019, 96 putative class
action and other lawsuits have been filed against 3M and other
defendants in various state and federal courts related to its
product Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF).

3M manufactured and marketed Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) for
use in firefighting at airports and military bases from
approximately 1963 to 2000.

As of March 31, 2019, 96 putative class action and other lawsuits
have been filed against 3M and other defendants in various state
and federal courts where current or former airports, military
bases, or fire training facilities are or were located.

In these cases, plaintiffs typically allege that certain PFAS used
in AFFF contaminated the soil and groundwater where AFFF was used
and seek damages for loss of use and enjoyment of properties,
diminished property values, investigation costs, remediation costs,
and in some cases, personal injury and funds for medical
monitoring. Several companies have been sued along with 3M,
including Ansul Co. (acquired by Tyco, Inc.), Angus Fire, Buckeye
Fire Protection Co., Chemguard, National Foam, Inc., and United
Technologies Corp.

In December 2018, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation granted motions to transfer and consolidate all AFFF
cases pending in federal courts to the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina to be managed in a multi-district
litigation (MDL) proceeding to centralize pre-trial proceedings. As
of March 31, 2019, there were 88 cases in the MDL.

3M Company develops, manufactures, and markets various products
worldwide. It operates through four business segments: Safety &
Industrial, Transportation & Electronics, Health Care, and
Consumer. 3M Company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.


3M CO: Minn. High Court Denies Petition for Review in Bair Hugger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company 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 Minnesota Supreme Court has denied
class action plaintiffs' petition for review.

As of March 31, 2019, the Company is a named defendant in lawsuits
involving approximately 5,080 plaintiffs (compared to approximately
5,015 plaintiffs at December 31, 2018) who allege the Bair
Hugger(TM) patient warming system caused a surgical site infection.
Nearly all of the lawsuits are pending in federal court in
Minnesota.

The plaintiffs claim they underwent various joint arthroplasty,
cardiovascular, and other surgeries and later developed surgical
site infections due to the use of the Bair Hugger(TM)patient
warming system (the Bair Hugger(TM) product line was acquired by 3M
as part of the 2010 acquisition of Arizant, Inc., a leading
manufacturer of patient warming solutions designed to prevent
hypothermia and maintain normal body temperature in surgical
settings).

The plaintiffs seek damages and other relief based on theories of
strict liability, negligence, breach of express and implied
warranties, failure to warn, design and manufacturing defect,
fraudulent and/or negligent misrepresentation/concealment, unjust
enrichment, and violations of various state consumer fraud,
deceptive or unlawful trade practices and/or false advertising
acts.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) granted
the plaintiffs' motion to transfer and consolidate all cases
pending in federal courts to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota to be managed in a multi-district litigation
(MDL) proceeding. In 2017, the U.S. District Court and the
Minnesota state courts denied the plaintiffs' motions to amend
their complaints to add claims for punitive damages. At a joint
hearing before the U.S. District Court and the Minnesota State
court, on the parties' motion to exclude each other's experts, and
3M's motion for summary judgment with respect to general causation,
the federal court did not exclude the plaintiffs' experts and
denied 3M's motion for summary judgment on general causation. The
U.S. District Court is reconsidering that decision.

In January 2018, the state court, after hearing the same arguments,
excluded plaintiffs' experts and granted 3M's motion for summary
judgment on general causation, dismissing all 61 cases pending
before the state court in Minnesota. Plaintiffs appealed that
ruling and the state court's punitive damages ruling.

In January 2019, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the
Minnesota state court orders in their entirety. The Minnesota
Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' petition for review.

3M Company develops, manufactures, and markets various products
worldwide. It operates through four business segments: Safety &
Industrial, Transportation & Electronics, Health Care, and
Consumer. 3M Company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota


3M CO: Suits over Defective Combat Earplugs Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------
3M Company 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 U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation granted motions to transfer and consolidate all cases
pending in federal courts to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Florida to be managed in a multi-district
litigation (MDL) proceeding to centralize pre-trial proceedings.

Aearo Technologies sold Dual-Ended Combat Arms – Version 2
earplugs starting in 2006. 3M acquired Aearo Technologies in 2008
and sold these earplugs from 2008 through 2015, when the product
was discontinued.

In December 2018, a military veteran filed an individual lawsuit
against 3M in the San Bernardino Superior Court in California
alleging that he sustained personal injuries while serving in the
military caused by 3M's Dual-Ended Combat Arms earplugs – Version
2. The plaintiff asserts claims of product liability and fraudulent
misrepresentation and concealment. The plaintiff seeks various
damages, including medical and related expenses, loss of income,
and punitive damages.

As of March 31, 2019, the Company is a named defendant in
approximately 635 lawsuits (including 6 putative class actions) in
various state and federal courts that purport to represent
approximately 1,700 individual claimants making similar
allegations.

In April 2019, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
granted motions to transfer and consolidate all cases pending in
federal courts to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Florida to be managed in a multi-district litigation (MDL)
proceeding to centralize pre-trial proceedings.

3M Company develops, manufactures, and markets various products
worldwide. It operates through four business segments: Safety &
Industrial, Transportation & Electronics, Health Care, and
Consumer. 3M Company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.


3M COMPANY: Brock Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, ROBERT BROCK, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-21689-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 1, 2019),
seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing loss or damage Plaintiff
allegedly suffered while serving variously in the U.S. military,
including during foreign conflicts. The Plaintiff contends that
Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2 ("CAEv2") manufactured and sold
by Aearo were defectively designed and failed to provide adequate
hearing protection. 3M denies these allegations.

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

3M COMPANY: Cohen Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, MICHAEL COHEN, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, AEARO
HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE, LLC, AEARO, LLC and AEARO
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01346-RV-HTC
(N.D. Fla., May 2, 2019), seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing loss
or damage Plaintiff allegedly suffered while serving variously in
the U.S. military, including during foreign conflicts. The
Plaintiff contends that Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2
("CAEv2") manufactured and sold by Aearo were defectively designed
and failed to provide adequate hearing protection. 3M denies these
allegations.

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          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: Fleuricourt Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, GABRIELITA FLEURICOURT, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY,
the Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-61100-RKA (S. D. Fla., May 1,
2019), seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing loss or damage Plaintiff
allegedly suffered while serving variously in the U.S. military,
including during foreign conflicts. The Plaintiff contends that
Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2 ("CAEv2") manufactured and sold
by Aearo were defectively designed and failed to provide adequate
hearing protection. 3M denies these allegations.

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

3M COMPANY: Hanson Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, SAMUEL HANSON, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, AEARO
HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE, LLC AEARO, LLC and AEARO
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-01161 (D. Minn.,
May 1, 2019), seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing loss or damage
Plaintiff allegedly suffered while serving variously in the U.S.
military, including during foreign conflicts. The Plaintiff
contends that Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2 ("CAEv2")
manufactured and sold by Aearo were defectively designed and failed
to provide adequate hearing protection. 3M denies these
allegations.

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

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

3M COMPANY: Hieb Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
---------------------------------------------------------
The case, Nathaniel F. Hieb, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY and
AEARO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00239
(D.R.I., May 1, 2019), seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing loss or
damage Plaintiff allegedly suffered while serving variously in the
U.S. military, including during foreign conflicts. The Plaintiff
contends that Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2 ("CAEv2")
manufactured and sold by Aearo were defectively designed and failed
to provide adequate hearing protection. 3M denies these
allegations.

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

Despite knowing of the dangerous defects in its earplugs,
Defendants 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:

          Jonathan D. Orent, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          55 Cedar Street, Suite 100
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: 401.457.7700
          Facsimile: 401.457.7708
          E-mail: jorent@motleyrice.com

3M COMPANY: Hudgens Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, GREG HUDGENS, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-01164-PJS-LIB (D. Minn., May 1, 2019),
seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing loss or damage Plaintiff
allegedly suffered while serving variously in the U.S. military,
including during foreign conflicts. The Plaintiff contends that
Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2 ("CAEv2") manufactured and sold
by Aearo were defectively designed and failed to provide adequate
hearing protection. 3M denies these allegations.

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

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

3M COMPANY: Pratt Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, Ashley Pratt, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, AEARO
HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE, LLC, AEARO, LLC and AEARO
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01356-MCR-GRJ
(N.D. Fla., May 2, 2019), seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing loss
or damage Plaintiff allegedly suffered while serving variously in
the U.S. military, including during foreign conflicts. The
Plaintiff contends that Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2
("CAEv2") manufactured and sold by Aearo were defectively designed
and failed to provide adequate hearing protection. 3M denies these
allegations.

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Aaron Modiano, Esq.
          Nicholas R. Farnolo, Esq.
          Jennifer R. Liakos, Esq.
          NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, LLC
          2665 S. Bay Shore Drive
          Coconut Grove, FL 33133
          Telephone: (212) 397-1000
          Facsimile: (646) 843-7619
          E-mail: Amodiano@napolilaw.com
                  nfarnolo@napolilaw.com
                  jliakos@napolilaw.com

71TH MNY CORP: Hernandez Seeks Spread of Hours Premium
------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. 71th MNY CORP. d/b/a AL'S DELICATESSEN,
MARIANA D. RAMfREZ, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-04481 (S.D. N.Y., May 16, 2019) alleges that, pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law
("NYLL"), he is entitled to recover from Defendants unpaid overtime
compensation, unpaid "spread of hours" premium for each day he
worked a shift in excess of 10  hours, liquidated and statutory
damages pursuant to the New York Labor Law and the New York State
Wage Theft Prevention Act, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post
judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff worked over 40 hours per
week. However, Plaintiff was not paid proper overtime compensation.
During this period, Plaintiff was paid, partly by check and partly
in cash, at the rate of $13 per hour straight time for all hours
worked, and worked sixty 60 hours per week (and sometimes in excess
thereof). Work performed above 40 hours per week was not paid at
the statutory rate of time and one-half as required by state and
federal law, says the complaint.

AL'S DELI, owns and operates a restaurant known as Al's
Delicatessen located at 458 Fashion Avenue. New York, New York
10001. Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work as a non-exempt
kitchen helper/food preparer at the Restaurant on or about April 1,
2018.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


801 CONKLIN: Estrada, Wright Seek Minimum Wage, Overtime Premium
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against 801 Conklin St.
Ltd. d/b/a Crystal Cafe, Mitchell Putterman and Kristine Putterman
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New
York Labor Law (NYLL). The case is captioned INGRID ESTRADA and
RUTH WRIGHT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, - against - 801 CONKLIN ST. LTD. d/b/a
CRYSTAL CAFE, MITCHELL PUTTERMAN and KRISTINE PUTTERMAN,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02410 (E.D.N.Y., April 25, 2019).

Plaintiffs Ingrid Estrada and Ruth Wright allege that Defendants
misclassified its dancers as independent contractors in order to
avoid paying minimum wages and overtime premium pay. Accordingly,
this lawsuit seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage, overtime,
unlawful deductions and misappropriated tips for Plaintiffs and
their similarly situated co-workers who worked for Defendants in
the state of New York as dancers, based upon Defendants' violation
of the FLSA and NYLL.

801 Conklin St. Ltd. was and still is doing business as Crystal
Cafe. It maintains its principal place of business at 801 Conklin
Street, Farmingdale, NY. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
     Saranicole A. Duaban, Esq.
     SHULMAN KESSLER LLP
     534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
     Melville, NY 11747
     Telephone: (631) 499-9100


A/G 727: Khan Seeks Overtime Premium Pay
----------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against A/G 727, Inc. and
Nizar Ali for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
The case is captioned Mohammad Zeeshan Khan, and All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. A/G 727, Inc. and Nizar Ali,
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-01671 (S.D. Tex., May 6, 2019).

Plaintiff Mohammad Zeeshan Khan contends that the Defendants'
wide-spread policy and practice have violated the FLSA because it
allows the Defendants not to pay their employees' overtime hours at
the required premium overtime pay rate at time-and-one-half of the
employee's base hourly rate. The Defendants allegedly failed to
document the overtime pay owed to Plaintiff and to the Members of
the Plaintiff Class, willfully violating the record-keeping
requirements of the FLSA.

A/G 727, Inc. is a corporation is engaged in business in the state
of Texas by its ownership and operation of one or more gasoline
stations and convenience stores, including the Shell branded
gasoline station and convenience store doing business as "Timber
Creek Food Mart", located at 5515 Highway 6 North, Houston, Texas.
A/G 727 may be served with summons and complaint by serving its
duly appointed registered agent, Mr. Nizar Ali, at his residence at
21606 Oleaster Springs Lane, Richmond, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq.
     ALI S. AHMED, P.C.
     One Arena Place
     7322 Southwest Frwy., Suite 1920
     Houston, TX 77074
     Telephone: (713) 223-1300
     Facsimile: (713) 255-0013
     E-mail: aahmedlaw@gmail.com


AAC HOLDINGS: Caudle Hits Share Price Drop Over False Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID BROWN CAUDLE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. AAC HOLDINGS, INC., MICHAEL T.
CARTWRIGHT, KIRK R. MANZ, and ANDREW W. MCWILLIAMS, Defendants,
Case No. 3:19-cv-00407 (M.D. Tenn., May 16, 2019) is a federal
securities class action on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired AAC securities between March 8,
2017 and April 15, 2019, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover
damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.

On April 16, 2019, AAC issued a press release, appended as an
exhibit to the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the
SEC, announcing AAC's financial results for the fourth quarter and
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, and providing guidance for
2019 (the "April 2019 Press Release"). The April 2019 Press Release
disclosed that the Company's annual reports for fiscal years 2017
and 2016, as well as all quarterly reports throughout 2017 and
2018, could no longer be relied upon, and stated that these
financial statements would be restated to reflect adjustments
related to estimates for accounts receivable, provision for
doubtful accounts, and revenue. On this news, AAC's stock price
fell $0.40 per share, or 18.69%, to close at $1.74 per share on
April 16, 2019.

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

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

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

AAC is a company who provides inpatient and outpatient substance
use treatment services for individuals with drug addiction, alcohol
addiction, and co-occurring mental/behavioral health issues in the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq.
     Robert Preston Bramlett, Esq.
     BRAMLETT LAW OFFICES
     P. O. Box 150734
     Nashville, TN 37215
     Phone: 615.248.2828
     Facsimile: 866.816.4116
     Email: PKNASHLAW@aol.com
            Robert@BramlettLawOffices.com

          - and -

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

          - and -

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


ABB OPTICAL: Removes Lewis Suit to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of AR'MANEY LEWIS, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. ABB OPTICAL
GROUP LLC; ABB CON-CISE OPTICAL GROUP LLC; and DOES 1 through 100,
Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Alameda (Case No.
RG19008874) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on April 29, 2019. The clerk of court for the Northern
District of California assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02311-LB. The case
is assigned to Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.

ABB Optical Group, LLC, through its subsidiaries, designs,
manufactures and distributes soft contact lenses to eye care
professionals in America. ABB Optical Group, LLC was formerly known
as ABB CONCISE Optical Group, LLC and changed its name to ABB
Optical Group, LLC in December 2012. The company was founded in
1989 and is based in Coral Springs, Florida with locations in
Marshfield, Massachusetts; Hawthorne, New York; and San Ramon,
California. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher J. Banks, Esq.
          Karen Y. Cho, Esq.
          Maureen N. Beckley, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          One Market, Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
          Telephone: (415) 442-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
          E-mail: christopher.banks@morganlewis.com
                  karen.cho@morganlewis.com
                  maureen.beckley@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Jacqueline Cookerly Aguilera, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue
          Twenty-Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Telephone: (213) 229-2500
          Facsimile: (213) 229-2501
          E-mail: jackie.aguilera@morganlewis.com


ACADIA PHARMA: Has Until May 31 to Respond to Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc.'s deadline to respond to the amended
complaint in a consolidated class action case is May 31, 2019,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019.

Between July 19 and August 3, 2018, following negative publicity
about NUPLAZID, three purported Company stockholders filed putative
securities class action complaints (captioned Staublein v. ACADIA
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 18-cv-01647, Stone v. ACADIA
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 18-cv-01672, and Barglow v. ACADIA
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 18-cv-01812) in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California against the Company
and certain of the Company's current and former executive
officers.

The complaints generally allege that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
making materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and prospects by failing to
disclose that adverse events and safety concerns regarding NUPLAZID
threatened initial and continuing FDA approval, and by failing to
disclose that the Company engaged in business practices likely to
attract regulatory scrutiny.  Several putative lead plaintiffs
filed motions to consolidate the cases and to appoint a lead
plaintiff.

On January 3, 2019, the court consolidated the cases under Case No.
18-cv-01647 and took the lead plaintiff motions under submission.
On February 26, 2019, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel.  The lead plaintiff's consolidated complaint was filed on
April 15, 2019.  The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages
and other relief.  The defendants' deadline to respond to the
consolidated complaint is May 31, 2019.

The Company said, "Given the unpredictability inherent in
litigation, we cannot predict the outcome of this matter.  We are
unable to estimate possible losses or ranges of losses that may
result from this matter, and therefore we have not accrued any
amounts in connection with this matter other than ongoing
attorneys' fees."

ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses
on the development and commercialization of small molecule drugs
that address unmet medical needs in central nervous system
disorders.  The Company was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in
San Diego, California.


ADJUSTABLE BEDDING: Faces Naiman Suit over Autodialed Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Adjustable Bedding
Concepts, Inc. for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act. The case is captioned Sidney Naiman, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Adjustable
Bedding Concepts, Inc., d/b/a Easy Rest, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-00702-MCE-DB (E.D. Cal., April 25, 2019).

Plaintiff Sidney Naiman alleges that the Defendant placed all its
telemarketing calls using an automatic telephone dialing system.
Despite Plaintiff's instruction to no longer call, Defendant
allegedly continued to call Plaintiff's 6443 number for
telemarketing purposes on numerous occasions thereafter, including
on June 1, 2018, June 2, 2018. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks money
damages and injunctive relief against the Defendant's conduct.

Headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota, Easy Rest manufactures and
sells adjustable bed frames and mattresses. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeremy S. Golden, Esq.
     GOLDEN & CARDONA-LOYA, LLP
     3130 Bonita Road, Suite 200B
     Chula Vista, CA 91910
     Telephone: (619) 476-0030
     Facsimile: (775) 898-5471
     E-mail: jeremy@goldencardona.com


ANTARES PHARMA: Motion to Dismiss Smith Class Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss the case entitled, Randy Smith, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Antares Pharma,
Inc., Robert F. Apple and Fred M. Powell, remains pending,
according to Antares Pharma, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019.

On October 23, 2017, Randy Smith filed a complaint in the District
of New Jersey, captioned Randy Smith, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Antares Pharma, Inc., Robert F.
Apple and Fred M. Powell ("Smith"), Case No. 3:17-cv-08945-MAS-DEA,
on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired Antares securities between December 21, 2016 and October
12, 2017, inclusive, asserting claims for purported violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, against Antares, Robert F. Apple and Fred M. Powell.

The Smith complaint contends that defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Antares
had provided insufficient data to the FDA in connection with the
NDA for XYOSTEDTM; and (ii) accordingly, Antares had overstated the
approval prospects for XYOSTEDTM.

On July 27, 2018, the court entered an order appointing Serghei
Lungu as lead plaintiff, Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel, and Lite
DePalma Greenberg, LLC as liaison counsel for plaintiff.

On August 3, 2018, the parties submitted a stipulation and proposed
order, setting forth an agreed-upon schedule for responding to the
complaint, which the court granted.  Pursuant to that order,
plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on
October 9, 2018.

On November 26, 2018, defendants filed a motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion on January 10, 2019 and
defendants filed a reply in support of their motion on February 25,
2019.

The Company said it believes that the claims in the Smith action
lack merit and intends to defend them vigorously.

Antares Pharma, Inc. focuses on developing and commercializing
self-administered parenteral pharmaceutical products and
technologies worldwide. The company was founded in 1978 and is
headquartered in Ewing, New Jersey.


ANTHEM COMPANIES: Canaday Seeks Overtime Premium Pay
----------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
The Anthem Companies, Inc. for an alleged violation of the overtime
provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case is captioned
LAURA CANADAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. THE ANTHEM COMPANIES, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-01084-STA-jay (W.D. Tenn., May 7, 2019).

Plaintiff Laura Canaday, who was hired as a utilization management
review nurse since approximately June 2017 to the present,
routinely worked more than 40 hours in a workweek without overtime
compensation. In addition, Anthem has allegedly failed to make,
keep, and preserve records with respect to each of its employees
sufficient to determine their wages, hours, and other conditions
and practice of employment.

The Anthem Companies, Inc. is a foreign limited liability company
with its principal place of business located at 220 Virginia Ave.,
Indianapolis, Indiana. The company operates office locations in
multiple states around the country, including an office located in
Nashville, Tennessee. It is a multi-line health insurance company
that provides managed care programs and related services. According
to its website, Anthem provides healthcare benefits to more than 74
million members nationwide and serves one in eight Americans
through their affiliated medical care coverage plans. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
     Neil Pederson, Esq.
     Nichols Kaster, PLLP
     4600 IDS Center
     80 South Eighth Street
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Telephone: (612) 256-3200
     Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
     E-mail: srey@nka.com
             npederson@nka.com


APOGEE ENTERPRISES: Mayer Class Action Ongoing
----------------------------------------------
Apogee Enterprises, 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 2, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, Murray Mayer v. Apogee
Enterprises, Inc., et al

On November 5, 2018, Murray Mayer, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a purported class action
lawsuit against the Company and our Chief Executive Officer and our
Chief Financial Officer in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota.

The complaint generally alleges that, throughout the purported
class period of June 28, 2018 to September 17, 2018, the Company
and the named executive officers made materially false and/or
misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects,
particularly with respect to our Architectural Glass business
segment, and further alleges that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The
complaint seeks unspecified sums of damages, award of counsel fees
and costs, and equitable relief.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against this matter.

Apogee Enterprises, Inc. designs and develops glass and metal
products and services in the United States, Canada, and Brazil. The
company operates in four segments: Architectural Framing Systems,
Architectural Glass, Architectural Services, and Large-Scale
Optical Technologies (LSO). The company was founded in 1949 and is
headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota.


ARS NATIONAL: Deutsch Sues Over Confusing Collection Letters
------------------------------------------------------------
Shimon Deutsch, MD K. Shahin and Nirvana L. Bail, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ARS
National Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-04508 (S.D.
N.Y., May 16, 2019) seeks to recover for violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").

In its efforts to collect an alleged Debt, Defendant contacted
Plaintiffs by letter ("the Letter") dated November 2, 2018 and June
16, 2018. The Letter fails to instruct the consumer to which of the
multiple addresses provided in them written disputes must be sent.
As a result, the least sophisticated consumer would likely be
confused as to which of the multiple addresses they should send
their written dispute.

The Defendant violated the FDCPA as the multiple addresses
overshadow the disclosure of the consumer's right to dispute the
debt provided, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs are individuals who are natural persons allegedly
obligated to pay a debt.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


AUTO GALLERY OF TAMPA: Shiffman Sues over SUV Defective Brake
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Auto Gallery of
Tampa LLC for violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act, for fraud in the inducement, breach of written
warranty, and for fraudulent concealment. The case is captioned
GABRIELLA SCHIFFMAN, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. AUTO GALLERY OF TAMPA LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 88547098 (Fla. Cir., 13th Judicial, Hillsborough Cty.,
April 25, 2019).

Plaintiff Gabriella Schiffman alleges that Auto Gallery of Tampa
LLC misrepresented the brake system's condition of the Ford Escape
she purchased from the dealership. She also asserts that the
dealership did not honor the warranty provided to her.

Auto Gallery of Tampa LLC is a Florida corporation organized
pursuant to the laws of the state of Florida and is authorized to
do business in the state of Florida, with its principal place of
business in Hillsborough County, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

    Roger D. Mason, II, Esq.
    Elizabeth A. Buchwalter, Esq.
    5135 West Cypress Street, Suite 105
    Tampa, FL 33607
    Telephone: (813) 304-2131
    E-mail: rmason@flautolawyer.com
            ebuchwalter@flautolawyer.com
            admin@flautolawer.com


BANK BRADESCO: Cert. Bid in Operacao Zelotes-Related Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bank Bradesco said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the motion for class
certification in the class action suit related to the news of
Operacao Zelotes is pending.

On May 31, 2016, three members of the company's Board of Executive
Officers have been charged by the Brazilian Federal Police under
the so-called Operation Zelotes or "Operacao Zelotes", which
investigates the alleged improper performance of members of CARF -
Administrative Council of Tax Appeals.

On July 28, 2016, the Public Prosecutor's Office filed charges
against three members of the company's Board of Executive Officers,
and a former member of its Board of Directors, which was received
by the Federal District Judiciary Section's 10th Federal Court
Judge. Currently, only two members of Bradesco's Board of Executive
Officers remain in the process. The business executives presented
their responses in the criminal case, pointing out facts and
evidence demonstrating their innocence. The investigation phase of
the process was already completed, and is currently waiting for the
decision of the first degree court.

The Company's Management conducted a careful internal evaluation of
records and documents related to the matter and found no evidence
of any illegal conduct practiced by its representatives. The
company provided all of the information requested to the competent
regulatory bodies, both in Brazil and abroad.

As a result of the news of Operaçao Zelotes, a Class Action was
filed against Bradesco and three members of its Board of Executive
Officers before the District Court of New York, on June 3, 2016,
based on Section 10 (b) and 20 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

The action is based on the allegation that investors who purchased
the company's preferred American Depositary Shares between April
30, 2012 and July 27, 2016 had suffered losses caused by alleged
violation regarding the American laws of capital markets. On
September 29, 2017, the Court limited the proposed class to
investors who purchased preferred ADS Bradesco between August 8,
2014 and July 27, 2016, and excluding one of the executives of the
action. The Class Action is in the phase of Pre-trial Discovery,
and is awaiting a decision regarding the petition of Class
Certification by the Lead Plaintiff, which the company had already
contested.

Bank Bradesco is a sociedade anonima organized under the laws of
Brazil. The company operates and manages its business through two
segments: (i) the banking segment; and (ii) the insurance, pension
plans and capitalization bond segment. The company's headquarters
are in Cidade de Deus, Vila Yara, 06029‑900, Osasco, Sao Paulo,
Brazil. The company was founded in 1943 as a commercial bank under
the name "Banco Brasileiro de Descontos S.A." In 1948, it began a
period of aggressive expansion, which led to its becoming the
largest private‑sector (non‑government‑controlled) commercial
bank in Brazil by the end of the 1960s.


BBVA COMPASS: Chattopadhyay Suit Asserts Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------
Amitabho Chattopadhyay, and Unite the People, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. BBVA Compass Bancshares,
Inc., Simple Finance Technology Corp. aka Simple Bank, BBVA Compass
Financial Corporation, and Compass Bank, Case No. 3:19-cv-01541
(N.D. Calif. March 25, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Unruh Civil
Rights Act.

The Defendants policy of refusing to allow non-citizen aliens to
open a checking account with their "Simple Bank" service on the
basis of their citizenship and/or immigration status is arbitrary,
discriminatory and violates the above aforementioned Acts, asserts
the complaint.

The Plaintiff Chattopadhyay is a native and citizen of the Republic
of Singapore and an alien lawfully admitted for permanent
residence. She has been issued a valid social security number by
the Social Security Administration.

The Plaintiff Unite the People is a non-profit social justice
organization with members throughout the state of California, and
files this action individually. Their advocacy is for the rights of
non-citizens present in the United States and provides referral
services to low-income both non-citizens and citizens, and
extensive case management, administrative and paralegal services to
public interest attorneys serving non-citizens and citizens at
affordable rates.

The Defendant BBVA Bancshares, Compass Bank and BBVA Compass are
doing business under the name 'Simple', operating in the State of
California under the trade name BBVA Compass, where it operates
substantial business within the state of California, including both
an online presence and physical branches.

The Defendant Simple Finance Technology Corp. is an Oregon
corporation operating in the State of California and a subsidiary
of Compass Bank. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Erin L. Brinkman, Esq.
      UNITE THE PEOPLE
      3003 W. Olympic Blvd Ste. 1031
      Los Angeles, CA 90006
      Tel: (888) 245-9393
      E-mail: erin@unitethepeople.org


BHARTI CORP: Kordbacheh Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned ALI KORDBACHEH, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BHARTI CORP., a Florida Profit Corporation,
d/b/a 7-ELEVEN, RUCHNAKS CORPORATION, a Florida Profit Corporation,
d/b/ a 7-ELEVEN and BHARTIBEN SHAH, individually, Defendants, Case
No. 50-2019-CA-004432-XXXX-MB was removed from the Circuit Court of
the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for the Palm Beach County,
Florida to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on May 16, 2019, and assigned Case No.
9:19-cv-80660-XXXX.

In his Complaint, Plaintiff asserts causes of action pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, (the "FLSA"), seeking damages
and other relief for alleged unpaid overtime wages and alleged
unlawful retaliation. Plaintiff asserts his FLSA claims
individually and on behalf of a proposed collective action of other
current and former employees.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J. Freddy Perera, Esq.
     Valerie Barnhart, Esq.
     Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
     Waynice A. Green, Esq.
     PERERA BARNHART, P. A.
     12555 Orange Drive, Suite 268
     Davie, FL 33330
     Phone: 786- 485- 5232
     Email: freddy@pererabarnhart.com
            valerie@pererabarnhart.com
            brody@pererabamhart.com
            waynice@pererabarnhart.com

The Defendants are represented by:

     Neil D. Kodsi, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF NEIL D. KODSI
     1666 J.F. Kennedy Causeway, Suite 420
     North Bay Village, FL 33141
     Phone: 786-464-0841
     Facsimile: 954-790-6722
     Email: ndk@ndkodsilaw.com

          - and -

     Michael S. Elstein, Esq.
     ELSTEIN LAW FIRM
     8401 Lake Worth Road, Suite 107
     Wellington, FL 33467
     Phone: 954.928.0990
     Facsimile: 954.491.4555
     Email: michael@elsteinlaw.com


BOB EVANS: Jensen Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
----------------------------------------------
Regina Jensen, Vickie Rash, and Rebecca Bailey, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bob Evans Farms, LLC and
Bob Evans Restaurants, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-01090 (S.D. Ohio,
March 23, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the West Virginia Wage Payment and
Collection Act, and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

The Defendants violated the FLSA, MFWSA and WPCA by failing to pay
the Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated tipped employees all
earned minimum wages, asserts the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as
servers--Plaintiff Jensen for over 20 years, Plaintiff Rash
approximately 28 years and Plaintiff Bailey for approximately 28
years.

Founded and headquartered in Columbus, Ohio, the Defendants own and
operate over 500 Bob Evans restaurants. The restaurants in Ohio and
West Virginia are the subject of this lawsuit. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL L. FRADIN
      8 N. Court St. Suite 403
      Athens, OH 45701
      Tel: (847) 986-5889
      Fax: (847) 673-1228
      Email: mike@fradinlaw.com


BOX HOUSE EVENTS: Fischler Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Box House Events Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-02924 (E.D. N.Y., May 16, 2019) is a civil rights
action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its Website, www.theboxhousehotelevents.com,
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff
Fischler and other blind or visually-impaired people.

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

Plaintiff Fischler is blind, visually-impaired handicapped person.

Defendant owns and operates a hotel located in Brooklyn, New York
at 77 Box Street.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BRF SA: Bid to Amend Second Amended Complaint Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
BRF S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the motion to amend the
second amended complaint filed by the City of Birmingham Retirement
and Relief System is pending.

On March 12, 2018, a shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. Federal District Court in the Southern District of New
York. On July 2, 2018, the Court appointed the City of Birmingham
Retirement and Relief System lead plaintiff in the action.

On August 31, 2018, the Lead Plaintiff filed an amended class
action complaint. On December 5, 2018, the Lead Plaintiff filed a
second amended complaint. The second amended complaint seeks to
represent all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired BRF ADRs during the period from April 4, 2013, through and
including March 2, 2018, alleging, among other things, that BRF and
certain of its officers and/or directors engaged in securities
fraud or other unlawful business practices related to the
regulatory issues in connection with the Carne Fraca Operation and
Trapaca Operation.

A motion to dismiss briefing has been stayed pending the
determination of Lead Plaintiff's motion to amend the second
amended complaint, which was filed on April 1, 2019.

BRF said, "Because this lawsuit is in its early stages, we believe
the possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from this
litigation cannot be estimated. In the event that this litigation
is decided against us, or we enter into an agreement to settle,
there can be no assurance that an unfavorable outcome would not
have a material impact on us."

BRF S.A. focuses on raising, producing, and slaughtering poultry
and pork for processing, production, and sale of fresh meat,
processed products, pasta, frozen vegetables, and soybean
by-products. The company was formerly known as BRF-Brasil Foods
S.A. and changed its name to BRF S.A. in April 2013. BRF S.A. is
headquartered in Itajai, Brazil.


BROWN DINING: Implements Policy Changes Following Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allie Reed, writing for The Brown Daily Herald, reports that
following a number of changes to the policies and leadership of
Brown Dining Services student employees, members of the BuDS
Student Management Team have voiced fears that BDS is not
prioritizing the needs of student workers.

The Herald spoke to six of the 12 current members of the BuDS SMT
and one former member of the team. Four students expressed concerns
about the restrictive nature of the newly instated 20-hour-per-week
cap for BuDS workers and an increase in mandatory shift lengths.

The same four students also described their concerns about the
replacement of student management positions with professional staff
this semester, which they fear signals a shift away from a
student-run organization.

The University has not yet made a decision about the program's
supervisory structure following the spring semester, wrote Director
of News and Editorial Development Brian Clark in an email to The
Herald. A working group made up of dining staff and student
managers is currently reviewing the leadership program within BuDS.
BDS expects to make "final decisions on the supervisory structure
for 2019-20 over the summer," Clark wrote.

These BuDS policy changes went into effect after two students filed
a class action lawsuit alleging the University did not compensate
them properly for their work. Fifteen current and former BuDS
employees have since joined the lawsuit as of April 21, The Herald
previously reported.

Professional staff take over student management roles

BuDS student management positions for this semester have been
temporarily filled by Bobby Noyes, BDS assistant director for
retail dining, and Sheila Coleman, director of human resources,
Clark wrote.

After former General Manager of BuDS Savanna Rilatos '20 and former
Assistant General Manager of BuDS Benjamin Potee '19 left their
positions this semester, the University chose to fill their
positions with professional staff because the semester was already
underway, Clark wrote.

The past three general managers of BuDS did "not complete their
traditional terms of service within BDS," wrote a former member of
the SMT, who wishes to remain anonymous for fear of professional
repercussions, in an email to The Herald. "There are good questions
to be asked about the pressure this position puts on an
individual."

The assistant general manager and general manager positions
"consist of responsibilities that are both administrative . . . and
deeply interpersonal," the source wrote. By shifting these
responsibilities to professional staff, BDS risks increasing the
chance that students are uncomfortable reporting problems to their
management, he added. Professional staff are removed from students'
daily lives and problems, which increases the chance they will be
unable to appropriately relate to or manage students, he wrote. In
the past, students have come to the general manager and the
assistant general manager about Title IX violations and mental
health concerns, and the former member of the SMT believes "that it
is less likely for a student to go to a less accessible
administrator."

Without students filling these two roles, there will be less
accountability for BDS administrators, said another member of the
SMT who wishes to remain anonymous for fear of professional
repercussions. Students in the AGM and GM positions served as an
essential buffer between BuDS and BDS and ensured students'
concerns were heard, she said.

By not replacing the AGM and GM with students, "it feel's like
they're consolidating power," the source said. Furthermore, with
professional staff taking on the duties of AGM and GM, BuDS "is
technically not student-run," she added.

But Clark wrote "the changes to the program made to date -- and any
that may be made moving forward -- are focused on enabling students
to effectively balance their academic study and other activities
with their employment."

Student working hours capped at 20 per week

At the start of the semester, BDS implemented a new policy: BuDS
workers are now limited to working "a maximum of 20 work hours per
week," Clark wrote in an email to The Herald. Previously, there was
no upper cap on working hours, and many students worked more than
20 hours per week, particularly in the supervisory and unit manager
positions, The Herald previously reported.

As a result, "last semester we asked to have a soft way to prevent
students from over working," wrote Mathilde Barland '21, a member
of the SMT, in an email to The Herald. BDS and BuDS previously made
changes -- such as increasing wages for student workers and
eliminating on-call hours -- to make BuDS a more desirable work
environment and reduce the workload for supervisors and unit
managers, The Herald previously reported.

BDS set this cap "to ensure the ability for student workers to
effectively balance their academic work and other activities with
employment," Clark wrote. Students' requests to work more than 20
hours per week will be considered on an individual basis. BDS will
approve students' requests to work beyond the 20-hour cap "only in
exceptional circumstances," Clark wrote. But four students who
spoke with The Herald said this system is both inefficient and can
feel invasive.

Students may feel uncomfortable sharing their personal reasons to
justify their request to work beyond the cap, Barland wrote. For
example, "people in the administration are not students or do not
always understand that having to pay a $1,000 medical bill is
actually a lot of money for someone whose only source of income is
what they earn through BuDS," Barland wrote.

Isabella Teran '19, a member of the SMT, said she had to go through
an extensive process to get approval to work more than 20 hours in
a week. Teran, who takes classes at both Brown and the Rhode Island
School of Design, was hoping to "rack up hours" to help with her
family's financial situation at home before her RISD classes began
in the spring. "I thought I could work a ton, and it wouldn't
necessarily impede academics. I just wanted to work more," she
said.

When Teran sent an email to administrators notifying them that she
would be working more than 20 hours, she engaged in back and forth
communication with administrators before being referred to the
Office of Financial Aid.

"There's a lot of stress for low-income students trying to balance
financial circumstances and academics. But this wasn't one of those
scenarios," Teran said. The Financial Aid Office offered to give
Teran emergency funding, but she did not feel that her situation
merited emergency funding and declined the offer. After speaking
with the Financial Aid Office, Teran circled back to BDS and was
then allowed to work more than 20 hours. "So much time was wasted
on that. It should've been such an easy situation to handle," Teran
said.

Mandatory shift lengths increase

The University has mandated an increase in shift lengths for many
dining units. In the carts unit, shifts have increased from two
hours to three or more hours. Four students on the SMT allege that
the University is prioritizing the needs of temporary workers by
increasing shift times, which they say is more convenient for those
workers and more inconvenient for student workers due to their
class schedules.

"As a student, you don't have a three to four hour block in your
day. A lot of the workforce is underclassmen," a member of the SMT
said.

In an email exchange reviewed by The Herald, a student involved in
BuDS wrote to a BDS administrator criticizing the extended shift
times. In response, the administrator explained that motivations
for the change include demand from professional staff for longer
shifts.

There is "no effort underway in Dining to prioritize the needs of
temporary employees over student workers," Clark wrote.
"Adjustments to shift lengths are not intended to prioritize
temporary employees over student workers, but rather to provide
Dining with the ability to have the required staff on hand to meet
campus dining needs."

"Brown typically relies on temporary employees for short-term
operational needs or instances in which significant flexibility is
required," Clark wrote.

Clark said their focus is on "addressing the concerns raised
directly by the students themselves about work hours, compensation
and employment structure." [GN]


BUREAU OF ACCOUNTS: Lichter Sues Over FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Joseph Lichter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bureau of Accounts Control, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-04476 (S.D. N.Y., May 16, 2019) seeks
to recover for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA").

In its efforts to collect an alleged Debt, Defendant contacted
Plaintiffs by letter ("the Letter") dated February 2, 2019. The
Letter claims that Plaintiff owes an alleged Debt to Bergen
Urological Assoc,
PA. However, Plaintiff did not owe the alleged Debt to Bergen
Urological Assoc, PA at the time the alleged Debt was assigned or
otherwise transferred to Defendant for collection or at the time
Defendant sent Plaintiff the Letter. Plaintiff was never indebted
to Bergen Urological.

The Defendant's representation that Plaintiff owed money to Bergen
Urological is a false representation of the character, amount, or
legal status of any debt in violation of the FDCPA, says the
complaint.

Plaintiffs Joseph Lichter is an individual and a natural person
allegedly obligated to pay a debt.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


BURGER KING: Kang Sues over Website's Limited Accessibility
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Burger King
Corporation for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA). The case is captioned JACK KANG, Plaintiff, v. BURGER KING
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-21678-BB (S.D. Fla., April
30, 2019). Plaintiff Jack Kang brings this civil rights action
against Burger King Corporation for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people. Defendant's denial of full and equal
access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and
services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical
locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the ADA.
Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures
so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.

Burger King is a corporation, incorporated in Florida and has its
principal place of business in Miami, Florida. It is registered to
do business in the state of California and has been doing business
in the state of California, including this District. It operates
over 40 locations in the County of Los Angeles. These restaurants
provide to the public important goods such as hamburgers, soft
drinks, milkshakes and an array of other services including menu
prices. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Yvette J. Harrell, Esq.
     LEGAL JUSTICE ADVOCATES, LLP
     1629 K Street NW, Suite 300
     Washington, D.C. 20006
     Telephone: (202) 803-4708
     E-mail: yh@legaljusticeadvocates.com


BURLINGTON COAT: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Kang Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
JACK KANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY DIRECT CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11752 (D.N.J., April 29, 2019) alleges
that the Defendant's website, https://www.burlingtoncoatfactory.com
is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers
in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant
failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired people.

Burlington Coat Factory Direct Corporation engages in the retailing
of branded apparel products. The company was incorporated in 1997
and is based in Burlington, New Jersey. Burlington Coat Factory
Direct Corporation operates as a subsidiary of Burlington Coat
Factory Investments Holdings, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Stamatios Stamoulis, Esq.
         STAMOULIS & WEINBLATT LLC
         800 N. West Street, Third Floor
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Telephone: (302) 999-1540
         E-mail: stamoulis@swdelaw.com

              - and -

         Yvette J. Harrell, Esq.
         LEGAL JUSTICE ADVOCATES, LLP
         1629 K Street NW, Suite 300
         Washington, D.C. 20006
         Telephone: (202) 290-6671
         E-mail: yh@legaljusticeadvocates.com


CANADA: NDP MP Responds to Coerced Sterilization Amid Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
National Indigenous Times reports that it's completely
unimaginable.

You go to the hospital to give birth and leave never able to do so
again.

Over 100 women, mostly Indigenous, have come forward to say they
were coerced, or forced, into sterilization.

And mainly in Saskatchewan.

"We should be outraged as Canadians that this is happening because
this is about a value judgement about who gets to give birth in
this country and who doesn't," said NDP MP Rachel Blaney on April
18 on Nation to Nation.

A class-action lawsuit was filed in 2017 against Saskatchewan and
its health authority, as well as several doctors in the province,
and the federal government.

It began with two woman but lawyer Alisa Lombard said that number
has grown since word began to spread. Each woman is seeking $7
million in damages.

"You have women who are going into have children, in publicly
funded hospitals, hoping for that beautiful experience, having a
child is or ought to be. And they're leaving unable to have any
more, against their will," said Lombard of the Saskatoon-based law
firm Semaganis Worme Lombard.

Any woman that has given birth knows the moment following delivery
is likely the worst time to be making life-altering decisions but
that's what Lombard said women have told her.

"It's chaotic. It's not a time when you can have these long,
lengthy conversations about what you to do for the rest of your
life," she said.

It is also alleged to have happened while in labour according to
one of the women who previously told APTN that staff at the
Saskatoon Royal University Hospital pressured her into
sterilization during the birth of her second child in 2008.

While most of the cases date between 1990s to the early 2000s,
Lombard said a woman came forward saying it happened to her just
last December.

And it could spread across the country.

"We are examining the possibility of expanding and we will do so at
a time and place that we think is appropriate," she said.

The Senate's committee on human rights started looking at the
matter to figure out the scope of the issue.

It hasn't become a criminal investigation, yet.

"If people were having things done without informed consent that's
breaking the law," said Cathy McLeod, Conservative shadow critic on
Indigenous Affairs.

While Canada is a defendant in the class-action, Liberal MP Marc
Miller encouraged people to come forward.

"The fact that it is happening to Indigenous women makes it even
more so despicable. We encourage anyone that has had this happen to
them to step forward and contact the RCMP or authorities and report
it," said Miller. [GN]


CARRIAGE SERVICES: Court OK on Settlement of Faria Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carriage Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019, that the accrued US$650,000 for the estimated
settlement amount related to the case styled, Faria, et al. v.
Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc., Superior Court of California,
Contra Costa County, Case No. MSC18-00606, is adequate at March 31,
2019.

On March 26, 2018, six Plaintiffs filed a putative class action
against Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc., the Company's subsidiary,
their alleged employer, on behalf of themselves and all similarly
situated current and former employees.  Plaintiffs seek monetary
damages and claim that Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc. failed to
pay minimum wages, provide meal and rest breaks, provide accurately
itemized wage statements, reimburse employees for required
expenses, and provide wages when due.  Plaintiffs also claim that
Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc. violated California Business and
Professions Code Section17200 et seq.

On June 5, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint to add
a claim under the California Private Attorney General Act.  On
October 23, 2018, the parties mediated this matter and executed a
Memorandum of Understanding for class settlement.

In February 2019, a Class Action Settlement Agreement was fully
executed, which will be submitted to the Court for preliminary
approval.  The Court has set a preliminary approval hearing date of
May 9, 2019, which date is subject to change by the Court.

The Company said, "We anticipate that the Court will preliminarily
approve the Class Action Settlement Agreement.  If the Class Action
Settlement Agreement is preliminarily approved by the Court, the
class claims process will then proceed.  At December 31, 2018, we
accrued US$650,000 for the estimated settlement amount related to
this case.  At March 31, 2019, we determined the accrual to be
adequate."

Carriage Services, Inc., provides funeral and cemetery services and
merchandise in the United States.  It operates through two
segments, Funeral Home Operations and Cemetery Operations.  The
Company was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Houston,
Texas.


CHARLOTTE TILBURY BEAUTY: Haggar Sues over ADA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed by Elia Haggar et al
against the Charlotte Tilbury Beauty, Inc. for violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The case is captioned Elia
Haggar et al v. Charlotte Tilbury Beauty, Inc. et al, Case No.
2:19-cv-03696-RGK-KS (C.D. Cal., May 1, 2019). It is assigned to
Hon. Judge R. Gary Klausner.

Charlotte Tilbury Beauty manufactures skin care and beauty
products. The company was incorporated in 2012 and is based in
London, United Kingdom. Its head office in America is located at
148 Lafayette Street, 2nd Floor, New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Babak Bobby Saadian, Esq.
     WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
     3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90010
     Telephone: (213) 381-9988
     Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
     E-mail: bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com
            
            - and -

     Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
     WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
     3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90010
     Telephone: (213) 381-9988
     Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
     E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Removes Marcelino Suit to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of MICHAEL MARCELINO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHARTER
COMMUNICATIONS, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, filed a
notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of San Diego (Case No.
37-0201900016478-CU-OE-CTL) to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California on April 29, 2019. The clerk of
court for the Southern District of California assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-00783-L-MSB. The case is assigned to Judge M. James Lorenz
and referred to Magistrate Michael Berg.

Charter Communications, LLC was formerly known as Charter
Communications, L.P. The company is based in Saint Louis, Missouri.
Charter Communications, LLC operates as a subsidiary of Charter
Communications Operating, LLC. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Max Fischer, Esq.
          Aimee Mackay, Esq.
          Megan McDonough, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue
          Twenty-Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Telephone: (213) 612-2500
          Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
          E-mail: max.fischer@morganlewis.com
                  aimee.mackay@morganlewis.com
                  megan.mcdonough@morganlewis.com


CHICO'S FAS: Fisher Sues over False Discounts
---------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Chico's FAS, Inc.
for violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the
Unfair Competition Laws and False Advertising Laws of the
California Business & Professions Code. The case is captioned
JACKIE FISHER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. CHICO'S FAS, INC., a Florida corporation,
and DOES 1- 50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-00856-DMS-MSB (S.D. Cal., May 7, 2019).

Plaintiff Jackie Fisher alleges that Chico's false and misleading
marketing, advertising, and pricing scheme have violated and
continues to violate California and federal law prohibiting
advertising goods for sale as discounted from former prices that
are false, and prohibiting misleading statements about the
existence and amount of price reductions. Chicos' has allegedly
utilized a false and misleading reference price in the marketing
and selling of its Chico's "direct to outlet" merchandise sold at
its outlet stores. Accordingly, Plaintiff Jackie Fisher seeks to
obtain damages, restitution, and other appropriate relief in the
amount by which Chico's was unjustly enriched as a result of its
sales of merchandise offered at a false discount.

Chico's is a women's clothing store with over 600 Chico's boutiques
nationwide. Chico's specializes in the sale of women's clothing,
shoes, jewelry, accessories, and more. Chico’s directly markets
its merchandise to consumers in the state of California and
throughout the United States via its in-store advertisements and
its e-commerce website (www.Chicos.com). Chico's sells its own
branded merchandise at its retail stores, outlet stores, and
through its e-commerce website. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
     Alyshia K. Lord, Esq.
     CARLSON LYNCH LLP
     1350 Columbia Street, Ste. 603
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: (619) 762-1910
     Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
     E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com
             alord@carlsonlynch.com


CITIGROUP INC: Bid for Leave to Amend LIBOR Suit Narrowed
---------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that on March 25, 2019, in
IN RE LIBOR-BASED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, the
court issued an opinion granting in part motions for leave to
further amend complaints filed by certain plaintiffs asserting
individual claims.

Additional information concerning these actions is publicly
available in court filings under the docket numbers 11 MD 2262
(S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.) and 17-1569 (2d Cir.).

Citigroup Inc., a diversified financial services holding company,
provides various financial products and services for consumers,
corporations, governments, and institutions in North America, Latin
America, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The company
operates through two segments, Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and
Institutional Clients Group (ICG). Citigroup Inc. was founded in
1812 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


CITIGROUP INC: Faces GSE Bonds Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company has been
named as a defendant in a consolidated class action suit entitled,
IN RE GSE BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION.

Between February 22 and April 11, 2019, 12 putative class actions,
which have been consolidated under the caption IN RE GSE BONDS
ANTITRUST LITIGATION, were filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against Citigroup,
CGMI, and numerous other defendants, on behalf of purported classes
of persons or entities that transacted in bonds issued by United
States government-sponsored entities with one or more of the
defendants.

Plaintiffs assert claims under the Sherman Act and for unjust
enrichment based on defendants' alleged conspiracy to manipulate
the market for such bonds, and seek treble damages and injunctive
relief.

Additional information relating to this action is publicly
available in court filings under the docket number 19 Civ. 1704
(S.D.N.Y.) (Rakoff, J.).

Citigroup Inc., a diversified financial services holding company,
provides various financial products and services for consumers,
corporations, governments, and institutions in North America, Latin
America, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The company
operates through two segments, Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and
Institutional Clients Group (ICG). Citigroup Inc. was founded in
1812 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


CITIGROUP INC: Stachon Class Action Stayed
------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the class action suit
entitled, STACHON v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ET AL., has been
stayed.

On February 7, 2019, a putative class action captioned STACHON v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ET AL., was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Citigroup, Citibank, CGMI, and Citigroup Global Markets Limited
(CGML) and other defendants, on behalf of indirect purchasers of
supranational, sub-sovereign and agency (SSA) bonds.

Plaintiffs assert claims under New York antitrust laws based on the
same conduct alleged in the previously filed SSA bond lawsuits and
seek treble damages and injunctive relief.

The action is currently stayed pending a decision on the motion to
dismiss in the consolidated direct purchaser action captioned IN RE
SSA BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION.

Additional information relating to these actions is publicly
available in court filings under the docket numbers 19 Civ. 01205
(S.D.N.Y.) (Swain, J.), and 16-cv-03711 (S.D.N.Y.) (Ramos, J.).

Citigroup Inc., a diversified financial services holding company,
provides various financial products and services for consumers,
corporations, governments, and institutions in North America, Latin
America, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The company
operates through two segments, Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and
Institutional Clients Group (ICG). Citigroup Inc. was founded in
1812 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


CITIGROUP INC: Suits over ICE LIBOR Consolidated with Putnam Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that on January 31 and on
March 4, 2019, two additional putative class actions, which have
been consolidated with PUTNAM BANK v. INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE,
INC., ET AL., were filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against ICE, Citigroup, Citibank,
CGMI, and various other banks.

Each of these complaints asserts claims under the Sherman Act and
for unjust enrichment based on alleged suppression of the ICE LIBOR
and seeks disgorgement and treble damages where authorized by
statute.

Additional information relating to this action is publicly
available in court filings under the docket number 19 Civ. 00439
(S.D.N.Y.) (Daniels, J.).

Citigroup Inc., a diversified financial services holding company,
provides various financial products and services for consumers,
corporations, governments, and institutions in North America, Latin
America, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The company
operates through two segments, Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and
Institutional Clients Group (ICG). Citigroup Inc. was founded in
1812 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


CKE RESTAURANTS HOLDINGS: Chapman Sues over Inaccessible Premises
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against CKE Restaurants
Holdings, Inc. for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) and its implementing regulations, in
connection with accessibility barriers in the parking lots and
paths of travel at various public accommodations owned, operated,
controlled, and/or leased by the company. The case is captioned
RACHELLE CHAPMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CKE RESTAURANTS HOLDINGS, INC., a
Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00189-D
(E.D.N.C., May 8, 2019).

Plaintiff Rachelle Chapman asserts that the Defendant's centralized
design, construction, alteration, maintenance, and operational
policies and practices have systematically and routinely violated
the ADA by designing, constructing, and altering facilities so that
they are not readily accessible and are usable, by failing to
remove architectural barriers, and by failing to maintain and
operate facilities so that the accessible features of Defendant's
facilities are maintained.

CKE Restaurants Holdings, Inc. through its subsidiaries, owns,
operates, and franchises quick-service restaurants under the Carl's
Jr., Hardee's, Green Burrito, and Red Burrito names in the United
States and internationally. As of October 18, 2016, it had a total
of 3,729 franchised or company-operated restaurants in 44 states,
U.S. territories, and 40 countries internationally. The company was
founded in 1941 and is headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kieran J. Shanahan, Esq.
     Nathaniel J. Pencook, Esq.
     128 E. Hargett Street, Suite 300
     Raleigh, NC 27601
     Telephone: (919) 856-9499
     Facsimile: (919) 856-9499
     E-mail: kieran@shanahanlawgroup.com
             npencook@shanahanlawgroup.com


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Cyber Attack Claims Due Aug. 1
------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, 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 deadline for
purported class members in the Cyber Attack related suit to submit
claims is August 1, 2019.

On August 18, 2014, the company's computer network was the target
of an external, criminal cyber-attack that the company believe
occurred between April and June, 2014. The company and Mandiant (a
FireEye Company), the forensic expert engaged by the company in
connection with this matter, believe the attacker was a foreign
"Advanced Persistent Threat" group who used highly sophisticated
malware and technology to attack our systems.

The attacker was able to bypass the company's security measures and
successfully copy and transfer outside the Company certain
non-medical patient identification data (such as patient names,
addresses, birthdates, telephone numbers and social security
numbers), but not including patient credit card, medical or
clinical information. The company worked closely with federal law
enforcement authorities in connection with their investigation and
prosecution of those determined to be responsible for this attack.
Mandiant has conducted a thorough investigation of this incident
and continues to advise the company regarding security and
monitoring efforts. The company have provided appropriate
notification to affected patients and regulatory agencies as
required by federal and state law. The company have offered
identity theft protection services to individuals affected by this
attack.

The company have incurred certain expenses to remediate and
investigate this matter. In addition, multiple purported class
action lawsuits have been filed against the company and certain
subsidiaries. These lawsuits allege that sensitive information was
unprotected and inadequately encrypted by the company.

The plaintiffs claim breach of contract and other theories of
recovery, and are seeking damages, as well as restitution for any
identity theft. On February 4, 2015, the United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the transfer of the
purported class actions pending outside of the District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama to the District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.

A consolidated complaint was filed and the company filed a motion
to dismiss on September 21, 2015, which was partially argued on
February 10, 2016. In an oral ruling from the bench, the court
greatly limited the potential class by ruling only plaintiffs with
specific injury resulting from the breach had standing to sue.

Further, on jurisdictional grounds, the court dismissed Community
Health Systems, Inc. from all non-Tennessee based cases. Finally,
the court set April 15, 2016 for further argument on whether the
remaining plaintiffs have sufficiently stated a cause of action to
continue their cases.

On April 15, 2016 in an oral ruling from the bench, the court
dismissed additional claims and following this oral ruling only
eight of the forty plaintiffs remained, with significant
limitations imposed on their ability to assert claims for damages.
These oral rulings were confirmed in a written order filed on
September 12, 2016.

On October 20, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for
interlocutory appeal from the motion to dismiss ruling and on
February 15, 2017 this motion was denied.

Plaintiffs refiled their motion for permission to seek
interlocutory appeal on March 15, 2017, and that motion was also
denied.

The company have settled these class action lawsuits, and the
settlement has been approved by the District Court. Notices of the
settlement and claim forms have been mailed to purported class
members. The deadline for purported class members to opt out of or
object to the settlement is May 18, 2019. The deadline for
purported class members to submit claims is August 1, 2019.

Community Health Systems, Inc. is one of the largest publicly
traded hospital companies in the United States and a leading
operator of general acute care hospitals and outpatient facilities
in communities across the country. The company provide healthcare
services through the hospitals that we own and operate and
affiliated businesses in non-urban and selected urban markets
throughout the United States. The company is based in Franklin,
Tennessee.


CONTAINER STORE: Newman Sues over Autodialed Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against The Container
Store, Inc. for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act. The case is captioned JARED NEWMAN, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. THE CONTAINER
STORE, INC. a Texas corporation, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-21587-BB (S.D. Fla., April 25, 2019). Plaintiff Jared
Newman alleges that the Defendant used automatic telephone dialing
system in transmitting impersonal and generic telemarketing text
messages to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number ending in
7450.

The Container Store, Inc. is an American retail chain company that
offers storage and organization products. It maintains its
principal office at 500 Freeport PKWY, Coppell, Texas. This Texas
corporation also directs, markets, and provides its business
activities throughout the state of Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

            - and -

     Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
     EDELSBERG LAW, PA
     19495 Biscayne Blvd #607
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Telephone: 305-975-3320
     E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com


COOPER WORKS: Underpays Construction Workers, Rodriguez Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE MANUEL RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COOPER WORKS INC.; and MICHAEL
KATZ, Defendants, Case No. 7:19-cv-03815 (S.D.N.Y., April 29, 2019)
is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff
and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of
40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff Rodriguez was employed by the Defendants as
construction worker.

Cooper & Company, Inc., doing business as Dakota Watch Company,
manufactures watches for men, women, and kids. It sells products
online, as well as through a catalogue. Cooper & Company, Inc. was
founded in 1945 and is based in Cincinnati, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
          Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
          PELTON GRAHAM LLC
          111 Broadway, Suite 1503
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 385-9700
          Facsimile: (212) 385-0800
          E-mail: pelton@peltongraham.com
                  graham@peltongraham.com


COSAN LIMITED: Employees Class Action Related Suits Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cosan Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to
defend class action suits initiated by its former employees and
service providers.

The company, its subsidiaries and jointly-controlled entities are
also parties to a number of labor claims filed by former employees
and service providers challenging, among other matters, the payment
of overtime, night shift premiums and risk premiums, the
recognition of employment relationships and the reimbursement of
discounts from payroll, such as social contribution and trade union
charges.

Additionally, the company is involved in several labor
administrative and judicial proceedings such as labor
investigations and class actions filed by the labor prosecutor's
office regarding alleged non-compliance with certain labor
regulations, including work and safety rules, labor conditions and
work environment, and social assistance plans. Moreover, we entered
into certain consent orders (Termos de Ajustamento de Conduta) with
Brazilian authorities and in the event the company fails to comply
with such consent orders, the company could be subject to fines.
Provisions for labor claims as of December 31, 2018 amounted to
R$466.3 million and R$471.3 million as of December 31, 2017.

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

Cosan Limited, together with its subsidiaries, engages in fuel and
natural gas distribution, logistics, lubricant, sugar and ethanol
businesses primarily in Brazil and internationally. The company was
incorporated in 2007 and is based in Sao Paulo, Brazil.


COSAN LIMITED: Environmental Class Action in Brazil Still Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cosan Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the environmental civil
class action in Brazil against the company remains suspended.

Cosan is being sued by the Municipality of Ulianopolis, by means of
the civil class action No. 0000749-68.2011.8.14.0130, for
environmental damages related to alleged irregular waste disposal
in a landfill located in the Municipality of Ulianopolis, in the
state of Para.

Eight other companies are involved in the same lawsuit, and the
plaintiff intends to declare all of them as jointly liable for
restoring the environmental damage involved therein. The plaintiff
seeks R$167.3 million but the specific amount needed to restore the
damage cannot be estimated.

It is also important to highlight that more than 50 companies are
involved in the same matter by means of other lawsuits and a civil
investigation currently being held by the state of Para's Public
Prosecutor's Office. Therefore, it is expected by some of these
companies that any settlement or condemnation in this matter should
comprise all of them.

The lawsuit is currently suspended due to a plea from the Public
Prosecutor's Office. According to the Company's information, the
amount under discussion in these proceedings is R$167.3 million, of
which R$15.3 million is classified as a possible risk of loss and
R$152 million is classified as a remote risk of loss.

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

Cosan Limited, together with its subsidiaries, engages in fuel and
natural gas distribution, logistics, lubricant, sugar and ethanol
businesses primarily in Brazil and internationally. The company was
incorporated in 2007 and is based in Sao Paulo, Brazil.


COSTCO: Employee Benefits Program Unlawful, Kimmel Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
KIMMEL, CARTER, ROMAN, PELTZ & O'NEILL, P.A., on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE
CORPORATION and the COSTCO EMPLOYEE BENEFITS PROGRAM, Defendants,
Case No. 19-2-10456-2 SEA (Wash. Super. Ct., King Cty., May 16,
2019) is an action for classwide declaratory relief seeking a
judicial declaration that the terms of the Costco Employee Benefits
Program--and, more particularly, those terms that purportedly
operate to extinguish or nullify the rights of the plaintiff, and
of absent class members, to recovery under the common fund doctrine
and the doctrine of quantum meruit--are unlawful, unenforceable,
void against public policy, and of no effect as applied to the
proposed class.

The Costco Employee Benefits Program consists of or includes a
self-funded benefits plan under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act ("ERISA"). Kimmel Carter represents Ashli Gerlach, a
Delaware personal injury claimant employed by defendant Costco
Wholesale Corporation. Ms. Gerlach is alleged to have suffered
injuries in a January 30, 2017 accident. On or about July 15, 2017,
acting at the direction or request of her employer, Costco
Wholesale Corporation, Ms. Gerlach executed the Costco Employee
Benefits Program's Reimbursement Agreement (the "Reimbursement
Agreement").

The Defendants contend that unless Kimmel Carter becomes a
signatory to and agrees to be bound by the Reimbursement Agreement,
the Costco Employee Benefits Program will (i) refuse to pay medical
bills arising from Ms. Gerlach's accident-related medical
treatment, and (ii) refuse to recognize Kimmel Carter's rights to
compensation for its legal services under the common fund doctrine
and the doctrine of quantum meruit.

Kimmel Carter contends that (i) if Kimmel Carter becomes a party to
the Reimbursement Agreement, it will thereby have violated (or
risked violation ol) the Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional
Conduct and the American Bar Association's Model Rules of
Professional Conduct; (ii) by conditioning payment of Ms. Gerlach's
accident-related medical bills on Kimmel Carter's signing the
Reimbursement Agreement, the defendants are unlawfully interfering
with Kimmel Carter's attorney-client relationship with Ms. Gerlach;
(iii) the Defendants' conduct threatens to unlawfully restrict or
impair the public's access to its choice of counsel in personal
injury cases; and (iv) the defendants' conduct unlawfully threatens
the rights of personal injury lawyers to recover for legal services
rendered under the common fund doctrine and the doctrine of quantum
meruit, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Kimmel, Carter, Roman, Peltz & O'Neill, P.A. is a
professional association incorporated in Delaware, and one of that
state's leading plaintiffs' personal injury law firms.

Costco Wholesale Corporation funds, operates and administers (or
oversees the administration of) the Costco Employee Benefits
Program.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Maria S. Diamond, Esq.
     DIAMOND MASSONG, PLLC
     1215 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1275
     Seattle, WA 98161
     Phone: (206) 445-1258

          - and -

     John S. Spadaro, Esq.
     JOHN SHEEHAN SPADARO, LLC
     54 Liborio Lane
     Smyrna, DE 19977
     Phone: (302) 235-7745


CSX INTERMODAL TERMINALS: Rogers Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Rogers v. CSX Intermodal Terminals, Inc, Case No.
2019-CH-4168, was transferred from the Circuit Court of Cook County
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on May 1, 2019. This contract product liability-related
case is assigned to Hon. Judge Marvin E. Aspen. The United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case
No. 1:19-cv-02937 to the proceeding.

Based in Jacksonville, Florida, CSX Intermodal Terminals, Inc.
describes itself as one the nation's leading intermodal terminal
operators, providing rail-to-truck and truck-to-rail transloading
services. The company operates 40 terminals across the eastern
United States and Canada. [BN]

Attorneys for Defendant:

     Bonnie Keane DelGobbo, Esq.
     BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
     1 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 4500
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Telephone: (312) 416-8185
     E-mail: bdelgobbo@bakerlaw.com

             - and -

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

             - and -

     Joyce E Ackerbaum Cox, Esq.
     Baker & Hostetler LLP
     200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 2300
     Orlando, FL 32801
     Telephone: (407) 649-4000
     E-mail: jacox@bakerlaw.com


DCD CONSTRUCTION: Castillo, Merced Seek OT Premium Pay
------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against DCD Construction,
LLC, Denis Portaev, Igor Akopov, and Evgeny Makarin for violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Wage Theft Prevention Act, and New
York Labor Law and the supporting New York State Department of
Labor regulations. The case is captioned Luis Castillo and Saul
Reyes Merced, on behalf of themselves and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, - vs. – DCD Construction, LLC,
Denis Portaev, Igor Akopov, and Evgeny Makarin, Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-02689 (E.D.N.Y., May 7, 2019).

Plaintiffs allege that defendants had a policy and practice of
refusing to pay overtime compensation to their employees for hours
they worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. In addition,
Plaintiffs assert that the defendants have also failed to provide
them with weekly wage statements.

DCD Construction, LLC is a New York corporation with a place of
business at 1209 Dekalb Avenue, Suite 207, Brooklyn, New York. The
company was engaged in numerous construction projects in Brooklyn.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     David Stein, Esq.
     SAMUEL & STEIN
     38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
     New York, NY 10001
     Telephone: (212) 563-9884
     E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com

DERA RESTAURANT: Diaz Seeks Overtime, Minimum Pay
-------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Dera Restaurant,
Inc and Mohammad Saif Ullah for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, New York Labor Law, and the New York State Wage
Theft Prevention Act. The case is captioned LUIS DIAZ, on behalf of
himself, and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, -against- DERA
RESTAURANT, INC.; DERA RESTAURANT NYC, INC.; and MOHAMMAD SAIF
ULLAH, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02712 (E.D.N.Y.,
May 8, 2019). Plaintiff Luis Diaz alleges that the Defendants
failed to pay minimum wage and overtime to its employees.

Dera Restaurant, Inc. is a domestic business corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the state of New York, with a
principal place of business at 72-09 Broadway, Jackson Heights, New
York. The restaurant offers authentic Pakistani, Indian, Bengali,
and Nepali food. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Justin Cilenti, Esq.
     Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
     CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
     708 Third Avenue – 6th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Telephone: (212) 209-3933
     Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
     E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com


DOUGLAS COUNTY, WA: Rivera-Ruiz Files Civil Rights Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Douglas County and
some government officials. The case is styled as Jose Alfredo
Rivera-Ruiz on behalf of himself and a class of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Douglas County, Gordon Edgar,
Prosecuting Attorney for Douglas County, in his official and
individual capacities, US Department of Homeland Security, Kevin
McAleenan, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department
of Homeland Security, United States of America, Defendants, Case
No. 2:19-cv-00170-SMJ (E.D. Wash., May 16, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

Douglas County is a county located in the U.S. state of Washington.
As of the 2010 census, its population was 38,431. The county seat
is Waterville, while its largest settlement is East Wenatchee
Bench, although East Wenatchee is the commercial center.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jessica Talitha Hazelton, Esq.
     Espada Law Firm
     1001 4th Avenue, Suite 3200
     Seattle, WA 98154
     Phone: (206) 467-5987
     Email: th@espadalaw.com


DOYLE'S WORK: Faces Olmos Labor Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Doyle's Work
Company, Inc. for violations of the California Labor Code and the
California Business and Professions Code. The case is captioned
JUAN OLMOS, an individual; and ADOLFO OLMOS, an individual, on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated employees,
Plaintiffs, v. DOYLE'S WORK COMPANY, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
19CV347006 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., April 30, 2019).

The core violations Plaintiffs Joan Olmos and Adolfo Olmos allege
are: (1) failing to provide meal periods and rest periods (and pay
the statutory additional wages owed); (2) failing to pay all agreed
upon, minimum and overtime wages owed; (3) failing to keep accurate
time records and knowingly and intentionally failing to provide
accurate itemized wage statements; (4) willfully failing to pay
compensation owed for all hours worked (including unpaid overtime
and meal and rest period compensation) in a prompt and timely
manner to Plaintiffs upon termination of employment; (5) and
failing to provide potable water. Defendants have also refused to
pay the wages due and owed to Plaintiffs under the express
provisions of the California Labor Code and the Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Order No. 16, which in turn has resulted in
additional Labor Code violations entitling Plaintiffs to prompt
payment of wages, penalties, and interest. Defendants caused the
violations at issue and benefitted financially from these
violations.

Doyle's Work Company, Inc. is a corporation incorporated under the
laws of the state of California, with its principal place of
business in the County of Santa Clara, in the State of California,
and has expressly consented to jurisdiction in California. The
company operates as an excavation contractor employing Plaintiffs
and the aggrieved employees. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Nina M. Patane, Esq.
     Anais Mora, Esq.
     PATANE GUMBERG AVILA, LLP
     4 Rossi Circle, Suite 231
     Salinas, CA 93907
     Mailing: P.O. Box 3770, Salinas, CA 93912
     Telephone: (831) 755-1461
     Facsimile: (831) 755-1477
     E-mail: npatane@pglawfirm.com
             amora@pglawfirm.com


DYNAGAS LNG: Epelbaum Files Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIO EPELBAUM, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. DYNAGAS LNG PARTNERS LP, DYNAGAS GP, LLC,
DYNAGAS HOLDING LTD., TONY LAURITZEN, MICHAEL GREGOS and GEORGE J.
PROKOPIOU, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04512 (S.D. N.Y., May 16,
2019) is an action pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against Defendants on behalf of all persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Dynagas securities from February
16, 2018 through March 21, 2019, inclusive, excluding Defendants.

Plaintiff and other members of the Class purchased Dynagas
securities at prices that were inflated by misstatements, the
omission of facts necessary to make those statements not
misleading, and the failure to timely correct those misstatements,
asserts the complaint. This is a case about a company that misled
its investors regarding the terms of two key long-term contracts,
and concealed the fact that its revenue derived from those
contracts had been severely diminished and outright lied about its
ability to continue to make substantial distributions to
shareholders based on its current cash flow profile.

Dynagas is a publicly traded company limited partnership that owns
six tanker ships, designed for the transportation of liquified
natural gas ("LNG"). These LNG tanker ships are operated by a
Dynagas affiliate and are chartered to large energy companies
including Statoil (now known as Equinor), Gazprom, and Yamal,
typically for periods of eight to ten years.

Since the completion of its initial public offering in 2013, and
until recently, Dynagas attracted investors in its common stock by
paying a substantial quarterly distribution (i.e. dividend).
Dynagas was able to make the distribution consistently in part due
to the highly predictable nature of revenue derived from long-term
contracts with stable counterparties. In its press releases and
public presentations and on conference calls with investors,
Dynagas and its officers routinely touted the Company's long-term
charter contracts and reminded investors that these contracts
"provide steady, predictable cash flows." Indeed, prior to 2018,
Dynagas had always paid holders of its common stock at least 36.5
cents per quarter per share.

In early 2018, it became apparent, even to outside analysts, that
Dynagas would need to reduce its quarterly distributions to
maintain adequate liquidity to meet debt obligations and continue
operations. The Company's management conducted a review and
determined to reduce the quarterly distribution to 25 cents per
share. However, unknown to investors, Dynagas and its senior
management knew that the Company's predictable cash flow did not
support even this (reduced) distribution, because Dynagas had
already agreed to receive a reduced charter rate for two of its six
LNG tanker ships, the Arctic Aurora and the Ob River, beginning in
2018 and continuing for years to come. The impact of the rate
reduction for one third of Dynagas's fleet on the Company's cash
flow would extend for years into the future, such that the Company
would not be able to support even the 25-cent quarterly
distributions. But instead of admitting this fact, Dynagas and its
senior executives repeatedly assured investors that the new,
somewhat lower, dividend was sustainable, and that further
reductions would not be needed.

Consequently, Dynagas's common stock declined 78.4% from its
closing price on February 16, 2018 (the day after Dynagas's
post-market-close misstatements about its charter contracts and the
ability of the revenue derived therefrom to support its
distributions) and its closing price on March 22, 2019 (the day it
was fully revealed that the prior statements were false), Series A
Preferred Units declined 24.7% during the same period, and other
Dynagas securities suffered substantial price decreases as well.

Plaintiff Mr. Epelbaum acquired Dynagas securities and has been
damaged thereby, says the complaint.

Dynagas, through its subsidiaries and affiliates, owns and operates
six LNG tankers and derives substantially all of its revenue from
charter contracts with natural gas producers to export their LNG
products to markets around the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq.
     Robert N. Cappucci, Esq.
     Brendan J. Brodeur, Esq.
     Sean M. Riegert, Esq.
     ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
     299 Park Avenue, 20th Floor
     New York, NY 10171
     Phone: (212) 894-7200
     Facsimile: (212) 894-7272
     Email: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com
            rcappucci@entwistle-law.com
            bbrodeur@entwistle-law.com
            sriegert@entwistle-law.com


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Auguste Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dynamic Recovery
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Sharon Auguste individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, LVNV Funding, LLC, and John Does
1-25, Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-61236-RKA (S.D. Fla., May 16,
2019).

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

Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC is a full-service collection agency
based in South Carolina. Dynamic Recovery Solutions is experienced
in collecting late-stage debt for small, medium, and high-volume
businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Justin E. Zeig, Esq.
     Zeig Law Firm, LLC
     3595 Sheridan Street, Suite 103
     Hollywood, FL 33021
     Phone: (754) 217-3084
     Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com



EURO PAINTING AND WALLCOVERING: Veres Seeks OT, Minimum Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Szabolcs Z. Ulics
dba Euro Painting and Wallcovering for violations of the California
Labor Code, the California Business & Professions Code and the
applicable IWC Wage Orders, and Code of Regulations, Title 8,
section 11000 et seq. The case is captioned TIBOR VERES, Plaintiff,
v. SZABOLCS Z. ULICS dba EURO PAINTING AND WALLCOVERING; SZABOLCS
Z. ULICS; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
19STCV15093 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 1, 2019). Plaintiff
Tibor Veres alleges eight causes of action including failure to pay
all wages including minimum wage and overtime; failure to provide
rest and meal periods; and failure to provide accurate itemized
wage statements.

Euro Painting does business in California, and renovates hotels
throughout the United States by providing a wide variety of
services from decorative painting to special wall covering
installation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
     Atoy H. Wilson, Esq.
     MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
     249 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 814
     Long Beach, CA 90802
     Telephone: (562) 590-5550
     Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
     E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
             awilson@mahoney-law.net


EXLSERVICE HOLDINGS: Remainder of Settlement Amount Already Paid
----------------------------------------------------------------
ExlService Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the remainder of the
settlement amount in a California class action has been paid.

In March 2017, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative
class action lawsuit filed in California, which challenged the
classification of independent contractors.

The parties participated in a mediation in early 2018. As the
result of the mediation, a settlement was reached pursuant to which
the Company agreed, without admission of wrongdoing, to pay a total
of $2,400, of which $1,200 was paid in 2018 and the remainder has
been paid during the three months ended March 31, 2019.

ExlService Holdings Inc. outsources business processes, including
transaction processing and Internet and voice-based customer care
services, to Global 1000 companies in banking, financial services,
and insurance. ExlService also offers technical support and
advisory services. The company's clients are located principally in
the U.S. and Britain. The company was founded in 1999 and is
headquartered in New York.


FAIRFAX BEHAVIORAL HEALTH: Faces Suit over ADA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Fairfax Behavioral
Health for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The case is captioned Doe v. Fairfax Behavioral Health, Case No.
2:19-cv-00635-TSZ (W.D. Wash., April 30, 2019). It is assigned to
Hon. Judge Thomas S. Zilly.

Founded in 1930, Fairfax Behavioral Health operates a 157-bed,
standalone psychiatric hospital, located in Kirkland, WA. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alexa Helen Polaski, Esq.
     DISABILITY RIGHTS WASHINGTON
     315 5th Ave S, Ste 850
     Seattle, WA 98104
     Telephone: (206) 324-1521
     E-mail: alexap@dr-wa.org

             - and –

     Shelby R. Smith, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP (WA)
     1301 2nd Avenue, Ste 2000
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Telephone: (206) 268-9370
     E-mail: shelby@hbsslaw.com
   
             - and –

     Stacie Berger Siebrecht, Esq.
     DISABILITY RIGHTS WASHINGTON
     315 5th Ave S, Ste 850
     Seattle, WA 98104
     Telephone: (206) 324-1521
     E-mail: stacies@dr-wa.org

             - and –

     Steve W. Berman
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP (WA)
     1301 2nd Avenue, Ste 2000
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Telephone: (206) 623-7292
     Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
     E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com


FIC RESTAURANTS: Does not Pay Proper Wages, Lowe Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Dejanna Lowe, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIC Restaurants, Inc., d/b/a Friendly's,
John M. Maguire, T. Todd Schwendenmann, Defendants, Case No.
19-1397 (Mass. Commonwealth, Super. Ct., May 16, 2019) is an action
brought on behalf of hourly restaurant workers of the Defendants
who seeks damages, including treble damages, interest, costs, and
attorneys' fees.

According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the
Massachusetts wage laws in multiple ways. First, Friendly's engaged
in a systematic scheme to misrepresent or alter lime records, with
the result that hourly restaurant workers were not properly paid
for all of the time they worked. This scheme was undertaken at the
direction of managers who oversaw multiple restaurants and was
motivated by a desire to improve the company's financial
performance, at the expense of hourly workers. Second, the
Defendants failed to satisfy the minimum wage requirements of
M.G.L. c. 151, both by failing to pay any wages for some work and
by failing to satisfy the requirements for paying a tipped minimum
wage, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Ms. Lowe worked for the Defendants as an hourly employee
from in or around August 2014 to in or around December 2018.

FIC Restaurants, Inc., d/b/a Friendly's, is a Massachusetts
corporation, with a principal place of business in Wilbraham,
Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Stephen Churchill, Esq.
     FAIR WORK, P.C.
     192 South Street, Suite 450
     Boston, MA 02111
     Phone: (617)607-3260
     Fax: (617)488-2261 (fax)
     Email: sieve@fairworklaw.com



FIDELITY NATIONAL: 401(k) Plan Related Suit v. Unit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April
30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that
Reliance Trust Company ("Reliance"), the company's subsidiary
continues to defend a class action suit related to its 401(k)
Plan.

Reliance Trust Company ("Reliance"), the Company's subsidiary, is
named as a defendant in a class action arising out of its provision
of services as the discretionary trustee for a 401(k) Plan (the
"Plan") for one of its customers.

Plaintiffs in the action seek damages and attorneys' fees, as well
as equitable relief, on behalf of Plan participants for alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 against Reliance and the Plan's sponsor and
record-keeper.

Reliance is vigorously defending the action and believes that it
has meritorious defenses. Pre-trial discovery has now been
completed. Reliance contends that no breaches of fiduciary duty or
prohibited transactions occurred and that the Plan suffered no
damages.

With respect to Plaintiffs' remaining claims, Plaintiffs allege
damages of approximately $115 million against all defendants.

Fidelity National said, "While we are unable at this time to
estimate more precisely the potential loss or range of loss because
of unresolved questions of fact and law, we believe that the
ultimate resolution of the matter will not have a material impact
on our financial condition. We do not believe a liability for this
action is probable and, therefore, have not recorded a liability
for this action."

Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. operates as a
financial services technology company in the United States and
internationally. It operates through Integrated Financial Solutions
and Global Financial Solutions segments. The company was founded in
1968 and is headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida.


FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Faces Suit Over Confusing Collection Letter
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald D Gentile, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Firstsource Advantage, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-61237-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 16, 2019)
seeks to recover for violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA").

In its efforts to collect an alleged Debt, Defendant contacted
Plaintiff by letter ("the Letter") dated May 29, 2018. The Letter
contains multiple addresses for Defendant. The Letter fails to
instruct the consumer to which of the multiple addresses provided
written disputes must be sent.

As a result of the foregoing, the least sophisticated consumer
would likely be confused as to which of the multiple addresses she
should send her written dispute. Thus, the Defendant violated the
FDCPA as the multiple addresses overshadow the disclosure of the
consumer's right to dispute the debt, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs Ronald D Gentile is a natural person allegedly obligated
to pay a debt.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FRINGE BENEFIT GROUP: Fenello Sues over Automated Telemarketing Cal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Fringe Benefit
Group, Inc. for violations of the consumer-privacy provisions of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The case is captioned
JAY FENELLO, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. FRINGE BENEFIT GROUP, INC. D/B/A THE AMERICAN WORKER,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01971-ELR (N.D. Ga., May 1, 2019).
Plaintiff Jay Fenello alleges that the Fringe Benefit Group, Inc.
has automated the telemarketing calls to him and other putative
class members without their prior express written consent.

Fringe Benefit Group, Inc. d/b/a The American Worker is a Texas
corporation with its principal place of business in Austin, TX.
Fringe Benefit Group, Inc. d/b/a The American Worker is registered
with the State of Georgia and has a registered agent of Mary B.
Galardi, 1418 Dresden Dr., Suite 240, Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Steven H. Koval, Esq.
     THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC
     3575 Piedmont Road
     Building 15, Suite 120
     Atlanta, GA 30305
     Telephone: (404) 513-6651
     Facsimile: (404) 549-4654
     E-mail: shkoval@aol.com


GARY'S KINGS'S: Burke Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
--------------------------------------------------
Louise Burke and Nicole Willey, on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gary's Kings's Chef
Diner LLC, King's Chef Diner 2 LLC, King's Chef Diner #3 LLC, and
Gary A. Geiser, Case No. 1:19-cv-00889 (D. Colo., March 25, 2019),
is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Colorado Wage Claim Act, and the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

This case arises out of the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and
overtime wages to the Plaintiffs. In addition, the Defendants use
the tip money the Plaintiffs receive to pay non-tipped employees
such as kitchen staff and to make up for shortages in the cash
register, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff Burke worked as a server for the Defendants in
Colorado Springs in September 2017 and ended her employment in
January 2019.

The Plaintiff Willey worked as a server for the Defendants in
Colorado Springs in March 2016 and continues to work for them in
that capacity in Colorado Springs and Fountain.

The Defendants operate three restaurants known as the King's Chef
Diners in Colorado Springs. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Mary Jo Lowrey, Esq.
      LOWREY PARADY LLC
      1725 High Street, Suite 1
      Denver, CO 80218
      Tel: (303) 593-2595
      Fax: (303) 502-9119
      E-mail: MaryJo@lowrey-parady.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Parker Sues Over Defective Steering System
----------------------------------------------------------
JAMES SCOTT PARKER, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV17105 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 16, 2019) is an action seeking to
redress KMA's violations of California consumer fraud statutes, and
also seeks recovery for Defendant's breach of express warranty,
breach of implied warranty, breach of the duty of good faith and
fair dealing, and common law fraud.

General Motors was engaged in the business of designing,
manufacturing, constructing, assembling, marketing, distributing,
and selling automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle
components in Los Angeles County. Plaintiff purchased a 2009
Chevrolet Traverse, vehicle identification number 1GNER23D79S109425
on or about October 26, 2008.

Plaintiff received an express written warranty, including, the
3-year/36,000 mile basic bumper-to-bumper warranty, a
5-year/100,000 mile powertrain warranty which covers, inter alia,
the engine and transmission, and subsequently received a
10-year/120,000 mile extended service coverage adjustment (e.g.
extended warranty) which covers power steering system and/or
related components. Defendant undertook to preserve or maintain the
utility or performance of the Subject Vehicle or to provide
compensation if there is a failure in utility or performance for a
specified period of time. The warranty provided, in relevant part,
that in the event a defect developed with the Subject Vehicle
during the warranty period, Plaintiff could deliver the Subject
Vehicle for repair services to Defendant's representative and the
Subject Vehicle would be repaired.

During the warranty period, the Subject Vehicle contained or
developed defects. Said defects substantially impair the use,
value, or safety of the Subject Vehicle. GM knew since 2009 if not
earlier, that the 2008-2012 Chevrolet Traverse vehicles, including
the 2009 Chevrolet Traverse, contained one or more design and/or
manufacturing defects in their integral steering system that could
cause it to intermittently and drastically fail while the car is in
motion, thus creating a serious safety risk.

Plaintiff alleges that GM knew at the time the Subject Vehicle was
manufactured and/or thereafter, if not before, that the Subject
Vehicle and its Steering system suffered from an inherent defect,
was defective, would fail prematurely, and was not suitable for its
intended use. Despite Plaintiff's repeated presentments to repair
the defects, the attempted repairs were unsuccessful in conforming
the Subject Vehicle to the warranties provided by Defendant, as
Plaintiff continued to experience problems with the Subject
Vehicle. Throughout this period, Defendant continued to conceal
from Plaintiff the existence and nature of the defects within the
Subject Vehicle. Thus, Plaintiff could not have discovered the
steering defect earlier, because Plaintiff was never informed at
any repair visits, or any other time that Plaintiff's vehicle was
defective. Further, Plaintiff could not have discovered the
steering defect until the issues persisted after these repair
attempts, says the complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Tionna Dolin, Esq.
     Daniel Tai, Esq.
     Esther Kim, Esq.
     Strategic Legal Practices
     A Professional Corporation
     1840 Century Park East, Suite 430
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 929-4900
     Facsimile: (310) 943-3838
     Email: tdolin@slpattorney.com
            dtai@slpattorney.com
            ezkim@slpattorney.com


GLOBAL NET: Dembski Files Suit in Arizona
-----------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Global Net
Communications. The case is styled as Fred Dembski Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Global Net
Communications, Third Party Subpoena Recipient, Respondent, Case
No. 2:19-mc-00014-DWL (D. Ariz., May 16, 2019).

Global Net Communications provides data solutions for the
telecommunications industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Avi Kaufman, Esq.
     Kaufman PA
     400 NW 26th St.
     Miami, FL 33127
     Phone: (305) 469-5881
     Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com

          - and -

     Nathanael Melvin Brown, Esq.
     Brown Patent Law
     15100 N 78th Way
     Scottsdale, AZ 85260
     Phone: (602) 529-8347
     Email: nathan.brown@brownpatentlaw.com

          - and -

     Stefan Louis Coleman, Esq.
     Law Offices of Stefan Coleman LLC
     201 S Biscayne Blvd., 28th Fl.
     Miami, FL 33131
     Phone: (877) 333-9427
     Fax: (888) 498-8946
     Email: law@stefancoleman.com


GRG USA LLC: Boling Files Tort Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GRG USA LLC. The case
is styled as JESSICA BOLING, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF, THE GENERAL
PUBLIC, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. GRG USA LLC
DOING BUSINESS AS THE GARAGE CLOTHING COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
BCV-19-101352 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., May 16, 2019).

The case type is stated as "Business Tort - Civil Unlimited".

Grg USA LLC is a privately held company in Minneapolis, MN.
Categorized under Women's Clothing Stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by NEIL B FINEMAN, ESQ.



HILL'S PET: Connary Sues Over Product's False and Misleading Labels
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DONNA CONNARY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC. and
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00913 (C.D.
Cal., May 16, 2019) seeks an order requiring Defendants to pay
actual damages, statutory treble damages, attorneys' fees, and any
other relief available for Defendants' material misrepresentations
and omissions.

The products at issue in this Class Action Complaint are various
Science Diet and Prescription Diet brands (collectively, the
"Products") that Defendants recalled on January 31, 2019 and
further recalled to include additional Products on March 20, 2019.
The Products were recalled because, contrary to their labeling,
advertising, and marketing campaign which represents and warrants
to consumers that the Products are safe, healthy, and/or
specifically formulated for the unique health needs of canines,
Defendants actually formulated, manufactured, distributed, and sold
Products that contain an amount of Vitamin D that is extremely
dangerous for dogs to consume.

This amount of Vitamin D poses substantial and unreasonable health
risks to dogs after exposure, including symptoms such as vomiting,
loss of appetite, increased thirst, increased urination, excessive
drooling, and weight loss. Prolonged exposure can lead to serious
health issues in dogs including renal dysfunction, which can cause
death.

As a result of Defendants' false and misleading representations and
warranties which conveyed that the Products were safe, many dog
owners including Plaintiff and members of the Class and Subclass,
watched as their dogs suffered from Vitamin D poisoning and its
related symptoms after consuming the Products, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Donna Connary regularly purchased several of the Products
from retailers in Riverside County, California.

Defendants formulated, designed, manufactured, advertised,
marketed, labeled, offered for sale, sold, and distributed pet food
products to consumers, including the Products, throughout the
United States and California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Benjamin Blakeman, Esq.
     BLAKEMAN LAW
     8383 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 510
     Beverly Hills, CA 90211
     Phone: (213) 629-9922
     Facsimile: (213) 232-3230
     Email: ben@lifeinsurance-law.com


IMDB.COM INC: Jones Sues Over Deaf-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------
KAHLIMAH JONES, Individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. IMDB.COM, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02903-LDH-VMS (E.D. N.Y., May 16, 2019)
is a civil rights class action lawsuit against Defendant for
failing to design, construct, and/or own or operate a website that
is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, deaf and
hard-of hearing people.

The Defendant denies deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals
throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services
that it provides to non-disabled individuals, through
http://www.imdb.com(hereinafter the "Website") and related domains
owned by Defendant, asserts the complaint. The Website contains
access barriers that make it difficult for deaf and hard-of-hearing
individuals to use the Website. In fact, the access barriers make
it impossible for deaf and hard-of-hearing users to comprehend the
audio portion of videos that are posted on the Website. Defendant
thus excludes the deaf and hard of hearing from the full and equal
participation in the growing Internet economy that is increasingly
a fundamental part of the common marketplace and daily living, the
complaint says.

Plaintiff is a deaf and hard-of hearing individual.

Defendant provides a wide array of goods and services to the public
through its Website.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dan Shaked, Esq.
     SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
     44 Court Street, Suite 1217
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (917) 373-9128
     Email: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com


INTEGRITY RECOVERY: Costa Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
ANIA COSTA, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. INTEGRITY RECOVERY MANAGEMENT LLC and PERFECTION
COLLECTION, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-21994-XXXX (S.D.
Fla., May 16, 2019) is a class action brought under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), for the benefit of Florida
consumers who have been subjected to improper debt collection
efforts by Defendants.

In connection with the collection of an alleged Debt, on November
19, 2018, "Alex Yates," a representative acting on behalf of IRM,
placed a telephone call to Plaintiff and left a voice message.
Later, on December 3, 2018, Mr. Yates placed another telephone call
to Plaintiff and left a nearly identical voice message. IRM also
sent Plaintiff a written communication dated December 11, 2018 in
an attempt to collect the alleged Debt. By way of the December 11
letter, IRM seeks payment of $3,064.57 in connection with an
account originating from "Apx Alarm aka Vivint Alarm."

Mr. Yates and IRM contacted Plaintiff on behalf of Perfection
Collection to collect the alleged Debt. Yet Mr. Yates's telephone
voice messages to Plaintiff failed to advise her that IRM is a debt
collector calling to collect a debt, and that any information
obtained as a result of IRM's calls would be used for the purpose
of collecting that debt. Instead, IRM's representative, "Alex
Yates," simply professed to be a "private courier" with "sealed
documents" for delivery, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is obligated, or allegedly obligated, to pay a debt owed
or due, or asserted to be owed or due, a creditor other than IRM.

IRM is a limited liability company with its registration and
principal place of business located in Nevada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James L. Davidson, Esq.
     Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
     Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC
     7601 N. Federal Hwy., Suite A-230
     Boca Raton, FL 33487
     Phone: (561) 826-5477
     Fax: (561) 961-5684
     Email: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
            jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com


ITURAN LOCATION: Court Hearing in Subscriber Suit Set for June 2019
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ituran Location and Control Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that a court hearing
on the purported class action suit initiated by the company's
subscriber is set for June 2019.

On July 13, 2015, the company received a purported class action
lawsuit which was filed against the Company in the District Court
of Central Region in Tel-Aviv by one plaintiff who is a subscriber
of the Company, alleging that the Company, which was declared a
monopoly under the Israeli Antitrust Law, unlawfully abused its
power as a monopoly and discriminated between its customers.

The lawsuit is yet to be approved as a class action. The total
amount claimed if the lawsuit is approved as a class action was
estimated by the plaintiff to be approximately NIS 300 million
(approximately USD 80 million).

Based on an opinion of its legal counsels, the Company believes
that the lawsuit lacks substantiation, and that the Company has
good defense arguments in respect of claims made by the plaintiff
and that the chances that the suit will not be approved as a class
action lawsuit are higher than it will be approved. Court hearing
will take place on June 2019.

Ituran Locatio said, "Notwithstanding the aforesaid, at this
preliminary stage, the Company is unable to assess the lawsuit's
chances of success. While we cannot predict the outcome of this
case, if we are not successful in defending our claim, we could be
subject to significant costs, adversely affecting our results of
operations."

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


JAB HOLDING: Pension Fund Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Jab Holding Company
S.a.r.l. et al for breach of fiduciary duties. The case is
captioned Massachusetts Laborers' Pension Fund, on behalf of itself
and all similarly situated holders of Coty Inc., Plaintiff v.
Sabine Chalmers, Joachim Faber, Oliver Goudet, Peter Harf,
Anna-Lena Kamenetzky, Pierre Laubies, Paul S. Michaels, Erhard
Schoewel, Robert Singer, Jab Holding Company S.a.r.l., Jab
Cosmetics B.V., and Cottage Holdco B.V., Defendants, Case No.
2019-0336 (Del. Ch., May 6, 2019).

Jab Holding Company is a privately held group focused on long term
investments in companies with premium brands. It operates offices
in Europe, the US and South America. Its investments are overseen
by two managing partners: Peter Harf and Olivier Goudet. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ned Weinberger, Esq.
     LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
     300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1340
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Telephone No: (302) 573-2530


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Abott Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------
The case, DR. RICHARD ABBOTT, Individually and as
Successor-In-Interest of the Estate of CECILIA ABBOTT, Deceased,
Plaintiffs, v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY; JOHNSON & JOHNSON;
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC., a subsidiary of JOHNSON & JOHNSON;
and DOES 1-450, Defendants, Case No. JCCP 4674 / BC691327, was
transferred from the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. In the complaint, Plaintiffs allege that
Imerys Talc America's talc caused Decedent's injuries --
specifically, death due to mesothelioma. The United States District
Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-03681 to the proceeding.

On April 18, 2019, Johnson and Johnson filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware a Motion to Fix Venue
for Claims Related to Imerys's Bankruptcy Under 28 U.S.C. Sections
157(b)(5) and 1334(b). The aforementioned wrongful death claim was
among those that Johnson and Johnson seeks to consolidate in the
District of Delaware. Given the pendency of the Motion, Johnson and
Johnson believes that the Central District Court of California
cannot and, in any event, should not take any further action in
this civil action until the District of Delaware has ruled on the
Motion. Because the District of Delaware has the ultimate power to
determine venue of the personal injury and wrongful death claims,
the District of Delaware necessarily has authority to consider any
procedural motions filed in this civil action if the resolution of
such motions might have some bearing on the trial of the claims.

Johnson & Johnson is a New Jersey Corporation doing business in the
state of California. The company is engaged in substantial,
continuous economic activity in California, including marketing,
distribution, and sale of billions of dollars in products to
Californians including, but not limited to, Shower to Shower body
powder and Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder. [BN]

Attorneys for Defendants:

     Alexander G. Calfo, Esq.
     Julia E. Romano, Esq.
     Bryan L. King, Esq.
     KING & SPALDING LLP
     633 West 5th Street, Suite 1600
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Telephone: +1 (213) 443-4355
     Facsimile: +1 (213) 443-4310
     E-mail: acalfo@kslaw.com
             jromano@kslaw.com
             bking@kslaw.com


JPAY INC: Inmates Sue over Digital Music, Audio Books Purchases
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against JPay, Inc. and
Keefe Commissary Network, LLC for breach of contract and for
engaging in deceptive trade practices that violated the Florida
common law. The case is captioned MATTHEW RODRIGUEZ; and OTIS
CLAYTON, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, vs. JPAY, INC., and KEEFE COMMISSARY NETWORK, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-14137-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 25,
2019).

Plaintiffs Matthew Rodriguez and Otis Clayton allege that JPay,
Inc. and Keefe Commissary Network, LLC engaged in scheme to
intentionally deprive Plaintiffs and the members of the putative
class, who are all inmates incarcerated by the Florida Department
of Corrections (FLDOC), of digital music and/or audio books.
Defendant Keefe and the FLDOC falsely and fraudulently represented
to Plaintiffs and members of the putative class, that they would
always own the digital media files purchased under the Digital
Music Player Program. Keefe and FLDOC allegedly failed to disclose
to the Plaintiffs and the members of the putative class that the
said program contained an expiration date and that the digital
media file purchases would only be available for use during the
span of the FLDOC's contract with Keefe. Plaintiffs also accuse
Jpay and FLDOC with a conspiracy that deprive them of their
lawfully purchased property, without just compensation. Jpay and
FLDOC have falsely assured Plaintiffs and the members of the
putative class that they are entitled to transfer their digital
media purchased under the Keefe's Digital Music Player Program to
Jpay's Multimedia Tablet Program without additional costs.

JPay is a wholly owned subsidiary of Securus Technologies, Inc., is
incorporated in Delaware and located at 12864 Biscayne Boulevard,
Suite 243, Miami, Florida. JPay touts itself as "the most trusted
name in corrections." The company offers myriad services to the
correctional industry in over 30 states. Keefe Commissary Network,
LLC, is a Missouri corporation that does business under various
trade names, including Access Corrections. Keefe is located at
10880 Linpage Place, St. Louis, Missouri 63132. It is considered as
the nation's largest operator of commissary stores inside
correctional facilities. It offers a wide array of services to
correctional institutions, including the sales of MP3 players and
music. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Scott D. Hirsch, Esq.
     SCOTT HIRSCH LAW GROUP, PLLC
     7301 W. Palmetto Park Road, Ste. 207A
     Boca Raton, FL 33433
     Telephone: (561) 569-7062
     Facsimile: (561) 278-6244
     E-mail: Scott.Hirsch@ScottHirschLawGroup.com

             - and –

     Joshua M. Entin, Esq.
     ENTIN LAW GROUP, P.A.
     633 S. Andrews, Ave Suite 500
     Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Telephone: (964) 761-7201
     Facsimile: (954) 764-2443
     E-mail: Josh@entinlaw.com


KEN'S SUSHI: Zhang Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
-----------------------------------------------
Xing Dong Zhang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Ken's Sushi Bistro Inc. dba Zenzo Sushi, Hong Zhang
Chen, "John" Chen, and Xiaoxue Guan, Case No. 1:19-cv-02594 (S.D.
N.Y., March 22, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The complaint asserts that the Defendants have willfully and
intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL
by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their
employees, including Plaintiff, compensation for all hours worked,
minimum wage, and overtime compensation for all hours worked over
40 each workweek and spread of hours, as well as failing to provide
their employees, including the Plaintiff, with wage notice at the
time of hiring and wage statements with each payment of wages with
requisite information.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Queens, New York. The Plaintiff was
employed by the Defendants as delivery person from March 4, 2015 to
on around August 1, 2018.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ge Qu, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Ave. Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Tel: (718) 353-8588
      Fax: (718) 353-6288
      E-mail: rqu@hanglaw.com


LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Settlement in NY Suit Still Awaits Court Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
Leidos Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended  March 29, 2019, that the settlement in the
case entitled, In Re: SAIC, Inc. Securities Litigation, still
awaits court approval.

Between February and April 2012, alleged stockholders filed three
putative securities class actions against the Company and several
former executives relating to the Company's contract to develop and
implement an automated time and attendance and workforce management
system for certain agencies of the City of New York ("CityTime").

One case was withdrawn and two cases were consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York in In Re:
SAIC, Inc. Securities Litigation. The consolidated securities
complaint asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations that the
Company and individual defendants made misleading statements or
omissions about the Company's revenues, operating income and
internal controls in connection with disclosures relating to the
CityTime project.

The plaintiffs sought to recover from the Company and the
individual defendants an unspecified amount of damages class
members allegedly incurred by buying Leidos' stock at an inflated
price. The District Court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims with
prejudice and without leave to replead.

The plaintiffs then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, which issued an opinion affirming in part,
and vacating in part, the District Court's ruling. The Company
filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme
Court, which was granted on March 27, 2017.

The District Court granted the Company's request to stay all
proceedings, including discovery, pending the outcome at the
Supreme Court. In September 2017, the parties engaged in mediation
resulting in an agreement to settle all remaining claims for an
immaterial amount to be paid by the Company. The amounts payable by
the Company are covered by an insurance policy.

The terms of the proposed settlement remain subject to court
approval.

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

Leidos Holdings, Inc. provides services and solutions in the
defense, intelligence, civil, and health markets in the United
States and internationally. It operates through three segments:
Defense Solutions, Civil, and Health. The company was founded in
1969 and is headquartered in Reston, Virginia.


LENNOX INDUSTRIES: Baker Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ebony Baker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Lennox Industries Inc., Defendant, Case No.
5:19-cv-00171-DPM (E.D. Ark., May 16, 2019) is an action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act
("AMWA"), for unjust enrichment, declaratory judgment, monetary
damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest and costs,
including a reasonable attorney's fee as a result of Defendant's
failure to pay Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees lawful
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.

Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours per week throughout their tenure with Defendant.
They were classified as hourly employees and paid an hourly rate
and were also paid non-discretionary cash awards and bonuses on a
regular basis when certain objective and measurable criteria were
met. In addition, Defendant paid Plaintiff and other hourly-paid
employees one-and one-half times their base hourly rate for each
hour they worked over 40 in a workweek.

The complaint alleges that Defendant did not include the bonuses
and cash awards paid to Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees
in their regular rates of pay when calculating their overtime pay
in violation of the FLSA and AMWA.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid employee from
approximately October of 2017 until May of 2019.

Lennox Industries, Inc., operates multiple manufacturing
facilities, and Lennox's Stuttgart facility builds a variety of
commercial air conditioning and heating products including packaged
rooftop units, and split system and unit heaters for both the
domestic and international market.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LIBERTY CAPITAL: Ellis Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LIBERTY CAPITAL GROUP
INC. The case is styled as GLENN A. ELLIS INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF A CLASS OF ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiff v. LIBERTY CAPITAL GROUP INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-02131-RK (E.D. Pa., May 16, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Liberty Capital Group, Inc. provides leasing and financing
solutions for various types of new and used manufacturing
equipment. It also provides private label, managed, or referral
programs for suppliers and manufactures in various industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     JOSEPH MARANO, ESQ.
     LAYSER & FREIWALD, PC
     1500 WALNUT STREET
     18TH FLOOR
     PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102
     Phone: (215) 875-8000
     Email: jm@freiwaldlaw.com


LIFE ALERT EMERGENCY RESPONSE: Cinta Sues over Automatic Contract R
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Life Alert
Emergency Response, Inc. for its violations of the Illinois
Automatic Contract Renewal and the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act. The case is captioned OFILIA CINTA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. LIFE ALERT EMERGENCY RESPONSE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2019L000485 (Ill. Cir., DuPage Cty., May 1, 2019).

In violation of the Renewal Act and pursuant to its standard
practice and policy of refusing to comply with the Renewal Act,
Defendant Life Alert Emergency Response, Inc. did not notify
Plaintiff Ofilia Cinta and the class in writing of the automatic
renewal of their contract and did not furnish Plaintiff and the
class any written notice of any cancellation deadline. In addition,
the Defendant also did not provide Plaintiff and the class any
clear and conspicuous details of the automatic renewal provision
including any cancellation procedure.

Founded in 1987, Life Alert Emergency Response, Inc. is a
California corporation with its principal place of business at
16027 Ventura Boulevard, Encino, California. It is a personal
emergency response and home medical alert system company that saves
lives from catastrophic outcomes, using a unique technology to
provide superior home audio monitoring protection. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Vincent L. DiTommaso, Esq
     James V. DiTommaso, Esq
     DITOMMASO LAW LLC
     17W 220 22nd Street, Suite 410
     Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
     Telephone: (630) 333-0000
     E-mail: vdt@ditommasolaw.com
             jvd@ditommasolaw.com
             eservice@ditommasolaw.com

             - and -

     Larry D. Drury, Esq.
     LARRY D. DRURY, LTD.
     100 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2200
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Telephone: (312) 346-7950
     E-mail: ldd@larrydrury.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Appeal in Formaldehyde & Abrasion MDL Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30,
2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the
consolidated appeal in the Formaldehyde & Abrasion multi-district
litigation is pending.

Beginning on or about March 3, 2015, numerous purported class
action cases were filed in various U.S. federal district courts and
state courts involving claims of excessive formaldehyde emissions
from the Company's Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring products.


The purported classes consisted of all U.S. consumers that
purchased the relevant products during certain time periods.
Plaintiffs in these cases challenged the Company's labeling of its
products as compliant with the California Air Resources Board
Regulation and alleged claims for fraudulent concealment, breach of
warranty, negligent misrepresentation and violation of various
state consumer protection statutes.

The plaintiffs sought various forms of declaratory and injunctive
relief and unquantified damages, including restitution and actual,
compensatory, consequential and, in certain cases, punitive
damages, as well as interest, costs and attorneys' fees incurred by
the plaintiffs and other purported class members in connection with
the alleged claims.

The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the
"MDL Panel") transferred and consolidated the federal cases to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
(the "Virginia Court"). The consolidated case in the Virginia Court
is captioned In re: Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured
Flooring Products Marketing, Sales, Practices and Products
Liability Litigation (the "Formaldehyde MDL").

Beginning on or about May 20, 2015, multiple class actions were
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California and other district courts located in the place of
residence of each non-California plaintiffs consisting of U.S.
consumers who purchased the Company's Chinese-manufactured laminate
flooring products challenging certain representations about the
durability and abrasion class ratings of such products.

These plaintiffs asserted claims for fraudulent concealment, breach
of warranty and violation of various state consumer protection
statutes.

The plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in these cases;
however, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, they did seek an
order (i) certifying the action as a class action, (ii) adopting
the plaintiffs' class definitions and finding that the plaintiffs
are their proper representatives, (iii) appointing their counsel as
class counsel, (iv) granting injunctive relief to prohibit the
Company from continuing to advertise and/or sell laminate flooring
products with false abrasion class ratings, (v) providing
restitution of all monies the Company received from the plaintiffs
and class members and (vi) providing damages (actual, compensatory
and consequential), as well as punitive damages.

On October 3, 2016, the MDL Panel transferred and consolidated the
abrasion class actions to the Virginia Court. The consolidated case
is captioned In re: Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured
Laminate Flooring Durability Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation (the "Abrasion MDL").

On March 15, 2018, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
to jointly settle the Formaldehyde MDL and the Abrasion MDL. Under
the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company has agreed to
fund $22 million (the "Cash Payment") and provide $14 million in
store-credit vouchers for an aggregate settlement amount of $36
million to settle claims brought on behalf of purchasers of
Chinese-made laminate flooring sold by the Company between January
1, 2009 and May 31, 2015.

The $36 million aggregate settlement amount was accrued in 2017. On
June 16, 2018, the Virginia Court issued an order that, among other
things, granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement.
Following the preliminary approval, and pursuant to the terms of
the settlement agreement, the Company, in June, paid $0.5 million
for settlement administration costs, which is part of the Cash
Payment, to the plaintiffs' settlement escrow account.

Subsequent to the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing held on
October 3, 2018, the Court approved the settlement on October 9,
2018 and, as a result, the Company paid $21.5 million in cash into
the plaintiffs' settlement escrow account.

On November 8, 2018, an individual filed a Notice of Appeal in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (the "Appeals
Court") challenging the settlement. On December 14, 2018, another
individual filed a Notice of Appeal in the Appeals Court.

Subsequently, the Appeals Court consolidated both appeals and
entered a briefing schedule. Vouchers, which generally have a
three-year life, will be distributed by the administrator upon
order of the Court.

At December 31, 2018, the Company's obligations related to
Formaldehyde MDL and Abrasion MDL consisted of a short-term payable
of $35.5 million with $14 million expected to be satisfied by the
issuance of vouchers. If the appeals were to result in the
settlement being set aside, the Company would receive $21.5 million
back from the escrow agent. Accordingly, the Company has accounted
for the payment of $21.5 million as a deposit in the accompanying
condensed consolidated financial statements. The Company has no
liability accrued related to the appeals.

Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface
flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories.
The company also offers its products through its Website, catalogs,
and call center. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in
1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Class Certification Bid in Mason Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30,
2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that a motion
requesting conditional certification in the class action suit
initiated by Ashleigh Mason is still pending.

On or about August 15, 2017, Ashleigh Mason, Dan Morse, Ryan
Carroll and Osagie Ehigie filed a purported class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York on behalf of all current and former store managers, store
managers in training, installation sales managers and similarly
situated current and former employees holding comparable positions
but different titles (collectively, the "Putative Class Employees")
alleging that the Company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL") by classifying the
Putative Class Employees as exempt. The alleged violations include
failure to pay for overtime work.

The plaintiffs seek certification of the Putative Class Employees
for (i) a collective action covering the period beginning three
years prior to the filing of the complaint (plus a tolling period)
through the disposition of this action for the Putative Class
Employees nationwide in connection with FLSA and (ii) a class
action covering the period beginning six years prior to the filing
of the complaint (plus a tolling period) through the disposition of
this action for members of the Putative Class Employees who
currently are or were employed in New York in connection with NYLL.


The plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages but, in
addition to attorneys' fees and costs, the plaintiffs seek class
certification, unspecified amount for unpaid wages and overtime
wages, liquidated and/or punitive damages, declaratory relief,
restitution, statutory penalties, injunctive relief and other
damages.

In November 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting
conditional certification for all store managers and store managers
in training who worked within the federal statute of limitations
period. The Company filed its opposition to this motion, which is
now pending before the court.

Lumber Liquidators said, "The Company disputes the Putative Class
Employees' claims and intends to defend the matter vigorously.
Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the
case and the legal standards that must be met for, among other
things, class certification and success on the merits, the Company
cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if
any, that may result from this action and therefore no accrual has
been made related to this. Any such losses could, potentially, have
a material adverse effect, individually or collectively, on the
Company"s results of operations, financial condition and
liquidity."

Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface
flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories.
The company also offers its products through its Website, catalogs,
and call center. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in
1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Court OKs Supervised Notice in A. Mason Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York issued a Memorandum and Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for
Court-Supervised Notice to Putative Collective Action Members in
the case captioned ASHLEIGH MASON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LUMBER
LIQUIDATORS, INC., Defendant. No. 17-CV-4780 (MKB). (E.D.N.Y.).

Currently pending before this Court is plaintiffs' motion for
court-supervised notice to putative collective action members,
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), and for disclosure of
identifying information of potential collective action members.

Plaintiffs Ashleigh Mason, Dan Morse, Ryan Carroll, Osagie Ehigie,
and Travis Streeter bring this putative collective action against
defendant Lumber Liquidators, Inc. (Lumber Liquidators), asserting
claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York
Labor Law (NYLL), for unpaid overtime wages owed to store managers
and managers in training, who are alleged to have been
misclassified as exempt from overtime requirements.

SCOPE OF NOTICE

Defendant further argues that if the Court determines that notice
should issue to potential collective action members, such notice
should be limited to employees at the New York locations where the
original four named plaintiffs worked.  

The Defendant offers no reason for limiting notice in that manner.
In addition to the five named plaintiffs, plaintiffs have submitted
declarations from thirteen opt-in plaintiffs who worked at various
locations nationwide, from different regions in the country, who
describe being subject to the same policies as the named plaintiffs
with respect to the alleged FLSA overtime violation.

The Plaintiffs' declarants further describe conversations they had
with SMs from other locations around the country, who performed
similar non-exempt duties but were not paid overtime for those
hours in excess of 40 that they worked in a workweek. Many courts
in this Circuit have conditionally certified nationwide collectives
of managers or assistant managers alleged to have been
misclassified as exempt, where the motions were supported by the
declarations of plaintiffs and opt-in plaintiffs from various
geographic locations, detailing their experiences and observations
and/or conversations they had with employees from the defendants'
other locations.  

Here, the similarities in the substance of the declarations of
opt-in plaintiffs from across the country, in terms of the hours
worked, the performance primarily of non-exempt duties, and the
lack of discretion they were permitted to exercise, raises an
inference of a common policy that violated the FLSA. Unlike the
cases on which defendant relies, the declarations proffered by
plaintiffs are numerous and represent a geographically diverse
sampling,   

Here, in contrast, plaintiffs have submitted declarations from
thirteen SMs, who worked at 37 of defendant's stores across
thirteen states from different regions in the country. As in
Costello, plaintiffs' submissions constitute actual evidence of a
link' between plaintiffs and those across the nation.

Accordingly, the Court authorizes plaintiffs to send notice to a
nationwide collective of (a) Store Managers in Training (SMITs(,
and (b) Store Managers (SMs) who worked at stores that generated,
on average, less than $5 million in revenue during the notice
period.

DISCOVERY OF IDENTIFYING INFORMATION

The Plaintiffs request that the Court direct defendant to produce
the name, mailing address, email address (if any), telephone
numbers, and the last four digits of Social Security numbers of
each potential member of the collective.  

The Defendant argues that only mailing addresses and dates of
employment are necessary.

In general, it is appropriate for courts in collective actions to
order the discovery of names, addresses, telephone numbers, email
addresses, and dates of employment of potential collective
members.

On the other hand, courts are reluctant to require the disclosure
of personally sensitive information, such as Social Security
numbers, absent a showing that the information is necessary for
plaintiffs to notify potential opt-ins of the litigation.
Plaintiffs herein have not demonstrated the necessity for
disclosure of partial social security numbers. Therefore,
plaintiffs' request for the disclosure of social security numbers
is denied, without prejudice to a further showing of necessity.

Accordingly, subject to the confidentiality stipulation entered in
this case, defendant is directed to produce to plaintiffs, in a
computer-readable format, a list of the names, addresses, telephone
numbers, email addresses, work locations and dates of employment
for all potential collective action members during the relevant
time period.

METHODS OF PROVIDING NOTICE AND OPTING IN

The Plaintiffs also request that the opt-in notice be sent by both
regular mail and email, and be posted in the workplaces of
defendant's employees, and that putative collective action members
be permitted to opt-in by mailing, faxing, emailing or providing
electronic consent through a dedicated website. The Defendant
opposes the plaintiffs' request and contends that notice by
first-class mail is sufficient.

Courts in this District routinely authorize the posting of notice
within the defendants' businesses. The Defendant therefore shall
post copies of the Notice, in all relevant languages in non-public
locations conspicuous to all relevant employees, for the duration
of the opt-in period.

Courts in this Circuit also regularly authorize notice by email. In
the absence of any explanation by defendant as to why notice via
email would be unreasonable, the Court grants plaintiffs' request
to send notice by email, in addition to first-class mail.

The Plaintiffs further request that opt-in plaintiffs be permitted
to submit their consent forms to plaintiffs' counsel by mail, email
or fax. Courts within this District have split on the issue of
whether opt-in plaintiffs should be instructed to return their
consent forms to the Clerk of the Court or to plaintiffs' counsel.
In previous cases, this magistrate judge has had the forms sent to
the Clerk of the Court, in order to avoid chilling the right of
opt-in plaintiffs to select their own counsel.  Other decisions in
the Eastern District New York have held that where, as here, the
Notice to the collective expressly states that opt-ins have the
right to retain separate counsel, the risk that opt-in plaintiffs
will be discouraged from selecting their own counsel is de minimis
at best.  

REMINDER NOTICE

The Plaintiffs request permission to send a reminder notice by
regular mail and email to putative collective action members who,
halfway through the opt-in period, have not opted in. Defendant
opposes this request as duplicative, unreasonable and unnecessary.
Plaintiffs' request is granted since it furthers the purpose of
notice of a collective action under the FLSA. Although not
specifically requested by defendant, the Court rules that, in order
to avoid any unfair prejudice to defendant, the reminder notice
must include a disclaimer that the Court neither encourages nor
discourages participation in the action.
  
DEADLINE TO OPT-IN

The Plaintiffs request that putative collective action members be
required to opt in to the litigation within 90 days. Defendant
objects to a 90-day period and instead proposes a 60-day period.
In the absence of any argument by plaintiffs as to why a longer
period is necessary, this Court adheres to the more typical 60-day
period from the date of dissemination of the Notice for opt-in
plaintiffs to send in their consent forms.  

CONSENT FORM

The Defendant further requests that language be inserted into the
opt-in form to clarify that putative collective action members are
opting into a lawsuit with respect to their federal claims.The
Court does not find the existing language (without the three
underscored words) to be problematic, especially since plaintiffs'
proposed opt-in form does not even reference the NYLL.   

The Defendant's request is denied.

RELEVANT TIME PERIOD FOR NOTICE

The Plaintiffs request that the notice period be keyed to the date
of the filing of plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification.
In effect, plaintiffs ask this Court to exercise its discretion to
toll the limitations period from the date the instant motion was
filed until the date of this Memorandum and Order.

In FLSA collective actions, the statute of limitations is
automatically tolled for potential opt-in plaintiffs on the date on
which their written consent is filed in the court in which the
action was commenced. Nevertheless, courts in this District have
frequently permitted equitable tolling while the motion for
conditional certification was pending, to avoid attributing to the
potential opt-ins the Court's deliberation period.

It would be inequitable to charge the potential opt-in plaintiffs
with the time during which the instant motion was pending before
this Court. In addition, the parties agreed to toll the limitations
period for 418 days as to the SMITs and 582 days as to the SMs.
Defendant did not address the relevant notice period in its
opposition papers. Accordingly, in the absence of any objection,
this Court rules that notice may be sent to SMITs who were employed
by defendants between November 22, 2014 and September 24, 2018
(three years from November 2, 2018 minus 345 days), and that notice
be sent to SMs who were employed by defendant between June 11, 2014
to the present (three years from November 2, 2018, minus 509
days).

The Court grants the application for court-supervised notice,
authorizing notice to Store Managers (SMs) nationwide who, during
the notice period, worked in a Lumber Liquidators store that
generated less than $5,000,000 in annual revenue, on average over
the notice period, and to Store Managers in Training (SMITs)
nationwide who, during the period noted herein, were classified as
exempt from overtime.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 13, 2019 Memorandum
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y572segy from
Leagle.com.

Jonathan Trafimow, Mediator, pro se.

Ashleigh Mason, Dan Morse, Ryan Carroll, Osagie Ehigie & Travis
Streeter, Plaintiffs, represented by John Russell Stevenson, Law
Offices of J. R. Stevenson & Justin Robert Marino, Stevenson Marino
LLP, 75 Maiden Lane, Suite 402, New York, NY, 10038

Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lauren Beth
Grassotti -- Lauren.Grassotti@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis
P.C., Christine Lee Hogan -- clhogan@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, P.C. & Kevin K. Yam -- kyam@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson P.C.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: MOU Reached in Gold Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30,
2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the
parties in the class action suit initiated by Dana Gold have
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU").

In 2014, Dana Gold ("Gold") filed a purported class action lawsuit
alleging that certain bamboo flooring that the Company sells (the
"Strand Bamboo Product") is defective (the "Gold Litigation"). The
plaintiffs sought financial damages and, in addition to attorneys'
fees and costs, the plaintiffs wanted a declaration that the
Company's actions violated the law.

On March 15, 2019 prior to filing its Form 10-K, the Company
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU"), which would
resolve the Gold Litigation on a nationwide basis.

Under the terms of the MOU, the Company will contribute $14 million
in cash and provide $14 million in store-credit vouchers, with a
potential additional $2 million in store-credit vouchers based on
obtaining a claim's percentage of more than 7%, for an aggregate
settlement of up to $30 million.

The MOU is subject to certain contingencies, including the
execution of a definitive settlement agreement, board approval and
court approvals of the definitive settlement agreement. The entry
into the MOU or any subsequent execution of a definitive settlement
agreement does not constitute an admission by the Company of any
fault or liability and the Company does not admit any fault or
liability.

There can be no assurance that a settlement will be finalized and
approved or as to the ultimate outcome of the litigation. If a
final, court-approved settlement is not reached, the Company will
defend the matter vigorously and believes there are meritorious
defenses and legal standards that must be met for, among other
things, success on the merits.

The Company accrued within SG&A a $28 million liability with the
offset in the caption "other current liabilities" in its December
31, 2018 financial statements. The Company has notified its
insurance carriers and continues to pursue coverage, but the
insurers to date have denied coverage. As the insurance claim is
still pending, the Company has not recognized any insurance
recovery related to the Gold Litigation.

Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface
flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories.
The company also offers its products through its Website, catalogs,
and call center. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in
1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Steele Class Action Underway in Ontario
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30,
2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the class
action suit initiated by Sarah Steele is still ongoing.

On or about April 1, 2015, Sarah Steele ("Steele") filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the Ontario, Canada Superior
Court of Justice against the Company. In the complaint, Steele's
allegations include strict liability, breach of implied warranty of
fitness for a particular purpose, breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, fraud by concealment, civil negligence, negligent
misrepresentation and breach of implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing.

Steele did not quantify any alleged damages in her complaint, but
seeks compensatory damages, punitive, exemplary and aggravated
damages, statutory remedies, attorneys' fees and costs.

Lumber Liquidators said, "While the Company believes that a loss
associated with the Steele litigation is possible, the Company is
unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of possible
loss."

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

Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface
flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories.
The company also offers its products through its Website, catalogs,
and call center. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in
1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Still Defending Kramer Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30,
2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the
company continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Robert
J. Kramer.

On or about November 17, 2017, Robert J. Kramer, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated (collectively, the
"Kramer Plaintiffs") filed a purported class action lawsuit in the
Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento on behalf of all
current and former store managers, all others with similar job
functions and/or titles and all current and former employees
classified as non-exempt or incorrectly classified as exempt and
who worked for the Company in the State of California
(collectively, the "CSM Employees") alleging violation of the
California Labor Code including, among other items, failure to pay
wages and overtime and engaging in unfair business practices (the
"Complaint").

The Kramer Plaintiffs seek certification of the CSM Employees for a
class action covering the prior four-year period prior to the
filing of the complaint through the disposition of this action for
the CSM Employees who currently are or were employed in California
(the "California SM Class").

On or about February 19, 2019, the Kramer Plaintiffs filed a First
Amended Complaint adding a claim for penalties under the California
Private Attorney General Act for the same substantive alleged
violations asserted in the Complaint.

The Kramer Plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages but, in
addition to attorneys' fees and costs, the Kramer Plaintiffs seek
unspecified amounts for unpaid wages and overtime wages, liquidated
and/or punitive damages, declaratory relief, restitution, statutory
penalties, injunctive relief and other damages.

The Company disputes the Kramer Plaintiffs' claims and intends to
defend the matter vigorously.

Lumber Liquidators said, "Given the uncertainty of litigation, the
preliminary stage of the case and the legal standards that must be
met for, among other things, class certification and success on the
merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or
range of loss, if any, that may result from this action and
therefore no accrual has been made related to this. Any such losses
could, potentially, have a material adverse effect, individually or
collectively, on the Company's results of operations, financial
condition and liquidity."

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

Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface
flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories.
The company also offers its products through its Website, catalogs,
and call center. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in
1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia.


MARCOS: DOJ Backs OSG in Opposing Settlement Agreement
------------------------------------------------------
Edu Punay, writing for The Philippine Star, reports that the
Department of Justice has supported the Office of the Solicitor
General in opposing the settlement agreement that allows the
distribution of $20 million worth of Marcos assets seized in the
United States to martial law victims.

Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra agreed with Solicitor General
Jose Calida that the settlement agreement in the interpleader case
pending at the New York District Court is disadvantageous to the
Philippine government.

"We are opposing the settlement agreement simply because it does
not favor the interests of the government, which we are duty-bound
to protect," Guevarra explained on April 21.

He clarified, however, that the government does not exactly want to
block the award of monetary compensation to the martial law victims
but "simply wants that the Republic, as a whole, get a better
deal."

"The government's position is not antagonistic to the interests of
martial law victims who are also citizens of our country, but to
protect the interests of the republic as a whole," he explained.

Guevarra also confirmed that his office reviewed the terms of the
deal.

Calida has revealed that the settlement agreement in the New York
court case is grossly disadvantageous to the government that would
get only $4 million from the proceeds from the sale of paintings
recovered from an aide of former first lady and Ilocos Norte Rep.
Imelda Marcos.

The solicitor general pointed out that the deal is also for the
best interest of 9,539 martial law victims in this case as they
will receive a measly $1,500 each while their lawyer Robert Swift
has sought a hefty $4.125 million in attorney's fees.

Calida further explained that the proposed settlement required that
the Philippine government grant immunity to Vilma Bautista and move
to dismiss the cases against her in the Sandiganbayan.

"The government cannot grant immunity to Vilma Bautista. She is a
principal defendant in a case currently pending before the
Sandiganbayan. The authority of the PCGG to grant such immunity is
limited only to a witness who can provide material and relevant
information or testify against a defendant in an ill-gotten wealth
case," he added.

The New York court presided by Judge Katherine Polk Failla has
reportedly already approved the settlement deal and ordered its
enforcement.

Guevarra said that unless the government takes any further remedial
action, the New York court order approving the settlement could be
"immediately executed."

"Note that the subject of this interpleader case (the proceeds of
the auction sale of the disputed paintings) is in the custody of
the District Attorney of New York, and not in the Philippines, and
so execution of the judgment will be in the US," he added.

The Presidential Commission on Good Government, an agency tasked to
run after the ill-gotten wealth of the late strongman Ferdinand
Marcos, earlier entered into negotiations with the camp of the
martial law victims, represented by Swift, that won the $2-billion
class action suit filed in Hawaii in 1995.

The negotiations involved some $20 million worth of assets seized
from former Marcos' aide Bautista in New York, including high value
paintings.

In the agreement, the government was set to receive $4 million
while the victims in the class action would get $13.75 million.

A third party, the Golden Buddha Corp. and the estate of Roger
Roxas that allegedly discovered the Yamashita treasure, would also
get a portion of the proceeds from the sale of some of the
paintings. [GN]


MARKEL CORP: Class Suits  in New York Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------
Markel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the putative class
action suits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York have been consolidated.

Between January 11, 2019 and March 7, 2019, several related
putative class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York against Markel Corporation and
certain present or former officers and directors alleging
violations of the federal securities laws relating to the matters
that are the subject of the Markel CATCo Inquiries (the Markel
Securities Litigation).

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons or entities that
purchased Markel securities between July 26, 2017 and December 6,
2018. The actions have been consolidated.

The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit.
The Company further believes any material loss resulting from the
suit to be remote.

Markel Corporation, a diverse financial holding company, markets
and underwrites specialty insurance products in the United States,
the United Kingdom, Canada, and internationally. Markel Corporation
was founded in 1930 and is headquartered in Glen Allen, Virginia.


MASTERCARD INC: ATM Surcharge-Related Suits Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend itself against class action lawsuits related to ATM
Surcharge Fees.

In October 2011, a trade association of independent Automated
Teller Machine ("ATM") operators and 13 independent ATM operators
filed a complaint styled as a class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia against both Mastercard
and Visa (the "ATM Operators Complaint").  

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of non-bank operators of ATM
terminals that operate in the United States with the discretion to
determine the price of the ATM access fee for the terminals they
operate. Plaintiffs allege that Mastercard and Visa have violated
Section 1 of the Sherman Act by imposing rules that require ATM
operators to charge non-discriminatory ATM surcharges for
transactions processed over Mastercard's and Visa's respective
networks that are not greater than the surcharge for transactions
over other networks accepted at the same ATM.  

Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble
the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged
violations and their costs of suit, including attorneys' fees.

Plaintiffs have not quantified their damages although they allege
that they expect damages to be in the tens of millions of dollars.


Subsequently, multiple related complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia alleging both federal
antitrust and multiple state unfair competition, consumer
protection and common law claims against Mastercard and Visa on
behalf of putative classes of users of ATM services (the "ATM
Consumer Complaints").  

The claims in these actions largely mirror the allegations made in
the ATM Operators Complaint, although these complaints seek damages
on behalf of consumers of ATM services who pay allegedly inflated
ATM fees at both bank and non-bank ATM operators as a result of the
defendants' ATM rules.  

Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble
the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged
violations and their costs of suit, including attorneys’ fees.
Plaintiffs have not quantified their damages although they allege
that they expect damages to be in the tens of millions of dollars.


In January 2012, the plaintiffs in the ATM Operators Complaint and
the ATM Consumer Complaints filed amended class action complaints
that largely mirror their prior complaints. In February 2013, the
district court granted Mastercard's motion to dismiss the
complaints for failure to state a claim.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's order
in August 2015 and sent the case back for further proceedings.

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


Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction
processing and other payment-related products and services in the
United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966
and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.


MASTERCARD INC: Canadian Suit over Point-of-Sale Acceptance Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend class action suits in Canada related to its rules related
to point-of-sale acceptance, including the "honor all cards" and
"no surcharge" rules.

In December 2010, a proposed class action complaint was commenced
against Mastercard in Quebec on behalf of Canadian merchants. The
suit essentially repeated the allegations and arguments of a
previously filed application by the Canadian Competition Bureau to
the Canadian Competition Tribunal (dismissed in Mastercard's favor)
concerning certain Mastercard rules related to point-of-sale
acceptance, including the "honor all cards" and "no surcharge"
rules.

The Quebec suit sought compensatory and punitive damages in
unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief. In the first
half of 2011, additional purported class action lawsuits were
commenced in British Columbia and Ontario against Mastercard, Visa
and a number of large Canadian financial institutions.

The British Columbia suit sought compensatory damages in
unspecified amounts, and the Ontario suit sought compensatory
damages of $5 billion on the basis of alleged conspiracy and
various alleged breaches of the Canadian Competition Act.

Additional purported class action complaints were commenced in
Saskatchewan and Alberta with claims that largely mirror those in
the other suits.

In June 2017, Mastercard entered into a class settlement agreement
to resolve all of the Canadian class action litigation. The
settlement, which requires Mastercard to make a cash payment and
modify its "no surcharge" rule, has received court approval in each
Canadian province.

Objectors to the settlement have sought to appeal the approval
orders. In 2017, Mastercard recorded a provision for litigation of
$15 million related to this matter.

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

Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction
processing and other payment-related products and services in the
United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966
and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.


MASTERCARD INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing in November
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the court has scheduled
a final hearing in November 2019 to consider approval of the
Damages Class settlement.

In June 2005, the first of a series of complaints were filed on
behalf of merchants (the majority of the complaints were styled as
class actions, although a few complaints were filed on behalf of
individual merchant plaintiffs) against Mastercard International,
Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Service Association and a
number of financial institutions.

Taken together, the claims in the complaints were generally brought
under both Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, which prohibit
monopolization and attempts or conspiracies to monopolize a
particular industry, and some of these complaints contain unfair
competition law claims under state law.

The complaints allege, among other things, that Mastercard, Visa,
and certain financial institutions conspired to set the price of
interchange fees, enacted point of sale acceptance rules (including
the no surcharge rule) in violation of antitrust laws and engaged
in unlawful tying and bundling of certain products and services.
The cases were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York in MDL No.
1720. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint
that seeks treble damages.

In July 2006, the group of purported merchant class plaintiffs
filed a supplemental complaint alleging that Mastercard's initial
public offering of its Class A Common Stock in May 2006 (the "IPO")
and certain purported agreements entered into between Mastercard
and financial institutions in connection with the IPO: (1) violate
U.S. antitrust laws and (2) constituted a fraudulent conveyance
because the financial institutions allegedly attempted to release,
without adequate consideration, Mastercard's right to assess them
for Mastercard's litigation liabilities. The class plaintiffs
sought treble damages and injunctive relief including, but not
limited to, an order reversing and unwinding the IPO.

In February 2011, Mastercard and Mastercard International entered
into each of: (1) an omnibus judgment sharing and settlement
sharing agreement with Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A. Inc. and Visa
International Service Association and a number of financial
institutions; and (2) a Mastercard settlement and judgment sharing
agreement with a number of financial institutions.  

The agreements provide for the apportionment of certain costs and
liabilities which Mastercard, the Visa parties and the financial
institutions may incur, jointly and/or severally, in the event of
an adverse judgment or settlement of one or all of the cases in the
merchant litigations. Among a number of scenarios addressed by the
agreements, in the event of a global settlement involving the Visa
parties, the financial institutions and Mastercard, Mastercard
would pay 12% of the monetary portion of the settlement.

In the event of a settlement involving only Mastercard and the
financial institutions with respect to their issuance of Mastercard
cards, Mastercard would pay 36% of the monetary portion of such
settlement.

In October 2012, the parties entered into a definitive settlement
agreement with respect to the merchant class litigation (including
with respect to the claims related to the IPO) and the defendants
separately entered into a settlement agreement with the individual
merchant plaintiffs.

The settlements included cash payments that were apportioned among
the defendants pursuant to the omnibus judgment sharing and
settlement sharing agreement described above. Mastercard also
agreed to provide class members with a short-term reduction in
default credit interchange rates and to modify certain of its
business practices, including its "no surcharge" rule. The court
granted final approval of the settlement in December 2013, and
objectors to the settlement appealed that decision to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

In June 2016, the court of appeals vacated the class action
certification, reversed the settlement approval and sent the case
back to the district court for further proceedings. The court of
appeals' ruling was based primarily on whether the merchants were
adequately represented by counsel in the settlement.

As a result of the appellate court ruling, the district court
divided the merchants' claims into two separate classes - monetary
damages claims (the "Damages Class") and claims seeking changes to
business practices (the “Rules Relief Class”). The court
appointed separate counsel for each class.

Prior to the reversal of the settlement approval, merchants
representing slightly more than 25% of the Mastercard and Visa
purchase volume over the relevant period chose to opt out of the
class settlement.

Mastercard had anticipated that most of the larger merchants who
opted out of the settlement would initiate separate actions seeking
to recover damages, and over 30 opt-out complaints have been filed
on behalf of numerous merchants in various jurisdictions.
Mastercard has executed settlement agreements with a number of
opt-out merchants. Mastercard believes these settlement agreements
are not impacted by the ruling of the court of appeals.

The defendants have consolidated all of these matters in front of
the same federal district court that approved the merchant class
settlement.

In July 2014, the district court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss the opt-out merchant complaints for failure to state a
claim.

In September 2018, the parties to the Damages Class litigation
entered into a class settlement agreement to resolve the Damages
Class claims.

Mastercard increased its reserve by $237 million during 2018 to
reflect both its expected financial obligation under the Damages
Class settlement agreement and the filed and anticipated opt-out
merchant cases.

In January 2019, the district court issued an order granting
preliminary approval of the settlement and authorized notice of the
settlement to class members.

Damages Class members will now have the opportunity to opt out of
the class settlement agreement. If more than 25% of the merchant
purchase volume opts out of the settlement, the defendants would
have the option to terminate the settlement agreement.

The court has scheduled a final approval hearing in November 2019.
The settlement agreement does not relate to the Rules Relief Class
claims. Separate settlement negotiations with the Rules Relief
Class are ongoing.

As of March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, Mastercard had accrued
a liability of $916 million and $915 million, respectively, as a
reserve for both the merchant class litigation and the filed and
anticipated opt-out merchant cases. As of March 31, 2019 and
December 31, 2018, Mastercard had $662 million and $553 million,
respectively, in a qualified cash settlement fund related to the
merchant class litigation and classified as restricted cash on its
consolidated balance sheet. During the first quarter of 2019,
Mastercard increased its qualified cash settlement fund by $108
million in accordance with the January 2019 preliminary approval of
the settlement.

Mastercard believes the reserve for both the merchant class
litigation and the filed and anticipated opt-out merchants
represents its best estimate of its probable liabilities in these
matters. The portion of the accrued liability relating to both the
opt-out merchants and the merchant class litigation settlement does
not represent an estimate of a loss, if any, if the matters were
litigated to a final outcome. Mastercard cannot estimate the
potential liability if that were to occur.

Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction
processing and other payment-related products and services in the
United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966
and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.


MASTERCARD INC: Shift Fraud Liability Suit Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend itself against a merchant class action involving
conspiracy to shift fraud liabilty.

In March 2016, a proposed U.S. merchant class action complaint was
filed in federal court in California alleging that Mastercard,
Visa, American Express and Discover (the "Network Defendants"),
EMVCo, and a number of issuing banks (the "Bank Defendants")
engaged in a conspiracy to shift fraud liability for card present
transactions from issuing banks to merchants not yet in compliance
with the standards for EMV chip cards in the United States (the
"EMV Liability Shift"), in violation of the Sherman Act and
California law.  

Plaintiffs allege damages equal to the value of all chargebacks for
which class members became liable as a result of the EMV Liability
Shift on October 1, 2015.

The plaintiffs seek treble damages, attorney's fees and costs and
an injunction against future violations of governing law, and the
defendants have filed a motion to dismiss.

In September 2016, the court denied the Network Defendants' motion
to dismiss the complaint, but granted such a motion for EMVCo and
the Bank Defendants. In May 2017, the court transferred the case to
New York so that discovery could be coordinated with the U.S.
merchant class interchange litigation. The plaintiffs have filed a
renewed motion for class certification, following the district
court's denial of their initial motion.

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

Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction
processing and other payment-related products and services in the
United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966
and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.


MASTERCARD INC: TCPA Class Suit in Florida Still Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA") class action suit in Florida is still
stayed.

Mastercard is a defendant in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") class action pending in Florida. The plaintiffs are
individuals and businesses who allege that approximately 381,000
unsolicited faxes were sent to them advertising a Mastercard
co-brand card issued by First Arkansas Bank ("FAB"). The TCPA
provides for uncapped statutory damages of $500 per fax.

Mastercard has asserted various defenses to the claims, and has
notified FAB of an indemnity claim that it has (which FAB has
disputed). In June 2018, the court granted Mastercard's motion to
stay the proceedings until the Federal Communications Commission
makes a decision on the application of the TCPA to online fax
services.

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

Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction
processing and other payment-related products and services in the
United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966
and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.


MDL 2433: Court Consolidates 5 C-8 PI Cases for Trial
-----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio,
Eastern Division, issued an Order consolidating five cases in each
trial in the case captioned IN RE: E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY C-8 PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATION. This document relates to:
ALL POST-SETTLEMENT CASES. Civil Action 2:13-md-2433. (S.D. Ohio)

In Pretrial Order No. 50, this Court directed the parties to meet
and confer to offer the Court a proposed case management order
regarding scheduling of the cases filed after the global settlement
(Post-Settlement Cases), that the parties believe will total
between 40 and 50.

Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides the
authority to consolidate cases for trial. That Rule provides: (a)
Consolidation. If actions before the court involve a common
question of law or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or
trial any or all matters at issue in the actions (2) consolidate
the actions or(3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost
or delay.

While recognizing that consolidation is within the discretionary
authority of the trial court, Cantrell v. GAF Corp., 999 F.2d 1007,
1011 (6th Cir. 1993), the Sixth Circuit has additionally considered
other factors relevant to the exercise of that discretion:

Whether the specific risks of prejudice and possible confusion
[are] overborne by the risk of inconsistent adjudications of common
factual and legal issues, the burden on parties, witnesses and
available judicial resources posed by multiple lawsuits, the length
of time required to conclude multiple suits as against a single
one, and the relative expense to all concerned of the single-trial,
multiple-trial alternatives.

DuPont maintains that multiple plaintiff trials are not
appropriate, arguing: Consolidating multiple plaintiffs for trial
from the currently-pending cases in this MDL will not pay dividends
in judicial economy sufficient to outweigh the unavoidable and
unfair spill-over prejudice to Defendants on key issues of both
liability and causation if jurors are permitted to consider complex
evidence regarding highly individualized claims of multiple
plaintiffs at the same time.

Contrarily, the PSC posits: In short, the PSC is in support both of
scheduling the totality of the pending cases for trial as
expeditiously and efficiently as possible and setting these cases
with multiple cases in each trial, as was done in Atwood [v. UC
Health, Case No. 1:16-cv-593 (S.D. Ohio)]. Although this is a
mature mass tort, there are currently no settlement negotiations
occurring between the parties, despite the parties having
successfully resolved over 3,500 cases in this multidistrict
litigation (MDL) through a global settlement.

With regard to DuPont's declination to engage in any settlement
negotiations, the PSC further asserts: Although it is DuPont's
right and prerogative to determine when/if it wants to engage in
settlement discussions, it is also the right of the plaintiffs who
still have cases pending in this MDL, and who have suffered
terrible injury, to have their claims resolved in an expeditious
manner. A number of these plaintiffs are part of an older
population, and thus may be deceased before having their day in
Court, should it take a decade to get through all the remaining
trials. Because of this, a more aggressive trial timetable is
necessary, rather than having cases sit in what would be a nearly
endless holding pattern.

Last, the PSC submits that the cases in this MDL are particularly
well suited to be tried in multiple plaintiff trials because each
case involves similar, if not identical, testimony from various
experts and corporate witnesses, and the personal injury or
wrongful death is in connection with one of only two cancer types.


The PSC's arguments are well taken.

As the PSC correctly points out, the majority of the time in the
trials that have been held in this MDL was spent exploring what
DuPont knew about the dangers of C-8, when it knew it, and what it
did with the knowledge it had. The case-specific damages and
causation testimony was but a small percentage of the testimony and
evidence at trial.  

Courts have routinely consolidated multiple plaintiffs for joint
trial because the benefits of consolidation outweigh any prejudice
that a defendant may incur.  

Additionally, consolidation of cases for trial will benefit the
parties through the sharing of trial expenses, benefit the
witnesses by minimizing the inconvenience of duplicate testimony,
and benefit the parties and the Court by resolving several cases
during one trial setting.  

In the mass tort before this Court, the chemical exposure is
specific, the defendant is known and does not contest that it is
the entity that released the specific chemical into the plaintiffs'
water supply, much testing and environmental protection agency
involvement has occurred with respect to C-8, and there have been
four trials and one appeal of the specified negligence claims filed
by each plaintiff.

While the instant mass tort is certainly not immature, determining
the precise time when a mass tort reaches maturity is 'hard to
pinpoint.' In re Dow Corning Corp. provided a lengthy discussion of
the phases of mass torts, with the overarching view that while
there are certain signposts, maturity is tied to the unique details
of each mass tort, which dictate the process due to each party. The
Court finds that this mass tort, as explained below, has reached
maturity and is headed into its dotage.

The cases upon which DuPont relies, however, are inapposite. In
Kothe, at the pretrial conference, the trial judge recommended that
the case be settled for between $20,000 and $30,000. He also warned
the parties that, if they settled for a comparable figure after
trial had begun, he would impose sanctions against the dilatory
party, which he did impose when the case settled the second day of
trial.

This Court has never set a deadline for the parties to settle and
has never suggested what the cases are worth for settlement. DuPont
has every right to assess its settlement positions and engage in
settlement discussions, or not engage in settlement discussions.
The Court has been very clear that its focus in on its duty to
provide the litigants before it an opportunity to have their case
heard in a timely manner  not punishing any party for its position
on settlement. In any event, the point cannot be stressed enough
that use of the only alternative to aggregation individualized
adjudication of tort claims would be 'tantamount to denying [most]
litigants their due process rights altogether.'

Finally, unlike the asbestos litigation or most other mass torts,
the cases that constitute this MDL will never be tried in a variety
of tribunals. This MDL has a unique attribute that makes
multi-plaintiff trials even more appropriate: The plaintiffs are
almost exclusively from Ohio and West Virginia. As a result, the
proper trial venue for nearly every case pending in this MDL is
either this Court or the Southern District of West Virginia.
Because there are only two viable trial venues, the available
remand options for this Court are extremely limited, and thus
remand likely would not accomplish the goal of quickly moving cases
to trial. While the MDL strategy of remand has become an
increasingly popular means to efficient resolution of an MDL, this
strategy, which increases the litigation pressure on both parties
by typically requiring both sides to try cases simultaneously all
over the country, is not available here in its traditional
framework. Because this tool is not available to this Court,
alternative means to bring about resolution are necessary,
including multi-plaintiff trials.

In conclusion, the Court finds that this MDL, at this stage, calls
for procedures that this Court did not find appropriate when the
MDL was incipient. The Court is of the firm opinion that through
the careful and prudent design and implementation of consolidated
trials, the legitimate rights of all parties can be safeguarded.
The Court additionally finds that any prejudice to DuPont will be
eliminated or sufficiently mitigated by limiting instruction and is
far outweighed by the prejudice the plaintiffs will suffer if no
larger scale trial approach is taken. Consolidated multi-plaintiff
trials will conserve the resources of the parties, conserve the
scarce resources of this Court, and will promote the just,
efficient, and fair resolution of the cases in this MDL, which all
present the same claims for relief that have been extensively
litigated and globally settled.

Based on these, the Court will combine approximately five (5) cases
in each trial of the Post-Settlement Cases.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 13, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y572segy from Leagle.com.

Thomas Yakubik, Ronald Bachtel, Cheryl Durst, Robert Durst, Larry
Turley, Linda Turley, Sharon Arnott, Kathy Willis & Troy Willis,
Plaintiffs, represented by David G. Utley, Collins, Roche, Utley &
Garner, LLC, 875 Westpoint Parkway, Suite 500, Cleveland, Ohio
44145, Jon C. Conlin, Cory Watson Crowder & DeGaris, Michael A.
London, Douglas & London, PC, 59 Maiden Ln, 6th Floor, New York, NY
10038, pro hac vice, Ethan T. Vessels, Fields, Dehmlow & Vessels
LLC, 309 2nd St., Marietta, OH 45750-2921 & Gregory Harold Collins,
Collins, Roche, Utley & Garner, 875 Westpoint Parkway, Suite 500,
Cleveland, Ohio 44145

Betty Bragg, Lotie Cline, Linda Davis, Crystal Forshey, Vicky
Lightfritz, Willard Lightfritz, Kathy Lowe, Kit McPeek-Stalnaker,
Thomas Eugene Molden, Jack Offenberger, Kay Sheridan, Herbert
Short, John Wright & Amber Wriston, Plaintiffs, represented by
Debra Anne Nelson dnelson@debranelsonlaw.com -- The Nelson Law
Firm, LLC, Jon C. Conlin, Cory Watson Crowder & DeGaris, 875
Westpoint Parkway, Suite 500, Cleveland, Ohio 44145, Michael A.
London, Douglas & London, PC, pro hac vice, Nina M. Towle, Cory
Watson Attorneys, pro hac vice & Richard A. Wright, Cory Watson
Attorneys, 875 Westpoint Parkway, Suite 500, Cleveland, Ohio 44145,
pro hac vice.

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Defendant, represented by
Damond R. Mace -- damond.mace@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs
(US) LLP, Aaron Todd Brogdon -- aaron.brogdon@squirepb.com --
Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Aneca E. Lasley --
aneca.lasley@squirepb.com -- Squire Sanders (US) LLP, C. Craig
Woods -- craig.woods@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs (US)LLP,
Clifford F. Kinney, Jr. -- ckinney@spilman.com -- Spilman Thomas &
Battle, PLLC, pro hac vice, D. Patrick Long --
patrick.long@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP,David J.
Millstone, pro hac vice, John K. Sherk -- jsherk@shb.com -- SHOOK,
HARDY & BACON LLP, pro hac vice, Kevin T. Van Wart --
kevin.vanwart@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis, pro hac vice.


MDL 2741: Washington v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
PETER ANTHONY MAZZEO, an individual, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00504 (Filed April 8,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, U.S. District Court for the District
California Northern District (San Francisco) on April 30, 2019.
The Northern District of California assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02315-VC to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Peter Anthony
Mazzeo'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 Mazzeo case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The
Plaintiff alleges that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. Plaintiff also alleges that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Corrie J. Yackulic, Esq.
          CORRIE YACKULIC LAW FIRM PLLC
          705 Second Avenue, No. 1300
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: 206 787 1915
          Facsimile: 206 299 9725
          E-mail: Corrie@cjylaw.com

MDL 2885: Matney Suit over Combat Arms Earplugs Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled JOSEPH MATNEY, the Plaintiff, v. 3M
COMPANY, AEARO HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE, LLC, AEARO, LLC,
and AEARO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 6:19-cv-03072
(Filed Feb. 19, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola) on May 1, 2019.
The Northern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-00790-MCR-GRJ to the proceeding.

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

3M denies these allegations.  CAEv2, designed by Aearo in close
collaboration with the U.S. military, represented a revolutionary
breakthrough in hearing protection for service members. CAEv2
helped servicemembers better maintain situational awareness (e.g.,
to hear nearby voice commands) while also maintaining some
protection from gunfire and other higher decibel sounds.  3M claims
CAEv2 met the U.S. military's specifications and helped the
military provide hearing protection to service members.

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          George A. Hanson, Esq.
          Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
          Abby E. McClellan, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          Crystal Cook Leftridge, MO Bar # 66852
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: 816 714 7100
          Facsimile: 816 714 7101
          E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
                  siegel@stuevesiegel.com
                  mcclellan@stuevesiegel.com
                  cook@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Mark H. Troutman, Esq.
          Gregory M. Travalio, Esq.
          Shawn K. Judge, Esq.
          ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, LLC
          Two Miranova Place, Ste. 700
          Columbus, OH 43215‐5098
          Telephone: 614 221 2121
          Facsimile: 614 365 9516
          E-mail:  mtroutman@isaacwiles.com
                   gtravalio@isaacwiles.com
                   sjudge@isaacwiles.com

MENDY'S ATRIUM: Pablo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nicomedes Flores Pablo, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Mendy's Atrium LLC (d/b/a
Mendy's), Mendy's Grand Corp. (d/b/a Mendy's), Mendy's Restaurant
Inc. (d/b/a Mendy's), Mendy Merel, Menachem Merel, and Ethan
Merrel, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04458 (S.D. N.Y., May 16,
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"), including applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiff Flores worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation
for the hours that he worked, asserts the complaint. The Defendants
maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff Flores 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.

Plaintiff Flores was employed as a delivery and then as a food
preparer at the restaurants.

Defendants own, operate, or control three restaurants, located at
875 3rd Avenue, New York, New York 10022 (hereafter the "3rd Avenue
location") under the name "Mendy's", at 109 East 42nd Street, New
York, New York 10017 (hereafter the "Grand Central location") under
the name "Mendy's", and at 61 East 34th Street, New York, New York
10016 (hereafter the "34th Street location") under the name
"Mendy's".[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


MIAMI SWIM WEEK: Faces Acquamoda Suit over Breach of Contract
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed Acquamoda S.A.S. d/b/a
Doppia Swimwear against Miami Swim Week LLC for breach of contract.
The case is captioned ACQUAMODA S.A.S. v. MIAMI SWIM WEEK LLC, Case
No. 1:19-cv-21683-RNS (S.D. Fla., April 30, 2019) and is assigned
to Hon. Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr.

Miami Swim Week LLC organizes shows that features fashion
collections of swimwear. The shows are held in Miami Beach,
Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bogdan Enica, Esq.
     450 Paradise Isle Blvd
     Apt.203
     Hallandale Beach, FL 33009
     Telephone: (727) 225-2649
     E-mail: bogdane@hotmail.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Misreports Interest & Fees, Yavorka et al. Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. and Midland Funding, LLC for violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case is captioned ANDREW
YAVORKA, BARBARA YAVORKA, THOMAS WELSH, VEDA WELSH, and JACLYN FIKE
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., and MIDLAND
FUNDING, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00122-SPB (W.D. Pa.,
April 24, 2019). Yavorka et al allege that the Defendants are
engaged in false, deceptive, and misleading practice of
misreporting interest and fees as principal on the proof of claims
(POCs) they file in consumer bankruptcy cases.

Midland Credit Management is a Delaware corporation based in San
Diego, California. The company's sole business is collecting
consumer debts owed to others. Midland Funding is a Delaware
limited liability corporation with its principal place of business
in San Diego, California. The company is engaged in the purchasing
of consumer debt with the purpose of collecting on that debt. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark G. Moynihan, Esq.
     MOYNIHAN LAW, P.C.
     2 Chatham Center, Suite 230
     Pittsburgh, PA 15219
     Telephone: (412) 889-8535
     E-mail: mark@moynihanlaw.net

             - and -

     Kevin Abramowicz, Esq.
     BCJ LAW LLC
     186 42nd Street, P.O. Box 40127
     Pittsburgh, PA 15201
     Telephone: (412) 223-5740
     E-mail: kevina@bcjlawyer.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: NJ Court Denies Arbitration Bid in Schultz
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued an Opinion denying Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration
in the case captioned ROBERT A. SCHULTZ, JR. and DONNA L. SCHULTZ,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant. Civil Action No.
16-4415 (JLL). (D.N.J.).

Defendant is a California-based collection agency in the business
of collecting debts owed to others that are past due. Defendant
sent letters to Mr. Schultz for the purpose of collecting on
outstanding debts from a variety of Mr. Schultz's accounts.
Defendant sent separate letters to Ms. Schultz in order to collect
on outstanding debts from her, as well. All relevant letters
contained the following language: We are not obligated to renew
this offer. We will report forgiveness of debt as required by
Internal Revenue Service regulations. Reporting is not required
every time a debt is cancelled or settled, and might not be
required in your case

Mr. Schultz brought this putative class action, alleging that the
references to IRS reporting contained in the three July, September,
and October 2015 letters were deceptive and misleading to the least
sophisticated consumer in violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA), because no such reporting is required for
debts under $600, and Mr. Schultz's debts were below that amount.

The Defendant argues that the claims raised by Mr. Schultz in the
Original Complaint are governed by a binding arbitration agreement
between Mr. Schultz and Synchrony Bank, the original creditor.    

According to the Defendant, when Mr. Schultz opened a Lowe's credit
card account with Synchrony Bank in April 2012, Mr. Schultz's
credit card was mailed to his address, along with a copy of the
effective credit card agreement, which provided that the resolution
of most disputes between Mr.

Schultz and Synchrony Bank would be subject to individual
arbitration.

The Defendant attaches a copy of a Synchrony Bank Lowe's Credit
Card Agreement to its motion.  The Defendant maintains that the
arbitration provision is valid and enforceable by Defendant as the
affiliate of the successor to the bank's rights, and that Mr.
Schultz's FDCPA claims fall within the scope of that provision.  

The Plaintiffs do not argue that the arbitration provision is not
enforceable by the Defendant, nor do the Plaintiffs argue that Mr.
Schultz's claims fall outside the purview of the credit card
agreement. Rather, the Plaintiffs argue that, in moving to dismiss
the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim and in
continuing to litigate the merits of the Plaintiffs' claims on
appeal and on remand, the Defendant has acted inconsistently with
its right to arbitrate and has therefore waived that right.  

Waiver of Right to Arbitrate

A court may refuse to enforce an arbitration agreement where a
party has acted inconsistently with the right to arbitrate.
Prejudice [against the party seeking to avoid arbitration] is the
touchstone for determining whether the right to arbitrate has been
waived by litigation conduct.

The Third Circuit has identified six nonexclusive factors to guide
the prejudice inquiry, which are known as the Hoxworth factors,
Hayworth v. Blinder, Robinson & Co., Inc., 980 F.2d 912 926-27 (3d
Cir. 1992), and which are generally indicative of whether a party
opposing arbitration would suffer prejudice attributable to the
other party's delay in seeking arbitration.' The six Hoxworth
factors are as follows: (1) timeliness or lack thereof of the
motion to arbitrate (2) extent to which the party seeking
arbitration has contested the merits of the opposing party's claims
(3) whether the party seeking arbitration informed its adversary of
its intent to pursue arbitration prior to seeking to enjoin the
court proceedings (4) the extent to which a party seeking
arbitration engaged in non-merits motion practice (5) the party's
acquiescence to the court's pretrial orders and (6) the extent to
which the parties have engaged in discovery.

Timeliness or lack thereof of the motion to arbitrate

Mr. Schultz filed the Original Complaint on July 20, 2016. The
Defendant filed its first dispositive motion a motion to compel
arbitration on November 1, 2016. The Defendant has since renewed
its arbitration motion twice first under two months after the
Plaintiffs filed the Amended Complaint and second just over two
months following the remand of this action from the Third Circuit.
The Defendant has therefore been clear about its intent to seek
arbitration throughout this litigation, filing its original
arbitration motion within four months of the initiation of the
lawsuit. A delay of under four months is shorter than the delay in
cases in which the Third Circuit has found a waiver of the right to
arbitrate.   

Accordingly, this factor weighs against a finding of waiver.

Extent to which Defendant has contested the merits of Plaintiffs'
claims

The Defendant's November 2016 motion in response to the Original
Complaint, though styled as a Motion to Compel and to Dismiss,
sought only to compel arbitration. The final two pages of
Defendant's 20-page brief sought dismissal not on the merits, but
rather only as the appropriate remedy if all claims were
arbitrable.

The Defendant did, however, seek dismissal on the merits in its
January 2017 combined Motion to Dismiss, and in the Alternative, to
Compel Arbitration following the filing of the Amended Complaint.
In fact, the Defendant prioritized its merits-based arguments,
seeking dismissal of the Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) in Point I of its brief and arguing
only in the alternative that Mr. Schultz's claims were subject to
arbitration.
   
As a result, this Court addressed the Defendant's merits arguments
first, dismissing the Amended Complaint without reaching the
arbitration issue. The merits dismissal led to an appeal, reversal,
and remand on the merits. On remand, the Defendant filed the
instant motion, seeking to compel arbitration of claims arising
from the Synchrony Bank letters as Point I and raising timeliness
arguments as to the Plaintiffs' non-arbitrable claims.

That a party seeks dismissal on the merits under Rule 12 is not
dispositive of the waiver inquiry. The Defendant's litigation of
the merits must be weighed in light of any prejudice to the
Plaintiffs, which is the touchstone for determining whether the
right to arbitrate has been waived. The Plaintiffs argue that the
Defendant's prioritization of its merits arguments in the January
2017 motion and the subsequent appeal have prejudiced Plaintiffs by
forcing them to expend considerable time and resources litigating
only the merits of their claims. Plaintiffs maintain that Defendant
could have sought a remand from the Third Circuit for consideration
of its arbitration motion but instead chose to argue the merits,
which it continues to do in the instant motion.  

The Court concludes that this factor weighs slightly in favor of
waiver.

Whether Defendant informed Plaintiffs of its intent to pursue
arbitration prior to seeking to enjoin the proceedings

The parties do not raise any non-conclusory arguments as to this
factor, and there is no information before the Court as to whether
Defendant informed Plaintiffs of its intent to pursue arbitration
prior to its November 2016 motion to compel. Accordingly, this
factor is neutral.

Extent to which Defendant engaged in non-merits motion practice.

The Defendant has engaged in very limited non-merits motion
practice. Following the filing of both the Original Complaint and
the Amended Complaint, Defendant filed applications for a clerk's
order automatically extending its time to respond under Local Civil
Rule 6.1(b). The parties also jointly sought an adjournment of
Defendant's January 2017 motion which was granted. On remand,
Defendant sought an adjournment of the instant motion, effectively
requesting an additional two weeks to file its reply brief which
was also granted. These non-merits motions required no responses
from Plaintiffs and resulted in only de minimis delays that did not
prejudice Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs do not argue that Defendant's
non-merits motion practice has prejudiced them.

Accordingly, this factor weighs against a finding of waiver.

Defendant's acquiescence to the Court's pretrial orders

The Plaintiffs argue that Defendant's participation in the parties'
joint filings and its consent to the Discovery Confidentiality
Order and Pretrial Scheduling Order constitute acquiescence to
pretrial orders that is inconsistent with Defendant's right to
arbitrate. Defendant responds that it had already filed its motion
to compel arbitration before entering into such orders and that
Defendant only participated in these orders because it was required
to do so by order of the Magistrate Judge. The Court agrees with
Defendant. Defendant's participation in pretrial proceedings before
Judge Mannion was not inconsistent with its right to arbitrate,
given that Defendant pressed the issue of arbitration at every
opportunity and complied with pretrial orders only to the extent
Defendant was required to do so by the Court. As Plaintiffs were on
notice of Defendant's intent to seek arbitration throughout the
pretrial proceedings and were only awaiting a decision from this
Court, Plaintiffs were not prejudiced by any acquiescence on
Defendant's part to Judge Mannion's orders.

Accordingly, this factor weighs against waiver.

Extent to which the parties have engaged in discovery

The parties have not exchanged meaningful discovery at this stage.
The case was originally dismissed, and then reversed and remanded,
following which Defendant promptly filed the instant motion. Since
the remand, Defendant has objected to all discovery related to Mr.
Schultz's allegedly arbitrable claims and has refused to answer
interrogatories or produce documents pending a decision on the
instant motion. Judge Mannion ordered the parties to "meet and
confer regarding discovery focused on the enforceability of the
arbitration provision as to Plaintiff Robert A. Schultz, Jr. and
advise the Court within 21 days which of their present disputes
remain. As of the date of this Opinion, the parties had not yet
updated the Court regarding the limited discovery upon which Judge
Mannion ordered them to meet and confer. As a result, this factor
weighs against a finding of waiver.  

The Court concludes that Defendant has not waived its right to seek
arbitration.

The Defendant's motion to compel arbitration of Mr. Schultz's
Synchrony Bank claims is denied without prejudice pending further
development of the factual record.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 13, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yxts39co from Leagle.com.

ROBERT A. SCHULTZ, JR., On behalf of himself and those similarly
situated & DONNA L SCHULTZ, Plaintiffs, represented by ANDREW M.
MILZ, FLITTER MILZ, P.C., CARY L. FLITTER, FLITTER MILZ, P.C., JODY
THOMAS LOPEZ-JACOBS, FLITTER MILZ, P.C. 1814 East Rt. 70, Suite
350, Cherry Hill, NJ 08003 & YONGMOON KIM, Kim Law Firm LLC, 411
Hackensack Ave Ste 701. Hackensack, New Jersey 07601-6328

MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, represented by ELLEN
BETH SILVERMAN -- esilverman@hinshawlaw.com -- HINSHAW & CULBERTSON
LLP, HAN SHENG BEH -- hbeh@hinshawlaw.com -- HINSHAW & CULBERTSON
LLP & MATTHEW BLAKE CORWIN -- mcorwin@hinshawlaw.com -- HINSHAW &
CULBERTSON LLP.


MIDTOWN EAST: Clemente Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
Rogelio Villa Clemente, Osvaldo Villa Clemente, Jorge Raymundo
Rivera, Jose Alberto Astudillo and Isaul Villa Medel, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Midtown East NY
LLC dba Bareburger, and Michael Pitsinos and George Hadjipanayi,
Case No. 1:19-cv-02647 (S.D. N.Y., March 25, 2019), is brought
against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.

The complaint asserts that Defendants failed to pay overtime wages;
additional hour of pay at minimum wage for each day worked more
than ten hours; and did not provide the Plaintiffs written notices
of their rate of pay and regular pay day which violates the NYLL
and the FLSA.

The Plaintiffs are employed by the Defendants as dishwashers, food
preparer, griller, cooks, cleaners, kitchen worker and other
miscellaneous duties.

The Defendant Midtown East dba Bareburger is a corporation
organized under the laws of New York with a principal executive
office at 251 East 52nd St. New York, NY 10022. The Defendants
Pitsinos and Hadjipanayi own and operate Bareburger. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

       Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
       HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
       80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
       Kew Gardens, NY 11415
       Tel: (718) 263-9591
       Fax: (718) 263-9598


MIDTOWN LOFT: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midtown Loft, Inc.
The case is styled as Brian Fischler Individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Midtown Loft,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04526 (S.D. N.Y., May 16, 2019).

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

Midtown Loft, Inc. is an upscale venue in the heart of New York
City in Midtown Manhattan, offering two distinctly elegant
spaces.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MILLENIA HOUSING: Alexandre Seeks Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
Millenia Housing Management, Ltd. for violations of the overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The case is
captioned WIDLER ALEXANDRE, indivdually and on behalf of himself
and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. MILLENNIA HOUSING
MANAGEMENT, LTD a/k/a MILLENNIA HOUSING MANAGEMENT, LTD. LLC, a
foreign limited liability company, FRANK T. SINITO, individually
and HARVEY H. MCCLINTOCK, individually, Defendants, Case No.
9:19-cv-80612-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 7, 2019).

Plaintiff Widler Alexandre alleges that the Defendants
intentionally failed to pay Plaintiff one and one-half times his
regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 hours per week.
Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to recover accumulated unpaid overtime
for the three years preceding the filing of this action.

Millennia is a foreign limited liability company duly authorized to
conduct business in the State of Florida. Millennia's members and
managers, according to the records filed with the Florida
Department of State, Division of Corporations, are Frank T. Sinito
of Cleveland, Ohio and Harvey H. McClintock of Pompano Beach,
Florida. Millennia's website indicates it owns or manages real
property in over twenty states. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark Aloysius Cullen, Esq.
     THE CULLEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
     Clearlake Plaza
     500 S. Australian Avenue, Suite 543
     West Palm Beach, FL 33401
     Telephone: (561) 640-9191
     Facsimile: (561) 214-4021
     E-mail: mailbox@cullenlawfirm.net


MOLEX LLC: Gross Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Gross, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Molex, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-00355-BSM (E.D. Ark., May 16, 2019) is an action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act
("AMWA"), for unjust enrichment, declaratory judgment, monetary
damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest and costs,
including a reasonable attorney's fee as a result of Defendant's
failure to pay Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees lawful
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.

Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours per week throughout their tenure with Defendant.
Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees were classified as hourly
employees and paid an hourly rate.

Plaintiff Rebecca Gross was employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid
employee within the three years relevant to this lawsuit.

Molex, LLC, is a provider of manufactured electronic solutions in a
wide range of industries, including data communications, consumer
electronics, industrial, automotive, commercial vehicle, and
medical.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Appeal in Steamfitters Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Molina Healthcare, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the appeal made in the
case, Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan v. Molina Healthcare,
Inc., et al., is pending.

On October 5, 2018, the Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan filed
its first amended class action securities complaint in the Central
District Court of California against the Company and its former
executive officers, J. Mario Molina, John C. Molina, Terry P.
Bayer, and Rick Hopfer, Case 2:18-cv-03579.

The amended complaint purports to seek recovery on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased Molina common stock between
October 31, 2014, and August 2, 2017, for alleged violations under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The plaintiff alleges the defendants misled investors regarding the
scalability of the Company's administrative infrastructure during
the identified class period. On December 13, 2018, the Court
granted the Company's motion to dismiss in its entirety and closed
the case. On January 9, 2019, plaintiffs appealed to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the alleged
claims and intends to defend the matter vigorously.

Molina Healthcare said, "At this time, we are not able to estimate
a possible loss or range of loss that may result from this matter
or to determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material
adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations,
or cash flows."

Molina Healthcare, Inc., a multi-state healthcare organization,
provides managed health care services to low-income families and
individuals under the Medicaid and Medicare programs and through
the state insurance marketplaces. Molina Healthcare, Inc. was
founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Long Beach, California.


MONSANTO COMPANY: Batherson Suit Moved to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled GARLAND BATHERSON, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, Case No. 1:19-cv-02285, 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-02167 to the
proceeding. The Case is assigned to the Hon. 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:

          Ken Moll, Esq.
          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
                  scady@molllawgroup.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Holts Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------
JACK L. HOLT and GWENDOLYN HOLT, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01063 (E.D. Mo., April 30,
2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Lovelace Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
RANDY S. LOVELACE, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01070 (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: Sanderses Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHIRLEY A. SANDERS and JAMES SANDERS, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01089-HEA (E.D. Mo., May
1, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          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: Schwabs Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN D. SCHWAB and CHRISTINE D. SCHWAB, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01122 (E.D. Mo.,
May 1, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs,
as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Stone Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Stone, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and DOES 1 to 100,
Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01159 (E.D. Mo., May 1,
2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Suit by Estate of James Hall Moved to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled ESTATE OF JAMES HALL, by and
through Denise Kaufman, as Executrix, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00258, was removed from the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District California on April
23, 2019. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02171-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:

          Ashton R. Smith, Esq.
          Jennifer A. Moore, Esq.
          GROSSMAN & MOORE, PLLC
          401 W. Main Street, Suite 1810
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 657-7100
          Facsimile: (502) 657-7111
          E-mail: asmith@gminjurylaw.com
                  JMoore@gminjurylaw.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Sutliff Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
DONNA SUTLIFF, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF TIMOTHY SUTLIFF, DECEASED,
ROBERT TIGNOR, and RONNIE WYNNE, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01129 (E.D. Mo., May 1,
2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          James T. Corrigan, Esq.
          ONDER, SHELTON, CORRIGAN,
          PETERSON, DALTON & QUILLIN, LLC
          1034 S. Brentwood Blvd.
          23rd Floor Penthouse - 1A
          St. Louis, MO 63117
          Telephone: (314) 405-9000
          Facsimile: (314) 405-9999
          E-mail: corrigan@osclaw.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Washington Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH L. WASHINGTON, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and DOES 1
to 100, Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-02331-DMR (N.D.
Cal., 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:

          Jason L. Ribakoff, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JASON L. RIBAKOFF
          4741 Laurel Canyon Blvd. No. 201
          Valley Village, CA 91607
          Telephone: 818-760-7242
          Facsimile: 818-760-7297
          E-mail: ribakoffjason@gmail.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Williams Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Williams, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01147 (E.D. Mo., May 1, 2019), seeks to
recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Woodwards Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
BILLIE WOODWARD, individually and on behalf of DAVID L. WOODWARD,
(deceased), the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-01156 (E.D. Mo., May 1, 2019), seeks to recover
damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate
result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

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

MOSQUITO SQUAD: Lenorowitz Suit Asserts TCPA Breach
---------------------------------------------------
SAMUEL LENOROWITZ, individually and of behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MOSQUITO SQUAD FRANCHISING, LLC,
MOSQUITO SQUAD OF FAIRFIELD AND WESTCHESTER COUNTY, and JOHN DOES
1-25 Defendants, Case No. 7:19-cv-04460 (S.D. N.Y., May 16, 2019)
is a class action for damages, injunctive relief, and any other
available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal
actions of Mosquito Squad Franchising, LLC ("MSF"), Mosquito Squad
of Fairfield and Westchester Country ("MSFW") and its related
entities, subsidiaries and agents in negligently, knowingly, and/or
willfully contacting Plaintiffs on Plaintiffs' cellular telephone
and/or landlines, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA"), thereby invading Plaintiffs' privacy.

The Defendant left a pre-recorded message with the hopes of
soliciting business from the Plaintiff, on Plaintiff's telephone
voicemail system. The Defendants used an automatic telephone
dialing system ("ATDS"). Plaintiffs did not provide prior express
written consent to receive telephone calls from Defendant using an
artificial or prerecorded voice. The Defendant is and was aware
that it was and is placing unsolicited robocalls and pre-recorded
messages to Plaintiff and other consumers without their prior
written express consent, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Lenorowitz is an individual and citizen of Pomona, New
York.

MSF is and was at all relevant times a business entity duly formed
under the laws of the State of Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATIONAL PLAN ADVISORS: Davis Seeks Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
the National Plan Advisors, Inc. for violations of the wage and
hour provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The case is
captioned KIRK DAVIS, on behalf of himself, and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL PLAN ADVISORS, INC.,
a/k/a AMERICAN HEALTH REFORM SOLUTIONS, LLC, a/k/a SYNERGY
MARKETING ASSOCIATES, INC, Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-61177-XXXX
(S.D. Fla., May 8, 2019).

Plaintiff Kirk Davis alleges that the Defendant's systems and
practices relating to its non-payment of overtime to fronters have
existed for at least three years through Defendant's businesses.
Accordingly, this complaint seeks to recover unpaid compensation,
in the form of overtime compensation, owed to the Plaintiff and all
employees and former employees of Defendant who are similarly
situated, pursuant to the FLSA.

National Plan Advisors, Inc. is a corporation conducting business
in the state of Florida. The company sells and markets health
insurance plans, through its fronters and insurance agents, to
insureds/customers and prospective insureds/customers in Florida as
well as all or most of the other U.S. States, including Georgia,
Alabama, Texas, and Oklahoma. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J.P. Salas, Esq.
     SALAS LAW FIRM, P.A.
     8551 West Sunrise Boulevard, Suite 300
     Plantation, FL 33322
     Telephone: (954) 315-1155
     Facsimile: (954) 452-3311
     E-mail: jp@jpsalaslaw.com

             - and -

     Michael G. Green II, Esq.
     SALAS LAW FIRM, P.A.
     8551 West Sunrise Boulevard, Suite 300
     Plantation, FL 33322
     Office: (954) 315-1155
     Facsimile: (954) 452 -3311
     E-mail: michael@jpsalaw.com


NATURAL HEALTH: Continues to Defend Kauffman Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Natural Health Trends Corp. said in its Form 10-K 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 continues
to defend itself against a class action suit entitled, Kauffman v.
Natural Health Trends Corp.

On January 8, 2019, the Company and its two executive officers were
named in a putative securities class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California,
captioned Kauffman v. Natural Health Trends Corp., Case No.
2:19-cv-00163.  

The complaint purports to assert claims on behalf of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired our common stock between April
27, 2016 and January 5, 2019, inclusive, under (i) Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder against the Company and Chris T. Sharng and
Timothy S. Davidson (together, the "Individual Defendants"), and
(ii) Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Individual
Defendants. The complaint alleges, in part, that the Company made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the legality
of its business operations in China, including running an allegedly
illegal multilevel marketing business.  

The complaint seeks an indeterminate amount of damages, plus
interest and costs.  

Natural Health said, "Defendants believe that these claims are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend against them."

Natural Health Trends Corp., a direct-selling and e-commerce
company, provides personal care, wellness, and lifestyle products
under the NHT Global brand. Natural Health Trends Corp. was founded
in 1988 and is headquartered in Kowloon, Hong Kong.


NESTLE USA: Faces Walker Suit over Deceptive Labeling
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Nestle USA, Inc.
for violations of the California's Business & Professions Code
Sections 17200, et seq. (the Unfair Competition Law) and the
California Civil Code Sections 1750, et seq. (the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act). The case is captioned Renee Walker, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Nestle
USA, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 to 100; Defendants,
Case No. 3:19-cv-00723-L-KSC (S.D. Cal., April 19, 2019).

Plaintiff Renee Walker alleges that Nestle's deceptive labeling
misleads consumers into believing their cocoa and chocolate
products are procured in accordance with environmentally and
socially responsible standards, when it knows they are not. Ms.
Walker was misled by the affirmative misrepresentations on Nestle's
product packaging concerning the use of fair labor and
environmental standards and practices.

Nestle's products, such as Toll House Chocolate Chips and Nesquik
chocolate milk, prominently feature the logo of the Nestle Cocoa
Plan. The Cocoa Plan, instituted in 2009, is described as improving
the lives of cocoa farmers and the quality of their chocolate.
Nestle advertises the Nestle Cocoa Plan and claims to be working
with UTZ in order to improve the lives of cocoa farmers. UTZ is a
third-party certifier which holds itself out as the benchmark for
the sustainable production of cocoa. In addition, UTZ certified
products stand for ethical and sustainable farming, including
better working conditions and better care for the natural
environment. Nestle still has the audacity to place patently false
seals on its products, despite the fact that its supply chain is
inundated with child labor and child slave labor.

Nestle USA is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business at 1812 North Moore Street in Rosslyn, Virginia 22209.
Nestle is one of the largest food and beverage companies in the
world. Nestle purchases approximately 414,000 tons of cocoa
annually. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     COAST LAW GROUP, LLP
     Helen I. Zeldes, Esq.
     Amy C. Johnsgard, Esq.
     Ben Travis, Esq.
     1140 S. Coast Hwy 101
     Encinitas, CA 92024
     Telephone: (760) 942-8505
     E-mail: helen@coastlaw.com
             amy@coastlaw.com
             ben@coastlaw.com

             - and -

     Paul L. Hoffman, Esq.
     Catherine Sweetser, Esq.
     SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS & HOFFMAN LLP
     11543 W Olympic Blvd
     Los Angeles, CA 90064
     Telephone: (310) 396-0731
     E-mail: hoffpaul@aol.com
             catherine.sdshhh@gmail.com
  
             - and -

     Michael R. Reese, Esq.
     George V. Granade, Esq.
     REESE LLP
     8484 Wilshire Blvd.
     Los Angeles, California 90211
     Telephone: (212) 643-0500
     E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com    
             ggranade@reesellp.com


NFL: Concussion Claims Process Getting More Arduous
---------------------------------------------------
Lindsay Gibbs, writing for Think Progress, reports that hundreds of
men will see their childhood dream become reality at the 2019 NFL
Draft.

But, beneath all the tears and cheers, the pomp and circumstance,
the National Football League and its lawyers are battling hard to
deny benefits and compensation to the players who sacrificed their
bodies and minds to build that NFL dream into what it is today.

At the beginning of 2017, a class-action lawsuit between the NFL
and its former players was finalized for a settlement worth
approximately $1 billion over the next 65 years. But instead of
celebrating the outcome, retiring players and their families found
themselves facing a marathon of paperwork and physicians, appeals
and audits. By November of 2017, the New York Times reported that
out of the 1,400 claims that had been submitted by retired players,
only 140 had been approved.

While the approvals have picked up a bit in the intervening 17
months, in April, Senior Judge Anita Brody of the U.S. Eastern
District of Pennsylvania unveiled new rules that will make the
already-arduous claims process even more excruciating.

"The goal posts are continuously shifting," attorney Lance Lubel,
who represents about 75 players involved in the settlement, told
ThinkProgress.

At the heart of this problem is the matter of a qualifying
diagnosis of neurocognitive impairment, which is required for
players to get money from the settlement.

There are two ways for players to go about obtaining this
diagnosis. One is the Baseline Assessment Program (BAP), which is
free for the players. However, there are many catches involved.
Players are only permitted to get one examination through the BAP,
and the claims administrator chooses the doctor and location of the
exam. The BAP has an extremely high bar for players to pass. So
far, Lubel says, 95 percent of the players who have gone through
the BAP exam have failed to obtain a qualifying diagnosis. The
overwhelming sentiment is that the BAP is an impenetrable defensive
line put in place by the league to guard its money.

"The BAP protocols are not medical standards but rather
settlement-engineered testing designed to weed out as many players
as possible," writes Sheila Dingus, who has documented the case
extensively on her website, Advocacy for Fairness in Sport.

The other way for players to get a qualifying diagnosis is to go
through the Monetary Award Fund (MAF). In this instance, players
are responsible for paying for the tests, but they are permitted to
pick the doctor and schedule the appointment on their own.

And here is where the latest controversy has emerged. Last summer,
the NFL filed an appeal that essentially sought to give
league-trained physicians and administrators even more control over
the process of determining a qualifying diagnosis. After a series
of motions and closed-door hearings, on April 11, Judge Brody
released updated MAF guidelines.

"The first [MAF guidelines document] was five pages long and mostly
derived from the settlement agreement," said Dingus. "This one . .
. is a complete re-write."

The new MAF guidelines are supposedly in place in order to prevent
fraud and to bring the MAF standards more in line with the BAP
standards. But, in practice, they seem to be geared toward
preventing players from getting the relief they're entitled to
under the settlement.

According to the updated guidelines, the NFL-appointed and trained
Appeal Advisory Panel (AAP) has much more control over the appeal
process; retired players now must receive a diagnosis from a
qualified MAF physician located within 150 miles of their primary
residence; and neuropsychological exams must be conducted within 50
miles of the MAF physician.

"This rule effectively eliminates any choice of doctors for
players," Dingus said.

Additionally, MAF physicians are now required to obtain their
patients' "employment information and business activities" over the
past five years, as well as "any social, community, recreational or
other activities by the Retired NFL Football Player outside the
home around the time of the MAF Examination, whether these
activities have changed over the five years preceding the date of
the MAF Examination and, if so, how they have changed."

The NFL likes to tout the success of the settlement by advertising
that it has already paid out $645 million in claims -- a
significant amount of money that's nearly what the league planned
to spend for the entire 65-year period of the agreement. However,
the primary reason that total amount is so large is because
individual pay-outs for advanced diseases such as death by CTE,
ALS, and Parkinson's have been higher than expected.

Meanwhile, retired players suffering from dementia -- a Level 1.5
of Level 2.0 neurocognitive impairment, according to the settlement
-- are being systematically excluded from the approval process,
despite the fact that they were initially expected to make up a
sizable proportion of the settlement's beneficiaries.

According to the most recent report, only 12.9% of the Level 1.5
and 2.0 claims have been paid out, compared to 59% of the CTE
claims, 64.8% of the ALS claims, 50.6% of Alzheimer's claims, and
63.6% of Parkinson's claims.

Lubel said that touting the $645 million figure occludes the real
problem: The large number of retired players who are currently
struggling and unable to get the assistance the settlement
promised.

"It doesn't do anything for the remaining guys that have not
qualified yet, they're left out in the cold," he said.

Christopher Seeger, the co-lead counsel who represents the
settlement class, has been a controversial figure throughout the
entire settlement process; many other attorneys in the case have
criticized him for carrying water for the NFL, and for being more
concerned about making money for himself than he is about earning
justice for his clients. Seeger has not made a public statement
since the new rules have been released. His most recent statement
was issued to Deadspin through a spokesman earlier in April.

"While we believe the settlement is working as intended with more
than $645 million in approved claims, we respect the Court's view
that these measures will, as Judge Brody stated, 'safeguard the
integrity of the Settlement Program,'" Seeger said. "The rule
regarding 'generally consistent' diagnoses is in fact
administrative and will streamline the approval and payment of
claims. The additional rules provided by the Judge appear to be
aimed at addressing her previously expressed concerns regarding
possible fraudulent claims. We will ensure these rules are
implemented in a way that does not allow legitimate claims to be
impeded in any way."

That sounds reasonable. But lawyers and advocates who work with the
suffering players and their families on a day-in-day-out basis have
no way of holding Seeger to account. The entire claims process
happens behind closed doors.

"The process needs to be more transparent," Lubel said. "That's
what's super frustrating about it, decisions are being made in a
vacuum, and the stakeholders are not able to weigh in."

The NFL will spend a lot of airtime talking about how it's a
brotherhood. But its actions in this concussion settlement have
spoken much louder than than their ad campaigns. [GN]


NORTHLAND GROUP: George Sues over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
A consumer credit-related class action complaint has been filed
against Northland Group, Inc. and Radius Global Solutions, LLC. The
case is captioned George v. Northland Group, Inc. et al, Case No.
3:19-cv-00207 (W.D.N.C., May 1, 2019). Plaintiff Bernard L. George
alleges that Northland Group, Inc. has violated the Fair Debt
Collection Act.

Northland Group, Inc. is a debt-collection agency founded in 1982
and based in Edina, Minnesota. As of Nov. 16, 2016, the company was
acquired by Radius Global Solutions, LLC. It provides accounts
receivable management and collection services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Arthur H. Piervincenti, Esq.
     ARTHUR H. PIERVINCENTI, P.A.
     631-200B Brawley School Road, Box 225
     Mooresville, NC 28117
     Telephone: (704) 997-9529
     Facsimile: (704) 230-0413
     E-mail: arthur@lawahp.com


NUTANIX INC: Mauter Sues over Artificially Inflated Stock Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action has been filed against Nutanix, Inc.,
Dheeraj Pandey and Duston M. Williams. The case is captioned TIM
MAUTER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, vs. NUTANIX, INC., DHEERAJ PANDEY and DUSTON
M. WILLIAMS, Defendants, Case No. 3:19 cv-02442 (N.D. Cal., May 6,
2019).

Plaintiff Tim Mauter accuses the Defendants of making false
statements and failing to disclose adverse facts known to them
about Nutanix. Defendants' fraudulent scheme and course of business
that operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of Nutanix stock
have allegedly deceived the investing public regarding Nutanix's
prospects and business and enabled defendant Duston M. Williams and
other Nutanix insiders to collectively sell more than $156 million
worth of their personally held Nutanix stock at artificially
inflated prices and caused plaintiff and other members of the Class
to purchase Nutanix common stock at artificially inflated prices.

Nutanix provides a leading enterprise cloud platform that powers
many of the world's business applications and end-user services by
providing software solutions that digitize traditional silos of
enterprise computing, converging compute, virtualization, storage,
networking, desktop, governance and security services into one
integrated solution. Nutanix primarily sells its products and
services to end customers through distributors, resellers and
original equipment manufacturers. Nutanix common stock trades under
the ticker "NTNX" on the NASDAQ. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     Post Montgomery Center
     One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Telephone: (415) 288-4545
     Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
     E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com

             - and -

     Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
     Vicki M. Diamond, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     58 South Service Road, Suite 200
     Melville, NY 11747
     Telephone: (631) 367-7100
     Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
     E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
             vdiamond@rgrdlaw.com

             - and -

     Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
     JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
     655 West Broadway, Suite 1400
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: (619) 230-0063
     Facsimile: (619) 255-1856
     E-mail: frankj@johnsonfistel.com


NY BAGEL BOYS: Gitterman Seeks Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
NEIL H. GITTERMAN, on his own behalf and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. NY BAGEL BOYS, INC. DBA STRATHMORE BAGEL & DELI a
Florida Profit Corporation, and PAULA B. STEUERMAN, an individual,
Defendants, Case No. 9:19-cv-80661-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 16, 2019)
is an action on behalf of Plaintiff and other current and former
employees of Defendants similarly situated to him seeking overtime
compensation and minimum wage compensation and other relief under
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

Plaintiff routinely worked more than 40 hours per week for
Defendants. During certain pay periods of Plaintiff's employment,
Plaintiff would average 20 hours of overtime. Yet, the Defendants
failed to compensate Plaintiff for all overtime hours worked, and
failed to properly credit Plaintiff for all hours worked, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff performed non-exempt work as a laborer and related
activities in Palm Beach County, Florida.

NY BAGEL BOYS, INC. DBA STRATHMORE BAGEL & DELI is a deli style
restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Maguene D. Cadet, Esq.
     Law Office of Dieudonne Cadet, P.A.
     2500 Quantum Lakes Drive, Suite 203
     Boynton Beach, FL 33426
     Phone: 561-853-2212
     Facsimile: 561-853-2213
     Email: Maguene@DieudonneLaw.com


OHIO BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES: Ventura Sues over Lamination Fee
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against the Ohio Department
of Public Safety - Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles Division (BMV) for
its unlawful practice of charging and collecting a lamination fee
to all Ohioans applying for licenses permits and/or identification
cards. The case is captioned NICHOLAS VENTURA, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. OHIO
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY - OHIO BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES
DIVISION and TREASURER, STATE OF OHIO, Defendants, Case No. CV 19
914474 (Ct. Com. Pl, Cty. of Cuyahoga, April 25, 2019).

Plaintiff Nicholas Ventura asserts that BMV has discontinued the
lamination of such items since approximately July 2, 2018. However,
BMV unlawfully continues to charge and collect from Plaintiff and
the putative class the lamination fee. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks
equitable restitution and disgorgement of those monies from
Defendant BMV and/or Defendant Treasurer, State of Ohio.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ONTARIO: Collingwood Sued Over Coyote Co-Existence Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Ireland, writing for CBC News, reports that Wayne Burley is
on high alert when he takes his new pug Maya for a walk, especially
if it's dusky or dark. He keeps her close on her leash with one
hand, holding a ski pole with the other -- always ready to defend
the small dog against a coyote attack.

Until one terrible evening about a year ago, Burley said, he had no
idea he had to be so vigilant.

Since then he's supported the aims of a group that advocates
coyotes be trapped and moved elsewhere. Other residents of
Collingwood, Ont., go further, calling for a cull, while one man is
launching a class action lawsuit against the town over the issue.

Burley and his wife, Lois, were taking care of their son Craig's
pug Wally. Like any other evening, they let Wally out to the back
deck so he could "do his business" in the yard before bed. But the
12-year-old dog didn't come bounding back into the house when they
called him.

The family frantically searched the neighbourhood that night and
the next day. The moment they learned he had been killed by coyotes
is forever seared on Burley's memory.

"I heard Craig come running upstairs, yelling, 'I found him, I
found him. He's dead.'"

Dog was 'badly mauled'
Burley walked with his son over to the swamp wetlands, less than
half a kilometre away from the house, where Wally's "badly mauled"
body lay.

"I said, 'well Craig, let me go and get him,'" Burley said, choking
back emotion as he remembers his son's response.  

"He said, 'No Dad.' He said, 'I've seen him. And I don't want you
to see him.'"

Burley lives on the eastern side of the picturesque town about 150
kilometres north of Toronto, in a subdivision along Georgian Bay.

"There seems to be a more significant population of coyotes in the
east end of Collingwood, which is a more rural setting," municipal
clerk Sara Almas confirmed to CBC News.     

Coyotes are predatory canids -- relatives of domestic dogs. They
hunt rabbits, squirrels, rodents, snakes and birds, and also eat
deer. Farmers must often take measures to protect their livestock,
including sheep and chickens, from attacks.

Discourage coyotes, municipalities advise
But coyotes are increasingly settling into cities and towns across
Canada, as people build homes in areas that weren't previously
populated.  

Several Collingwood residents say they've seen more coyotes than
ever before in the last couple of years. The town has adopted the
same "co-existing" approach to the urban coyote issue that many
other municipalities have. Provincial natural resources and
environment ministries in several provinces, including Ontario,
British Columbia and Alberta, have a "living with coyotes" policy,

Municipal conservation officials say coyotes are an important part
of the ecosystem, helping to control rodent and rabbit
populations.

People can protect their pets, the province says, by installing
"proper fencing," keeping cats indoors, keeping dogs "on leashes or
confined to a yard" and not feeding their pets outside.

But Burley and other Collingwood residents are challenging these
co-existence policies, saying they're not realistic and place an
unfair burden on pet owners, who just want their dogs and cats to
be safe around their own homes.

'Co-existence' not working, residents argue

Jeff Brown, a homeowner who says he never saw this kind of problem
with coyotes when he was growing up in Collingwood, is leading that
charge. He runs an online group called Coyote Concerns Collingwood
-- an advocacy effort he began last year.

Wayne Burley met Brown after Wally's death -- and learned that
other dogs and cats had been injured in coyote attacks or gone
missing.

"That's how I started to become an advocate to try and get the
coyotes maybe trapped or moved out of subdivisions in here," Burley
said.

But the province prohibits relocating coyotes more than one
kilometre away, meaning they would simply return.    

Ontario's Natural Resources ministry did not respond by deadline to
a CBC News inquiry about the reason for the limit on relocation
distance.  

Other wildlife experts say relocation breaks apart coyote family
units, which can be damaging for pups.  In addition, according to
Alberta's Ministry of Environment and Parks, attempts to trap and
relocate coyotes in some North American cities have failed, partly
because other coyotes just move in to fill the vacancy.

If coyotes can't be relocated to unpopulated wilderness areas
hundreds of kilometres away, Brown argues, that leaves one only
option -- no matter how "awful" it may sound.    

"They will [have to] be trapped and killed," he said.

Ontario property owners are allowed to "capture or kill problem
wildlife to prevent damage to your property," according to a
Ministry of Natural Resources fact sheet.  

"You can invite a licensed small game hunter or a trapper to hunt
or trap coyotes on your property where local bylaws permit. There
is no closed season for coyotes in the majority of southern
Ontario," it says.

But Brown said it should be up to the town to take that initiative
on a broader scale and that it has "essentially refused" to do
that.

'Living in fear,' lawsuit alleges

In early April, as a "last resort," he filed a class-action lawsuit
against the town of Collingwood.

In his statement of claim, Brown alleges that by "allowing urban
coyotes to roam at large in Collingwood and knowing they have and
will attack and kill pets," town officials are violating the animal
cruelty section of the criminal code. He also alleges that they
have failed their duty to protect the safety of residents and their
property. And pets, he argues, constitute property.    

"Collingwood residents are living in fear of further coyote
attacks," the claim says.

The town has not yet been served with Brown's lawsuit and can't
comment on it, said Sara Almas, the municipal clerk.  

The town is taking action with a coyote management plan Almas said,
which asks homeowners to report any coyote sightings or attacks on
pets so they can be tracked.

Wildlife officers can also respond by checking people's property
and advise if changes can be made to help deter coyotes and make
sure they "don't get habituated" to the neighbourhood.

Town working with conservation group
As some other towns have done, Collingwood is working with
conservation group Coyote Watch Canada, which strongly promotes the
co-existence model.    

"The world has changed," said Lesley Sampson, Coyote Watch Canada's
executive director.  "Wildlife is interfacing more now with people,
right? Urban and rural habitat, it's kind of getting grey."

That means pet owners have to take precautions to keep their pets
safe -- not only from coyotes, but other threats, such as birds of
prey, she said.

"The days of opening our doors and letting our dogs and cats roam
at nighttime -- it's over," Sampson said.

Brown and other members of Coyote Concerns Collingwood vehemently
reject that argument -- saying it unfairly places blame on pet
owners when coyotes shouldn't be in residential areas in the first
place.

Government websites advise that coyotes will be less likely to come
into populated neighbourhoods if residents avoid inadvertently
attracting them with "food."  They advise enclosing garbage and
compost, making sure seed isn't spilling out of birdfeeders, and
cleaning up dog and cat feces from their yards.    

There's also a clear acknowledgement that coyotes can be a threat
to pets.

"Cats and small dogs may be seen as prey by coyotes, while larger
dogs may be injured in a confrontation," a fact sheet from
Ontario's Ministry of Natural Resources says.

'I'm very torn'
Other Collingwood residents feel conflicted about the coyote issue.


"I'm very torn," said Lisa Harrison, a dog owner whose yard backs
on to the wetland where Wayne Burley's pug was found dead.

"I'm an absolute nature and animal lover and so I think coyotes are
beautiful and they have a right to existence," she said. "But I'm
also a pet lover."

"I feel like [my dogs] have the right to a backyard where they can
go out and be safe and obviously that isn't realistic with the
coyotes," she said.

Her husband, Jim Harrison, captured a video of a coyote with his
iPhone while standing on his deck. That time, the coyote was metres
away in the marsh — but there are times when the animals have
come up through their yard, right to the house.    

The fear in the community is getting worse, Harrison said. He knows
neighbours who tied a knife to the end of a pole after their dog
was attacked by a coyote -- and they now carry the homemade "spear"
whenever they walk their pet.   

"When you've got people with spears in their backyard -- that's
what we're dealing with," he said. [GN]


PAPA MURPHY'S HOLDINGS: Swan Sues over Tender Offer
---------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Papa Murphy's
Holdings, Inc. and the members of its Board of Directors for their
breaches of fiduciary duties arising out of their attempt to sell
the company to MTY Food Group, Inc. The case is captioned ARNOLD
SWAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. PAPA MURPHY'S HOLDINGS, INC., JEAN M. BIRCH, NOAH A.
ELBOGEN, BENJAMIN HOCHBERG, YOO JIN KIM, ALEXANDER C. MATINA, DAVID
MOUNTS, JOHN SHAFER, KATHERINE L. SCHERPING, WELDON SPANGLER, ROB
WEISBERG, MTY FRANCHISING USA, INC., and MTY COLUMBIA MERGER SUB,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 2019-0343 (Del. Ch., May 7, 2019).

Plaintiff Arnold Swan alleges that the Defendants failed to
disclose material information to the company's stockholders
necessary for them to determine whether to tender their shares or
seek appraisal. The Defendants allegedly filed a recommendation
statement that fails to include material information concerning
them confidentiality agreements entered into with potential
acquirers, as well as communications between MTY and the senior
management of Papa Murphy's, during the process leading to the
tender offer.

Papa Murphy's is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the state of Delaware. It maintains its principal executive
offices at 8000 NE Parkway Drive, Suite 350, Vancouver, Washington.
MTY is a Quebec, Canada-based corporation who operates as a
franchisor in the quick service and casual dining food industry.
MTY has its headquarters at 8210, route Transcanadienne, St.
Laurent, QC, H4S 1M5, Canada. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PEE DEE CORP: Gabino Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Estolfo Basurto Gabino, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Pee Dee Corp. (d/b/a Pee Dee
Steak), Eun Sook Chu and Dong Yung Chu, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-04523 (S.D. N.Y., May 16, 2019) brought is an action on
behalf of Plaintiff, and other similarly situated individuals, for
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, including applicable
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiff Basurto worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that he worked, asserts the
complaint.

Defendants own, operate, or control a steak house, located at 2006
Third Avenue New York, NY 10029 under the name "Pee Dee Steak".
Plaintiff Basurto was employed as a delivery worker and dishwasher
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


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Fike Sues Over Deceptive Proofs of Claim
------------------------------------------------------------
JACLYN FIKE, ANDREW YAVORKA, and BARBARA YAVORKA, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00144-SPB (W.D. Pa., May 16, 2019) seeks damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs against Defendant for its violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").

In March and June 2018, Plaintiffs filed for protection under
Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code (the "BKs"). On May 18, 2018, and
on August 14, 2018, Defendant filed proof of claims in the BKs in
an attempt to collect debts (collectively the "POCs"). With regard
to the Plaintiffs, Defendant filed a POC for an open-end credit
card account on a debt originally owed to Barclays Bank Delaware,
which debt was incurred for family, personal and household
purposes.

The complaint asserts that the POCs filed by Defendant were false,
misleading, and deceptive because the Debts included interest and
fees, contrary to Defendant's representations. The Defendant knew
the Debts included interest and fees because Defendant was given
written records by the Creditors following the sale and purchase of
the Debts. These records showed that the Debts included principal,
interest, and fees. Moreover, Defendant knew the Debts concerned
defaulted open-end credit card accounts, meaning Defendant knew the
Debts included principal, interest, and fees, as do virtually all
defaulted open-end credit card accounts, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Jaclyn Fike is and was a resident of Venango County,
Pennsylvania. Plaintiff Andrew Yavorka and Barbara Yavorka are
residents of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania at all times relevant
to this action.

Portfolio Recovery Associates is a limited liability company whose
sole business is the purchasing of consumer debt with the purpose
of collecting on that debt.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kevin Abramowicz, Esq.
     BCJ Law LLC
     186 42nd Street, P.O. Box 40127
     Pittsburgh, PA 15201
     Phone: (412) 223-5740
     Email: kevina@bcjlawyer.com

          - and -

     Mark G. Moynihan, Esq.
     Moynihan Law, P.C.
     2 Chatham Center, Suite 230
     Pittsburgh, PA 15219
     Phone: (412) 889-8535
     Email: mark@moynihanlaw.net



PORTLAND GENERAL: Appeal in Trojan Class Action Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Portland General Electric Company 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 Court
of Appeals has yet to rule on an appeal from a decision in the
Trojan Investment Recovery litigation.

In 1993, Portland General Electric Company (PGE) closed the Trojan
nuclear power plant (Trojan) and sought full recovery of, and a
rate of return on, its Trojan costs in a general rate case filing
with the Public Utility Commission of Oregon (OPUC). In 1995, the
OPUC issued a general rate order that granted the Company recovery
of, and a rate of return on, 87% of its remaining investment in
Trojan.

Numerous challenges and appeals were subsequently filed in various
state courts on the issue of the OPUC's authority under Oregon law
to grant recovery of, and a return on, the Trojan investment. In
2007, following several appeals by various parties, the Oregon
Court of Appeals issued an opinion that remanded the matter to the
OPUC for reconsideration.

In 2003, in two separate legal proceedings, lawsuits were filed
against PGE on behalf of two classes of electric service customers:
i) Dreyer, Gearhart and Kafoury Bros., LLC v. Portland General
Electric Company, Marion County Circuit Court; and ii) Morgan v.
Portland General Electric Company, Marion County Circuit Court. The
class action lawsuits seek damages totaling $260 million, plus
interest, as a result of the Company's inclusion, in prices charged
to customers, of a return on its investment in Trojan.

In 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court (OSC) issued a ruling ordering
the abatement of the class action proceedings. The OSC concluded
that the OPUC had primary jurisdiction to determine what, if any,
remedy could be offered to PGE customers, through price reductions
or refunds, for any amount of return on the Trojan investment that
the Company collected in prices.

In 2008, the OPUC issued an order (2008 Order) that required PGE to
provide refunds, including interest, which refunds were completed
in 2010. Following appeals, the 2008 Order was upheld by the Oregon
Court of Appeals in 2013 and by the OSC in 2014.

In 2015, based on a motion filed by PGE, the Marion County Circuit
Court (Circuit Court) lifted the abatement on the class action
proceedings and, heard oral argument on the Company's motion for
Summary Judgment. In March 2016, the Circuit Court entered a
general judgment that granted the Company's motion for Summary
Judgment and dismissed all claims by the plaintiffs. In April 2016,
the plaintiffs appealed the Circuit Court dismissal to the Court of
Appeals for the State of Oregon. A Court of Appeals decision
remains pending.

PGE believes that the 2014 OSC decision and the Circuit Court
decisions that followed have reduced the risk of any loss to the
Company beyond the amounts previously recorded and discussed above.
However, because the class actions remain subject to a decision in
the appeal, management believes that it is reasonably possible that
such a loss to the Company could result. As these matters involve
unsettled legal theories and have a broad range of potential
outcomes, sufficient information is currently not available to
determine the amount of any such loss.

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

Portland General Electric Company, an integrated electric utility
company, engages in the generation, wholesale purchase,
transmission, distribution, and retail sale of electricity in the
state of Oregon. The company was founded in 1930 and is
headquartered in Portland, Oregon.


PRECISION CASTPARTS: Cottrell Seeks Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Precision Castparts
Corp. and PCC Airfoils, LLC for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the
Prompt Pay Act. The case is captioned STEPHEN COTTRELL, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs.
PRECISION CASTPARTS CORP., and PCC AIRFOILS, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-01036 (N.D. Ohio, May 8, 2019). Plaintiff Stephen
Cottrell alleges that the Defendants are engaged in unlawful
rounding policy that consistently resulted in unpaid overtime wages
to Plaintiff and the putative class members because it simply fails
to pay its hourly, non-exempt employees for all compensable hours
worked despite being fully aware of the exact times that the
employees clock in/out.

Precision Castparts Corp. is an Oregon corporation with its
principal place of business at 4650 S.W. Macadam Ave., Suite 300,
Portland, Oregon. The company is a worldwide, diversified
manufacturer of complex metal components and products. PCC Airfoils
is an Ohio Limited Liability Company with its principal place of
business at 3401 Enterprise Parkway, Suite 200, Beachwood, Ohio
44122. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Precision Castparts.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
     COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
     1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
     Columbus, OH 43220
     Telephone: (614) 949-1181
     Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
     E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

             - and -

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


PRO CUSTOM SOLAR: Murrell et al. Sue over Racist Conduct
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Pro Custom Solar
LLC d/b/a Momentum Solar, Jessica Adams, Rajan Silberman and Adam
Murawski for violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, New York
State Human Rights Law, New York Executive Law, New York City Human
Rights Law, N.Y.C. Administrative Code, Fair Labor Standards Act,
and the New York Labor Law. The case is captioned  GARRETH MURRELL,
TEVIN BROWN, KENNETH SAPP, RAOUL GERDES, CHEVON RILEY and SHADDON
BESWICK, on behalf of themselves and all similarly-situated
employees, Plaintiffs, v. PRO CUSTOM SOLAR LLC d/b/a MOMENTUM
SOLAR, JESSICA ADAMS, RAJAN SILBERMAN and ADAM MURAWSKI, in their
individual and professional capacities, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-02656 (E.D.N.Y., May 6, 2019).

Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have fostered, condoned,
accepted, ratified and/or otherwise failed to prevent or remedy a
hostile work environment and disparate treatment, including with
respect to pay and other terms and conditions of employment, based
on race and/or color. In addition to their racist conduct, the
Defendants are allegedly engaged in blatant violations of the
federal and state wage and hour laws, including requiring employees
to work off-the-clock without pay and failing to reimburse
employees for the costs of tools needed to perform their job.

Pro Custom Solar LLC d/b/a Momentum Solar is a New Jersey limited
liability company that conducts business in, inter alia, New York
State and New York City. In New York State, Momentum’s principal
place of business is located at 45 Fairchild Avenue, Suite B,
Plainview, New York. Pro Custom Solar is one of the nation's most
successful and fastest growing clean energy companies. It was
recently ranked as the "#2" energy company in the nation, as well
as the top company in New Jersey across all industries. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael J. Willemin, Esq.
     Tanvir H. Rahman, Esq.
     WIGDOR LLP
     85 Fifth Avenue
     New York, NY 10003
     Telephone: (212) 257-6800
     Facsimile: (212) 257-6845
     E-mail: mwillemin@wigdorlaw.com
             trahman@wigdorlaw.com


REBL CORP: Faces Class Action Following Collapse
------------------------------------------------
Sunshine Coast Daily reports that a class-action is set to be
launched for victims caught up in the collapse of Sunshine Coast
business Rebl Corp.

Six weeks after the doors of the Nicklin Way office closed for
good, Gold Coast law firm Platinum Lawyers has announced it will
take the plight of victims to the Federal Court. [GN]


RED LION HOTEL: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Red Lion Hotels
Corporation. The case is styled as Victor Lopez, On Behalf of
Himself And All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Red
Lion Hotels Corporation, Red Lion Hotels Management, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04519-LTS (S.D. N.Y., May 16, 2019).

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

Red Lion Hotels Corporation, doing business as RLH Corporation, is
an American hospitality corporation that primarily engages in the
franchising, management and ownership of upscale, midscale and
economy hotels.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ROHR INC: Morgan's Labor Suit Transferred to E.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case, NATHANIEL MORGAN, an individual, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ROHR, INC., a corporation;
HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND, a corporation, d/b/a UTC AEROSPACE SYSTEMS
d/b/a COLLINS AEROSPACE; UNITED TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, a
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
FCS052589 (Filed on March 27, 2019), was transferred from the
Superior Court of California for the Solano County to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of California on May
6, 2019. The removal is pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act
of 2005 (CAFA). Under CAFA, the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of California has original jurisdiction
because it is a purported class action with an amount in
controversy exceeding $5,000,000, with at least one putative class
member and one defendant being citizens of different states, and
having at least 100 potential class members. Accordingly, the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
assigned Case No. 2:19-at-00350 to the proceeding.

In the complaint, Plaintiff Nathaniel Morgan alleged nine causes of
action against the Defendants: (1) "Failure to Provide Required
Meal Periods"; (2) "Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods"; (3)
"Failure to Pay Overtime Wages"; (4) "Failure to Pay Minimum
Wages"; (5) "Failure to Pay All Wages Due to Discharged and
Quitting Employees"; (6) "Failure to Maintain Required Records";
(7) "Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements"; (8)
"Failure to Indemnify Employees for Necessary Expenditures Incurred
in Discharge of Duties"; and, (9) "Unfair and Unlawful Business
Practices."

Operating as a subsidiary of United Technologies Corporation, Rohr,
Inc. designs, manufactures, and integrates nacelles, thrust
reversers, and pylons for commercial aircraft. Hamilton Sundstrand
Corporation is a corporation formed under the laws of the state of
Delaware with its principal place of business in the state of North
Carolina. Hamilton Sundstrand designs, manufactures, and supports
fuel and special fluid pumps, engine controllers, primary and
secondary flight control and actuation systems, ram air turbine
emergency equipment, and other related products. [BN]

Attorneys for Defendant:

     Timothy M. Rusche, Esq.
     Christopher Im, Esq.
     SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
     601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3300
     Los Angeles, CA 90017
     Telephone: (213) 270-9600
     Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
     E-mail: trusche@seyfarth.com
             cim@seyfarth.com

           - and -

     Jonathan L. Brophy, Esq.
     SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
     2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
     Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
     Telephone: (310) 277-7200
     Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
     E-mail: jbrophy@seyfarth.com


SJW GROUP: Suits Related to CTWS Merger Stayed
----------------------------------------------
SJW Group, 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 court granted the parties' motion to
continue the stay and ordered that the stay is to continue until
May 29, 2019.

On June 14, 2018, certain shareholders of Connecticut Water
Service, Inc. (CTWS) filed two nearly identical class-action
complaints in Connecticut state court against the CTWS board of
directors, SJW Group, Eric W. Thornburg, Chairman, President and
Chief Executive Officer of SJW Group, and CTWS.

The complaints, as amended on September 18, 2018 and September 20,
2018, allege that the CTWS board breached its fiduciary duties in
connection with the Merger, that CTWS's preliminary proxy
statement, filed with the SEC on August 20, 2018, omits certain
material information and that SJW Group and Mr. Thornburg aided and
abetted the alleged breaches by the CTWS board of directors.

Among other remedies, the actions seek to recover rescissory and
other damages and attorney's fees and costs.

SJW Group believes the claims in these complaints are without merit
and intends to vigorously defend this litigation.

The parties to the lawsuits have agreed in principle to settle the
lawsuits in exchange for the issuance of additional disclosures by
CTWS. Pursuant to the agreements to settle the lawsuits, the
plaintiffs have reserved the right to seek a mootness fee from
CTWS. The parties moved to stay proceedings, other than fee-related
proceedings, until such time as the transaction closes, and the
court granted the parties' motion to stay on November 14, 2018.

On November 20, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an opening brief in
support of their fee application. The stay of proceedings expired
on February 28, 2019. On March 1, 2019, the court granted the
parties' motion to continue the stay and ordered that the stay is
to continue until May 29, 2019.

SJW said, "Pursuant to the agreement in principle to settle the
litigation, the complaints will be dismissed at such time as the
transaction closes. SJW Group has determined that the likelihood of
loss related to these class-action complaints is remote."

SJW Group, through its subsidiaries, provides water utility
services in the United States. It engages in the production,
purchase, storage, purification, distribution, wholesale, and
retail sale of water. The company was formerly known as SJW Corp.
and changed its name to SJW Group in November 2016. SJW Group was
founded in 1866 and is headquartered in San Jose, California.


SKECHERS USA: Guajardo Files Suit Over Defective Footwear for Kids
------------------------------------------------------------------
RIKKI GUAJARDO, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SKECHERS USA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-04104-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill., May 16, 2019) is a class action
involving Skechers's design, development, manufacture, marketing,
distribution and sale of dangerous and defective children's
footwear featuring S-Lights and rechargeable technology including,
but not limited to, Skechers Energy Lights shoes, S Light Shoes,
Twinkle Toes and Shopkins shoes. ("Lighted Shoes").

The complaint asserts that the Lighted Shoes contain a number of
design or manufacturing flaws including, without limitation, an
inadequate electrical system powered by batteries, which can lead
to multiple failure modes, including a dangerous electrical or
thermal event that can lead to heat, fire or the release of
electrolyte vapors that can cause skin burns (the "Defect").
Skechers knew or should have known of the Defect, but nevertheless
misrepresented to consumers that the Lighted Shoes were safe for
their children to wear, when they were not. Skechers actively
concealed and failed to disclose the Defect to Plaintiff and Class
Members.

As a direct and proximate result of Skechers' unlawful conduct,
including its misrepresentations and, concealment regarding the
inherent safety risk posed by the Defect in the Lighted Shoes, and
its failure to recall the Lighted Shoes or remedy the Defect,
Plaintiff and all Class Members purchased and used the dangerous
and defective Lighted Shoes when they otherwise would have paid
significantly less for the Lighted Shoes, or else would not have
purchased and used them at all, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Guajardo purchased the Lighted Shoes for her child upon
the reasonable belief that they were safe and would function as
intended.

Skechers designs, develops, manufactures, markets, distributes and
sells a diverse range of lifestyle footwear for men, women, and
children, as well as performance footwear for men and women.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Katrina Carroll, Esq.
     Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
     LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
     111 West Washington Street, Suite 1240
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 750-1265
     Email: kcarroll@litedepalma.com
            kshamberg@litedepalma.com

          - and -

     Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
     Adam A. Edwards, Esq.
     GREG COLEMAN LAW, PC
     First Tennessee Plaza
     800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
     Knoxville, TN 37929
     Phone: (865) 247-0080
     Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
     Email: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
            adam@gregcolemanlaw.com


SLEEP NUMBER: Continues to Defend Cassels and Cadenas Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Sleep Number Corporation 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 initiated by Donald Cassels and Jose
Cadenas.

On September 18, 2018, former Home Delivery Technician, Donald
Cassels, and former Field Services Delivery Assistant, Jose
Cadenas, filed suit in Superior Court in San Francisco County,
California alleging representative claims on a purported class
action basis under the California Labor Code Private Attorney
General Act.

While the two representative plaintiffs were in the Home Delivery
workforce, the Complaint does not limit the purported plaintiff
class to that group. The plaintiffs allege that Sleep Number failed
or refused to adopt adequate practices, policies and procedures
relating to wage payments, record keeping, employment disclosures,
meal and rest breaks, among other claims, under California law.

The plaintiffs purport to represent all former and current Sleep
Number employees in the State of California aggrieved by the
alleged practices. The Complaint seeks damages in the form of civil
penalties and plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, and expressly disclaims
the recovery of any purported individual specific relief or
underpaid wages.

After Sleep Number raised issues with the plaintiffs' choice of
venue, the Court transferred venue from the Superior Court in San
Francisco County to Superior Court in Fresno County.

Sleep Number said, "We intend to vigorously defend this matter."

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

Sleep Number Corporation designs, manufactures, and markets a line
of air bed mattresses. The Company provides a variety of beds,
bedding, pillows, mattress pads and layers, sheets, duvets, bed
skirts, bases, furniture, bed accessories, and kids blankets. Sleep
Number serves customers in the United States. The company is based
in Minneapolis, Minnesota.


SLEEP NUMBER: Dismissal of Spade Class Action Now Final
-------------------------------------------------------
Sleep Number Corporation 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 dismissal in the
class action suit initiated by David and Katina Spade is final.

On January 12, 2015, Plaintiffs David and Katina Spade commenced a
purported class action lawsuit in New Jersey state court against
Sleep Number alleging that Sleep Number violated New Jersey
consumer statutes by failing to provide to purchasing consumers
certain disclosures required by the New Jersey Furniture
Regulations.

It is undisputed that plaintiffs suffered no actual damages or in
any way relied upon or were impacted by the alleged omissions.

Nonetheless, on behalf of a purported class of New Jersey
purchasers of Sleep Number beds and bases, plaintiffs sought to
recover a $100 statutory fine for each alleged omission, along with
attorneys’ fees and costs.

Sleep Number removed the case to the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey, which subsequently granted Sleep
Number's motion to dismiss.

Plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit, which certified two questions of law to the New
Jersey Supreme Court relating to whether plaintiffs who have
suffered no actual injury may bring claims. The New Jersey Supreme
Court accepted the certified questions and on April 16, 2018, ruled
in the company's favor on one of the two questions, holding that a
consumer only has standing to bring a claim under the relevant
statute if the consumer has been harmed by the defendant's conduct.


The Third Circuit remanded the case to the federal district court,
which dismissed the lawsuit on March 5, 2019. Plaintiffs' deadline
to appeal the dismissal has passed and the dismissal is final.

Sleep Number Corporation designs, manufactures, and markets a line
of air bed mattresses. The Company provides a variety of beds,
bedding, pillows, mattress pads and layers, sheets, duvets, bed
skirts, bases, furniture, bed accessories, and kids blankets. Sleep
Number serves customers in the United States. The company is based
in Minneapolis, Minnesota.


SODEXO INC: Cerrano Seeks Final Wages, Penalties
------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO LARA CERRANO, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SODEXO, INC., a Delaware
corporation; SDH EDUCATION WEST, LLC, a Delaware LLC; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-02660 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Contra Costa Cty., May 16, 2019) is a class action
brought on behalf of all California-based non-exempt employees who
were not properly paid all wages as required by the California
Labor Code, and were not provided with proper paychecks nor
provided final wages in a timely manner.

The Defendants improperly failed to pay all vacation wages due;
failed to pay Plaintiff and the members of the putative class all
wages owed at termination; and failed to provide Plaintiff and the
members of the putative class with proper paychecks pursuant to
Labor Code. Plaintiff and the members of the putative class seek
unpaid wages, penalties and other compensation from Defendants for
the relevant time period.

Plaintiff is a former hourly employee of Defendants who ceased
employment for Defendant in November 2018.

Sodexo, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation doing business in the State
of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
     Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
     Taylor L. Emerson, Esq.
     BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
     2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130
     Westlake Village, CA 91361
     Phone: (805) 270-7100
     Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
     Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
            kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
            temerson@bradleygrombacher.com

          - and -

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


SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON: Thomas & Koenigstein Fire Suits Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Southern California Edison Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30,
2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the
company continues to defend class action suits related to the
Thomas Fire and Koenigstein Fire Litigation.

In December 2017, wind-driven wildfires impacted portions of
Southern California Edison Company's (SCE's) service territory,
causing substantial damage to both residential and business
properties and service outages for SCE customers. The Ventura
County Fire Department (VCFD) and the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) have determined that the
largest of the 2017 fires originated on December 4, 2017, in the
Anlauf Canyon area of Ventura County (the investigating agencies
refer to this fire as the "Thomas Fire"), followed shortly
thereafter by the Koenigstein Fire.

According to CAL FIRE information, the Thomas and Koenigstein Fires
burned over 280,000 acres, destroyed or damages an estimated 1,343
structures and resulted in two fatalities.

As of April 26, 2019, SCE was aware of at least 151 lawsuits,
representing approximately 2,300 plaintiffs, related to the Thomas
and Koenigstein Fires naming SCE as a defendant. Seventy-eight of
these lawsuits also name Edison International as a defendant based
on its ownership and alleged control of SCE.

At least four of the lawsuits were filed as purported class
actions. The lawsuits, which have been filed in the superior courts
of Ventura, Santa Barbara and Los Angeles Counties allege, among
other things, negligence, inverse condemnation, trespass, private
nuisance, and violations of the public utilities and health and
safety codes. The lawsuits have been coordinated in the Los Angeles
Superior Court.

Southern California Edison Company, a public utility, engages in
the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity in
Southern California. It generates electricity through
hydroelectric, diesel/liquid petroleum gas, natural gas, nuclear,
and photovoltaic resources. The company was founded in 1896 and is
based in Rosemead, California. Southern California Edison Company
is a subsidiary of Edison International.


SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON: Woolsey Fire Litigation Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Southern California Edison Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30,
2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the the
company continues to defend class action suits related to the
Woolsey Fire Litigation.

In November 2018, wind-driven wildfires impacted portions of
Southern California Edison Company's (SCE's) service territory and
caused substantial damage to both residential and business
properties and service outages for SCE customers. The largest of
these fires, known as the Woolsey Fire, originated in Ventura
County and burned acreage located in both Ventura and Los Angeles
Counties.

According to California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
(CAL FIRE) information, the Woolsey Fire burned almost 100,000
acres, destroyed an estimated 1,643 structures, damaged an
estimated 364 structures and resulted in three fatalities.

As of April 26, 2019, SCE was aware of at least 72 lawsuits,
representing approximately 1,100 plaintiffs, related to the Woolsey
Fire naming SCE as a defendant.

Fifty-eight of these lawsuits also name Edison International as a
defendant based on its ownership and alleged control of SCE.

At least two of the lawsuits were filed as purported class actions.


The lawsuits, which have been filed in the superior courts of
Ventura and Los Angeles Counties allege, among other things,
negligence, inverse condemnation, personal injury, wrongful death,
trespass, private nuisance, and violations of the public utilities
and health and safety codes.

The Woolsey Fire lawsuits have been coordinated in the Los Angeles
Superior Court.

Southern California Edison Company, a public utility, engages in
the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity in
Southern California. It generates electricity through
hydroelectric, diesel/liquid petroleum gas, natural gas, nuclear,
and photovoltaic resources. The company was founded in 1896 and is
based in Rosemead, California. Southern California Edison Company
is a subsidiary of Edison International.


STEINHOFF INT'L: Opens Door for Settlements with Shareholders
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dewald van Rensburg, writing for City Press, reports that
businessman Jayendra Naidoo announced that his Lancaster Group had
laid a R12 billion claim against Steinhoff International Holdings,
adding to the existing multibillion-rand barrage of lawsuits
against the corrupt multinational.

The claim is in the name of Lancaster 101, a special-purpose
vehicle debt-funded by the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) in
2016 to buy shares in Steinhoff equalling 2.75% of the formidable
-- at the time -- JSE-listed group.

The Government Employees' Pension Fund (GEPF) owns 50% of Lancaster
101 while Naidoo owns 25% and the Lancaster Foundation owns the
other 25%.

The announcement on April 18 came after Steinhoff seemingly opened
the door for negotiated settlements with shareholders who lost
money instead of facing off against them in consolidated
class-action lawsuits.

In an announcement on the JSE news service, Sens, the company asked
that "representatives of claimants [groups] disclose to the Company
. . . relevant information on [among other things] the identity of
claimants and the size of their shareholdings".

"The Company wishes to emphasise that the fact that such requests
have been made does not mean that negotiated settlements will
eventually be agreed or are imminent."

Naidoo's claim is not part of a group claim, but could signal that
he is throwing his hat in the ring for a settlement negotiation.

The 2016 Lancaster investment in Steinhoff was known as Project
Sierra within the PIC.

It involved the PIC lending Lancaster 101 R9.4 billion to buy its
initial shares in Steinhoff, but the deal was fortuitously
massively restructured in 2017 shortly before the crash of
Steinhoff.

At the time Steinhoff was merging African operations and Shoprite
to create a new listed company initially called SteinhoffAfrica
Retail. After the name Steinhoff became tainted, this company
changed its name to Pepkor. The restructuring entailed the 2.75%
ownership in Steinhoff falling to 1.2% while Lancaster 102 acquired
8.8% of Pepkor now worth about R5.3 billion.

Highly placed sources in the PIC had previously told City Press
that this restructuring was, in hindsight, a great deal considering
what happened to Steinhoff.

Earlier the PIC also separately acquired 6.35% of Steinhoff
directly for the GEPF which was worth R15.5 billion before the
crash of the company's share price at the end of 2017 when massive
fraud to inflate profits was discovered.

That investment is now worth R485 million -- a R15 billion loss.
[GN]


STERLING JEWELERS: Desmond, Lodge Sue over Deceptive Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Sterling Jewelers,
Inc. and Comenity Bank for alleged violations of the Ohio Consumer
Sales Practices Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Delaware Consumer
Fraud Act, and for the unauthorized issuance of credit cards under
the Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z. The case is captioned
JACQUELINE L. DESMOND AND TARA D. LODGE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. STERLING JEWELERS,
INC.; AND COMENITY, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00866-UNA (D.
Del., May 8, 2019).

Plaintiffs Jacqueline L. Desmond and Tara D. Lodge allege that
Sterling is engaged in unfair and deceptive acts and practices,
including (1) submitting credit applications in the names of
plaintiffs and class members without authorization and causing
credit cards to be issued in their names without their consent; (2)
deceiving consumers by stating that personal information was needed
to update records or for other benign purposes, when Sterling
employees actually used the information to submit unauthorized
credit applications; (3) enrolling customers in payment-protection
insurance without their consent; and (4) misrepresenting to
consumers the financing terms associated with the credit-card
accounts. Plaintiffs also accuses Comenity for committing acts of
obtaining and using authorized credit reports and issuing unwanted
credit cards.

Sterling owns and operates some of the best-known jewelry stores in
the United States, including Kay Jewelers, Jared, and a variety of
mall-based regional brands. Comenity Bank is a major issuer of
credit cards, focusing on co-branded retail store credit cards. In
2017, Comenity purchased the in-house credit card portfolio from
Sterling. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Chad J. Toms, Esq.
     WHITEFORD TAYLOR & PRESTON LLC
     The Renaissance Centre
     405 N. King Street, Suite 500
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Telephone: (302) 357-3253
     Facsimile: (302) 357-3273
     E-mail: ctoms@wtplaw.com

             - and -

     KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
     Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
     Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
     Gabriel E. Verdugo, Esq.
     1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Telephone: (206) 623-1900
     Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
     E-mail: dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
             gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
             gverdugo@kellerrohrback.com

             - and -

     Alison E. Chase, Esq.
     Matthew J. Preusch, Esq.
     801 Garden Street, Suite 801
     Santa Barbara, CA 93101
     Telephone: (805) 456-1496
     Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
     E-mail: achase@kellerrohrback.com
             mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com


SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATIONS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL KISSICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATIONS CORP., Defendants,
Case No. 2:19-cv-03586 (C.D. Cal., April 29, 2019) seeks to stop
the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

Synergetic Communications Corp. provides collection and adjustment
services on claims and other insurance related issues. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, 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: ltfisher@bursor.com

               - and -

          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


THIRTYNINE COLLINS: Honeywell et al Sue over ADA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed by Chery Honeywell and
Lainie Quarterman against Thirtynine Collins, LLC for violations of
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The case is captioned
HONEYWELL et al v. THIRTYNINE COLLINS, LLC, Case No.
1:19-cv-21602-BB (S.D. Fla., April 25, 2019). It is assigned to
Hon. Judge Beth Bloom.

Thirtynine Collins, LLC is a privately-held company located in
Miami Beach, Florida. [BN]  

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
     JESSICA L.KERR, P.A.
     200 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 504
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Telephone: (954) 282-1858
     Facsimile: (844) 786-3694
     E-mail: service@advocacypa.com


TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Patras Suit over Defective Losartan
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Torrent
Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., Torrent Pharma, Inc., Hetero Drugs, Ltd. and
Hetero USA, Inc. for violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act and the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act. The case is
captioned ARGYRE PATRAS, an individual, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TORRENT
PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD., a corporation, TORRENT PHARMA, INC., HETERO
DRUGS, LTD., a corporation, HETERO USA, INC., a corporation,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-11497 (D.N.J., April 26, 2019).

Plaintiff Argyre Patras also accuses the Defendants of breach of
express warranty, breach of implied warranties of merchantability,
negligence, fraud and unjust enrichment in connection with the
defective or contaminated Losartan. Defendants allegedly designed,
manufactured, warranted, advertised, marketed, supplied and sold
the Defective Losartan tablets in all states and territories of the
United States. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and Class members, the
Losartan tablets are contaminated with two dangerous carcinogens:
N-nitrosodiethylamine and N-Methylnitrosobutyric acid.

Torrent has world-class manufacturing facilities and a widespread
global presence in over 40 countries. It has aggressively expanded
into the US drug market, both in marketing and sales, and in actual
production. In January 2018, Torrent acquired Bio-Pharm, Inc.,
acquiring an FDA-registered manufacturing facility based in
Levittown, Pennsylvania. Hetero is a leading manufacturer of
pharmaceutical products including generic drugs and active
ingredients supplied to other manufacturers for use in their
products. Hetero has manufacturing facilities in 36 countries and
maintains a marketing presence in over 100 countries. It employs
more than 15,000 people worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Rosalee B.C. Thomas, Esq.
     Mila F. Bartos, Esq.
     Ebonie Branch, Esq.
     FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
     3201 New Mexico Ave. NW, Suite 395
     Washington, DC 20016
     Telephone: (202) 337-8000
     Facsimile: (202) 337-8090
     E-mail: rbcthomas@finkelsteinthompson.com
             mbartos@finkelsteinthompson.com
             ebranch@finkelsteinthompson.com

             - and -

     Gordon M. Fauth, Jr., Esq.
     K. Hope Echiverri Ranoa, Esq.
     FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
     15 Shattuck Square, Suite 245
     Berkeley, CA 94704
     Telephone: (415) 398-8700
     Facsimile: (415) 398-8704
     E-mail: gfauth@finkelsteinthompson.com
             hranoa@finkelsteinthompson.com


UNITED PARCEL: Hughes Class Action Ongoing in Kentucky
------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Hughes v. UPS Supply Chain
Solutions, Inc. and United Parcel Service, Inc.

Hughes v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. and United Parcel
Service, Inc. has been certified as a class action in Kentucky
state court. In this action, Plaintiffs allege that they were not
properly compensated for time entering and exiting security
checkpoints and getting to their work areas at UPS's facilities.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and interest.  

United Parcel said, "We have denied any liability and intend to
vigorously defend ourselves in this case. There are multiple
factors that prevent us from being able to estimate the amount of
loss, if any, that may result from this matter, including: (1) we
are vigorously defending ourselves and believe that we have a
number of meritorious legal defenses; and (2) there are unresolved
questions of law and fact that could be important to the ultimate
resolution of this matter. Accordingly, at this time, we are not
able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result
from this matter or to determine whether such loss, if any, would
have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results
of operations or liquidity."

United Parcel Service, Inc. provides letter and package delivery,
specialized transportation, logistics, and financial services. It
operates through three segments: U.S. Domestic Package,
International Package, and Supply Chain & Freight. United Parcel
Service, Inc. was founded in 1907 and is headquartered in Atlanta,
Georgia.


UNITED STATES: Class Actions Over PACER Fees Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
C.J. Ciaramella, writing for Reason, reports that if you want to
find a federal court case -- say, to look up the latest juicy
filing in the prosecution of one of Donald Trump's indicted
cronies—odds are you'll hold your nose and log on to the Public
Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) website, a system run by
the federal judiciary.

It's an old and clunky platform, running on the best interface the
mid-1990s had to offer. Which might be excusable if it were free,
but it's not.

PACER charges 10 cents a page for court records and searches.
There's a $3 cap on large documents, and users pay nothing if their
bill is under $15 per quarter. This keeps most casual users from
needing to pony up—but for news organizations, researchers, and
legal professionals, costs can pile up quickly.

According to the E-Government Act of 2002, PACER is only supposed
to charge enough to cover its operating costs. Instead, it's a
slush fund for the U.S. court system. PACER has raked in about $145
million annually over the last few years while incurring about $3
million per year in costs. Even the Justice Department has to pay
to use PACER—124 million taxpayer dollars between 2010 and 2017.

"PACER is the only major government system that charges by the
click, and access to federal court dockets is one of the most
important government databases we have," says Carl Malamud, a
prominent public domain advocate. "Distribution of documents on the
internet at costs that resemble 1970s copyshop fees is ridiculous
in today's day and age."

Several class-action lawsuits, backed by media outlets and
pro-transparency groups, have been filed in recent years and are
currently winding their way through the system.

In the meantime, some vigilante coders have come up with
workarounds to the PACER paywall. A project called RECAP created a
browser extension that, when installed, uploads any court docket or
document that a PACER user views to a free website and lists which
filings are already available. USA Today investigative reporter
Brad Heath created Big Cases Bot, an automated program that
monitors notable cases, uploads filings to DocumentCloud (another
free repository of public information), and tweets out newly added
records almost as soon as they're available.

But none of this fixes the fundamental problem, which is that PACER
is operating beyond its charter to the detriment of public access
to the law. [GN]


VANGELDEREN SERVICES: Solovey Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A consumer credit-related class action complaint has been filed by
Gordon Solovey against Vangelderen Services, Inc., a New York
for-profit corporation. The case is captioned Solovey v.
Vangelderen Services, Inc. et al. Plaintiff Gordon Solovey alleges
that Vangelderen Services, Inc. has violated the Fair Debt
Collection Act. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Nelson Stephen
Roman.

Vangelderen Services, Inc. is a debt collection agency based in
Spring Valley, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Abraham Kleinman, Esq.
     KLEINMAN LLC
     626 RexCorp Plaza
     Uniondale, NY 11556-0626
     Telephone: (516) 522-2621
     Facsimile: (888) 522-1692
     E-mail: akleinman@kleinmanllc.com


VILLAGE SUPER MARKET: Lee et al. Seek OT Pay
--------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Village Super
Market, Inc. and/or Village Super Market, L.P. for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New Jersey Wage and
Hour Law. The case is captioned CHUN T. LEE, LIPING SUN, on behalf
of himself and other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, VILLAGE
SUPER MARKET, INC. d/b/a ShopRite, RONALD L. GOLEY, HUA HUANG, JOHN
DOE, JANE DOE, fictitiously named business entities, true name (s)
unknown, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-11763 (D.N.J., April 30,
2019).

Plaintiff Chun T. Lee and Liping Sun allege that Defendants failed
to pay them statutory overtime compensation at rates not less than
one-and-one-half times the regular rate of pay hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per workweek. Defendants allegedly violated
multiple aspects of the federal and state laws by mishandling each
plaintiff's personal days, sick days, holidays, vacation time,
breaks, time spent in changing clothes and cleaning his person, and
overtime compensation calculations.  In addition, Defendants have
failed to meet the statutory recordkeeping requirements under both
the federal and state labor laws.

Village Super Market is incorporated and regularly conducts
business in the state of New Jersey. It owns and operates many
ShopRite locations, including the Livingston, New Jersey location
where the Plaintiffs were employed as chefs. It is engaged in the
retail sale of food and nonfood products, including groceries,
dairy and frozen, produce, meats, non-foods, deli and prepared
food, pharmacy, seafood, bakery and liquor. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Heng Wang, Esq.
     WANG, GAO & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     36 Bridge Street
     Metuchen, NJ 08840
     Telephone: (732) 767-3020
     Facsimile: (732) 343-6880
     E-mail: heng.wang@wanggaolaw.com


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Settlement of Gas Price Index Suits Okayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Nevada federal district court on April 22, 2019, granted
preliminary approval of The Williams Companies, Inc.'s settlements
with Kansas and Missouri class members for two putative class
actions related to alleged manipulation of published gas price
indices, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019.

Direct and indirect purchasers of natural gas in various states
filed individual and class actions against the Company, its former
affiliate WPX Energy, Inc. (WPX) and its subsidiaries, and others
alleging the manipulation of published gas price indices and
seeking unspecified amounts of damages.  Such actions were
transferred to the Nevada federal district court for consolidation
of discovery and pre-trial issues.  The Company has agreed to
indemnify WPX and its subsidiaries related to this matter.

In the individual action, filed by Farmland Industries Inc.
(Farmland), the court issued an order on May 24, 2016, granting one
of the Company's co-defendant's motion for summary judgment as to
Farmland's claims.  On January 5, 2017, the court extended such
ruling to us, entering final judgment in the Company's favor.
Farmland appealed.  On March 27, 2018, the appellate court reversed
the district court's grant of summary judgment, and on April 10,
2018, the defendants filed a petition for rehearing with the
appellate court, which was denied on May 9, 2018.  The case has
been remanded to the Nevada federal district court.

In the putative class actions, on March 30, 2017, the court issued
an order denying the plaintiffs' motions for class certification.
On June 13, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit granted the plaintiffs' petition for permission to appeal
the order.  On August 6, 2018, the Ninth Circuit reversed the order
denying class certification and remanded the case to the Nevada
federal district court.

The Company reached an agreement to settle two of the actions, and
on April 22, 2019, the court preliminarily approved the
settlements, which are on behalf of Kansas and Missouri class
members.

The Company said, "Because of the uncertainty around the remaining
pending unresolved issues, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of
potential exposure at this time.  However, it is reasonably
possible that the ultimate resolution of these actions and our
related indemnification obligation could result in a potential loss
that may be material to our results of operations.  In connection
with this indemnification, we have an accrued liability balance
associated with this matter, and as a result, have exposure to
future developments."

The Williams Companies, Inc. operates as an energy infrastructure
company primarily in the United States. The Williams Companies,
Inc. was founded in 1908 and is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma.


WOLF AND SHEPHERD: Haggar et al. Sue over ADA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Wolf and Shepherd,
LLC for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case
is captioned Elia Haggar et al v. Wolf and Shepherd, LLC et al,
Case No. 2:19-cv-03606-JFW-JPR (C.D. Cal., April 30, 2019). It is
assigned to Hon. Judge John F. Walter.

Wolf and Shepherd is a California corporation engaged in the
production and sale of men's dress shoes and belts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
     WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
     3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90010
     Telephone: (213) 381-9988
     Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
     E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com

             - and -

     Babak Bobby Saadian, Esq.
     WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
     3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90010
     Telephone: (213) 381-9988
     Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
     E-mail: bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com


XEROX CORP: May 31 Oral Argument in 2nd Circuit Appeal
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has set oral
argument for May 31, 2019 regarding the appeal from the decision in
the case, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v.
Xerox Corporation, Ursula M. Burns, Luca Maestri, Kathryn A.
Mikells, Lynn R. Blodgett, Robert K. Zapfel, David H. Bywater and
Mary Scanlon.

Xerox Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019, that on October 21, 2016, the Oklahoma Firefighters
Pension and Retirement System ("plaintiff") filed a purported
securities class action complaint against Xerox Corporation, Ursula
Burns, Luca Maestri, Kathryn Mikells, Lynn Blodgett and Robert
Zapfel (collectively, "defendants") in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of the plaintiff and
certain purchasers or acquirers of Xerox common stock.

The complaint alleged that defendants made false and misleading
statements, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, relating to the
operations and prospects of Xerox's Health Enterprise business.
Plaintiff sought, among other things, unspecified monetary damages
and attorneys' fees.  Other similar lawsuits may follow.

On December 28, 2016, the Court entered a stipulated order setting
out a schedule for amendment of the complaint and for defendants'
response to that complaint following the Court's appointment of
lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.
On February 28, 2017, the Court issued an opinion and order
appointing the Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System
("APERS") as lead plaintiff.

On May 1, 2017, APERS filed an amended complaint, alleging
substantially similar claims and seeking substantially similar
relief, but adding David Bywater and Mary Scanlon as defendants.
On June 30, 2017, defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint, and the motions were fully briefed on October 13, 2017.

On March 20, 2018, the Court entered an opinion and order granting
the motions, and on March 23, 2018, the Court entered a judgment of
dismissal and closed the case.  On April 20, 2018, plaintiffs filed
a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, and the appeal was fully briefed as of November 28, 2018.
The Second Circuit has set oral argument for May 31, 2019.

The Company said, "Xerox will vigorously defend against this
matter.  At this time, it is premature to make any conclusion
regarding the probability of incurring material losses in this
litigation.  Should developments cause a change in our
determination as to an unfavorable outcome, or result in a final
adverse judgment or settlement, there could be a material adverse
effect on our results of operations, cash flows and financial
position in the period in which such change in determination,
judgment, or settlement occurs."

Xerox Corporation designs, develops, and sells document management
systems and solutions worldwide. It offers intelligent workplace
services, including managed print services; digitization services;
and digital solutions, such as workflow automation, personalization
and communication software, and content management. Xerox
Corporation was founded in 1906 and is headquartered in Norwalk,
Connecticut.


YINGLI GREEN: Settlement in Calif. Consolidated Suit Wins Okay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yingli Green Energy Holding Company Limited said in its Form 20-F
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
April 30, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that a
California court has entered an order approving the settlement of a
class action.

In May and June 2015, two individual plaintiffs respectively filed
purported class action securities fraud lawsuits against the
company, its chairperson and chief executive officer, Mr. Liansheng
Miao, and its director and chief financial officer, Mr. Yiyu Wang,
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
both alleging, among other things, that the company made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose certain material
financial information.

In October 2015, the cases were consolidated, and the court
appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. In November 2015, lead
plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. The complaint contended
that the company and certain of its officers and directors made
false or misleading statements between December 2, 2010 and May 15,
2015 regarding (i) the Chinese government's Golden Sun program,
which provided subsidies for solar projects in China; and (ii) the
company's accounts receivable attributable to Chinese customers.

The complaint asserted a claim against our company for violation of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint
also asserted a claim against Mr. Miao, Mr. Wang, and Mr. Zongwei
"Bryan" Li for violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

In December 2015, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint, and, on May 10, 2016, the court granted
that motion with leave to amend. On June 24, 2016, lead plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint, again alleging that, between December
2, 2010 and May 15, 2015, Yingli's officers made false or
misleading statements regarding Golden Sun and accounts
receivables.

On August 8, 2016, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, and, on March 15, 2017, the court dismissed the
amended complaint with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint on April 24, 2017. On May 26, 2017, the
company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.

On August 15, 2017, the court issued an order dismissing the action
against the company with prejudice and ordering the plaintiffs to
show cause why the court should not dismiss the individual
defendants based on the plaintiffs' failure to timely serve the
individuals. Plaintiffs filed a response on August 18, 2017 stating
that they do not oppose dismissal of the individual defendants
without prejudice. On August 21, 2017, the court issued an order
dismissing the individual defendants without prejudice.

Also on August 21, 2017, the court issued a judgment dismissing
plaintiffs' claims on the merits and awarding costs to our company.
On September 15, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On April 4, 2018, the parties reached an agreement to settle the
action on a class-wide basis for USD 1.2 million, plus the costs of
administering the settlement, subject to the execution of a
definitive settlement agreement and court approval.

On August 29, 2018, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement
and set a final settlement approval hearing for December 10, 2018,
to give class members an opportunity to object to the potential
settlement. After holding a final approval hearing on December 10,
2018, the Court entered an order approving the class action
settlement.

Yingli Green Energy Holding Company Limited, together with its
subsidiaries, designs, develops, manufactures, assembles, sells,
and installs photovoltaic (PV) products. The company offers
polysilicon ingots and blocks, polysilicon wafers, PV cells, PV
modules, and integrated PV systems; and develops and operates solar
projects. Yingli Green Energy Holding Company Limited was founded
in 1998 and is headquartered in Baoding, the People's Republic of
China.


ZF FRIEDRICHSHAFEN: Croft Sues Over Defective Airbag Control Units
------------------------------------------------------------------
STEVE CROFT AND JUDITH SERVIS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ZF FRIEDRICHSHAFEN AG, ZF TRW
AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS CORP., TRW AUTOMOTIVE INC., TRW AUTOMOTIVE U.S.
LLC, TRW VEHICLE SAFETY SYSTEMS INC., HONDA MOTOR CO., LTD.,
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., HONDA OF AMERICA MFG. INC., HONDA
R&D CO., LTD., TOYOTA MOTOR CORP., TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A.,
INC., and TOYOTA MOTOR ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING NORTH AMERICA,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-04256 (C.D. Cal., May 16, 2019)
seek redress for economic losses stemming from Defendants'
manufacture, sale or lease, and false representations or omissions
concerning Defective Airbag Control Units ("ACU") in the Class
Vehicles, including, but not limited to, diminished value.

In an automobile collision, the difference between life and serious
injury or death often comes down to the effectiveness of airbags
and seat belts. Auto manufacturers know this and relentlessly tout
the safety records of their cars to bolster sales. Not
surprisingly, reasonable consumers have come to expect that auto
manufacturers will ensure that vehicles have functioning restraint
systems in the event of a collision, and would not purchase a
vehicle that is known to have a faulty restraint system. And yet,
Defendants have prioritized profits over safety, leaving consumers
with vehicles of diminished value and an increased risk of injury,
and even death, notes the complaint.

At issue in this case is a uniform design defect in the ACU
designed by Defendant ZF Friedrichshafen AG ("ZF-TRW") to detect a
collision, deploy airbags if necessary and engages other restraint
systems as needed in a matter of milliseconds. This defect causes
the application-specific integrated circuit ("ASIC"), a critical
component that monitors signals from the crash sensors throughout
the vehicle, to be unreasonably susceptible to damage from
electrical overstress ("EOS"). If the ASIC becomes damaged, airbags
will not inflate and the seatbelt pretensioner, an essential safety
feature that locks a seatbelt into place when a crash is sensed,
will not engage, endangering the safety of everyone in the vehicle.
This defect, which resulted in the failure of airbags deploying in
six frontal crashes and the death of four people and serious
injuries in others, has been the subject of an ongoing
investigation by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
("NHTSA") that is estimated to include 12.5 million vehicles. The
defective ACU ("Defective ACU") is installed in several popular
vehicles, including vehicles manufactured, sold, and/or leased by
Defendants Honda and Toyota (collectively, the "Vehicle
Manufacturer Defendants"). The Vehicle Manufacturer Defendants and
ZF-TRW were involved in the design and testing of the defective
ZF-TRW ACUs, and knew or should have known that there was a common
uniform defect in the ACU.

As a result of Defendants' misconduct, Plaintiffs and members of
the proposed Classes were harmed and suffered actual damages.
Plaintiffs and the Classes did not receive the benefit of their
bargain; they were sold or leased vehicles that are of a lesser
standard, grade, and quality than represented, and they did not
receive vehicles that met ordinary and reasonable consumer
expectations regarding safe and reliable operation. Further,
purchasers and lessees of the vehicles containing the ACU Defect
paid more, in a higher purchase price or higher lease payments,
than they would have had the ACU Defect been disclosed.

The Defendants' false representations and omissions concerning the
safety and reliability of those vehicles and their concealment of
the known safety defects plaguing their vehicles and brands, caused
Plaintiffs and Class members to purchase or retain vehicles of
diminished value. Plaintiffs and the Classes were deprived of a
safe and operative ACU installed in their vehicles, while
Defendants have unjustly benefited from their unconscionable delay
in recalling their defective products, as they simultaneously
avoided incurring the costs associated with recalls and installing
replacement parts for years, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs purchased their 2014 Toyota Tacoma and 2016 Honda Fit EX
("Class Vehicles") primarily for personal, family, and household
use.

ZF-TRW is a worldwide supplier of driveline and chassis technology
for cars and commercial vehicles, including active and passive
safety technology.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     JONATHAN K. LEVINE, ESQ.
     ELIZABETH C. PRITZKER, ESQ.
     BETHANY CARACUZZO, ESQ.
     HEATHER P. HAGGARTY, ESQ.
     PRITZKER LEVINE LLP
     180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1390
     Oakland, CA 94612
     Phone: (415) 692-0772
     Facsimile: (415) 366-6110
     Email: jkl@pritzkerlevine.com
            ecp@pritzkerlevine.com
            bc@pritzkerlevine.com
            hph@pritzkerlevine.com


[*] Legislation to Protect College Students from Fraud Passed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Patch reports that legislation to protect consumers from being
defrauded by for-profit colleges and private occupational
institutions passed the State Senate by a unanimous and bipartisan
vote. State Senator Matt Lesser (D-Middletown) introduced this bill
and provided public testimony for it as well. He said this
legislation will provide students with important consumer
protections.

"There have been too many instances of for-profit colleges and
occupational schools defrauding students in recent years," said
Sen. Lesser. "Now they're forcing students to give up their rights
to pursue justice."

Co-chair of the Higher Education and Employee Advancement
Committee, State Senator Will Haskell (D-Westport), said this bill
establishes necessary consumer protections to ensure students are
not being defrauded.

"This bill puts important protections in place to keep consumers
from being taken advantage of by private occupational and
for-profit schools," said Sen. Haskell. "Students should know from
the start whether their schools seek to limit their participations
or claims, not learn about those clauses after they have been
wronged. This bill serves to hold bad actors accountable and
protect students who choose to invest in a degree."

If enacted, Senate Bill No. 81, "An Act Making Certain Private
Occupational Schools Ineligible for A Certificate of Authorization
and Public Funds," would prevent private occupational schools and
for-profit colleges that require students to waive certain rights
as a condition of enrollment from receiving a certificate of
authorization or public funds from the Office of Higher Education.

"This bill provides students with trust in the notion of consumer
protection and is an important win in the consumer battle against
mandatory arbitration clauses," said Sen. Lesser.

Senate Bill No. 81 would reject for-profit colleges and private
occupational institutions from requiring students to give up their
right to join in class action lawsuits in order to stay enrolled,
limit any claim made against the institution or assert any claim in
anything less than a judicial forum. The bill passed the Higher
Education and Employment Advancement Committee by a 16-5 vote. It
will now await further action in the State House of
Representatives. [GN]


[] Consumers Can't Create Class Actions Under Proposed Ill. Bill
----------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Velazquez, writing for The Daily Illini, reports that the
state of Illinois has passed a bill that attempts to ban Internet
device manufacturers from collecting audio from internet-connected
devices without consumers' consent.

On April 10, the Illinois Senate passed the Keep Internet Devices
Safe Act. Essentially, if consumers know they are being recorded
without their consent, they can sue companies.

However, the wording of the bill underwent some changes while it
was in the Senate due to lobbying by trade groups led by the
Internet Association. These groups represent big companies such as
Amazon, Microsoft and Google.

Before the bill changed, it allowed users to file complaints to the
Illinois attorney general's office that could lead to penalties of
up to $50,000 for privacy violations. However, the Internet
Association objected and claimed that the Senate's definition of a
"digital device" in the bill was too broad.

In its current form, the bill only allows the Attorney General to
enforce the act. Consumers are not allowed to create class action
lawsuits on their own if the bill is passed by Illinois' House of
Representatives.  

Tarek Abdelzaher, professor in Engineering, said in an email that
he hopes this new bill will calm people's fear about their devices
tracking them.

Abdelzaher said the bill intends to protect consumers from being
recorded by a microphone on their digital devices without their
prior consent. This applies to phones, chatbots and home
controllers, such as Amazon Echo.

"The overall intent is to improve privacy. It is a bit creepy to
think that Alexa, Siri, Google Home or other such devices are
listening in on you and using your data somehow (perhaps to push
ads to you that you might be interested in, because of an overheard
conversation you had). Gmail already does that with written text.
The machine reads your mail and adjusts your ads accordingly,"
Abdelzaher said.

Abdelzaher believes the new bill will not affect big companies. He
thinks the biggest change people will see is the terms of use
agreement and privacy policy people are required to sign when they
install software.

"Today, when I download apps to my phone, they ask for access to
this or that device (like my camera, microphone, location, etc),"
Abdelzaher said. "I have to say 'yes' or the app won't run. If the
app really needs to record something, it will just ask me to
consent to it when I install it, or it won't run. It's like
cookies. Now many websites inform you of their cookie policies and
ask for your consent."

Aishwarya Shekara, sophomore in LAS, believes this new bill will
not protect individuals from user data collection.

"In terms of mobile service, I believe the National Security Agency
will continue to watch and listen in the name of safety, which is
still an invasion of privacy irrespective of the intention to 'keep
Americans safe,'" Shekara said.

Abdelzaher said the recording itself is not the problem, but it is
the trust people have with new and advanced technology.  

"Do we trust (and approve of) the purpose of recording? Today, we
give our credit card numbers to total strangers every day when we
pay for purchases," Abdelzaher said. "Tomorrow we'll trust our
phone with audio recording as long as we get something out of it,
like a better travel recommendation or maybe advice on homework."
[GN]



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***