CAR_Public/190531.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, May 31, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 109

                            Headlines

21ST MORTGAGE: Trites Alleges Bias in Denial of Loan Application
7-ELEVEN INC: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Haitayan FLSA Class Suit
ACE AMERICAN: M. Mayfield's ERISA Suit Transferred to N.D. Ga.
ADTALEM GLOBAL: 7th Cir Appeal over Petrizzo Suit Dismissal Pending
ADTALEM GLOBAL: Brown Class Action Underway in W.D. Missouri

ADTALEM GLOBAL: Faces Robinson Class Action in N.D. Georgia
ADTALEM GLOBAL: June 19 Status Conference in Engineers Fund Suit
ADTALEM GLOBAL: Seeks to Dismiss Amended Complaint in Versetto Suit
ALABAMA: Court Unseals Redacted Report in E. Bragg Suit
ALLEGIANT TRAVEL: Derivative Suit Stayed Pending Dismissal Bid

ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Bid to Dismiss Surfside Suit Still Pending
AMERICAN BOTTLING: Guzman-Lopez Suit Removed to C.D. California
AMN HEALTHCARE: Class Suit Settlements Await Court Approval
AVAILITY LLC: Stephens Sues over Medical-Related Data Breach
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Dismisses Untimely Plaintiffs in Duque Suit

BASF CORP: Porter Seeks Overtime Pay
BILLABONG HOLDINGS USA: Faces Haggar Suit over ADA Violations
BIMBO BAKERIES: Peatry Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
BORG-WARNER MORSE: Walker et al Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
CAESARS ENTERPRISE: Loses Bid to Dismiss D'Amore Wage & Hour Suit

CAL WEST: Court OKs $185K Settlement in C. Mora Suit
CANNUKA LLC: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
CBS CORP: Seeks Dismissal of NY Consolidated Class Suit
CENIKOR FOUNDATION: Potter Suit to Recover Overtime Wages, Damages
CHAMPION PETFOODS: Bid to Modify Stay Order in Vado Suit Denied

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Orozco Suit Transferred to C.D. Calif.
CHEMED CORP: $5.75MM Accord in Seper/Chhina in the Works
CHEMED CORP: Class Discovery Remains Stayed in Phillips Lawsuit
CHEMED CORP: Class Discovery Remains Stayed in Williams Lawsuit
CHEMED CORP: Unit Still Defends Lax Class Suit over Unpaid Wages

CHICAGO, IL: Court Narrows Claims in IDEA Suit vs. Educ. Board
CIGNA CORP: Amara Plaintiffs Challenge Calculation of Benefits
CIGNA CORP: Aug. 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
CMRE FINANCIAL: Gentile Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
COFIROUTE USA: Faces Chavez Suit over Damages of Personal Property

COGNIZANT TECH: June 10 Deadline to Respond to Amended Complaint
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Nevarez et al. Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
CP OPCO: Court OKs $3MM Settlement in D. McDonald Suit
DASCO HOME MEDICAL: Perry Seeks OT Pay
DISH NETWORK: Subsidiary Still Defends Krakauer Litigation

DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Bid to Drop Suit in Arkansas Still Pending
DT HOPITALITY: Denied Nuno, Marquez, Overtime Pay, Paystubs
DYNAMIC RECOVERY SOLUTIONS: Vaughn Sues over Deceptive Collection
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Sanchez Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
E & M FOOD MARKET: Valdez Moronta Seeks Overtime, Minimum Pay

EARTHSTONE ENERGY: Delaware High Court Narrows Olenik Claims
EASTERN COMMONWEALTH: Bragiforte Seeks OT Pay for Movers
ELI LILLY: 9th Cir. Appeal in Strafford Class Suit Still Pending
ELI LILLY: MMO to Appeal Dismissal of Class Action
ELI LILLY: Plaintiff Voluntarily Drops Glucagon Pricing Class Suit

ELI LILLY: Plaintiffs Amend Complaint in Insulin Pricing Litigation
ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Still Awaits Court OK on McGee Settlement
ERIE INDEMNITY: Ritz's Bid to Reconsider Nixed Suit Still Pending
ERNST & YOUNG: Miranda Seeks OT Premium Pay for AML Consultants
EVANS DELIVERY: Garcia Suit Removed to C.D. California

EXECUTIVE CREDIT: Bell Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
FAIR COLLECTIONS: Muldowney Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. New York
FARMERS GROUP: Holmes Suit Transferred to D. New Mexico
FASHION NOVA: Haggar Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
FEDERAL SIGNAL: Still Defends Hearing Loss Litigation

FORD MOTOR: Court Refuses to Modify Export Report in Kasper
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Wins Dismissal of Connecticut Suit
GOHEALTH LLC: Roby Sues over Automated Telemarketing Text Messages
GROSSMAN & KARASZEWSKI: Greifman Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
H&R BLOCK: Court Grants Arbitration Bid in J. Davidow Suit

HANOVER INSURANCE: Nixed Durand Suit No Longer Subject to Appeal
HCP INC: Still Defends Boynton Beach Pension Fund Class Suit
HERTZ LOCAL: Court Remands T. Belton's Wage & Hour Suit
IMERYS TALC: Fong et al. Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
INTUIT INC: Sinohui et al Sue over TurboTax Deceptive Practices

J.P. MORGAN: Sept. 6 ERISA Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
JEFFERSON SESSIONS: Kolev Files Class Suit in D. New Jersey
JESA 31: Delivery Personnel Seek to Recover Unpaid Overtime
JLING INC: Ji Appeals E.D.N.Y. Memorandum and Order to 2nd Cir.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bailey Talc Injury Suit Removed to E.D. Calif.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Brannin Sues over Cancer-Causing Talcum Powder
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Callahan Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Croft et al Sue over Harmful Talcum-Based Powder
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Cunnie Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Diess Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Heard Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Lowe et al Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Luecker et al Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Luther Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: McNeal Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Dominguez Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Packard Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Nicholson Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Noorda Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Owens Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Petas Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Crone Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Crudge Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Diess Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Fong Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Gagnon Talc Injury Suit to S.D. Texas
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Nott Talc Injury Suit to N.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes O'Dell Suit to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Root Suit to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Salamanca Suit to C.D. California

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Valenzuela Talc Injury Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Zimmerman Talc Injury Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
JPMORGAN CHASE: Injunctive Relief Class Pending
JPMORGAN CHASE: Lawsuits Related to Forex Trading Remain Pending
JPMORGAN CHASE: LIBOR and Benchmark Rate Litigation Underway

JPMORGAN CHASE: Still Faces Suits over Precious Metals Futures
LEONARD LAW: Holdner Referred to Oregon District Bankruptcy Court
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Bid for Leave to Amend Glover Complaint Pending
LINCOLN NATIONAL: COI Litigation in Pennsylvania Still Pending
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Hanks Class Suit Against Unit, Voya Still Pending

LINCOLN NATIONAL: Iwanski Class Action v. FPP Still Pending
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Still Faces 2017 COI Rate Litigation
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Unit Still Defends Class Action Suit by TVPX ARS
LOS ANGELES, CA: Oct. 9 Gas Users Tax Settlement Hearing Set
LYFT INC: Carpenters Pension Fund Says IPO Documents Misleading

MASONITE INT'L: Seeks to Dismiss Consolidated Class Action
MCMC LLC: Court Denies Summary Judgment in R. Mauthe TCPA Suit
MEDNAX INC: Bid to Nix Suit over Anesthesiology Business Pending
MELITTA USA: Dennis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MOMENTA PHARMA: Faces 2 Suits Related to M923 Biosimilar Candidate

MOMENTA PHARMA: Still Defends Remaining Claims in LOVENOX Suit
MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Zamarripa Class Settlement Has Final Approval
MONOLITH PROPERTIES: Carradine Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Arkansas
MONSANTO CO: Faces Ross Suit Over Roundup(R)-related Injuries
MONSANTO CO: Faces Wiley Suit Over Roundup-Related Death & Injuries

MONSANTO CO: Ferkel Sues Over Roundup(R)-Related Injuries
MONSANTO CO: Harrison Suit Seeks Damages for Roundup(R) Injuries
MONSANTO CO: McMillan Sues Over Roundup(R)-Related Injuries
MONSANTO CO: Reid Files Suit Over Sale of Dangerous Herbicide
MONSANTO CO: Stohler Sues Over Roundup(R)-Related Injuries

MONSANTO CO: Sued by Short for Damages Over Roundup(R) Injuries
MONSANTO COMPANY: Chatman Suit Moved to N.D. California
MONSANTO COMPANY: Erb Suit Moved to N.D. California
MONSANTO COMPANY: Lazenbys Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Perales Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Ruff Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Wright et al. Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONTMORENCY, MI: Morris Seeks Review of Circuit Court Ruling
MOWI ASA: Prime Steakhouse Alleges Price-Fixing of Salmon
NANTKWEST INC: $12MM Settlement in Sudunagunta Suit Has Final OK

NCAA: Ruiz Sues over Football Injuries
NCAA: Scott Sues over Negligence in Collegiate Football
NETGEAR INC: Hearing Today on Motion to Stay State Court Cases
NEW YORK, NY: Allen et al. Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y.
NRA GROUP: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Isaac FDCPA Class Suit

OLIN CORP: 6 Class Suits over Caustic Soda Sales Underway in N.Y.
PANDA RESTAURANT: Block Sues over Non-Accessible Facilities
PAYCRON INC: Court OKs Conditional Certification in Jackson Suit
PDC ENERGY: Dufresne Suit Stayed Due to Partnerships' Chapter 11
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Broiler Chicken Grower Class Suit Still Pending

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Adamov Appeals Decision to Ninth Circuit
PURDUE PHARMA: Schneider Sues over Deceptive Marketing of Opioids
QUANTENNA COMMUNICATIONS: Wheby Balks at Merger Deal
REVOLUTION LIGHTING: Remer Sues over False Financial Statements
SCORES HOLDING: Santos de Oliveira Suit in Discovery Phase

SEE'S CANDY: Ping Claims Uniform Cost Reimbursement
SOURCE CONSTRUCTION: Sastre Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay
SPIRITUAL GANGSTER: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
STERICYCLE INC: Contract Class Accord Opt-Out Members File Suits
STERICYCLE INC: July 22 Fairness Hearing for Securities Class Pact

STERLING INFOSYSTEMS: Faces Wright Labor Suit in Calif.
SUNRUN INC: Saunders Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
TACO MIX: Sanchez-Torres Seeks Overtime Pay
TD AMERITRADE: Court Dismisses T. Gray's FINRA Suit
TEVA PHARMA: Bids to Dismiss Ontario Teachers' Fund Suit Pending

TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Class Actions Pending in Israel
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Employee Stock Purchase Plan Suit Still Stayed
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Grodko/Baker Securities Suit Still Pending
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Suits over Sales of Generics Underway
TRENTON, NJ: Court Dismisses A. Guille's Prisoner's Class Suit

TYSON FOODS: Sevy Alleges Price-Fixing of Fed Cattle
UNITED AIRLINES: Faces Ward Labor Suit in California
US SECURITY ASSOCIATES: Faces Scott Labor Suit in NY
US STEEL: Facing Class Action over 2018 Clairton Fire
US STEEL: Underwriters Dropped as Defendants in Shareholder Action

VACATIONS INTERNATIONAL CLUB: Williams Sues over Autodialed Calls
WAITR HOLDINGS: Bobbys Country Cookin' Sues over Service Fee
WASHINGTON GAS: Still Defends Silver Spring Incident Suit
WEIGHT WATCHERS: Securities Class Action Remains Pending
WELLCARE HEALTH: Merger Documents Misleading, Clarke Claims

WELLS FARGO: Aug. 1 Derivative Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
WILLIS TOWERS: Awaits Court Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Suit
WILLIS TOWERS: Awaits Ruling on Appeals from Stanford Settlement
WILLIS TOWERS: UC Regents' Appeal in Securities Suit Still Pending
WISCONSIN: ACLU's Class Action Seeks Parole Opportunities

WYNDHAM HOTEL GROUP: Kang Says Website Not Accessible

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 347 Cases vs. AK Steel Still Pending at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Rocketdyne Faces 59 Cases at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bankruptcy Court Confirms Maremont Plan
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Busch Case to Impact Maryland Product ID Standard
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chubb Not Obligated to Contribute to Asbestos Deal

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Financial Has $113MM Unfavorable Development
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had $292MM Accrual at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Still Defends Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: District Court Upholds $33MM Award for Widow
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eaton Corp. Still Faces Claims at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Can't Escape Mechanic's Claims Under La. Law
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Saw Doctor Dies from Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler On Hook for $2.25MM Asbestos Award
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver Had $105.2MM Reserve at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurer Faces Pushback in Bid for Victims' Info

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Win for Pep Boys Upheld in Exposure Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Jury Awards $25MM Verdict in J&J Talc Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: OSHA Cites Kansas Contractors for Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: San Diego Firefighters File Asbestos Exposure Docs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: SC Jury Finds No Asbestos in J&J Baby Powder

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Had 1,490 Fibro Cases at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Swiss Billionaire Convicted Over Asbestos Deaths
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Had 184 PI Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Had 370 Pending Cases at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK Social Housing Firm Launches Asbestos Probe

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Pleas to Luton Workers Over Asbestos Death


                            *********

21ST MORTGAGE: Trites Alleges Bias in Denial of Loan Application
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against 21st Mortgage
Corporation for its violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.
The case is captioned CRYSTAL KAYE TRITES, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 21ST
MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-11387-LVP-DRG
(E.D. Mich. May 9, 2019). Plaintiff Crystal Kay Trites alleges that
the Defendant's policies and practices have denied and discouraged
individuals receiving public assistance an equal opportunity to
obtain financing and financial services. The Defendant's policy and
practice, which resulted in Plaintiff being required to provide a
physician's note to prove that her children's disabilities will
continue permanently, imposes unwarranted burdens on persons
receiving public assistance, in direct violation of the ECOA.

21st Mortgage Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Knoxville, Tennessee. The company
boasts on its website that it is the nation's largest manufactured
home lender and originates more than $1.3 billion in new and used
home loans each year. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel Myers, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL O. MYERS, PLLC
     4020 Copper View Ste. 225
     Traverse City, MI 49684
     Telephone: (231) 943-1135
     Facsimile: (231) 368-6265
     E-mail: dmyers@domlawoffice.com

             - and -

     Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
     Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
     Carlson Lynch, LLP
     1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
     Pittsburgh, PA 15222
     Telephone: (412) 322-9243
     Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
     E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
             jetzel@carlsonlynch.com

             - and –

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


7-ELEVEN INC: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Haitayan FLSA Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Serge Haitayan, et al., filed an appeal from a Court
ruling in their lawsuit styled Serge Haitayan, et al. v. 7-Eleven,
Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-07454-DSF-AS, in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, 7-Eleven owns,
operates, and franchises convenience stores under the trademarked
name "7-Eleven".  7-Eleven is one of the largest, well-known, and
most-successful franchise systems in the world.  Currently, there
are more than 7,800 7-Eleven stores operating in the United States,
approximately 1,500 of which are franchised to independent business
owners in California.  Each of the franchised 7-Eleven locations
are governed by a written franchise agreement.

Plaintiffs Serge Haitayan, Jaspreet Dhillon, Robert Elkins and
Maninder Paul Lobana have for many years operated 7-Eleven stores
in various locations in California pursuant to franchise agreements
and in accordance with policies and procedures contained in
7-Eleven's Operations Manual.

On October 12, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed this action against
7-Eleven and on November 1, 2017, they filed a First Amended
Complaint alleging six claims against 7-Eleven, including failure
to pay overtime compensation in violation of the Federal Labor
Standards Act and the California Labor Code.

The appellate case is captioned as Serge Haitayan, et al. v.
7-Eleven, Inc., Case No. 19-55485, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants SERGE HAITAYAN, JASPREET DHILLON, ROBERT
ELKINS and MANINDER LOBANA, indiviudally, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee 7-ELEVEN, INC., a Texas corporation, is
represented by:

          Ellen M. Bronchetti, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          555 Mission Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 615-6052
          E-mail: ellen.bronchetti@dlapiper.com

               - and -

          Norman M. Leon, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          444 West Lake Street, Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 368-2192
          E-mail: norman.leon@dlapiper.com

               - and -

          James Speyer, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
          777 S. Figueroa Street, 44th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 243-4141
          Facsimile: (213) 243-4199
          E-mail: james.speyer@apks.com


ACE AMERICAN: M. Mayfield's ERISA Suit Transferred to N.D. Ga.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle issued Order granting Defendant’s Motion to
Transfer Venue in the case captioned MICHAEL MAYFIELD, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ACE AMERICAN
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. Case No. C18-1695RSM. (W.D. Wash.)

ACE moves to transfer venue to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia.  

Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404, this Court has discretion to transfer
this case in the interests of convenience and justice to another
district in which venue would be proper.   Section 1404(a) states:
For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of
justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any
other district or division where it might have been brought or to
any district or division to which all parties have consented.

Plaintiff Michael Mayfield brings this ERISA action as a putative
class action. As a benefit of his employment with Delta Air Lines,
Mr. Mayfield was a participant in an insurance plan (Plan) which
included accidental death and dismemberment (AD&D) insurance.  

The policy provided Mr. Mayfield coverage for him and his wife for
accidental loss of life. This case concerns the death of Mrs.
Mayfield, ACE's initial refusal to pay on the claim, and ACE's
current refusal to pay interest on the delayed payment. Mr.
Mayfield brings this action on behalf of all others similarly
situated as a putative class action.  

Mr. Mayfield resides in the Western District of Washington and
Defendant ACE is an insurance company licensed to conduct business
in the State of Washington, incorporated and with its principal
place of business in the State of Pennsylvania. The Plan
Administrator for the insurance policy at issue is the
Administrative Committee of Delta Air Lines, Inc., located in the
Northern District of Georgia. The Plan is governed by ERISA but
provides that it shall be governed by the laws of the State of
Georgia to the extent not preempted by ERISA.

ACE asserts that, in the applicable 3-year period from 2015 to
2018, 114 individuals submitted claims for benefits under the
policy, and that of that number 45 reside in Georgia and 4 in
Washington State.  

Venue in ERISA cases is proper in any district where the plan is
administered, where the breach took place, or where a defendant
resides or may be found.

ACE argues that venue is proper in the Northern District of Georgia
because (1) it is where the Plan is administered (2) the policy
that forms the basis for the alleged breach of the Plan was
delivered in Georgia and (3) ACE has at least some employees with
knowledge of this case in Georgia.

The Plaintiff argues that Georgia law is unlikely to arise in this
case, which is governed largely by federal law, and that ACE fails
to articulate a single question of state law that might arise.
Plaintiff argues that his choice of forum should be given great
weight, and that "as to the Delta plan participants, the majority
reside somewhere outside Georgia.

Based on the record before it, the Court is convinced that this
case might have been brought in the Northern District of Georgia,
and that it would be more convenient to all parties involved,
including potential class members and witnesses, for the case to
proceed in that district. Because this is a putative class action,
the deference to Plaintiff's choice of forum is clearly reduced.  

Having reviewed the relevant pleadings and the remainder of the
record, the Court finds and orders that Defendant ACE American
Insurance Company's Motion to Transfer Venue, is granted.  This
matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia for all further proceedings.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 13, 2019 Order is
available at  https://tinyurl.com/y2m73eeb from Leagle.com.

Michael Mayfield, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented byLindsay Halm, SCHROETER GOLDMARK
& BENDER, Adam J. Berger -- berger@sgb-law.com -- SCHROETER
GOLDMARK & BENDER, John David Toren, MENZER LAW FIRM & Matthew N.
Menzer, MENZER LAW FIRM, 705 2nd Ave, #800, Seattle, WA 98104

ACE American Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Emily C.
Hootkins -- Emily.hootkins@alston.com -- ALSTON & BIRD LLP, pro hac
vice, H. Douglas Hinson -- doug.hinson@alston.com -- ALSTON & BIRD
LLP, pro hac vice, Tiffany L. Powers -- tiffany.powers@alston.com
-- ALSTON & BIRD LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel Rahn Bentson --
dan.bentson@bullivant.com -- BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY & John A.
Bennett -- john.bennett@bullivant.com -- BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY
PC.


ADTALEM GLOBAL: 7th Cir Appeal over Petrizzo Suit Dismissal Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the court order dismissing the Petrizzo class
action, as refiled, remains pending before the United States Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, according to Adtalem Global
Education Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

On October 14, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Debbie Petrizzo and five other former DeVry University students,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against
the Adtalem Parties in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (the "Petrizzo Case").  The complaint
was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons consisting of
those who enrolled in and/or attended classes at DeVry University
from at least 2002 through the present and who were unable to find
employment within their chosen field of study within six months of
graduation.  Citing the FTC lawsuit, the plaintiffs claimed that
defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry
University's graduate employment rate and asserted claims for
unjust enrichment and violations of six different states' consumer
fraud, unlawful trade practices, and consumer protection laws.  The
plaintiffs seek monetary, declaratory, injunctive, and other
unspecified relief.

On October 28, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Jairo Jara and eleven others, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, against the Adtalem Parties in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the
"Jara Case").  The individual plaintiffs claimed to have graduated
from DeVry University in 2001 or later and sought to proceed on
behalf of a putative class of persons consisting of those who
obtained a degree from DeVry University and who were unable to find
employment within their chosen field of study within six months of
graduation.  Citing the FTC lawsuit, the plaintiffs claimed that
defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry
University's graduate employment rate and asserted claims for
unjust enrichment and violations of ten different states' consumer
fraud, unlawful trade practices, and consumer protection laws.  The
plaintiffs sought monetary, declaratory, injunctive, and other
unspecified relief.

By order dated November 28, 2016, the district court ordered the
Petrizzo and Jara Cases be consolidated under the Petrizzo caption
for all further purposes.  On December 5, 2016, plaintiffs filed an
amended consolidated complaint on behalf of 38 individual
plaintiffs and others similarly situated.  The amended consolidated
complaint sought to bring claims on behalf of the named individuals
and a putative nationwide class of individuals for unjust
enrichment and alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Practices Act and the Illinois Private Businesses and
Vocational Schools Act of 2012.  In addition, it purported to
assert causes of action on behalf of certain of the named
individuals and 15 individual state-specific putative classes for
alleged violations of 15 different states' consumer fraud, unlawful
trade practices, and consumer protection laws.  Finally, it sought
to bring individual claims under Georgia state law on behalf of
certain named plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs sought monetary,
declaratory, injunctive, and other unspecified relief.  A motion to
dismiss the amended complaint was filed by the Adtalem Parties and
granted by the court, without prejudice, on February 12, 2018.

On April 12, 2018, the Petrizzo plaintiffs refiled their complaint
with a new lead plaintiff, Renee Heather Polly.  The plaintiffs'
refiled complaint is nearly identical to the complaint previously
dismissed by the court on February 12, 2018.  The Adtalem Parties
moved to dismiss this refiled complaint on May 14, 2018.

The court granted defendants' motion and dismissed the amended
complaint with prejudice on February 13, 2019.  On March 15, 2019,
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and this matter is currently
pending on appeal before the Seventh Circuit.

Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services
worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and
Healthcare, Professional Education, and Technology and Business.
Adtalem Global Education Inc. was founded in 1931 and is based in
Chicago, Illinois.


ADTALEM GLOBAL: Brown Class Action Underway in W.D. Missouri
------------------------------------------------------------
Adtalem Global Education Inc. is facing a putative class action
lawsuit initiated by Robby Brown, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

On March 29, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Robby Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, against Adtalem Global Education Inc. and DeVry
University, Inc., in the Western District of Missouri.  The
complaint was filed on behalf of himself and two separate classes
of similarly situated individuals who were citizens of the State of
Missouri and who purchased or paid for and received any part of a
DeVry University program.

The plaintiffs claim that defendants made false or misleading
statements regarding DeVry University's graduate employment rate
and assert claims of breach of contract, negligent
misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent
concealment, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust
enrichment, and declaratory relief.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory, exemplary, punitive, treble, and
statutory penalties and damages as allowed by law, including
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest disgorgement, restitution,
injunctive and declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees.

The Company said, "Defendants have not yet been served with the
complaint."

Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services
worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and
Healthcare, Professional Education, and Technology and Business.
Adtalem Global Education Inc. was founded in 1931 and is based in
Chicago, Illinois.


ADTALEM GLOBAL: Faces Robinson Class Action in N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------
Adtalem Global Education Inc. has been named as a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit initiated by T'Lani Robinson,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019.

On April 3, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
T'Lani Robinson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, against Adtalem Global Education Inc. and DeVry
University, Inc., in the Northern District of Georgia.  The
complaint was filed on behalf of herself and three separate classes
of similarly situated individuals who were citizens of the State of
Georgia who purchased or paid for and received any part of a DeVry
University program.

The plaintiffs claim that defendants made false or misleading
statements regarding DeVry University's graduate employment rate
and assert claims of breach of contract, negligent
misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent
concealment, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust
enrichment, and declaratory relief.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory, exemplary, punitive, treble, and
statutory penalties and damages as allowed by law, including
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest disgorgement, restitution,
injunctive and declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees.

The Company said, "Defendants have not yet been served with the
complaint."

Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services
worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and
Healthcare, Professional Education, and Technology and Business.
Adtalem Global Education Inc. was founded in 1931 and is based in
Chicago, Illinois.


ADTALEM GLOBAL: June 19 Status Conference in Engineers Fund Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a putative class action lawsuit initiated by the Pension Trust
Fund for Operating Engineers, a status conference has been set for
June 19, 2019, to address any preliminary discovery disputes
arising from the parties' initial discovery responses, according to
Adtalem Global Education Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019.

On May 13, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by the
Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, against Adtalem, Daniel
Hamburger, Richard M. Gunst, and Timothy J. Wiggins in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons
who purchased Adtalem common stock between February 4, 2011 and
January 27, 2016.  The complaint cites the January 27, 2016 Notice
of Intent to Limit (the "January 2016 Notice") and a civil
complaint (the "FTC lawsuit") filed by the FTC on January 27, 2016
against Adtalem, DeVry University, Inc., and DeVry/New York Inc.
(collectively, the "Adtalem Parties"), which was resolved with the
FTC in 2017, that alleged that certain of DeVry University's
advertising claims were false or misleading or unsubstantiated at
the time they were made in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC
Act, as the basis for claims that defendants made false or
misleading statements regarding DeVry University's graduate
employment rate and the earnings of DeVry University graduates
relative to the graduates of other universities and colleges.

As a result of these alleged false or misleading statements, the
plaintiff alleged that defendants overstated Adtalem's growth,
revenue and earnings potential and made false or misleading
statements about Adtalem's business, operations and prospects.

The plaintiff alleged direct liability against all defendants for
violations of Section10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and asserted liability
against the individual defendants pursuant to Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.  The plaintiff sought monetary damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, costs and other unspecified relief.

On July 13, 2016, the Utah Retirement System ("URS") moved for
appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of its selection of
counsel, which was not opposed by the Pension Trust Fund for
Operating Engineers.  URS was appointed as lead plaintiff on August
24, 2016.  URS filed a second amended complaint ("SAC") on December
23, 2016.  The SAC sought to represent a putative class of persons
who purchased Adtalem common stock between August 26, 2011 and
January 27, 2016 and named an additional individual defendant,
Patrick J. Unzicker.

Like the original complaint, the SAC asserted claims against all
defendants for alleged violations of Section10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of
the Exchange Act and asserted liability against the individual
defendants pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act for
alleged material misstatements or omissions regarding DeVry
University graduate outcomes.  On January 27, 2017, defendants
moved to dismiss the SAC, which motion was granted on December 6,
2017, without prejudice.

The plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") on January
29, 2018.  The defendants moved to dismiss the TAC on March 30,
2018.  The court denied the motion to dismiss the TAC on December
20, 2018.  On February 8, 2019, defendants filed their answer to
the TAC wherein defendants denied all material allegations in the
TAC.  The parties have exchanged written discovery requests and
responses and objections to those requests.

The Magistrate Judge assigned to manage discovery in this case has
set a status conference for June 19, 2019, to address any
preliminary discovery disputes arising from the parties' initial
discovery responses.

Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services
worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and
Healthcare, Professional Education, and Technology and Business.
Adtalem Global Education Inc. was founded in 1931 and is based in
Chicago, Illinois.


ADTALEM GLOBAL: Seeks to Dismiss Amended Complaint in Versetto Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Adtalem Global Education Inc. and other defendants have sought the
Court's ruling to dismiss the amended complaint in the putative
class action suit initiated by Nicole Versetto, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.  The
amended complaint was filed on March 11, 2019, with Dave McCormick
as the new lead plaintiff.

On April 13, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Nicole Versetto, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated, against the Adtalem Parties in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, Chancery Division.  The complaint was filed on
behalf of herself and three separate classes of similarly situated
individuals who were citizens of the State of Illinois and who
purchased or paid for a DeVry University program between January 1,
2008 and April 8, 2016.

The plaintiff claims that defendants made false or misleading
statements regarding DeVry University's graduate employment rate
and asserts causes of action under the Illinois Uniform Deceptive
Trade Practices Act, Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, and Illinois Private Business and Vocational Schools
Act, and claims of breach of contract, fraudulent
misrepresentation, concealment, negligence, breach of fiduciary
duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief as to
violations of state law.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory, exemplary, punitive, treble, and
statutory penalties and damages, including pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, in addition to restitution, declaratory and
injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.

The Adtalem Parties moved to dismiss this complaint on June 20,
2018.

On March 11, 2019, the court granted plaintiff's motion for leave
to file an amended complaint.  Plaintiff filed an amended complaint
that same day, asserting similar claims, with new lead plaintiff,
Dave McCormick.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint
on April 15, 2019.

Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services
worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and
Healthcare, Professional Education, and Technology and Business.
Adtalem Global Education Inc. was founded in 1931 and is based in
Chicago, Illinois.


ALABAMA: Court Unseals Redacted Report in E. Bragg Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District Alabama,
Northern Division, issued Opinion and Order granting Plaintiffs'
Motion to Unseal Redacted Potion of WA Report in the case captioned
EDWARD BRAGGS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his
official capacity as Commissioner of the Alabama Department of
Corrections, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 2:14cv601-MHT.
(M.D. Ala.).

The plaintiffs moved to unseal redacted portions of the WA (Warren
Averett) report, including the recommended correctional-officer
compensation increases.

The plaintiffs in this class-action lawsuit include a group of
mentally ill prisoners in the custody of the Alabama Department of
Corrections (ADOC). The defendants are the ADOC Commissioner and
Associate Commissioner of Health Services, who are both sued in
only their official capacities. In a liability opinion, this court
found that ADOC's mental-health care for prisoners in its custody
was, simply put, horrendously inadequate. The court laid out seven
factors contributing to the Eighth Amendment violation.  

The public has a common-law right to inspect and copy judicial
records and documents.  The test for whether a judicial record can
be withheld from the public is a balancing test that weighs the
competing interests of the parties to determine whether there is
good cause to deny the public the right to access the document.
This balancing test weighs the public interest in accessing court
documents against a party's interest in keeping the information
confidential.

The defendants conceded that certain portions of the report that
they originally redacted no longer need to remain under seal. Those
portions include data concerning correctional staffing levels at
ADOC facilities, as well as current and past salaries for
correctional staff.

The redacted portions of the report that remain in dispute fall
into three categories. The first category is comprised of the WA
report's recommended compensation increases for correctional
officers, including salaries and bonuses. The second includes
comparisons between ADOC correctional officers' current
compensation and that of similar jobs in the public and private
sectors. The third includes WA's estimated costs of implementing
the recommended compensation increases.

First Category: Recommended Compensation Increases

The Public's Interest

The public has an enormous interest in accessing the WA report's
recommended compensation increases. To start, if ADOC follows this
court's order, the recommendations will have a large impact on how
taxpayer dollars are spent. This is because the understaffing
remedial order mandates that ADOC implement WA's recommended
compensation increases. The understaffing remedial order states: By
December 1, 2018, ADOC is to implement the recommendations of
consultants Condrey and the firm Warren Averett, as modified by any
agreements between the parties or orders of this court. The WA
recommendations, in defense counsel's own words, call for arguably
the largest reform in the benefit and pay structure that's ever
been done to the Department of Corrections.

Accordingly, the recommendations, if implemented, will greatly
impact Alabama government spending. As this court and others have
recognized, the public has a powerful interest in overseeing
government spending.

The Defendants' Interests

On the other side of the scale, the defendants asserted three
central interests in keeping the recommended compensation increases
sealed. All three are part of their overarching contention that
unsealing the recommendations would impede ADOC's ability to comply
with court orders to increase correctional compensation and
staffing levels.

First, the defendants argued that unsealing the recommended
compensation increases would undermine their efforts to obtain the
necessary approvals for implementing them. ADOC cannot unilaterally
increase correctional officer compensation. Implementing WA's
compensation recommendations will require passing legislation to
secure adequate funding. Commissioner Jefferson Dunn also testified
that in addition to approving funding, the legislature also must
approve the salary increases. After obtaining the required
legislative approvals, ADOC will need to secure approvals from the
Alabama Department of Finance and work with representatives from
the State Personnel Department and State Personnel Board to
implement the proposed changes to pay grades and compensation
rates.

Commissioner Dunn asserted that, in working with these other
government branches and agencies and attempting to secure their
approvals, ADOC "must preserve the right to control the manner and
timing of when it discloses the full details of Warren Averett's
recommendations to these third parties so as to most effectively
address the recommendations with the third parties. Full disclosure
of the report at this juncture could unnecessarily complicate
ADOC's discussions with these third parties, he said. Specifically,
the defendants maintained that publicizing the recommended raises
for ADOC correctional staff would cause personnel from other State
agencies to also seek raises.  

Second, the defendants argued that unsealing the recommendations
would disadvantage them with respect to competitor employers in the
labor market. They argued, for example, that, if the recommended
compensation increases became public, other law enforcement and
correctional employers would enjoy a head start on ADOC in
competing for employees.

Third, the defendants contended that unsealing the recommendations
would risk hurting correctional officer morale—and thus
contributing to staff departures—because it would create
unrealistic expectations that compensation would be immediately
increased. According to Commissioner Dunn, morale would decline if
ADOC cannot timely implement salary increases.  

In short, by publicly filing Dr. Condrey's report and announcing
the 20% pay increase in its budget request, ADOC already disclosed
that it is planning to increase compensation significantly for
correctional officers. This disclosure would already have triggered
all three of the harms that the defendants claimed would result
from unsealing the WA report.  

One additional argument, raised by the defendants at the April
hearing, remains. At the hearing, the defendants presented
attorneys from the State Personnel Department. The attorneys
represented to the court that their department and ADOC had agreed
to pursue compensation increases for correctional staff in the next
fiscal year that are significantly lower than the WA and Condrey
reports' recommendations and the 20% increase announced in the
budget document. Defense counsel did not dispute the existence of
this agreement between ADOC and the State Personnel Department.

To the contrary, defense counsel argued that the agreement -- and
its approval by the legislature -- would be endangered by unsealing
the report.  

This argument is not persuasive. The court is troubled by the
prospect of selectively concealing judicial documents in the hope
of achieving a legislative outcome. Hiding such documents from the
public in order to impact legislative deliberations strikes the
court as an improper exercise of judicial power.

Weighing the Interests

For these reasons, the public's enormous interest in accessing the
recommended compensation increases outweighs the defendants'
interest in confidentiality an interest that is weakened by the
public disclosures ADOC has already made. This is true regardless
of whether ADOC ultimately implements the WA report's
recommendations. The question is not even close.

Second and Third Categories: Compensation Comparisons and Costs of
Recommended Increases
Because the defendants devoted very little of their argument to
keeping the second and third categories of information sealed, the
court will briefly dispose of those issues.

As previously mentioned, the second category of information
includes comparisons of current ADOC correctional officer
compensation to compensation for similar jobs in the private and
public sectors. The public has a strong interest in accessing the
comparisons, as it provides crucial context for the WA report's
recommended compensation increases. Accessing both pieces of
information serves the public's interest in overseeing government
spending. By contrast, the defendants have a minimal interest in
keeping the comparisons confidential. Much if not all of the
information is already public; the defendants conceded that someone
could go and research" the information for themselves.   

Nevertheless, the defendants essentially argued that the
comparisons should remain confidential because they consolidate the
information in a neatly packaged and easily digestible way. The
court rejects this argument. Whatever interest the defendants have
in keeping confidential the packaging of otherwise-accessible
information is outweighed by the public's compelling interest in
accessing the comparisons. This is especially true given that a key
takeaway from the comparisons is already publicly available in
another part of the report, which states that ADOC correctional
officer pay is below other law enforcement agencies requiring
similar qualifications.

The third and final category of information pertains to the costs
of implementing the WA report's recommended compensation increases.
Obviously, knowing the estimated costs of the recommended increases
is critical for evaluating the propriety of the recommendations.
The public thus has a significant interest in accessing the
estimated costs. The court is not aware of any specific arguments
made by the defendants for why the costs of the recommendations
should remain sealed. Nor can the court conceive of any convincing
arguments, particularly since the court has already decided to
unseal the recommended compensation increases. Accordingly, the
public's interest in accessing the cost information outweighs the
defendants' interest in keeping it confidential.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to unseal the Warren
Averett report in its entirety.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 13, 2019 Opinion and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yywl9xjn from
Leagle.com.

Edward Braggs, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Tedrick Brooks, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Gary Lee Broyles, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Chandler Clements, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Christopher Gilbert, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Dwight Hagood, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Sylvester
Hartley, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Christopher Jackson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Brandon Johnson, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, John Maner, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Rick Martin, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Willie McClendon, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Roger McCoy, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Jermaine Mitchell, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Tommie Moore,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Matthew
Mork, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Bradley Pearson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Leviticus Pruitt, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Turner Rogers, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Timothy Sears, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Brian Sellers, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Augustus Smith, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Hubert Tollar, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Daniel Tooley, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Joseph Torres,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Donald Ray
Turner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Jamie Wallace, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Robert Myniasha Williams, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Roger Moseley, Quang Bui, Charlie
Henderson, Sheila Allen, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, William Sullivan, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Serena English, Valerie Wheeler, Justin
Hall, Raymond Bosarge, Cordara Dunner, Karen Norris, Cherritha
Harris, Brittany Ellis & Tomas Snyder, Plaintiffs, represented by
Andrew Philip Walsh -- awalsh@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker Donelson
Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, Jack Richard Cohen, Southern
Poverty Law Center, Latasha Lanette McCrary, Southern Poverty Law
Center, Maria Viette Morris, Southern Poverty Law Center, 400
Washington Avenue, Montgomery, AL 36104, Patricia Clotfelter --
pclotfeller@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell &
Berkowitz PC, William Glassell Somerville, III --
wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell &
Berkowitz & William Van Der Pol, Jr. -- wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu --
Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program.

Ruth Naglich, in her official capacity as Associate commissioner of
health Services for the Alabama Department of Corrections &
Jefferson S. Dunn, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the
Alabama Department of Corrections, Defendants, represented by David
Randall Boyd -- dboyd@balch.com -- Balch & Bingham LLP, Elizabeth
Anne Sees, Alabama Department of Corrections Legal Division, 301
South Ripley Street P.O. Box 301501. Montgomery, Alabama 36130-1501
-- jgsmith@balch.com, Balch & Bingham LLP, Joseph Gordon Stewart,
Jr., Alabama Dept of Corrections, 301 South Ripley Street P.O. Box
301501. Montgomery, Alabama 36130-1501, Luther Maxwell Dorr, Jr. --
rdorr@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C., Matthew
Reeves -- mreeves@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard Cooper & Gale PC,
Steven C. Corhern -- scorhern@balch.com -- Balch & Bingham, William
Richard Lunsford -- blunsford@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard Cooper &
Gale PC.


ALLEGIANT TRAVEL: Derivative Suit Stayed Pending Dismissal Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued
an Order for Limited Stay of Proceedings in the case captioned IN
RE ALLEGIANT TRAVEL CO. STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION. No.
2:18-cv-01864. (D. Nev.)

The Federal Derivative Action alleges claims against defendants
Maurice J. Gallagher, Jr., John T. Redmond, Gregory Anderson, Scott
Sheldon, Eric Gust, Charles W. Pollard, Linda A. Marvin, Gary E.
Ellmer, and Montie R. Brewer (Defendants) and Allegiant Travel
Company (Allegiant)

A related securities fraud class action captioned Checkman v.
Allegiant Travel Co., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-01758-APG-PAL is
pending before this Court (the "Securities Class Action").

The Securities Class Action arises from similar facts and also
names as defendants several of the Individual Defendants.

The Defendants' motion to dismiss the Securities Class Action is
fully briefed and the parties have requested oral argument.

The Court's ruling on the motion to dismiss in the Securities Class
Action may inform proceedings in the Federal Derivative Action.

Subsequently filed shareholder derivative action arising from the
same facts as the Derivative Action, captioned Woolery v.
Gallagher, et al., Case No. A-18-785044-C, is pending the Eighth
Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada in and for Clark
County (State Court Action).

The Defendants have moved the state court to stay the State Court
Action in favor of the Securities Class Action and the Federal
Derivative Action.

The Federal Derivative Action including any obligation to respond
to the complaint or any amended complaint, and all discovery and
disclosure obligations under the applicable local and federal
rules, is hereby stayed until the Court issues a ruling on the
motion to dismiss in the Securities Class Action.

Upon 30 days' written notice to all counsel of record via e-mail,
any party may lift the stay.

The Individual Defendants and Allegiant will promptly notify
plaintiffs in the Federal Derivative Action should they become
aware of any additional derivative lawsuits filed in any forum that
allege the same or similar misconduct as that alleged in the
Federal Derivative Action. If any of the Individual Defendants or
Allegiant produces documents to the plaintiffs in the Securities
Class Action or the State Court Action, they will provide to
Plaintiffs in the Federal Derivative Action access to the same
document production subject to the parties entering into an
appropriate confidentiality agreement and/or protective order.

If any of the Individual Defendants or Allegiant engages in a
settlement mediation with the plaintiffs in the Securities Class
Action or the State Court Action, the Individual Defendants and
Allegiant will request that the Plaintiffs in the Federal
Derivative Action be invited to attend the mediation and
participate in the settlement talks.

The parties must file a joint status report on September 10, 2019,
and every 120 days thereafter, until the stay is lifted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 13, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y29rrdo3 from Leagle.com.

Charles Blackburn, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin I.
Sachs-Michaels -- BSACHSMICHAELS@GLANCYLAW.COM -- Gancy Prongay and
Murray LLP, pro hac vice, David C. OMara -- david@omaralaw.net --
The OMara Law Firm, P.C., Lesley Portnoy -- LPORTNOY@GLANCYLAW.COM
-- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice, Martin Muckleroy,
6077 S Fort Apache Rd Ste 140, Las Vegas, NV, 89148-5580 & Robert
V. Prongay -- RPRONGAY@GLANCYLAW.COM -- Glancy Prongay & Murray
LLP.

Mark Fullenkamp, on behalf of Allegiant Travel Co., Plaintiff,
represented by Martin Muckleroy& David J. Stone, Bragar Eagel &
Squire, P.C., pro hac vice.

Maurice J. Gallagher, Jr., John T. Redmond, Gregory Anderson, Scott
Sheldon, Eric Gust, Charles W. Pollard, Linda A. Marvin, Gary E.
Ellmer, Montie R. Brewer & Allegiant Travel Co., Defendants,
represented by Jacob D. Bundick, Greenberg Traurig, LLP.


ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Bid to Dismiss Surfside Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the
purported class action styled Surfside Non-Surgical Orthopedics,
P.A. v. Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. remains pending,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019.

On January 25, 2018, a complaint was filed in Surfside Non-Surgical
Orthopedics, P.A. v. Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc., No.
1:18-cv-00566, in the Northern District of Illinois.

This is a purported class action lawsuit related to a January 18,
2018 ransomware attack, and alleges the following counts: (1)
negligence, gross negligence and negligence per se; (2) breach of
contract; (3) unjust enrichment; (4) violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act; and (5) violation of the Illinois Deceptive
Trade Practices Act.  Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of
customers seeking damages from Allscripts.

Allscripts has moved to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint.

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

Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. provides information
technology solutions and services to healthcare organizations in
the United States, Canada, and internationally. Allscripts
Healthcare Solutions, Inc. was founded in 1986 and is headquartered
in Chicago, Illinois.


AMERICAN BOTTLING: Guzman-Lopez Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned JUAN M. GUZMAN-LOPEZ, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE AMERICAN
BOTTLING COMPANY, a corporation; KEURIG-DR. PEPPER, INC., a
corporation; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
19STCV13050 was removed from the Superior Court of California for
the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for
the Central District of California on May 20, 2019, and assigned
Case No. 2:19-cv-04358.

The Complaint asserts nine causes of action: (1) Failure to Pay
Minimum Wage; (2) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; (3) Failure to
Provide Meal Periods; (4) Failure to Provide Rest Periods; (5)
Failure to Furnish Accurate Wage Statements; (6) Failure to
Maintain Required Records; (7) Failure to Pay All Wages Due to
Discharged and Quitting Employees; (8) Unfair Business Practices;
and (9) Failure to Indemnify Employees for Business Expenditures
and Losses.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     Daniel C. Whang, Esq.
     Jennifer R. Nunez, Esq.
     SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
     2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
     Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
     Phone: (310) 277-7200
     Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
     Email: dwhang@seyfarth.com
            jnunez@seyfarth.com


AMN HEALTHCARE: Class Suit Settlements Await Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
AMN Healthcare 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 settlement agreements relating to
claims in two wage and hour class actions are subject to court
approval, which the Company considered as probable.  

The Company said, "From time to time, the Company is involved in
various lawsuits, claims, investigations, and proceedings that
arise in the ordinary course of business.  These matters typically
relate to professional liability, tax, compensation, contract,
competitor disputes and employee-related matters and include
individual and class action lawsuits, as well as inquiries and
investigations by governmental agencies regarding the Company's
employment and compensation practices.  Additionally, some of the
Company's clients may also become subject to claims, governmental
inquiries and investigations, and legal actions relating to
services provided by the Company's healthcare professionals.
Depending upon the particular facts and circumstances, the Company
may also be subject to indemnification obligations under its
contracts with such clients relating to these matters.  The Company
records a liability when management believes an adverse outcome
from a loss contingency is both probable and the amount, or a
range, can be reasonably estimated.  Significant judgment is
required to determine both probability of loss and the estimated
amount.  The Company reviews its loss contingencies at least
quarterly and adjusts its accruals and/or disclosures to reflect
the impact of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal
counsel, or other new information, as deemed necessary.  The most
significant matters for which the Company has established loss
contingencies are class actions related to wage and hour claims
under California and Federal law.  Specifically, among other claims
in these lawsuits, it is alleged that employees were not afforded
required breaks or compensated for all time worked, employees' wage
statements are not sufficiently clear, and certain expense
reimbursements should be included in the regular rate of pay for
purposes of calculating overtime rates.  The Company believes that
its wage and hour practices conform with law in all material
respects, but litigation is always subject to inherent uncertainty.
As a result, the Company entered into settlement agreements
relating to claims in two wage and hour class actions during
September and October 2018.  The settlement agreements are subject
to court approval, which is considered probable.  The Company
recorded increases to its accruals established in connection with
these matters amounting to US$12,140,000 during the third quarter
of 2018."

AMN Healthcare Services, Inc. provides healthcare workforce
solutions and staffing services in the United States.  The Company
operates through three segments: Nurse and Allied Solutions, Locum
Tenens Solutions, and Other Workforce Solutions.  It was founded in
1985 and is headquartered in San Diego, California.


AVAILITY LLC: Stephens Sues over Medical-Related Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Availity, LLC for
its alleged violation of the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act (HIPAA). The case is captioned ALICIA STEPHENS,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. AVAILITY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00236 (M.D. Fla., May
10, 2019). Plaintiff Alicia Stephens brings this action against
Availity, LLC for its failure to properly secure and safeguard
protected health information as defined by the HIPAA, medical
information, and other personally identifiable information (PII),
and for failing to provide timely, accurate, and adequate notice to
her and other Class Members that their PII had been compromised.
The exposure was due to a weakness in Availity's network and its
security protocols that enabled unauthorized third parties to
create fraudulent health-provider accounts on the Availity network
through which they were then able to gain access to patient PII.

Availity, LLC is a Delaware company headquartered at 5555 Gate
Parkway, Suite 110 Jacksonville, Florida, 32256. It develops
network software which provides an information exchange between
various healthcare stakeholders. It connects health care providers
with various health plans through an Internet-based and purportedly
HIPAA-compliant network that allows for automation of business
transactions. The company offers healthcare providers a single
destination for efficiently, quickly and effectively processing
patient claims and payments. Availity operates the largest real
time information network in healthcare system today, connecting
over a million providers, health plans and their technology
partners. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
     Patrick A. Barthle, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN
     COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
     201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Telephone: (813) 223-5505
     E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
             pbarthle@forthepeople.com

             - and –

     Jean S. Martin, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN
     COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
     2018 Eastwood Road, Suite 225
     Wilmington, NC 28403
     Telephone: (813) 559-4908
     E-mail: Jean.martin@forthepeople.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Court Dismisses Untimely Plaintiffs in Duque Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California issued an Judgment dismissing Untimely Plaintiffs in the
case captioned LUIS DUQUE and DANIEL THIBODEAU, individually, on
behalf of others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general
public, Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, and
DOES 1-50, Defendants. No. SACV 18-1298 PA (MRWx). (C.D. Cal.).

Pursuant to the amended settlement agreement (Settlement Agreement)
filed on behalf of themselves and the FLSA Collective and
California Class and defendant Bank of America, National
Association (BANA).

The Court enters Judgment consistent with the December 10, 2018 and
May 13, 2019 Minute Orders and the approved Settlement Agreement.

The claims of the Named Plaintiffs and the members of the
California Class, FLSA Collective, or both who do not timely and
properly exclude themselves from the terms of the Settlement
Agreement by opting out, withdrawing written consent, or for FLSA
Collective members never opting in are dismissed with prejudice,
with each party to bear his, her, or its own costs, except as set
forth in the Settlement Agreement and the Court's May 13, 2019
Minute Order.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 13, 2019 Judgment is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2ea42va from Leagle.com.

Luis Duque, individually, on behalf of others similarly situated,
and on behalf of the general public & Daniel Thibodeau,
individually, on behalf of others similarly situated, and on behalf
of the general public, Plaintiffs, represented by DeCarol Alicia
Davis decarol@bryanschwartzlaw.com -- Bryan Schwartz Law, Rachel
Meyers Terp -- rachel@bryanschwartzlaw.com -- Bryan Schwartz Law &
Bryan J. Schwartz, Bryan Schwartz Law, 80 Grand Avenue, Suite 1380,
Oakland, California 94612

Bank of America, National Association, Defendant, represented by
John A. Van Hook --  jvanhook@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods LLP
& Michael David Mandel -- mmandel@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods
LLP.


BASF CORP: Porter Seeks Overtime Pay
------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against BASF Corporation
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Wage
Claim Act, and the Colorado Minimum Wage Act, as implemented by the
Colorado Minimum Wage Order. The case is captioned Randy Porter,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. BASF Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01352 (D. Colo., May 10, 2019).

BASF Corporation routinely scheduled Plaintiff Randy Porter and
other hourly-paid non-exempt Personal Protective Equipment-equipped
employees and other hourly-paid non-exempt employees, who received
remuneration in addition to his typical hourly rate of pay, to work
at least 40 hours per week. However, at times, the Plaintiff and
other employees similarly situated worked additional hours,
including overtime hours in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff
and the members of the class alleged worked off-the-clock without
receiving compensation, as required by the FLSA, the Wage Claim Act
and the Minimum Wage Order.

BASF Corporation is a Delaware Corporation with its corporate
headquarters located at 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware,
19801. It is a manufacturer and supplier of basic chemicals and
intermediates ranging from solvents, plasticizers, and monomers to
glues and electronic chemicals, as well as raw materials for
detergents, plastics, textile fibers, paints and coatings, plant
protection, and pharmaceuticals. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brian D. Gonzales, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC
     2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201
     Fort Collins, CO 80528
     Telephone: 970-214-0562
     E-mail: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com

             - and -     

     J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
     Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
     Paula R. Jackson, Esq.
     Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq.
     JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
     262 German Oak Drive
     Memphis, TN 38018
     Telephone: (901) 754-8001
     Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
     E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
             jholt@jsyc.com
             rbryant@jsyc.com
             pjackson@jsyc.com


BILLABONG HOLDINGS USA: Faces Haggar Suit over ADA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Billabong Holdings
USA, Inc. for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA). The case is captioned Elia Haggar et al v. Billabong
Holdings USA, Inc. et al, Case No. 2:19-cv-03386-SVW-FFM (C.D.
Cal., April 26, 2019). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Stephen
V. Wilson.

Founded in 1988 and based in Irvine, California, Billabong Holdings
USA, Inc. produces and markets sports clothes designed for water
sports, skateboarding and snowboarding. Billabong runs stores under
the Beach Works and Honolua Surf Co.[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


BIMBO BAKERIES: Peatry Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
The case, LISA PEATRY, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2019CH03945 ( Filed on March 26, 2019), was
transferred from the Circuit Court of Cook County to the  United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on May
12, 2019. This case is assigned to Hon. Judge Sara L. Ellis. The
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02942 to the proceeding. In the
complaint, Plaintiff Lisa Peatry accuses the Defendant of unlawful
collection, use, storage, and disclosure of her sensitive and
proprietary biometric data.

Bimbo Bakeries is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of Delaware, with a principal place of business located at 255
Business Center Drive, Horsham, Pennsylvania. Bimbo Bakeries is a
bakery product manufacturing company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
     James B. Zouras, Esq.
     Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq.
     STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
     100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Telephone: (312) 233-1550
     Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
     E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
             jzouras@stephanzouras.com
             cmitchell@stephanzouras.com


BORG-WARNER MORSE: Walker et al Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, SAMUEL WALKER and FRANCES WALKER, Plaintiffs, v.
BORG-WARNER MORSE TEC LLC (sued individually and as
successor-in-interest to BORG-WARNER CORPORATION), et al.,
Defendants, Case No. BC713775, was removed from the Superior Court
of California of the County of Los Angeles to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.

Several claims pending in state court against Johnson & Johnson and
Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. center on allegations that exposure
to the Imerys Talc America's talc caused the Plaintiff's injuries
-- specifically, mesothelioma.

On Feb. 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two affiliates,
Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc. filed a
voluntary chapter 11 petition, commencing a reorganization case
styled: In re: Imerys Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No.
19-10289-LSS, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Delaware. Given the pendency of the Motion to Fix Venue
for Claims Related to Imerys's Bankruptcy at the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware, Johnson & Johnson and
Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. believe that the state court 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.

Founded in 1886, Johnson & Johnson is an American multinational
medical devices, pharmaceutical and consumer packaged goods
manufacturing company. Its products include Johnson & Johnson's
cosmetic talcum powder products. Imerys Talc is Johnson & Johnson's
sole supplier of talc.[BN]

Attorneys for Defendants:

     Alexander G. Calfo, Esq.
     Julia E. Romano, Esq.
     Jennifer T. Stewart, Esq.
     KING & SPALDING LLP
     633 West Fifth 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
             jstewart@kslaw.com


CAESARS ENTERPRISE: Loses Bid to Dismiss D'Amore Wage & Hour Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued
an Order denying, without prejudice, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
in the case captioned MICHAEL D'AMORE, et al., Plaintiff(s), v.
CAESARS ENTERPRISE SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendant(s). Case No.
2:18-CV-1990 JCM (VCF). (D. Nev.).

The Plaintiffs bring forth the putative class action challenging
Caesars' practice of declining overtime pay to table game service
supervisors.  

Because the motion to dismiss the amended complaint and related
filings fully brief the relevant issues in this case, the court
will dismiss without prejudice Caesars' motion to dismiss the
original complaint.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 13, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yxfmyt8u from Leagle.com.

Michael D'Amore, Adam Bycina & Richard D'Hondt, Plaintiffs,
represented by Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional
Corporation, Dana Sniegocki, Leon Greenberg, 2965 South Jones
Boulevard # E-3

Las Vegas, Nevada 89146, David R. Markham, The Markham Law Firm,
Maggie Realin, The Markham Law Firm, pro hac vice &Michael Morphew,
The Markham Law Firm, 750 B ST STE 1950, SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 pro
hac vice.

Caesars Enterprise Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Christopher John Stevens -- Christopher.Stevens@jacksonlewis.com
-- Jackson Lewis P.C., pro hac vice, Elayna J. Youchah --
Elayna.Youchah@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C, Susan N.
Eisenberg -- seisenberg@cozen.com -- Cozen O'Connor, pro hac vice &
Deverie J. Christensen -- Deverie.Christensen@jacksonlewis.com --
Jackson Lewis P.C.

Desert Palace LLC, doing business as Caesars Palace -- Las Vegas,
Defendant, represented byDeverie J. Christensen, Jackson Lewis
P.C., Susan N. Eisenberg, Cozen O'Connor, pro hac vice &Christopher
John Stevens, Jackson Lewis P.C.


CAL WEST: Court OKs $185K Settlement in C. Mora Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California issued a Findings and
Recommendations granting Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement in the case captioned CARMELA MORA, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CAL WEST AG
SERVICES, INC., JON MARTHEDAL, and ERIC MARTHEDAL, Defendants. Case
No. 1:15-cv-01490-LJO-EPG. (E.D. Cal.).

This action was filed by Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, against defendants Cal West Ag
Services, Inc., Jon Marthedal, and Eric Marthedal, alleging wage
and hour claims for the proposed class for, among other things,
violations of the Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA).

The Settlement covers all Cal West Ag's non-exempt workers who were
employed by and/or performed work for the Marthedal Defendants as
agricultural workers at Marthedal Farms in California between
September 30, 2011, and August 22, 2019, which is the date of
preliminary approval of the Settlement.  The core damages are
alleged to involve approximately 225 non-exempt field workers who
worked for the Defendants picking and packing blueberries during
the period April 30, 2015, to June 5, 2015.  

Under the Settlement Agreement, the Marthedal Defendants will pay a
total settlement amount of $185,000, with this amount to be placed
into a settlement fund administered by the settlement
administrator, Simpluris.  The $185,000 settlement amount is
inclusive of payments to the proposed class and class
representative; to the California Labor and Workforce Development
Agency (LWDA); for the Plaintiff and class counsel's attorneys'
fees and costs; and to the settlement administrator for the costs
of administering the settlement.  

The Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of
the Settlement. After a hearing on the motion and obtaining
supplemental information from the parties, the Court issued
findings and recommendations (F&R's) making a preliminary finding
that the proposed Settlement was fundamentally fair, reasonable,
and adequate. The Court noted that when settlement occurs before
class certification, the Court must also take extra care to ensure
that the settlement is not the product of collusion among the
negotiating parties.

After balancing the relevant factors, the Court found the proposed
Settlement to be fair and to meet the requirements of Rule
23(e)(2). The Court therefore issued F&Rs recommending that the
District Court grant preliminary approval of the proposed
Settlement, conditioned on the settling parties making specified
modifications to the notice to be provided to class members.

The Plaintiff filed a motion for final approval of the Settlement.
After reviewing the motion, the Court determined that counsel had
not complied with conditions imposed in the Court's order granting
preliminary approval of the Settlement. Specifically, the parties
had failed to file for Court approval a second revised Notice of
Class Action Settlement incorporating the modifications required by
the Court and, further, the Notice sent to class members did not
include the required modifications.   

Rule 23(e)'s class settlement process generally proceeds in two
phases. In the first phase, the court conditionally certifies the
class, conducts a preliminary determination of the fairness of the
settlement (subject to a more stringent final review), and approves
the notice to be provided to the class.  

The purpose of the initial review is to ensure that an appropriate
class exists and that the agreement is non-collusive, without
obvious deficiencies, and within the range of possible approval as
to that class.  

In the second phase, the court holds a full fairness hearing where
class members may present objections to class certification, or the
fairness of the settlement agreement.  
Following the fairness hearing, the court is to take into account
all of the information before it and confirm that class
certification is appropriate, and that the settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate.  

Here, the first phase of the Rule 23(e) class settlement process
the conditional approval of the class, the preliminary approval of
the Settlement, and the approval of the notice to be provided to
the class members has been completed. The parties are now before
the Court for the second phase of the Rule 23(e) class settlement
process: (1) final class certification and (2) final approval of
the Settlement.

In this Court's previous F&Rs adopted in full by the District
Court, the Court made a preliminary finding that the proposed
settlement class satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(a) for purposes of settlement. The Court also
made a preliminary finding that the proposed settlement class met
the predominance and superiority requirements of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), which provides: A class action may be
maintained if Rule 23(a) is satisfied and if . . . the court finds
that the questions of law or fact common to class members
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members,
and that a class action is superior to other available methods for
fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy." Thus, the
class was conditionally certified under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(c)(1), for the purposes of settlement only.  

Turning to the proposed Settlement and whether it should be granted
final approval, the following table sets forth the total settlement
amount, the distributions from the total settlement amount that
were initially proposed and preliminarily approved, the
distributions finally proposed, and the recommended adjustments to
the proposed distributions.

Initial Final Amount that is Fair, Proposed Proposed Reasonable,
and Adequate Gross Settlement Fund $185,000 $185,000 $185,000
Requested Attorneys' Fees ($61,661) ($61,661) ($61,661) Requested
Litigation Costs ($10,000) ($9,613) ($9,613) Requested Plaintiff
Service Award ($10,000) ($10,000) ($4,000) Requested Settlement
($10,000) ($10,000) ($10,000) Administration Costs PAGA Penalties
($5,000) ($5,000) ($5,000)

As indicated by this table, and as discussed below, the Court finds
the total amount of the Settlement, and the final proposed
distribution of the gross settlement fund with the exception of the
requested Plaintiff service award to be reasonable, fair, and
adequate.

Where, as here, the proposed settlement agreement will bind absent
class members, the Court must find that it is fair, reasonable, and
adequate. When settlement occurs before class certification, the
Court must also take extra care to ensure that the settlement is
not the product of collusion among the negotiating parties.

Although the factors in a court's fairness assessment will vary
from case to case, courts generally must weigh: (1) the strength of
the plaintiff's case (2) the risk, expense, complexity, and likely
duration of further litigation (3) the risk of maintaining class
action status throughout the trial (4) the amount offered in
settlement  (5) the extent of discovery completed and the stage of
the proceedings (6) the experience and views of counsel (7) the
presence of a governmental participant and (8) the reaction of the
class members to the proposed settlement.

As to the strength of the Plaintiff's case, the Court recognizes
that wage-and-hour cases, such as the present one, brought on
behalf of low-wage workers who are part of a migratory work force
can be difficult to prove. Although Plaintiff indicates her belief
that she has a strong case, she acknowledges the uncertainties of
proving the class claims. During the May 3, 2018, preliminary
approval hearing, counsel indicated some of the potential risks if
the litigation were to proceed, including the difficulty of
calculating damages, the potential inaccuracy of wage statements,
and unsettled or unclear law relating to whether the proposed class
would be entitled to penalties.  

The parties engaged in a fair amount of discovery, investigation,
and analysis and indicate that they were well informed of the
strengths and weaknesses of the case. Plaintiff's counsel
interviewed numerous witnesses, reviewed thousands of pages of
documents and/or data from employees, and propounded several sets
of discovery on Defendants through which counsel obtained critical
information, such as core payroll and timekeeping information.  

The Plaintiff has been represented by experienced counsel
throughout this litigation, including during the mediation.
Plaintiff's counsel indicates the belief that the Settlement is
reasonable, fair and adequate; and that the Settlement is a
compromise figure, taking into account the risk associated with
further litigation both in determining the fairness of total
Settlement as well as the propriety of other terms. Counsel opines
that the Settlement of the case for $185,000.

The Plaintiff represents that the $185,000 provides an amount that
is close to the alleged actual damages (but not civil penalties)
that are available in a successfully prosecuted class action under
Code Sections 226, 226.3, 203, 256, and 210. Although Plaintiff
valued the class action claims and penalties at $1.2 million, more
than $1 million of that amount is comprised of derivative penalties
under Cal. Labor Code Sections 226, 226.3, 203, 256, and 210.

The Plaintiff concedes the difficulty of recovering such penalties,
including the need to show that Defendants acted willfully and the
speculative nature of the recovery of penalties. Although the
Settlement amount is only 15% of the $1.2 million value Plaintiff
places on the case, when the $1 million in estimated derivative
penalties is removed, the value is reduced to $200,000, making the
Settlement amount 92% of the estimated likely recovery.

The Court finds, after considering the relevant factors, including
the lack of objection to the Settlement, that the $185,000
settlement amount is fair, reasonable, and adequate.  
Accordingly, approving the Settlement as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement and modified herein; finding the Settlement,
as modified, is in all respects, fair, reasonable, adequate, and in
the best interests of the entire settlement class; and directing
implementation of all remaining terms, conditions, and provisions
of the Settlement Agreement, as modified.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 13, 2019 Findings and
Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/yymdgk8p from
Leagle.com.

Carmela Mora, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented byMario Martinez, Martinez
Aguilasocho & Lynch, APLC, Hector Rodriguez Martinez --
hectorm@themmlawfirm.com -- Mallison & Martinez & Stanley Mallison
-- stanm@themmlawfirm.com -- Mallison & Martinez.

Cal West Ag Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Anthony Peter
Raimondo -- APR@raimondoassociates.com -- Raimondo & Associates,
Gerardo Hernandez, Jr. -- gvh@raimondoassociates.com -- Raimondo &
Associates & Thomas Elmer Campagne, Campagne & Campagne, A Prof.
Corp., Airport Office Center,1685 North Helm Avenue, Fresno, CA
93727

Jon Marthedal & Eric Marthedal, Defendants, represented by Thomas
Elmer Campagne, Campagne & Campagne, A Prof. Corp. & Justin Thomas
Campagne, Campagne & Campagne, A Prof. Corp., Airport Office
Center,1685 North Helm Avenue, Fresno, CA 93727

Jon Marthedal, Counter Claimant, represented by Justin Thomas
Campagne, Campagne & Campagne, A Prof. Corp.


CANNUKA LLC: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cannuka LLC. The case
is styled as Mary Conner, Individually and as the representative of
a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Cannuka LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02966 (E.D. N.Y., May 20, 2019).

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

Cannuka is a medically inspired, natural skin care regime first and
foremost, designed to treat stubborn skin conditions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dan Shaked, Esq.
     Shaked Law Group, P.C.
     44 Court Street, Suite 1217
     Brooklyn, NY 11217
     Phone: (917) 373-9128
     Fax: (718) 504-7555
     Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


CBS CORP: Seeks Dismissal of NY Consolidated Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation, together with other defendants, has sought the
Court's order dismissing the consolidated putative class action
initiated by Gene Samit and John Lantz, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

On August 27, 2018 and on October 1, 2018, each of Gene Samit and
John Lantz, respectively, filed putative class action suits in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, for claims
that are similar to those alleged in the amended complaint
described below.

On November 6, 2018, the Court entered an order consolidating the
two actions.  On November 30, 2018, the Court appointed
Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern California as the
lead plaintiff of the consolidated action.

On February 11, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended putative class action complaint against the Company,
certain current and former senior executives and members of the
Board.

The consolidated action is stated to be on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's Class A Common Stock and Class B Common Stock between
September 26, 2016 and December 4, 2018.  This action seeks to
recover damages arising during this time period allegedly caused by
the defendants' purported violations of the federal securities
laws, including by allegedly making materially false and misleading
statements or failing to disclose material information, and seeks
costs and expenses as well as remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

On April 12, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss this
action.

CBS Corporation operates as a mass media company worldwide. The
company operates in four segments: Entertainment, Cable Networks,
Publishing, and Local Media. The company was founded in 1986 and
is
headquartered in New York, New York.


CENIKOR FOUNDATION: Potter Suit to Recover Overtime Wages, Damages
------------------------------------------------------------------
John Potter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Cenikor Foundation, Inc. and Bill Bailey,
II, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00294 (M.D. La., May 9, 2019), seeks
to recover wages and other damages to which they are entitled under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Cenikor is an inpatient facility that provides rehabilitation
counseling to its patients. Potter claims to be paid straight
hourly time for all hours worked and were not paid overtime for
hours worked over 40 in a workweek. He also alleges that Cenikor
withheld wages earned by employees in exchange for board, lodging
and use of facilities. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Philip Bohrer, Esq.
      Scott E. Brady, Esq.
      BOHRER BRADY, L.L.C.
      8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
      Baton Rouge, LA 70809
      Telephone: (225) 925-5297
      Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
      Email: phil@bohrerbrady.com
             scott@bohrerbrady.com

             - and -

      James R. Bullman, Esq.
      THE BULLMAN LAW FIRM, LLC
      201 St. Charles Street
      Baton Rouge, LA 70802
      Telephone: (225) 993-7169
      Facsimile: (225) 387-3198
      Email: james@thebullmanlawfirm.com

             - and -

      Christopher K. Jones, Esq.
      Patrice Haley, Esq.
      KEOGH, COX & WILSON, LTD.
      701 Main Street
      Baton Rouge, LA 70802
      Telephone: (225) 383-3796
      Facsimile: (225) 343-9612
      Email: cjones@keoghcox.com
             phaley@keoghcox.com


CHAMPION PETFOODS: Bid to Modify Stay Order in Vado Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JESIKA VADO, Plaintiff, v. CHAMPION PETFOODS USA,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-07118-JCS (N.D. Cal.),
Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California denied Pet Food Express
Ltd.'s motion to modify the Feb. 14, 2019 Stay Order.

In the action, Plaintiff Vado brought a putative class action
against Champion and Pet Food Express in Alameda Superior Court,
alleging that she had purchased Champion's Acana and Orijen brand
pet foods at a Pet Food Express store and that these products did
not live up to the claims that the Defendants made about them and
contained harmful chemicals.  Pet Food Express asserted a
cross-claim for indemnity against Champion.  

Subsequently, Champion removed the action to the Court under the
Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") and brought a motion to stay the
action pending resolution of virtually the same claims asserted
against Champion in an action currently pending in the Central
District of California.  Pet Food Express brought a motion to
remand, arguing that the "local controversy" exception to CAFA
jurisdiction applied.  Pet Food Express did not, however, oppose
the motion to stay.  The Court granted the motion to stay and
denied the motion to remand in its Feb. 14, 2019 Order.

Now Pet Food Express brings a motion to modify the stay ("Motion"),
arguing that the stay should be modified so that it can proceed
with its claim for indemnification against Champion.  It asserts
that its indemnification claim is ripe because if it prevails on
that claim it may be entitled to an award of attorneys' fees and it
has already incurred attorneys' fees in the case.

As there has been no change in the circumstances that relate to the
Court's decision to stay the action, the Magistrate Judge finds
that Pet Food Express' Motion is untimely and that its arguments
have been waived.  In any event, he concludes that Pet Food
Express' claim for indemnification (and any fees to which it might
be entitled if it prevails on that claim) is premature.  He denied
the Motion and vacated the hearing set for May 3, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 23, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/qhM0nT from Leagle.com.

Jesika Vado, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey R. Krinsk --
jrk@classactionlaw.com -- Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP, Joshua Charles
Anaya, jca@classactionlaw.com --  Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP &Mark L.
Knutson  -- MLK@Knutson-Law.com -- Law Offices of Mark L. Knutson,
APC.

Champion Petfoods USA, Inc. & Champion Petfoods LP, Defendants,
represented by David Andrew Coulson -- coulsond@gtlaw.com --
Greenberg Traurig, Michael D. Lane -- lanemd@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg
Traurig, LLP & Ricky Lynn Shackelford -- shackelfordr@gtlaw.com --
Greenberg Traurig, LLP.

Pet Food Express Ltd., Defendant, represented by John Douglas Moore
-- jmoore@recyclelaw.com -- Henn, Etzel & Moore.


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Orozco Suit Transferred to C.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Humberto Orozco v. Charter Communications Inc, Case No.
19STCV10589 (Filed on March 28, 2019), was transferred from
Superior Court of California of the County of Los Angeles to the
United States District Court Central District of California on
April 29, 2019. This class action complaint alleges Charter
Communications' violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The
case is assigned to Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt. The United States
District Court for the Central District of California assigned Case
No. 2:19-cv-03550-JAK-SK to the proceeding.

Headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut, Charter Communications
offers cable services to residential and commercial customers in
the United States. It also provides high-speed Internet and
telephone services. [BN]

Attorneys for Defendant:

     Aimee G Mackay, Esq.
     MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
     300 S. Grand Avenue
     22nd Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Telephone: (213) 612-2500
     Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
     E-mail: aimee.mackay@morganlewis.com

             - and -

     Max C Fischer, Esq.
     MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP
     300 South Grand Avenue 22nd Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
     Telephone: (213) 612-2500
     Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
     E-mail: max.fischer@morganlewis.com

             - and -

     Megan McDonough, Esq.
     MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
     300 South Grand Ave., 22nd Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Telephone: (213) 612-2500
     Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
     E-mail: megan.mcdonough@morganlewis.com


CHEMED CORP: $5.75MM Accord in Seper/Chhina in the Works
--------------------------------------------------------
Chemed 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 parties in the "Chhina and Seper" consolidated
class actions are processing a long-form agreement to be presented
to the court for preliminary approval, notice to class members, and
eventual final approval and payment.  The settlement amount,
subject to court approval is US$5.75 million plus employment taxes.
The definition of the class to participate in the settlement is
intended to cover claims raised in the consolidated Seper/Chhina
matter, claims raised in Phillips and Moore, as well as any class
claims in Williams.

Jordan Seper ("Seper"), a Registered Nurse at VITAS’ Inland
Empire program from May 12, 2014 to March 21, 2015, filed a lawsuit
in San Francisco Superior Court on September 26, 2016.  She alleged
VITAS Healthcare Corp of CA ("VITAS CA") (1) failed to provide
minimum wage for all hours worked; (2) failed to provide overtime
for all hours worked; (3) failed to provide a second meal period;
(4) failed to provide rest breaks; (5) failed to indemnify for
necessary expenditures; (6) failed to timely pay wages due at time
of separation; and (7) engaged in unfair business practices.  Seper
seeks a state-wide class action of current and former non-exempt
employees employed with VITAS in California within the four years
preceding the filing of the lawsuit.  She seeks court determination
that this action may be maintained as a class action for the entire
California class and subclasses, designation as class
representative, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, damages
(including wages for regular or overtime hours allegedly worked but
not paid, premium payments for missed meal or rest periods, and
unreimbursed expenses), all applicable penalties associated with
each claim, pre and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs.  Seper served VITAS CA with the lawsuit, Jordan A. Seper on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. VITAS Healthcare
Corporation of California, a Delaware corporation; VITAS Healthcare
Corp of CA, a business entity unknown; and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive; Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number BC 642857 on
October 13, 2016 ("Jordan Seper case").

On November 14, 2016, the Parties filed a Stipulation to transfer
the venue of the lawsuit from San Francisco to Los Angeles.  The
Los Angeles Superior Court Complex Division accepted transfer of
the case on December 6, 2016 and stayed the case.  On December 16,
2016, VITAS CA filed its Answer and served written discovery on
Seper.

Jiwann Chhina ("Chhina"), hired by VITAS as a Home Health Aide on
February 5, 2002, is currently a Licensed Vocational Nurse for
VITAS’ San Diego program.  On September 27, 2016, Chhina filed a
lawsuit in San Diego Superior Court, alleging (1) failure to pay
minimum wage for all hours worked; (2) failure to provide overtime
for all hours worked; (3) failure to pay wages for all hours at the
regular rate; (4) failure to provide meal periods; (5) failure to
provide rest breaks; (6) failure to provide complete and accurate
wage statements; (7) failure to pay for all reimbursement expenses;
(8) unfair business practices; and (9) violation of the California
Private Attorneys General Act.  Chhina seeks to pursue these claims
in the form of a state-wide class action of current and former
non-exempt employees employed with VITAS in California within the
four years preceding the filing of the lawsuit.  He seeks court
determination that this action may be maintained as a class action
for the entire California class and subclasses, designation as
class representative, declaratory relief, injunctive relief,
damages (including wages for regular or overtime hours allegedly
worked but not paid, premium payments for missed meal or rest
period, and unreimbursed expenses), all applicable penalties
associated with each claim, pre-judgment interest, and attorneys'
fees and costs.  Chhina served VITAS CA with the lawsuit, Jiwan
Chhina v. VITAS Health Services of California, Inc., a California
corporation; VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California, a Delaware
corporation; VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California, a Delaware
corporation dba VITAS Healthcare Inc.; and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive; San Diego Superior Court Case Number
37-2015-00033978-CU-OE-CTL on November 3, 2016 ("Jiwann Chhina
case").  On December 1, 2016, VITAS CA filed its Answer and served
written discovery on Chhina.

The Seper and Chhina cases were consolidated in Los Angeles County
Superior Court; Chhina was dismissed as a separate action and
joined with Seper in the filing of amended complaint on August 28,
2018, in which both Chhina and Seper were identified as named
plaintiffs.

The parties engaged in a mediation process beginning in October
2018 and concluded with an agreement in March 2019.  The agreement
is in the process of incorporation into a long-form agreement to be
presented to the court for preliminary approval, notice to class
members, and eventual final approval and payment.  The settlement
amount, subject to court approval is $5.75 million plus employment
taxes.  The definition of the class to participate in the
settlement is intended to cover claims raised in the consolidated
Seper/Chhina matter, claims raised in Phillips and Moore, as well
as any class claims in Williams.

Chemed Corporation provides hospice and palliative care services in
the United States. It operates through two segments, VITAS and
Roto-Rooter. The company was founded in 1970 and is headquartered
in Cincinnati, Ohio.


CHEMED CORP: Class Discovery Remains Stayed in Phillips Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
All class discovery remains stayed in the class action case styled,
Chere Phillips and Lady Moore v. VITAS Healthcare Corporation of
California, Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No.
34-2017-0021-2755, according to Chemed Corporation's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

On May 19, 2017, Chere Phillips (a Home Health Aide in Sacramento)
and Lady Moore (a former Social Worker in Sacramento) filed a
lawsuit against VITAS CA in Sacramento County Superior Court,
alleging claims for (1) failure to pay all wages due; (2) failure
to authorize and permit rest periods; (3) failure to provide
off-duty meal periods; (4) failure to furnish accurate wage
statements; (5) unreimbursed business expenses; (6) waiting time
penalties; (7) violations of unfair competition law; and (8)
violation of the Private Attorneys General Act.

Plaintiffs sought to pursue these claims in the form of a
state-wide class action of current and former non-exempt employees
employed with VITAS CA in California within the four years
preceding the filing of the lawsuit.  Plaintiffs served VITAS with
the lawsuit on June 5, 2017.  VITAS CA timely answered the
Complaint generally denying the Plaintiffs' allegations.

The Court has stayed all class discovery in this case pending
resolution of mediation in the Jordan Seper and Jiwann Chhina
cases.

In the Seper/Chhina case, the mediation process has concluded with
an agreement in March 2019.  The agreement is in the process of
incorporation into a long-form agreement to be presented to the
court for preliminary approval, notice to class members, and
eventual final approval and payment.  The definition of the class
to participate in the settlement is intended to cover claims raised
in the consolidated Seper/Chhina matter, as well as in other
lawsuits including the Phillips and Moore case.

Chemed Corporation provides hospice and palliative care services in
the United States. It operates through two segments, VITAS and
Roto-Rooter. The company was founded in 1970 and is headquartered
in Cincinnati, Ohio.


CHEMED CORP: Class Discovery Remains Stayed in Williams Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Class discovery is still stayed in the case styled Williams v.
VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California, filed on May 22, 2017
in Alameda County Superior Court, RG 17853886, according to Chemed
Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

Jazzina Williams (a Home Health Aide in Sacramento) filed a lawsuit
alleging claims for (1) failure to pay all wages due; (2) failure
to authorize and permit rest periods; (3) failure to provide
off-duty meal periods; (4) failure to furnish accurate wage
statements; (5) unreimbursed business expenses; (6) waiting time
penalties; and (7) violations of the Private Attorneys General Act
("PAGA").  Williams seeks to pursue these claims both individually
and as a representative action under the PAGA on behalf of current
and former California non-exempt employees.

Plaintiff served VITAS with the lawsuit on May 31, 2017.  VITAS CA
timely answered the Complaint generally denying Plaintiff's
allegations.  Williams is pursing discovery of her individual claim
and has agreed to a stay of class discovery pending possible
resolution through ongoing mediation in the Jordan Seper and Jiwann
Chhina cases.

Defendant filed and served each of Plaintiffs Williams, Phillips,
and Moore with a Notice of Related Cases on July 19, 2017.

In the Seper/Chhina case, the mediation process has concluded with
an agreement in March 2019.  The agreement is in the process of
incorporation into a long-form agreement to be presented to the
court for preliminary approval, notice to class members, and
eventual final approval and payment.  The definition of the class
to participate in the settlement is intended to cover claims raised
in the consolidated Seper/Chhina matter, as well as in other
lawsuits including the Williams case.

Chemed Corporation provides hospice and palliative care services in
the United States. It operates through two segments, VITAS and
Roto-Rooter. The company was founded in 1970 and is headquartered
in Cincinnati, Ohio.


CHEMED CORP: Unit Still Defends Lax Class Suit over Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chemed Corporation's subsidiary, Roto-Rooter Services Company,
continues to defend itself against a lawsuit filed by Alfred Lax
over unpaid wages, 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.

Alfred Lax, a current employee of Roto-Rooter Services Company
("RRSC"), was hired in the RRSC's Menlo Park branch in 2007.

On November 30, 2018, Lax filed a class action lawsuit in Santa
Clara County Superior Court alleging (1) failure to provide or
compensate for required rest breaks; (2) failure to properly pay
for all hours worked; (3) failure to provide accurate wage
statements; (4) failure to reimburse for work-related expenses; and
(5) unfair business practices.  Lax has stated these claims as a
representative of a class defined as all service technicians
employed by RRSC in California during the four years preceding the
filing of the complaint.

He seeks a determination that the action may proceed and be
maintained as a class action and for compensatory and statutory
damages (premium payments for missed rest periods, uncompensated
rest periods, wages for time allegedly not paid such as travel
time, repair time, and vehicle maintenance time, and unreimbursed
expenses), penalties and restitutions, pre- and post-judgment
interest and attorneys' fees and costs.

The lawsuit, Alfred Lax, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Roto-Rooter Services Company, and Does 1
through 50 inclusive; Santa Clara County Superior Court Case Number
18CV338652, was received by RRSC on December 11, 2018 and RRSC
timely filed its answer denying the claims.

Chemed Corporation provides hospice and palliative care services in
the United States. It operates through two segments, VITAS and
Roto-Rooter. The company was founded in 1970 and is headquartered
in Cincinnati, Ohio.


CHICAGO, IL: Court Narrows Claims in IDEA Suit vs. Educ. Board
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, issued an Opinion and Order granting in
part and denying in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in the
case captioned H.P., E.V., G.G., R.L., J.B., J.M., O.L., and M.P.,
by their parents and next friends, VICTORIA G., HECTOR P., AIXIA
H., CARLOS V., ASENCION G., MIREYA L., MIRIAM B., ROSALBA C., XI
LONG L., and IZABELA P., for themselves and all others similarly
situated; VICTORIA G., HECTOR P., AIXIA H., CARLOS V., ASENCION G.,
MIREYA L., MIRIAM B., ROSALBA C., XI LONG L., and IZABELA P., for
themselves and all others similarly situated; Plaintiffs, v. BOARD
OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO; DR. JANICE JACKSON, Chief
Executive Officer of Chicago Public Schools, in her official
capacity; ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; and DR. TONY SMITH,
State Superintendent of Education, in his official capacity,
Defendants. No. 18 C 621. (N.D. Ill.).

The CPS Defendants have moved for dismissal of all the claims
against them.

The Plaintiffs, eight Chicago Public School (CPS) students and
their parents, have filed this putative class action against
Defendants the Board of Education of the City of Chicago and Dr.
Janice Jackson, the Chief Executive Officer of CPS (CPS
Defendants), and the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) and
Dr. Tony Smith, the State Superintendent of Education (ISBE
Defendants).

The Plaintiffs claim that the CPS and ISBE Defendants
systematically fail to provide CPS students with disabilities,
whose parents are Limited English Proficient (LEP), with a free
appropriate public education (FAPE) as required by federal law
because the CPS and ISBE Defendants do not provide translations of
documents or competent interpretation services for the LEP parents
during the individualized education program (IEP) process.
Specifically, in the first amended complaint (FAC), Plaintiffs
allege violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA) (count I against the CPS and ISBE Defendants and count
II against the ISBE Defendants); Title VI of the Civil Rights Acts
of 1964 (Title VI) (count III against the CPS and ISBE Defendants
and count IV against the ISBE Defendants); the Equal Educational
Opportunities Act (count V against the CPS and ISBE Defendants and
count VI against the ISBE Defendants, with both counts solely on
behalf of the Student Plaintiffs); and the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, (count VII against the CPS Defendants).

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

The CPS Defendants argue that because the Plaintiffs have not
properly exhausted their administrative remedies under the IDEA or,
for those who did, the administrative process mooted their claims,
the Court should dismiss all of Plaintiffs' claims against the CPS
Defendants.

The IDEA requires a plaintiff to first exhaust available
administrative remedies before filing suit under the statute. The
exhaustion requirement extends to claims under other statutes to
the extent those claims seek relief that is also available under
the IDEA.  

Only H.P., E.V., and their parents sought relief through the
administrative process prior to filing this suit. The hearing
officers in H.P. and E.V.'s cases determined that they did not have
jurisdiction under the IDEA to address CPS' failure to provide all
Spanish-speaking LEP parents with children with disabilities with
qualified interpreters and translation of documents or to grant
relief to all Spanish-speaking LEP parents with children with
disabilities.

However, both hearing officers did provide some individual relief
to H.P. and E.V. and their parents with respect to translation and
interpretation services. In H.P.'s case, the hearing officer
concluded that CPS denied H.P. a FAPE because it significantly
impeded his parents' opportunity to participate in the IEP process
by failing to provide trained and certified interpreters and
translations of vital documents. The hearing officer ordered that
CPS provide qualified interpretation services at all future IEP
meetings and translations of key special education documents to
H.P.'s parents. In E.V.'s case, the hearing officer did not find
that E.V. was denied a FAPE because CPS did not provide his parents
with translations and did not have competent interpreters, where
Aixia H. demonstrated sufficient understanding of her rights under
the IDEA and she meaningfully participated in IEP meetings. The
hearing officer did order CPS to provide translations of various
documents concerning special education but denied relief with
respect to interpretation services.

The CPS Defendants argue that the results of these proceedings have
rendered H.P., E.V., and their parents' claims moot. The Seventh
Circuit has questioned whether allegations of systemic violations
automatically exempt an IDEA claim from exhaustion requirements,
stating that while some IDEA violations may implicate the structure
of a school district's special-education program and may not be
remediable through ordinary administrative review, it does not
necessarily follow that administrative review is futile or
inadequate for all violations that are alleged to be systemic. But
the Court must determine whether Plaintiffs' claims qualify as
systemic violations before any such exception to exhaustion becomes
relevant.

The Plaintiffs allege that CPS has no policy or practice to ensure
that LEP parents receive competent interpretation or translation
services. They claim to seek systemic, not individual, relief,
specifically that CPS: (1) institute an express policy and
consistent practice of providing interpretation services by
impartial and competent interpreters at IEP meetings and written
translations of vital IEP process documents to LEP parents (2)
develop a protocol to identify LEP parents who may need translation
and interpretation services (3) "timely translate all vital IEP
process documents for LEP parents and (4) notify all LEP parents of
children with disabilities enrolled in CPS schools in writing in
their native language of their right to receive translated vital
IEP process documents and competent interpretation services.

The Plaintiffs cannot simply assert that their allegations are
systemic in order to survive the exhaustion requirement, and courts
have not excused claims that are merely couched as allegations of
systemic violations. The Plaintiffs' allegations of systemic
violations ignore the fact that, under the IDEA, CPS need only
provide translation and interpretation services to the extent
necessary to ensure meaningful parent participation. And under the
IDEA, meaningful participation does not proscribe a certain course
of conduct by a school district, but rather requires a
fact-intensive inquiry into the individual circumstances.

Even in this case, the FAC demonstrates the individualized nature
of the inquiry because the hearing officers in H.P. and E.V.'s
cases came to different conclusions when assessing the extent to
which the lack of interpretation and translation services affected
the parents' ability to meaningfully participate in the
decisionmaking process for their children. Plaintiffs contend that
because of the inconsistent results, they need systemic relief,
but, considering Plaintiffs' claims against the IDEA's
requirements, they require a case-by-case inquiry into how CPS'
policies or practices regarding translation and interpretation
services affect each student and his or her parents individually.


This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that, in H.P. and E.V.'s
cases, the hearing officers in the due process hearings addressed
their individual requests for relief related to translation and
interpretation services, suggesting that structural relief is not
the only solution to the alleged violations. And even systemic
relief, which the hearing officers determined they could not grant,
would only lead to individualized determinations related to each
parent's ability to meaningfully participate in the IEP
decision-making process.   

Therefore, the Court finds that the alleged systemic nature of
Plaintiffs' claims does not render exhaustion futile or
inadequate.

As for E.V. and his parents, the hearing officer determined that
the lack of translation and interpretation services did not deny
E.V. a FAPE and so did not provide them with all the relief they
seek here. This, then, allows E.V. to challenge the hearing
officer's decision concerning the provision of interpretation and
translation services. And because E.V. and his parents exhausted
their claims, the remaining Plaintiffs may also pursue their
similar claims without going through the administrative process.
Therefore, the Court proceeds to address the CPS Defendants'
remaining arguments for dismissal.

IDEA Claim

With respect to their IDEA claim, the Plaintiffs allege that,
because of CPS' refusal to translate vital IEP process documents
and to provide competent and impartial interpreters to LEP parents,
CPS denied the Student Plaintiffs a FAPE. The CPS Defendants first
argue that Plaintiffs have failed to state an actionable IDEA claim
because their allegations confirm that CPS' policies and practices
did not deny any of the Student Plaintiffs a FAPE or any of the
Parent Plaintiffs denied meaningful participation in the IEP
process.

Procedural flaws in the IEP process do not automatically rise to
the level of a denial of a FAPE. Procedural inadequacies in the IEP
process rise to the level of a FAPE denial where the procedural
inadequacies (1) impeded the student's right to a FAPE (2)
significantly impeded the parents' opportunity to participate in
the decisionmaking process regarding the provision of a FAPE to the
parents' child or (3) caused a deprivation of educational benefits.
The CPS Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' allegations demonstrate
that each parent meaningfully participated in the IEP process and
obtained substantive relief for their child through that
participation. But the Court cannot make this determination at the
motion to dismiss stage, where it must take Plaintiffs' allegations
as true and draw all reasonable inferences in their favor.

The Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that the Parent Plaintiffs
faced significant difficulties in their attempts to participate in
the IEP process because CPS did not provide translations of vital
documents or competent interpreters. The allegations do suggest
that many of the Parent Plaintiffs ultimately obtained
modifications to their children's IEPs, and the Court acknowledges
that delay in itself does not amount to a violation. But here,
Plaintiffs do not rely solely on the delay in receipt of services
to support a violation, and the allegations suggest that the lack
of translation and interpretation significantly impeded the Parent
Plaintiffs' participation in the IEP process and caused additional
harms to the Student Plaintiffs.

While the evidence may ultimately undermine the Plaintiffs' claim,
at this stage, the Court finds the Plaintiffs have sufficiently
stated an IDEA claim to proceed.

Title VI Claim

Finally, the Court considers Plaintiffs' Title VI claim, in which
they allege that the CPS Defendants have engaged in language-based,
and therefore national origin, discrimination prohibited by Title
VI by failing to translate vital IEP process documents and to
provide competent interpretation services for LEP parents of
children with disabilities. This failure, according to Plaintiffs,
has denied the Parent Plaintiffs the right to meaningfully
participate in the IEP process to the same extent as parents who
read and speak English proficiently. The parties agree that Title
VI provides a private cause of action only for intentional
discrimination and not for disparate impact. Although a failure to
comply with regulations promulgated under Section 602 may be
actionable to the extent that failure also amounts to a failure to
comply with Section 601, this requires intentional discrimination
because Section 601 only reaches intentional discrimination.  

The CPS Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs only allege a
disparate impact on the Parent Plaintiffs, with CPS' alleged
failure to provide translation and interpretation services
potentially disproportionately impacting parents whose country of
national origin does not speak English as a native language.
Plaintiffs, on the other hand, contend that they have alleged
intentional discrimination, specifically that CPS knows of the
Parent Plaintiffs' need for competent interpretation and
translation services but nonetheless intentionally and
systematically fails to provide these services. They provide
specific instances where CPS has denied requests for such services.


According to the Plaintiffs, these actions, done with knowledge of
the LEP parents' need for services, deny the Parent Plaintiffs the
ability to meaningfully participate in the LEP process. At this
stage, this is all Plaintiffs must allege to suggest intentional
discrimination. To the extent discovery reveals that Plaintiffs'
Title VI claim amounts only to one for disparate impact, or that
language-based discrimination should not be considered a proxy for
protected national origin discrimination, the CPS Defendants can
make these arguments to the Court based on a more complete record.

The Court grants in part and denies in part the CPS Defendants'
motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 13, 2019 Opinion and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6gvnwzb from
Leagle.com.

H. P., E. V., G. G., R. L., J. B., J. M., O. L., M. P., by their
parents and next friends, Victoria G., Hector P., Aixia H., Carlos
V., Asencion G., Mireya L., Miriam B., Rosalba C., Xi Long L. &
Izabela P., for themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Donna M. Welch --
donna.welch@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Olga Frances
Pribyl, Equip for Equality, 20 N Michigan Ave Ste 300, Chicago, IL,
60602-4861, Alec Jason Solotorovsky, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, 300
North LaSalle Street  Chicago, Illinois 60654, Barry Charlton
Taylor, Equip for Equality, 20 N Michigan Ave Ste 300, Chicago, IL,
60602-4861, Luke Christian Ruse -- luke.ruse@kirkland.com --
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Margaret Mcauslan Wakelin, Equip For
Equality, Margo L. Weinstein, Equip For Equality, 20 N Michigan Ave
Ste 300, Chicago, IL, 60602-4861 &Rachael Jordan Morgan, Kirkland &
Ellis LLP, pro hac vice.

Board Of Education Of The City Of Chicago & Janice Jackson, Dr.,
Chief Executive Officer, in her official capacity, Defendants,
represented by Michael A. Warner, Jr. -- maw@franczek.com --
Franczek Radelet PC, Jennifer Ann Smith -- jas@franczek.com --
Franczek Radelet PC & Nicole Beth Bazer -- nbb@franczek.com --
Franczek Radelet P.C.

Illinois State Board Of Education & Tony Smith, Dr. State
Superintendent of Education, in his official capacity, Defendants,
represented by Thomas A. Ioppolo, Illinois Attorney General's
Office, Michael A. Warner, Jr., Franczek Radelet PC & Sarah Hughes
Newman, Illinois Attorney General.


CIGNA CORP: Amara Plaintiffs Challenge Calculation of Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cigna Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019, that plaintiffs are challenging certain aspects of
the methodology used to calculate and pay benefits related to the
"Amara" cash balance pension plan litigation.

In December 2001, Janice Amara filed a class action lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against Cigna
Corporation (now Old Cigna) and the Cigna Pension Plan on behalf of
herself and other similarly situated Plan participants affected by
the 1998 conversion to a cash balance formula.  The plaintiffs
allege various violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), including that the Plan's cash
balance formula discriminates against older employees; that the
conversion resulted in a wear-away period (when the pre-conversion
accrued benefit exceeded the post-conversion benefit); and that the
Plan communications contained inaccurate or inadequate disclosures
about these conditions.

In 2008, the District Court (1) affirmed the Company's right to
convert to a cash balance plan prospectively beginning in 1998; (2)
found for plaintiffs on the disclosure claim only; and (3) required
the Company to pay pre-1998 benefits under the pre-conversion
traditional annuity formula and post-1997 benefits under the
post-conversion cash balance formula.  From 2008 through 2015, this
case has undergone a series of court proceedings that resulted in
the original District Court Order being largely upheld.  In 2015,
the Company submitted to the District Court its proposed method for
calculating the additional pension benefits due to class members
and plaintiffs responded in August 2015.

Since then, there has been continued litigation regarding the
calculation of benefits, attorneys' fees, and the administration of
the remedy payments.  On November 29, 2018, the Court ordered the
Pension Plan to pay attorneys' and incentive fees of US$32 million,
and to pay any past due lump sums and back benefits within 90 days
of the Order.  The attorneys' fees were paid as ordered in December
2018.  In the first quarter of 2019, the Company amended the Plan,
notified class participants of their increased benefits and
commenced remedy benefit payments out of the Plan, including the
past due lump sums and back benefits.

In April 2019, plaintiffs challenged certain aspects of the
methodology used to calculate and pay benefits.  The Company and
the Plan are vigorously opposing plaintiffs' motion.

Cigna Corporation, a health services organization, provides
insurance and related products and services in the United States
and internationally. It operates through Global Health Care, Global
Supplemental Benefits, Group Disability and Life, and Other
Operations segments. Cigna Corporation was founded in 1792 and is
headquartered in Bloomfield, Connecticut.


CIGNA CORP: Aug. 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------
In re Cigna-American Specialty Health Administrative Fee Litigation

Case No. 2:16-cv-03967-NIQA (E.D. Pa.)

LEGAL NOTICE

A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit on behalf
of patients who received chiropractic, physical therapy,
acupuncture, naturopathy, occupational therapy, and/or massage
therapy services and were charged an allegedly improper
administrative fee. The Settlement Class includes: Any Plan Member
whose Plan benefits and/or cost share under a Plan were determined
based on ASH's charges to Cigna through the Final Approval Date for
the following types of services: chiropractic, acupuncture, massage
therapy, naturopathy, physical therapy, or occupational therapy.

What does the Settlement provide? A Settlement totaling
approximately $8.25 million has been reached with Cigna Corp.
("Cigna"), American Specialty Health Group, Inc. ("ASH"), and each
of their subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, employees,
and agents (collectively known as "Defendants"). You do not need to
do anything to receive a payment from the Settlement. Each
Settlement Class Member will automatically receive a pro rata
payment from the Net Settlement Fund for every instance that a
Settlement Class Member paid co-insurance or deductible amounts for
an approved health benefit claim for services from an ASH
contracted provider based on ASH's charges to Cigna, rather than
the ASH contracted provider's charges to ASH. At this time, it is
unknown exactly how much each Settlement Class Member will
receive.

How Can I Get a Payment? You do not need to do anything to receive
a payment from the Settlement.
Inclusion is automatic and you will be included, unless you
specifically request to exclude yourself from the Settlement. Class
members were mailed notice postcards on May 6, 2019. Settlement
checks will be mailed to the same address utilized for the postcard
notice.

What are my rights? If you remain a Settlement Class Member, you
will give up your right to sue the Defendants on your own for the
claims described in the Settlement Agreement. You will also be
bound by any decisions by the Court relating to the Settlement. The
Defendants will be released from claims stemming from the alleged
conduct concerning administrative fees charged to Plan Members and
Plans identified in the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement
Agreement describes the released claims in further detail. Requests
for exclusion from the Settlement Class must be submitted to the
Settlement Administrator by July 10, 2019. If you stay in the
Settlement Class, you may object in writing to the Settlement by
July 10, 2019. The Settlement Agreement, along with details on how
to exclude yourself or object, are available at
www.AdminFeeSettlement.com.

When is the Final Fairness Hearing?  The Court will hold a Final
Fairness Hearing at 1:00 p.m. on August 9, 2019, at the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia Office, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106. At
this hearing, the Court will consider whether the Settlement is
fair, reasonable, and adequate. If there are objections or
comments, the Court will consider them at that time and may listen
to people who have asked to speak at the hearing. The Court may
also decide how much to pay Lead Counsel and whether to reimburse
Lead Counsel for certain costs, and whether to pay Service Awards
to the Lead Plaintiffs. At or after the hearing, the Court will
decide whether to approve the Settlement.

This Notice summarizes the proposed Settlement. For the precise
terms and conditions of the Settlement, please see the Long Form
Notice and the Settlement Agreement available at
www.AdminFeeSettlement.com. For more information on the Settlement,
please contact the Settlement Administrator at 888-206-2123.

QUESTIONS? VISIT WWW.ADMINFEESETTLEMENT.COM OR CALL
1-888-206-2123.


CMRE FINANCIAL: Gentile Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CMRE Financial
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Ronald D Gentile individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CMRE
Financial Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 9:19-cv-80668-XXXX
(S.D. Fla., May 20, 2019).

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

CMRE Financial Services, Inc. provides accounts receivables
management services to healthcare organizations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COFIROUTE USA: Faces Chavez Suit over Damages of Personal Property
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Cofiroute USA, LLC
for personal property damages. The case is captioned, Daniel Chavez
v. Cofiroute USA, LLC, Case No. 8:19-cv-00779-RGK-AFM (C.D. Cal.,
April 29, 2019). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge R. Gary
Klausner.

Based in Irvine, California, Cofiroute USA is a tolling and express
lanes operator specializing in the design, integration, management
and maintenance of express lane systems. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and –

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


COGNIZANT TECH: June 10 Deadline to Respond to Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation and other defendants
have until June 10, 2019, to respond to the second amended
complaint in a consolidated securities class action pending in New
Jersey, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019.

The Company said, "In 2016, three putative securities class action
complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, naming us and certain of our current and
former officers as defendants.  These complaints were consolidated
into a single action and on April 7, 2017, the lead plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended complaint on behalf of a putative
class of persons and entities who purchased our common stock during
the period between February 27, 2015 and September 29, 2016, naming
us and certain of our current and former officers as defendants and
alleging violations of the Exchange Act, based on allegedly false
or misleading statements related to potential violations of the
FCPA, our business, prospects and operations, and the effectiveness
of our internal controls over financial reporting and our
disclosure controls and procedures.  The lead plaintiffs seek an
award of compensatory damages, among other relief, and their
reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees.

"Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on June 6, 2017.  On August 8, 2018, the Court issued an
order which granted the motion to dismiss in part, including
dismissal of all claims against current officers of the Company,
and denied them in part.

"On September 7, 2018, we filed a motion in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey to certify the August
8, 2018 order for immediate appeal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1292(b).  On October 18, 2018, the District Court issued an order
granting our motion, and staying the action pending the outcome of
our appeal petition to the Third Circuit.

"On October 29, 2018, we filed a petition for permission to appeal
with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  On
March 6, 2019, the Third Circuit denied our petition without
prejudice."

In an order dated March 19, 2019, the District Court directed the
lead plaintiffs to provide the defendants with a proposed amended
complaint.  On April 26, 2019, lead plaintiffs filed their second
amended complaint and the defendants must file a motion to dismiss
the complaint on or before June 10, 2019.

Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp. provides information
technology consulting and technology services in North America,
Europe, and Asia. The company was founded in 1994 and is based in
Teaneck, New Jersey.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Nevarez et al. Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, SILVERIO NEVAREZ, individually, EFREN CORREA, and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, and DOES 1 through 25,
Defendants, Case No. 19STCV10017 (Filed on March 25, 2019), was
transferred from the Superior Court of California for the County of
Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on April 26, 2019. The removal was based on
the grounds that the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds
$5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs and that there is an
existing minimal diversity. The United States District Court for
the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03454
to the proceeding.

In this complaint, Plaintiff Silverio Nevarez and Efren Correa
assert six causes of action: failure to pay overtime wages due;
failure to provide itemized wage statement to employees; failure to
pay upon termination or quitting employee; failure to pay minimum
wages; unfair business practice; and claim for a civil penalty.

Costco is incorporated under the laws of the state of Washington,
with its principal place of business in Washington and with its
headquarters in Issaquah, Washington. The company operates a chain
of membership-only warehouse clubs that sells electronics,
computers, furniture, outdoor living, appliances, jewelry and more.
[BN]

Attorneys for Defendant:

     David D. Kadue, Esq.
     David D. Jacobson, Esq.
     Jinouth D. Vasquez Santos, 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: dkadue@seyfarth.com
             djacobson@seyfarth.com
             jvasquezsantos@seyfarth.com


CP OPCO: Court OKs $3MM Settlement in D. McDonald Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiff's unopposed motions
for final approval of class action settlement in the case captioned
DAVID McDONALD, Plaintiff, v. CP OPCO, LLC, et al., Defendants.
Case No. 17-cv-04915-HSG. (N.D. Cal.).

Currently before the Court are Plaintiff David McDonald's unopposed
motions for final approval of class action settlement.

The Plaintiff alleged that he worked as a full-time employee at
Classic's location in Burlingame, California, along with
approximately 135 other full-time employees. The Plaintiff had
worked for Classic for approximately 18 months when Bright Event
Rentals, LLC (Bright) acquired Classic.

Prior to the transaction, the Plaintiff received assurances that
his job was not at risk, despite the possible sale of the business.
Classic's general manager for the Burlingame location announced to
the staff members who were physically present that they were
terminated. Employees who were not physically present learned of
their termination when they came to work.

Settlement Fund: $3 million, non-reversionary, funded by Insperity
and the Apollo Defendants, with $2.06 million available for class
member settlement payments. Counsel estimates that the average
individual settlement payment will be $1,983.

The Settlement

The claims, issues, or defenses of a certified class may be settled
only with the court's approval. The Court may finally approve a
class settlement only after a hearing and on finding that it is
fair, reasonable, and adequate. To assess whether a proposed
settlement comports with Rule 23(e), courts should consider the
following factors: the strength of the plaintiff's case; the risk,
expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; the
risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial; the
amount offered in settlement; the extent of discovery completed and
the stage of the proceedings; the experience and views of counsel;
the presence of a governmental participant; and the reaction of the
class members to the proposed settlement.

Adequacy of Class Notice

The Court finds that the notice plan previously approved by the
Court was implemented and complies with Rule 23(c)(2)(B). The
settlement administrator mailed the class notice to putative class
members, attempted to find updated addresses for class members
whose notices were returned undelivered, and re-mailed those
notices. Only nine of the 1,039 notices were ultimately deemed
undeliverable. The administrator also established a website and
toll-free number for putative class members who had questions about
the settlement.  The administrator received one request for
exclusion and no objections. In light of these facts, the Court
finds that the parties have sufficiently provided the best
practicable notice to the class members.

Fairness, Adequacy, and Reasonableness of Settlement

Having found the notice procedures adequate under Rule 23(e), the
Court next considers whether the entire settlement comports with
Rule 23(e).

Strength of Plaintiff's Case; Risk, Expense, Complexity, and Likely
Duration of Continued Litigation; and Risks of Maintaining Class
Action Status

This case settled before the Court had an opportunity to consider
the merits of the claims, including before the Court ruled on
Insperity's motion for judgment on the pleadings. However,
continuing to litigate this case would have posed substantial risks
for Plaintiff and generated significant costs. For example,
Plaintiff would have needed to continue discovery into the
relationship between the various entities named as Defendants and
Defendants would have continued to litigate whether they could be
held liable for Classic's alleged WARN Act violations.  

Eventually, Plaintiff would have needed to move for class
certification and summary judgment, as well as potentially proceed
to trial, and Defendants might have moved for summary judgment.
This additional litigation would have, in the best-case scenario,
been expensive and time-consuming and in the worst-case scenario,
could have led to Plaintiff and the class going home empty-handed.


Accordingly, these factors support approving the settlement.

Settlement Amount

The settlement amount also weighs in favor of approval. Defendants
will make a non-reversionary settlement payment of $3,000,000 and
individual class members stand to recover an average of nearly
$2,000.  Given that WARN Act damages are limited to 60 days' worth
of back pay, this is a significant recovery for the class members,
who, as class counsel points out, earned approximately $10 to $30
per hour when they were employed by Classic. As the Court
previously noted, the settlement represents approximately 37.5% of
the Defendants' maximum possible exposure. In addition, because
class members are not required to submit claims and uncashed checks
will be redistributed to class members, settlement dollars will
reach the class members in a timely and efficient manner. Further,
if less than $30,000 remains in the fund after the initial
distribution, the residual will be donated to Legal Aid at Work,
which the Court finds to be an appropriate cy pres recipient.  

Therefore, the settlement amount supports approval.

Extent of Discovery Completed and Stage of Proceedings

This factor evaluates whether class counsel had sufficient
information to make an informed decision about the merits of the
case. Class counsel has engaged in significant discovery, including
obtaining and reviewing thousands of pages of documents relating to
the structure of the various entities, the sale of Classic's
California locations, and payroll records. The Court finds that the
parties have received, examined, and analyzed information,
documents, and materials that sufficiently enabled them to assess
the likelihood of success on the merits and the extent of the
potential damages.

Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of approval.

Experience and Views of Counsel

The Court next considers the experience and views of counsel, and
it finds that this factor also weighs in favor of approval. Parties
represented by competent counsel are better positioned than courts
to produce a settlement that fairly reflects each party's expected
outcome in litigation. Accordingly, the recommendations of
plaintiffs' counsel should be given a presumption of
reasonableness. The Court has previously evaluated class counsel's
qualifications and experience and concluded that counsel is
qualified to represent the class's interests in this action given
their extensive experience litigating class actions. The Court
recognizes, however, that courts have diverged on the weight to
assign counsel's opinions. This factor's impact is therefore modest
but favors approval.

Reaction of Class Members

The reaction of class members supports final approval. The absence
of a large number of objections to a proposed class action
settlement raises a strong presumption that the terms of a proposed
class settlement action are favorable to the class members.

Class notice advising each class member of the requirements
regarding objections and exclusions was served in accordance with
the methods approved by the Court. Of the 1,039 class members, only
one opted out and none submitted an objection. Further, at the May
9 final fairness hearing, no putative class member voiced an
objection. The Court finds that the nearly unanimous positive
reception of the settlement by class members favors approval.  

After considering and weighing all of the above factors, the Court
finds that the settlement agreement is fair, adequate, and
reasonable, and that the settlement class members received adequate
notice. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for final approval of class
action settlement is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 13, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y299mqlg from Leagle.com.

David McDonald, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Eileen B. Goldsmith --
egoldsmith@altshulerberzon.com -- Alshuler Berzon LLP, James M.
Finberg -- jfinberg@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP,
John T. Mullan -- jtm@rezlaw.com -- Rudy Exelrod Zieff & Lowe,
L.L.P., Chaya M. Mandelbaum -- cmm@rezlaw.com -- Rudy Exelrod Zieff
& Lowe, L.L.P., Meghan F. Loisel -- mfl@rezlaw.com -- Rudy Exelrod
Zieff & Lowe L.L.P., Meredith Anne Johnson --
mjohnson@altshulerberzon.com -Altshuler Berzon LLP & Michelle G.
Lee -- mfl@rezlaw.com -- Rudy Exelrod Zieff & Lowe, LLP.

Insperity PEO Services, L.P., Defendant, represented by Christopher
M. Ahearn -- cahearn@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher & Phillips LLP,
Lauren Stockunas -- lstockunas@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher and
Phillips LLP & Mark Jarrod Jacobs -- mjacobs@fisherphillips.com --
Fisher & Phillips LLP.

Apollo Global Management, LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew J.
Ehrlich --
aehrlich@paulweiss.com-  Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP,
pro hac vice, Gregory F. Laufer -- glaufer@paulweiss.com -- Paul
Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, pro hac vice, Michelle Carrie
Doolin -- mdoolin@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP & Summer Jerre Wynn --
swynn@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP.

Apollo Centre Street Partnership, L.P., Apollo Franklin
Partnership, L.P., Apollo Credit Opportunity Fund III AIV I, L.P.,
Apollo SK Strategic Investments, L.P., Apollo Special Opportunities
Managed Account, L.P. & Apollo Zeus Strategic Investments, L.P.,
Defendants, represented by Andrew J. Ehrlich, Paul Weiss Rifkind
Wharton & Garrison LLP, Gregory F. Laufer, Paul Weiss Rifkind
Wharton & Garrison LLP, Michelle Carrie Doolin, Cooley LLP & Summer
Jerre Wynn, Cooley LLP.


DASCO HOME MEDICAL: Perry Seeks OT Pay
--------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
Dasco Home Medical Equipment, Inc. for violations of the Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and Fair Labor Standards Act. The
case is captioned NOEL PERRY, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DASCO HOME MEDICAL EQUIPMENT,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01921-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, May 10,
2019).

Plaintiff Noel Perry was employed by Defendant as a non-exempt,
hourly delivery technician, delivering medical equipment to
Defendant's customers in Ohio. Within the three years prior to the
filing of this complaint, Defendant paid Plaintiff a
non-discretionary on call payment of $100 per pay period. The on
call payment was remuneration for employment that Defendant paid to
Plaintiff. In the past three years, Plaintiff frequently worked in
excess of 40 hours in one or more workweeks. However, Defendant
failed to include the on call payment in Plaintiff's regular rate
of pay for purposes of computing the overtime pay due to Plaintiff.
By failing to include the on call payment when calculating
Plaintiff's regular rate, Defendant underpaid Plaintiff overtime.
Non-exempt hourly employees of Defendant similarly situated to
Plaintiff likewise received on call payments, which were not
included in their regular rates of pay. This resulted in such
similarly situated non-exempt hourly employees being underpaid
overtime in violation of the FLSA and Ohio law.

Dasco Home Medical Equipment, Inc. is an Ohio corporation with its
principal place of business in Franklin County at 375 N. West St.,
Westerville, Ohio. The company operates in Ohio, West Virginia,
Indiana, and Kentucky. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and –

     Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq.
     614 West Superior Avenue, Suite 1148
     Cleveland, Ohio 44113
     Telephone: (216) 230-2955
     Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
     E-mail: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com

             - and –

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


DISH NETWORK: Subsidiary Still Defends Krakauer Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
DISH Network Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019, that wholly-owned subsidiary Dish Network
L.L.C. remains a defendant in the Krakauer litigation.

A portion of the alleged telemarketing violations by an independent
third-party retailer at issue in the FTC Action are also the
subject of a certified class action filed against DISH Network
L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of North Carolina (the "Krakauer Action").

Following a five-day trial, on January 19, 2017, a jury in that
case found that the independent third-party retailer was acting as
DISH Network L.L.C.'s agent when it made the 51,119 calls at issue
in that case, and that class members are eligible to recover US$400
in damages for each call made in violation of the TCPA.  On March
7, 2017, DISH Network L.L.C. filed motions with the Court for
judgment as a matter of law and, in the alternative, for a new
trial, which the Court denied on May 16, 2017.

On May 22, 2017, the Court ruled that the violations were willful
and knowing, and trebled the damages award to US$1,200 for each
call made in violation of TCPA.  On April 5, 2018, the Court
entered a US$61 million judgment in favor of the class.  On May 4,
2018, DISH Network L.L.C. filed a notice of appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

The appeal was calendared for oral argument on May 9, 2019 in
Richmond.

During the second quarter 2017, the Company recorded US$41 million
of "Litigation expense" related to the Krakauer Action on its
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive
Income (Loss).  The Company recorded US$20 million of "Litigation
expense" related to the Krakauer Action during the fourth quarter
2016.  The Company's total accrual related to the Krakauer Action
at March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018 was US$61 million and is
included in "Other accrued expenses" on its Condensed Consolidated
Balance Sheets.

DISH Network Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides
pay-TV services in the United States. The company operates in two
segments, Pay-TV and Wireless. DISH Network Corporation was founded
in 1980 and is headquartered in Englewood, Colorado.


DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Bid to Drop Suit in Arkansas Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc.'s request to dismiss the
amended complaint in a purported class action complaint filed in
the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas, remains pending,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the Quarterly Period Ended
March 31, 2019.  The Company has asserted that it was prejudiced by
plaintiff's long delay in filing the amended complaint.

In January 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas, against the Company
and certain of its subsidiaries and Garland Nursing &
Rehabilitation Center (the "Center").  The Company answered the
original complaint in 2009, and there was no other activity in the
case until May 2017.  At that time, plaintiff filed an amended
complaint asserting new causes of action.  The amended complaint
alleges that the defendants breached their statutory and
contractual obligations to the patients of the Center over a
multi-year period by failing to meet minimum staffing requirements,
failing to otherwise adequately staff the Center and failing to
provide a clean and safe living environment in the Center.

The Company filed an answer to the amended complaint denying
plaintiffs' allegations and asked the Court to dismiss the new
causes of action asserted in the amended complaint because the
Company was prejudiced by plaintiff's long delay in filing the
amended complaint.  The Court has not yet ruled on the motion to
dismiss, so the lawsuit remains in its early stages and has not yet
been certified by the court as a class action.  The Company intends
to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. provides post-acute care
services to skilled nursing center, patients, and residents
primarily in the Southeast, Midwest, and Southwest United States.
Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is
based in Brentwood, Tennessee.


DT HOPITALITY: Denied Nuno, Marquez, Overtime Pay, Paystubs
-----------------------------------------------------------
Patricio Nuno Carrera and Geraldo Marquez, on behalf of themselves,
individually, and all similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v.
DT Hopitality Group Inc., Co Ba Restaurant and Kien Truong,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-04235, (S.D. N.Y., May 9, 2019) seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations;
unpaid minimum wages; spread of hours compensation under New York
Labor Law; and redress for failure to furnish accurate wage
statements for each pay period and failure to issue timely payment
of wages.

Defendants operate a Vietnamese restaurant, located at 110 9th
Avenue, New York, New York 10011. Nuno and Marquez worked for DT as
delivery personnel. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David D. Barnhorn, Esq.
      Peter A. Romero, Esq
      LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
      825 Veterans Highway, Suite B
      Hauppauge, NY 11788
      Tel: (631) 257-5588


DYNAMIC RECOVERY SOLUTIONS: Vaughn Sues over Deceptive Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Dynamic Recovery
Solutions, LLC for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act. The case is captioned Shontia R. Vaughn, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Dynamic
Recovery Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02761
(E.D.N.Y., May 10, 2019). Plaintiff Shontia R. Vaughn alleges that
the Defendant did not accurately convey, from the perspective of
the least sophisticated consumer, the actual amount of the alleged
Debt he owed as required by 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a)(1). She also
asserts that the Defendant used false, deceptive, or misleading
representation or means in connection with the collection of any
debt. The collection letter allegedly named Jefferson Capital
Systems, LLC as the creditor but Plaintiff claimed that she did not
owe the alleged Debt to this company.

Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, is a South Carolina Limited
Liability Company with a principal place of business in Greenville
County, South Carolina. The company is engaged in debt collection
business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Sanchez Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
JOANNE SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. DYNAMIC RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC, and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-at-00318
(E.D. Cal., May 2, 2019), seeks to recover damages, injunctive
relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies,
resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant in negligently,
knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff's cellular
telephone, pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

In addition to Plaintiff's Class Claims, Plaintiff also brings an
action for damages as an individual consumer for Defendant's
violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and
the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which prohibit
debt collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive, and unfair
practices.

Beginning in or around May of 2018, the Defendant contacted
Plaintiff on her cellular telephone number ending in -6963 in an
effort to collect an alleged debt owed from Plaintiff. The
Defendant called Plaintiff from telephone numbers confirmed to
belong to Defendant, including without limitation (559) 795-5018
and (559) 795-5119.

According to the complaint, all calls and voicemails were made by
Defendant in connection with collection on an alleged debt.
Further, the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -6963
was added to the National Do-Not-Call Registry on or about August
30, 2013. The Plaintiff requested for Defendant to stop calling
Plaintiff during one of the initial calls from Defendant, thus
revoking any prior express consent that had existed and terminating
any established business relationship that had existed, as defined
under 16 C.F.R. 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(B). Further, Plaintiff informed
Defendant that she was not the person who allegedly owed the debt.

The Defendant is debt collection company.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

E & M FOOD MARKET: Valdez Moronta Seeks Overtime, Minimum Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
E & M Food Market Corp. (d/b/a Key Food) and Miguel Martinez for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law. The case is captioned LEANDRO VALDEZ MORONTA, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, -against- E & M
FOOD MARKET CORP. (D/B/A KEY FOOD) and MIGUEL MARTINEZ, Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-04289 (S.D.N.Y., May 10, 2019). Plaintiff Leandro
Valdez Moronta alleges that he used to work for the Defendants in
excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and
overtime compensation for the hours that he worked. He also asserts
that the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of
the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff Valdez appropriately
for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium.

E & M Food Market Corp owns, operates, or controls a supermarket,
located at 760 Melrose Avenue, Bronx, New York 10451 under the name
"Key Food". [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EARTHSTONE ENERGY: Delaware High Court Narrows Olenik Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Earthstone Energy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the Quarterly Period
Ended March 31, 2019, that in the case styled, Olenik v. Lodzinksi
et al., the Delaware Supreme Court has affirmed the Delaware Court
of Chancery's dismissal of the proxy disclosure claims but reversed
the Delaware Court of Chancery's dismissal of the other claims,
holding that the allegations with respect to those claims were
sufficient for pleading purposes.

On June 2, 2017, Nicholas Olenik filed a purported shareholder
class and derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery
against Earthstone's Chief Executive Officer, along with other
members of the Board, EnCap Investments L.P. ("EnCap"), Bold, Bold
Energy Holdings, LLC ("Bold Holdings") and OVR.

The complaint alleges that Earthstone's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the contribution dated as of
November 7, 2016 and as amended on March 21, 2017 (the "Bold
Contribution Agreement"), by and among Earthstone, EEH, Lynden US,
Lynden USA Operating, LLC, Bold Holdings and Bold.  The Plaintiff
asserts that the directors negotiated the Bold Transaction to
benefit EnCap and its affiliates, failed to obtain adequate
consideration for the Earthstone shareholders who were not
affiliated with EnCap or Earthstone management, did not follow an
adequate process in negotiating and approving the Bold Transaction
and made materially misleading or incomplete proxy disclosures in
connection with the Bold Transaction.

The suit seeks unspecified damages and purports to assert claims
derivatively on behalf of Earthstone and as a class action on
behalf of all persons who held Common Stock up to March 13, 2017,
excluding defendants and their affiliates.

On July 20, 2018, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss and entered an order dismissing the
action in its entirety with prejudice.  The Plaintiff filed an
appeal with the Delaware Supreme Court.

On February 6, 2019, the Delaware Supreme Court heard oral
arguments from the Plaintiff and Defendants' counsel.

On April 5, 2019, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Delaware
Court of Chancery's dismissal of the proxy disclosure claims but
reversed the Delaware Court of Chancery's dismissal of the other
claims, holding that the allegations with respect to those claims
were sufficient for pleading purposes.

The Company said, "Earthstone and each of the other defendants
believe the claims are entirely without merit and intend to mount a
vigorous defense.  The ultimate outcome of this suit is uncertain,
and while Earthstone is confident in its position, any potential
monetary recovery or loss to Earthstone cannot be estimated at this
time."

Earthstone Energy, Inc., an independent energy company, engages in
the development and operation of oil and gas properties in the
United States. Earthstone Energy, Inc. was founded in 1969 and is
headquartered in The Woodlands, Texas.


EASTERN COMMONWEALTH: Bragiforte Seeks OT Pay for Movers
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Eastern
Commonwealth Moving & Storage, Inc. for violations of the
Massachusetts General Laws and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The
case is captioned DOMENIC BRANGIFORTE, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EASTERN COMMONWEALTH
MOVING & STORAGE, INC. AND JOSEPH PORTER, Defendants, Case No.
19-1343H (Mass. Cmmw., April 26, 2019). Plaintiff Domenic
Brangiforte brings this action on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated hourly-paid employees who worked for Defendants
as movers and were not paid required overtime pay within the
relevant limitations periods.

Eastern Commonwealth Moving & Storage, Inc. is a Massachusetts
corporation with a regular place of business in Everett,
Massachusetts. The company provides eviction services, such as
moving and storage of personal and household belongings. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Howard M. Brown, Esq.
     Boston Employment Law PC
     1170 Beacon Street, Suite 200
     Brookline, MA 02446
     Telephone: (617) 566-8090
     Facsimile: (617) 566-8091
     E-mail: hmb@bostonemploymentlaw.com


ELI LILLY: 9th Cir. Appeal in Strafford Class Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeal from a decision in the case, Strafford et
al. v. Eli Lilly and Company, remains pending, according to Eli
Lilly and Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2019.

The Company was named as a defendant in a purported class-action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (now called Strafford et al. v. Eli Lilly and Company)
involving Cymbalta.  The plaintiffs, purporting to represent a
class of all persons within the U.S. who purchased and/or paid for
Cymbalta, asserted claims under the consumer protection statutes of
California, Massachusetts, Missouri, and New York, and sought
declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief for various alleged
economic injuries arising from discontinuing treatment with
Cymbalta.

The district court denied the plaintiffs' motions for class
certification and dismissed the suits.  The plaintiffs subsequently
appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  In
November 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
dismissed the suit.

In July 2018, the U.S. District Court for the District of
California denied plaintiffs' motion to reopen the case.
Plaintiffs' appeal of this denial is currently pending before the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Eli Lilly and Company discovers, develops, manufactures, and
markets pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company operates in
two segments, Human Pharmaceutical Products and Animal Health
Products. Eli Lilly and Company was founded in 1876 and is
headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.


ELI LILLY: MMO to Appeal Dismissal of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2019, that Medical Mutual of Ohio (MMO) has filed a Notice of
Appeal from the dismissal of its lawsuit against the Company and
other multiple manufacturers of testosterone products.

The Company said, "We are named as a defendant in approximately 480
Axiron personal injury/product liability lawsuits in the U.S.
involving approximately 480 plaintiffs.  In about one-third of the
cases, other manufacturers of testosterone are named as
co-defendants.  Nearly all of these lawsuits have been consolidated
in a federal multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois.  A small number of lawsuits
have been filed in state courts.

"The cases generally allege cardiovascular and related injuries.
We have reached agreement on a settlement framework that provides
for a comprehensive resolution of nearly all of these personal
injury claims alleging cardiovascular and related injuries from
Axiron treatment.  There can be no assurances, however, that a
final settlement will be reached.

"We have also been engaged in litigation with Medical Mutual of
Ohio ("MMO"), which filed a class action complaint against multiple
manufacturers of testosterone products, including us, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of
third-party payers who paid for those products and is seeking
damages under the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.  MMO's motion for class certification was
denied, and in February 2019, the District Court granted summary
judgment in favor of defendants, dismissing MMO's lawsuit with
prejudice.  MMO has filed a Notice of Appeal from this dismissal
order.

"We continue to believe all of these lawsuits are without merit and
are defending against them vigorously."

Eli Lilly and Company discovers, develops, manufactures, and
markets pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company operates in
two segments, Human Pharmaceutical Products and Animal Health
Products. Eli Lilly and Company was founded in 1876 and is
headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.


ELI LILLY: Plaintiff Voluntarily Drops Glucagon Pricing Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2019, that in April 2019, the plaintiff seeking class action
status in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey relating to
glucagon pricing have voluntarily dismissed the case without
prejudice.

The Company, along with Novo Nordisk and various pharmacy benefit
managers, were named as defendants in a lawsuit seeking class
action status in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey relating to
glucagon pricing.

The lawsuit sought damages under various state consumer protection
laws, the federal RICO Act, the Sherman Act, and other state and
federal laws.

Eli Lilly and Company discovers, develops, manufactures, and
markets pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company operates in
two segments, Human Pharmaceutical Products and Animal Health
Products. Eli Lilly and Company was founded in 1876 and is
headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.


ELI LILLY: Plaintiffs Amend Complaint in Insulin Pricing Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the consolidated purported class action lawsuit styled, In re.
Insulin Pricing Litigation, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint in March 2019, according to Eli Lilly and Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2019.

The Company, along with Sanofi and Novo Nordisk, are named as
defendants in a consolidated purported class action lawsuit, In re.
Insulin Pricing Litigation, in the U.S. District Court of New
Jersey relating to insulin pricing.  Plaintiffs seek damages under
various state consumer protection laws and the Federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (federal RICO Act).  In
February 2019, the court dismissed without prejudice the federal
RICO Act claim as well as certain state consumer protection claims.
Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in March 2019.

Separately, the Company, along with Sanofi and Novo Nordisk, are
named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit, MSP
Recovery Claims, Series, LLC et al. v. Sanofi Aventis U.S. LLC et
al., in the same court, seeking damages under various state
consumer protection laws, common law fraud, unjust enrichment, and
the federal RICO Act.  In March 2019, the court dismissed, without
prejudice, the plaintiffs' federal RICO Act, unjust enrichment, and
certain state consumer protection law claims.

Finally, the Minnesota Attorney General's Office filed a complaint
against the Company, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk, State of Minnesota
v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC et al., in the U.S. District Court of
New Jersey, alleging unjust enrichment, and violations of various
Minnesota state consumer protection laws and the federal RICO Act.

The Company said, "We believe all of these claims are without merit
and are defending against them vigorously."

Eli Lilly and Company discovers, develops, manufactures, and
markets pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company operates in
two segments, Human Pharmaceutical Products and Animal Health
Products. Eli Lilly and Company was founded in 1876 and is
headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.


ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Still Awaits Court OK on McGee Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Endurance International Group Holdings, 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 in the case, William
McGee v. Constant Contact, Inc., et al., the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts has not yet ruled on the
plaintiffs' unopposed motion seeking preliminary approval of a
proposed settlement, certification of the proposed settlement class
for settlement purposes only, and approval of notice to the
settlement class.

On August 7, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit, William McGee
v. Constant Contact, Inc., et al, was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Constant
Contact and two of its former officers.  An amended complaint,
which named an additional former officer as a defendant, was filed
December 19, 2016.

The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and is premised on allegedly false and/or misleading
statements, and non-disclosure of material facts, regarding
Constant Contact's business, operations, prospects and performance
during the proposed class period of October 23, 2014 to July 23,
2015.

The parties mediated the claims on March 27, 2018, and as a result
of that mediation reached an agreement in principle with the lead
plaintiff to settle the action.

The parties then negotiated the terms and conditions of a
stipulation and agreement of settlement and related papers, which,
among other things, provide for the release of all claims asserted
against Constant Contact and its former officers.  On May 18, 2018,
the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion seeking preliminary
approval of the proposed settlement, certification of the proposed
settlement class for settlement purposes only, and approval of
notice to the settlement class.  The court has not yet ruled on
this motion.

Endurance International said, "The Company's combined contribution
to the settlement pool under this proposed settlement and the
potential settlement of the Machado litigation would be
approximately equal to the US$7.3 million it reserved for these
matters during the year ended December 31, 2018.  The Company
cannot make any assurances as to whether or when the McGee
settlement will be approved by the court."

Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc., together with its
subsidiaries, provides cloud-based platform solutions for
small-and
medium-sized businesses in the United States and internationally.
The company operates in three segments: Web Presence, Domain, and
Email Marketing. Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Burlington, Massachusetts.


ERIE INDEMNITY: Ritz's Bid to Reconsider Nixed Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the "Ritz" lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania, the Plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration of the Court's ruling dismissing the suit with
prejudice remains pending, according to Erie Indemnity Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

On December 28, 2017 a lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania captioned
Lynda Ritz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated and derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant Erie
Insurance Exchange v. Erie Indemnity Company, J. Ralph Borneman,
Jr., Terrence W. Cavanaugh, Eugene C. Connell, LuAnn Datesh,
Jonathan Hirt Hagen, Thomas B. Hagen, C. Scott Hartz, Brian A.
Hudson, Sr., Claude C. Lilly, III, George R. Lucore, Thomas W.
Palmer, Martin P. Sheffield, Richard L. Stover, Elizabeth A. Hirt
Vorsheck, and Robert C. Wilburn, and Erie Insurance Exchange
(Nominal Defendant) (the "Ritz" lawsuit).  The individual named as
Plaintiff is alleged to be a policyholder (subscriber) of the Erie
Insurance Exchange (the "Exchange").  With the exception of
Terrence W. Cavanaugh and Robert C. Wilburn, the individuals named
as Defendants comprise the current Board of Directors of Indemnity.
Messrs. Cavanaugh and Wilburn are former Directors of Indemnity
(the "Directors").

The Complaint alleges that since at least 2007, Erie Indemnity
Company has taken "unwarranted and excessive" management fees as
compensation for its services under the Subscriber's Agreement.
Count I of the Complaint purports to allege a claim for breach of
alleged fiduciary duties against Indemnity and the Directors on
behalf of Plaintiff and a putative class of subscribers.  Count II
purports to allege a claim for breach of alleged fiduciary duties
against Indemnity and the Directors on behalf of Exchange.  Count
III purports to allege a claim for breach of contract and an
alleged implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against
Indemnity on behalf of Plaintiff and a putative class.  Count IV
purports to allege a claim of unjust enrichment against several
Directors.

The Complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages and requests
the Court to enjoin Indemnity from continuing to retain excessive
management fees; and order such other relief as may be
appropriate.

On March 5, 2018, Indemnity filed a motion to dismiss the Ritz
lawsuit.  The Directors also filed their own motions to dismiss the
Ritz lawsuit on March 5, 2018.  Plaintiff filed her responses to
both motions on April 26, 2018; and Indemnity and the Directors
filed their replies in support of their motions on May 25, 2018.
On February 4, 2019, the Court granted Indemnity's and the
Directors' motions to dismiss the Ritz suit in its entirety, with
prejudice, on the basis that all of the alleged claims in the Ritz
suit are barred and precluded as a matter of law by the judgment
entered in favor of Indemnity and the Directors in the Beltz II
suit.

On March 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration of
the Court's ruling dismissing the suit with prejudice.  On April 5,
2019, Indemnity and the Directors filed their opposition to the
Motion for Reconsideration.  The Motion for Reconsideration remains
pending.

Indemnity believes it has meritorious legal and factual defenses
and intends to vigorously defend against all allegations and
requests for relief in the Ritz lawsuit.  The Directors have
advised Indemnity that they intend to vigorously defend against the
claims in the Ritz lawsuit and have sought indemnification and
advancement of expenses from the Company in connection with the
Ritz lawsuit.

Erie Indemnity Company operates as a managing attorney-in-fact for
the subscribers at the Erie Insurance Exchange in the United
States. The company provides sales, underwriting, and policy
issuance services for the policyholders on behalf of the Erie
Insurance Exchange. Erie Indemnity Company was founded in 1925 and
is based in Erie, Pennsylvania.


ERNST & YOUNG: Miranda Seeks OT Premium Pay for AML Consultants
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Ernst & Young U.S.
LLP for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the
New York Labor Law (NYLL). The case is captioned DAVID MIRANDA, on
behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff, v. ERNST & YOUNG U.S. LLP., a Delaware Limited Liability
Partnership, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03754 (S.D.N.Y., April 26,
2019).

Despite working more than 40 hours per week, Ernst & Young
allegedly failed to pay its anti-money laundering consultants,
including Plaintiff David Miranda, overtime compensation at a rate
of time and a half their regular rate of pay for hours worked over
40 in a workweek. The company also failed to maintain proper time
records as mandated by the FLSA and the NYLL.

Ernst and Young was and continues to be a Delaware Limited
Liability Partnership, with its principal executive office located
at 5 Times Square, New York, New York. It is an accounting and
consulting firm servicing a multitude of clients, including banking
and money managers. It also provides anti-money laundering and
counter financing of terrorism and sanctions compliance advising
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN
     600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
     Plantation, FL 33324
     Telephone: 954-WORKERS
     Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
     E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com


EVANS DELIVERY: Garcia Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned SANTOS H. GARCIA; RAMIRO OROZCO; and MICHEL
SALMO, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, all current, former and future aggrieved employees, and
the general public of California, and WILVER ANTONIO VASQUEZ
QUINTANILLA and EDGAR VELIZ BAEZA, each individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated and the general public of
California, Plaintiffs, v. EVANS DELIVERY COMPANY, INC., a
corporation; ALLEN CEPEDA; DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 18STCV04250 was removed from the Superior
Court of Los Angeles County, California, to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on May 17,
2019, and assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-04316.

The Complaint alleges Evans violated California law by: (1) failing
to separately pay piece rate employees for rest periods and other
nonproductive time in violation of California Labor Code; (2)
failing to reimburse for necessary business expenses in violation
of California Labor Code; (3) failing to provide required meal and
rest periods in violation of California Labor Code; (4) taking
unlawful deductions in violation of California Labor Code; (5)
failing to pay all earned wages upon separation in violation of
California Labor Code; (6) failing to provide accurate wage
statements in violation of California Labor Code; and (7) engaging
in unfair competition in violation of the Business and Professions
Code.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alaina C. Hawley, Esq.
     SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C.
     10 West Market Street, Suite 1400
     Indianapolis, IN 46214
     Phone: (317) 637-1777
     Fax: (317) 687-2414
     Email: ahawley@scopelitis.com


EXECUTIVE CREDIT: Bell Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against EXECUTIVE CREDIT
MANAGEMENT, INC. The case is styled as CONNITA BELL individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
EXECUTIVE CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-12721-AET-TJB (D. N.J., May 20, 2019).

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

Executive Credit Management, Inc. is a full-service Debt Collection
and Applicant Screening agency with over 20 years experience
located in New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     ARI HILLEL MARCUS, ESQ.
     YITZCHAK ZELMAN, ESQ.
     Marcus Zelman, LLC
     701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
     Asbury Park, NJ 07712
     Phone: (347) 526-4093
     Fax: (732) 298-6256
     Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
            ari@marcuszelman.com


FAIR COLLECTIONS: Muldowney Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fair Collections &
Outsourcing, Inc. The case is styled as Matthew Muldowney
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Fair Collections & Outsourcing, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 5:19-cv-00594-FJS-ATB (N.D. N.Y., May 20, 2019).

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

Fair Collections & Outsourcing, Inc. was founded in 2004. The
company's line of business includes collection and adjustment
services on claims and other insurance related issues.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FARMERS GROUP: Holmes Suit Transferred to D. New Mexico
-------------------------------------------------------
The case, Holmes v. Farmers Group, Inc. et al, Case No.
D-101-CV-2019-00248, was transferred from First Judicial District
Court, County of Santa Fe, New Mexico to the United States District
Court for the District of New Mexico on April 26, 2019. The clerk
of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico
assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00387-JHR-SCY to the proceedings. This
insurance-related class action is assigned to Hon. Judge Jerry H.
Ritter.

Farmers Group, Inc. is a multiline insurer that provides auto
insurance and recreational insurance, including auto, collectible
auto, motorcycle, boat, travel trailer, motor home, off-road, and
food truck insurance. It also provides home insurance, such as
mobile and manufactured home insurance, homeowner insurance,
specialty home insurance, condo insurance, earthquake insurance,
and flood insurance; and business insurance that covers property,
liability, crime, auto, and worker compensation. [BN]

Attorneys for Defendants:

      Marilyn Brown, Esq.
      Stacy Allen, Esq.
      JACKSON WALKER LLP
      100 Congress Avenue, Suite 1100
      Austin, TX 78701
      Telephone: (512) 236-2000
      E-mail: mbrown@jw.com
      E-mail: stacyallen@jw.com

              - and -

      Brian K Nichols, Esq.
      MODRALL SPERLING LAW FIRM
      PO Box 2168
      Albuquerque, NM 87103-2168
      Telephone: (505) 848-1800
      Facsimile: (505) 848-1889
      E-mail: bkn@modrall.com


FASHION NOVA: Haggar Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fashion Nova, Inc.
The case is styled as Elia Haggar, Kyo Hak Chu, Valerie Brooks,
individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Fashion Nova, Inc. a California
corporation, Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-04351-ODW-AS (C.D. Cal., May 20, 2019).

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

Fashion Nova offers plus size, curvy body types, maternity sizes,
and a men's clothing line.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Babak Bobby Saadian, Esq.
     Wilshire Law Firm
     3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90010
     Phone: (213) 381-9988
     Fax: (213) 381-9989
     Email: bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com

          - and -

     Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
     Wilshire Law Firm
     3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90010
     Phone: (213) 381-9988
     Fax: (213) 381-9989
     Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com


FEDERAL SIGNAL: Still Defends Hearing Loss Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------
Federal Signal Corporation continues to defend itself in the
Hearing Loss Litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

The Company has been sued for monetary damages by firefighters who
claim that exposure to the Company's sirens has impaired their
hearing and that the sirens are therefore defective.  There were 33
cases filed during the period of 1999 through 2004, involving a
total of 2,443 plaintiffs, in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois.  These cases involved more than 1,800 firefighter
plaintiffs from locations outside of Chicago.  In 2009, six
additional cases were filed in Cook County, involving 299
Pennsylvania firefighter plaintiffs.  During 2013, another case was
filed in Cook County involving 74 Pennsylvania firefighter
plaintiffs.

The trial of the first 27 of these plaintiffs' claims occurred in
2008, whereby a Cook County jury returned a unanimous verdict in
favor of the Company.

An additional 40 Chicago firefighter plaintiffs were selected for
trial in 2009.  Plaintiffs' counsel later moved to reduce the
number of plaintiffs from 40 to nine.  The trial for these nine
plaintiffs concluded with a verdict against the Company and for the
plaintiffs in varying amounts totaling US$0.4 million.  The Company
appealed this verdict.  On September 13, 2012, the Illinois
Appellate Court rejected this appeal.  The Company thereafter filed
a petition for rehearing with the Illinois Appellate Court, which
was denied on February 7, 2013.  The Company sought further review
by filing a petition for leave to appeal with the Illinois Supreme
Court on March 14, 2013.  On May 29, 2013, the Illinois Supreme
Court issued a summary order declining to accept review of this
case.  On July 1, 2013, the Company satisfied the judgments entered
for these plaintiffs, which resulted in final dismissal of these
cases.

A third consolidated trial involving eight Chicago firefighter
plaintiffs occurred during November 2011.  The jury returned a
unanimous verdict in favor of the Company at the conclusion of this
trial.

Following this trial, on March 12, 2012 the trial court entered an
order certifying a class of the remaining Chicago Fire Department
firefighter plaintiffs for trial on the sole issue of whether the
Company's sirens were defective and unreasonably dangerous.  The
Company petitioned the Illinois Appellate Court for interlocutory
appeal of this ruling.  On May 17, 2012, the Illinois Appellate
Court accepted the Company's petition.  On June 8, 2012, plaintiffs
moved to dismiss the appeal, agreeing with the Company that the
trial court had erred in certifying a class action trial in this
matter.  Pursuant to plaintiffs' motion, the Illinois Appellate
Court reversed the trial court's certification order.

Thereafter, the trial court scheduled a fourth consolidated trial
involving three firefighter plaintiffs, which began in December
2012.  Prior to the start of this trial, the claims of two of the
three firefighter plaintiffs were dismissed.  On December 17, 2012,
the jury entered a complete defense verdict for the Company.

Following this defense verdict, plaintiffs again moved to certify a
class of Chicago Fire Department plaintiffs for trial on the sole
issue of whether the Company's sirens were defective and
unreasonably dangerous.  Over the Company's objection, the trial
court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification on March
11, 2013 and scheduled a class action trial to begin on June 10,
2013.  The Company filed a petition for review with the Illinois
Appellate Court on March 29, 2013 seeking reversal of the class
certification order.

On June 25, 2014, a unanimous three-judge panel of the First
District Illinois Appellate Court issued its opinion reversing the
class certification order of the trial court.  Specifically, the
Appellate Court determined that the trial court's ruling failed to
satisfy the class-action requirements that the common issues of the
firefighters' claims predominate over the individual issues and
that there is an adequate representative for the class.

During a status hearing on October 8, 2014, plaintiffs represented
to the Court that they would again seek to certify a class of
firefighters on the issue of whether the Company's sirens were
defective and unreasonably dangerous.  On January 12, 2015,
plaintiffs filed motions to amend their complaints to add class
action allegations with respect to Chicago firefighter plaintiffs,
as well as the approximately 1,800 firefighter plaintiffs from
locations outside of Chicago.  On March 11, 2015, the trial court
granted plaintiff's motions to amend their complaints.

On April 24, 2015, the cases were transferred to Cook County
chancery court, which will decide all class certification issues.
On March 23, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify as a class
all firefighters from the Chicago Fire Department who have filed
lawsuits in this matter.  The Company has served discovery upon
plaintiffs related to this motion and intends to continue its
objections to any attempt at certification.

The court has scheduled a hearing regarding discovery issues in
this case on May 21, 2019.

Federal Signal Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
designs, manufactures, and supplies a suite of products and
integrated solutions for municipal, governmental, industrial, and
commercial customers in the United States, Canada, Europe, and
internationally. It operates through two segments, Environmental
Solutions Group and Safety and Security Systems Group. Federal
Signal Corporation was founded in 1901 and is headquartered in Oak
Brook, Illinois.


FORD MOTOR: Court Refuses to Modify Export Report in Kasper
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
issued an Order denying Plaintiff's Motion to Modify the Expert
Report Exchange Deadline in the case captioned EDWARD KASPER, on
behalf of himself and similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant. Case No. 1:18-cv-2895. (N.D. Ohio).

Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to modify the expert report
exchange deadline.
Edward Kasper brings a disability discrimination class action
against Ford Motor Company.
Plaintiff Kasper seeks relief on two scheduling matters.

Plaintiff incorrectly states that the Court has not set an expert
report disclosure deadline.

In evaluating whether good cause exists to change court-ordered
deadlines, the inquiry mostly focuses on the moving party's
diligence, but the Court also considers presence or absence of
prejudice to the other party.3 The only legitimate reason Plaintiff
offers in support of his request to considerably accelerate the
expert report deadline is his desire to have time to determine
whether he needs to go to the expense of deposing Defendant's
experts before the May 28, 2019 class certification motion
deadline.

The Court does not find this to be good cause to modify the Court's
scheduling order.4 In particular, the Court finds that accelerating
the date by almost three months would prejudice Defendant.
Defendant represents that Plaintiff has not yet produced the
necessary discovery on which Defendant's expert intends to rely and
that Defendant's expert report will likely respond to the arguments
Plaintiff makes in his class certification motion.

The Plaintiff in part also seeks the earlier expert report deadline
to allow him time to determine whether he needs to retain his own
experts, but this is not a valid reason. Plaintiff's deadline to
identify experts February 25, 2019 has long since passed. To the
extent that Plaintiff implicitly seeks an extension of the expert
identification deadline, the Court also finds that Plaintiff has
not demonstrated good cause and excusable neglect for an extension
of that deadline.

The Court finds that the Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause to
modify the briefing schedule and grants Plaintiff's request to push
back the class certification motion deadlines by two weeks.  

The Court denies Plaintiff's motion to modify the expert report
exchange deadline.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 13, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2tbdfq9 from Leagle.com.

Edward Kasper, and other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff,
represented by Lewis A. Zipkin, Zipkin Whiting, 3637 Green Rd,
Cleveland, OH 44122 & Shawn A. Romer, 2012 W 25th St, Ste. 716,
Cleveland, OH, 44113

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Blaine H. Evanson --
bevanson@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, David A. Posner
-- dposner@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler, Eugene Scalia --
escalia@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, pro hac vice
Naima L. Farrell  -- nfarrell@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher & Ronald G. Linville -- rlinville@bakerlaw.com -- Baker &
Hostetler.


FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Wins Dismissal of Connecticut Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut has granted
in its entirety Frontier Communications Corporation's motion to
dismiss an amended consolidated securities class action suit,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019.

On April 30, 2018, an amended consolidated class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut on behalf of certain purported stockholders against
Frontier, certain of its current and former directors and officers
and the underwriters of certain Frontier securities offerings.

The complaint was brought on behalf of all persons who (1) acquired
Frontier common stock between February 6, 2015 and February 28,
2018, inclusive, and/or (2) acquired Frontier common stock or
Mandatory Convertible Preferred Stock either in or traceable to
Frontier's offerings of common and preferred stock conducted on or
about June 2, 2015 and June 8, 2015.

The complaint asserts, among other things, violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, in connection with certain disclosures relating to the
CTF Acquisition.  The complaint sought, among other things, damages
and equitable and injunctive relief.

On March 8, 2019, the District Court granted in its entirety
Frontier's motion to dismiss the complaint.  The District Court
dismissed with prejudice a number of claims and with respect to
certain other claims that were not dismissed with prejudice,
Plaintiffs have until May 10, 2019 to seek the court's permission
to refile.

The Company said, "We will continue to dispute any replead
allegations and intend to vigorously defend against such claims."

Frontier Communications Corporation provides communications
services to consumer, commercial, and wholesale customers in the
United States. It offers broadband, video, voice, and other
services and products through a combination of fiber and copper
based networks to consumer customers. The company was formerly
known as Citizens Communications Company and changed its name to
Frontier Communications Corporation in July 2008. Frontier
Communications Corporation was founded in 1927 and is based in
Norwalk, Connecticut.


GOHEALTH LLC: Roby Sues over Automated Telemarketing Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against GoHealth, LLC for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Federal
Communication Commission's regulations. The case is captioned
BARBARA ROBY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. GOHEALTH, LLC, a foreign limited liability
company, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02756 (N.D. Ill., April 24,
2019).

Plaintiff Barbara Roby alleges that GoHealth is engaged in illegal
telemarketing practices in advertising the sale of its health
insurance. GoHealth allegedly sent automated text messages to the
telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and the class members without
prior express written consent.

GoHealth is a limited liability company formed under the laws of
the state of Delaware. Headquartered at 214 W. Huron St., Chicago,
Illinois, GoHealth describes itself as a pioneer in health
insurance technology industry. The company offers affordable health
insurance. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
     Timothy J. Sostrin, Esq.
     KEOGH LAW, LTD.
     55 W. Monroe St. Ste. 3390
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Telephone: (312) 726-1092/(312) 726-1093
     E-mail: keith@keoghlaw.com
             tsostrin@keoghlaw.com

GROSSMAN & KARASZEWSKI: Greifman Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grossman &
Karaszewski, PLLC. The case is styled as Sarah Greifman
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Grossman & Karaszewski, PLLC, Defendant, Case No.
7:19-cv-04625 (S.D. N.Y., May 20, 2019).

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

Grossman & Karaszewski, PLLC is a debt collection law office
located in East Amherst, NY.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


H&R BLOCK: Court Grants Arbitration Bid in J. Davidow Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri, Western Division, issued an Order granting Defendant’s
Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case captioned JANICE DAVIDOW,
individually and o/b/o others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. H&R
BLOCK, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. 18-01022-CV-W-ODS. (W.D.
Mo.)

Plaintiff Janice Davidow worked as a seasonal tax preparer for H&R
Block in Florida. Plaintiff filed this putative class action
against Defendants H&R Block, Inc. and H&R Block Tax Services LLC,
alleging Defendants, along with other entities and persons, enacted
a scheme related to the recruitment of employees and potential
employees, which included policies and agreements not to solicit or
recruit without prior approval from each other's personnel.

The Defendants move to compel arbitration on an individual basis.
They argue that, in November 2011 (2011 agreement) and in November
2012 (2012 agreement), the Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate all claims
against H&R Block companies when she signed her tax professional
employment agreements.  

Whether parties agreed to arbitrate disputes is a question for
judicial determination A court's role is limited to determining (1)
whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists and, if it does, (2)
whether the agreement encompasses the dispute. This is because
arbitration is a matter of consent. Absent an enforceable agreement
to arbitrate a particular dispute, neither party can compel
arbitration of that dispute.  

Under Missouri law, the party seeking to compel arbitration bears
the burden of proving a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement
exists.   

The Defendants contend a valid and enforceable arbitration
agreement exists, and the claims alleged by Plaintiff are covered
by the arbitration agreement. The Plaintiff contends a valid
arbitration agreement does not exist because (1) the agreement
lacks consideration, and (2) Defendants are not parties to the
agreement.

Whether a Valid Arbitration Agreement Exists

Sufficient consideration may be a promise to do (or refrain from
doing) something or may be a transfer or relinquishment of
something of value to the other party. If a contract contains
mutual promises imposing a legal duty or liability on each party as
a promise to the other party, the contract is a bilateral contract
with sufficient consideration. A court may look to the contract's
language, as well as the practical effects of the contract's
provisions to determine whether the parties are mutually obligated
such that sufficient consideration exists.   

In the agreements, the Plaintiff and the Company agree that any
Covered Claims will be resolved by final and binding arbitration.
The arbitration agreement applies with respect to all Covered
Claims, whether initiated by Plaintiff or the Company. Covered
Claims include any and all claims or disputes between [Plaintiff]
and the Company, or the Company's parents, subsidiaries,
affiliates, predecessors, and successor corporations and its
business entities. The express terms include mutual obligations and
agreements to arbitrate claims, supporting Defendants' argument
that sufficient consideration exists.  

The Plaintiff contends the agreements do not contain mutual
promises of arbitration because the agreements specifically exempt
the claims an employer is more likely to bring, including claims
for injunctive relief.  

The Plaintiff cites two cases to support her position. Both cases
are distinguishable. In Goolsby v. PrimeFlight Aviation Services,
Inc., the parties' agreement exempted from arbitration remedies or
claims that only the defendant would bring against the plaintiff
such as, seeking injunctive or declaratory relief due to
allegations of unfair competition, unfair business practices, the
unauthorized disclosure of trade secrets or confidential
information, or the breach of covenants restricting the business
activities of the Company or employees.

The Court observed the claims enumerated as arbitrable are claims
only the plaintiff would bring against the defendant, e.g., claims
for unpaid wages, overtime, discrimination, retaliation, breach of
contract, employment-related tort claims, and claims applicable to
the employment-relationship.  

Because the practical effect of the agreement only bound the
plaintiff to arbitration, the Court found the defendant's promise
to arbitrate was illusory and the agreement lacked mutuality of
promise; thus, the agreement lacked consideration.  

In Jimenez v. Cintas Corp., the parties agreed to arbitrate certain
disputes and exclude other claims from arbitration to wit,
unemployment and workers compensation claims, and charges and
complaints filed with administrative agencies.. Also excluded from
arbitration were violations of a non-compete provision. However,
only the defendant was permitted to seek a declaratory judgment or
injunctive relief with a court to enforce the plaintiff's
compliance with the non-compete provision. Because the agreement
required the plaintiff to arbitrate all claims but allowed the
defendant to seek redress from the courts for "claims it is most
likely to bring against the plaintiff, the Court found the
agreement lacked mutuality of promise and was devoid of
consideration. Thus, no valid arbitration agreement existed.  

Based upon this, the Court finds the practical effect of the
parties' agreement does not bind only Plaintiff to arbitration and
does not exclude only Defendants from arbitrating certain claims.
Therefore, there is mutuality of promise, and sufficient
consideration exists. The Court finds a valid arbitration agreement
exists.

Whether Nonsignatories May Compel Arbitration

In both agreements, the Plaintiff assented to arbitration of any
and all claims and disputes between Associate and the Company, or
the Company's parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors, and
successor corporations and business entities. The two agreements
were made between and signed by Plaintiff and H&R Block Eastern
Enterprises.  Defendants are nonsignatories to the arbitration
agreements but they seek to enforce them.

A nonsignatory may compel a signatory to arbitrate claims in
limited circumstances. The parties agree that whether an
arbitration agreement is enforceable by a nonsignatory is
determined by traditional principles of state law. Nonsignatories
are permitted to compel arbitration when the relationship between
the signatory and nonsignatory defendants is sufficiently close
that only by permitting the nonsignatory to invoke arbitration"
would avoid evisceration of the underlying arbitration agreement.


In an attempt to circumvent her agreement to arbitrate claims
against H&R Eastern Enterprises's parents, subsidiaries,
affiliates, Plaintiff argues the agreements do not define what
entities are parents, subsidiaries, affiliates and therefore,
Defendants cannot compel arbitration. The agreements do not
explicitly identify what entities are parents, subsidiaries,
affiliates of H&R Block Eastern Enterprises. But the agreements
recognize the affiliation between Defendants and H&R Block Eastern
Enterprises, as well as a relationship between Plaintiff and
Defendants.

First, the Plaintiff agreed to abide by the rules and requirements
H&R Block, Inc. She agreed to perform her job duties in compliance
with H&R Block, Inc. Code of Business Ethics & Conduct. She
acknowledged her employment could be terminated by violating H&R
Block, Inc. Code of Business Ethics & Conduct and a material
violation of H&R Block Inc. Code of Business Ethics & Conduct would
constitute cause for termination of her employment.  

Second, the Plaintiff also agreed she would be given access to
Trade Secrets and other Confidential Business Information which has
commercial value to the Company and its affiliates hereinafter
together referred to as H&R Block. The Confidential Business
Information includes, but is not limited to H&R Block's client
lists, information pertaining to H&R Block's clients, employee
lists and information, and H&R Block's preparation software.

Third, to opt-out of the arbitration agreement, Plaintiff was
directed to mail her opt-out to H&R Block-Legal Department in
Kansas City, Missouri.  Finally, at the top of the first page of
each agreement appears H&R Block® next to a black square (likely
the green square typically accompanying H&R Block).  

The Defendants may not have been specifically identified in the
agreements as parents, subsidiaries, affiliates of H&R Block
Eastern Enterprises. But the agreements establish an irrefutable
affiliation between Defendants and H&R Block Eastern Enterprises.
Interestingly, in her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges she worked as a
seasonal tax preparer for H&R Block, specifically referring to
Defendants as H&R Block. She also contends H&R Block's direct and
indirect subsidiaries (and other entities and individuals)
conspired with Defendants in the offenses alleged in this
Complaint.

Consequently, her Complaint reveals she was and is aware of H&R
Block Eastern Enterprises's affiliation with Defendants. Thus,
Defendants, although nonsignatories to the agreement, may compel
arbitration.

Whether the Agreement Encompasses the Dispute

Having concluded a valid arbitration agreement exists, the Court
must determine whether the claims in this lawsuit fall within the
scope of the arbitration agreement. As a matter of federal law, any
doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved
in favor of arbitration, including the construction of the contract
language itself. When determining whether the scope of the
arbitration agreement includes the claims at issue, the Court does
not consider the fact that Defendants are not parties to the
agreement containing the clause.  

Although the Plaintiff does not address this particular issue in
her briefing, the agreements provide the necessary information for
the Court's analysis. That is, in both agreements, the parties
agreed to arbitrate claims arising under federal statute.
Plaintiff's claims arise from the Sherman Act. The arbitration
agreements encompass Plaintiff's Sherman Act claims. Additionally,
Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate her claims on an individual basis,
and waived her right to arbitrate her claims on a class-wide basis.
    

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 13, 2019 Opinion and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2am9a4g from
Leagle.com.

Janice Davidow, Plaintiff, represented by Amanda M. Williams,
Gustafson Gluek pLLC, 120 South 6th Street,

Suite 2600, Minneapolis, MN 55402, pro hac vice, Ashlea Schwarz
Ashlea@PaulLLP.com --  Paul LLP, Daniel K. Bryson -- dan@wbmllp.com
-- Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, pro hac vice,Daniel E. Gustafson,
Gustafson Gluek pLLC, 120 South 6th Street,Suite 2600, Minneapolis,
MN 55402 pro hac vice, Laura Catherine Fellows -- Laura@PaulLLP.com
-- Paul LLP & Richard M. Paul, III -- rick@paulllp.com -- Paul
LLP.

H&R Block, Inc. & H&R Block Tax Services LLC, Defendants,
represented by David J. Lender -
david.lender@weil.com -- Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice,
Eric Shaun Hochstadt -
eric.hochstadt@weil.com -- Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac vice
& Stacey R. Gilman -- SGILMAN@BERKOWITZOLIVER.COM --  Berkowitz
Oliver LLP.


HANOVER INSURANCE: Nixed Durand Suit No Longer Subject to Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court's dismissal of the putative class action suit styled
Jennifer A. Durand v. The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., and The
Allmerica Financial Cash Balance Pension Plan, is no longer subject
to appeal effective April 24, 2019, according to the The Hanover
Insurance Group, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2019.

On March 12, 2007, a putative class action suit captioned Jennifer
A. Durand v. The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., and The Allmerica
Financial Cash Balance Pension Plan, was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.  The named
plaintiff, a former employee of the Company's former life insurance
and annuity business who received a lump sum distribution from the
Company's Cash Balance Plan (the "Plan") at or about the time of
her separation from the Company, claims that she and others
similarly situated did not receive the appropriate lump sum
distribution because in computing the lump sum, the Company and the
Plan understated the accrued benefit in the calculation.  The
plaintiff claims that the Plan underpaid her distributions and
those of similarly situated participants by failing to pay an
additional so-called "whipsaw" amount reflecting the present value
of an estimate of future interest credits from the date of the lump
sum distribution to each participant's retirement age of 65
("whipsaw claim").

The plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint adding two new named
plaintiffs and additional claims on December 11, 2009.  Two of the
three new claims set forth in the Amended Complaint were dismissed
by the District Court, which action was upheld in November 2015 by
the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.  The District Court,
however, did allow to stand the new claim in the Amended Complaint
for breach of fiduciary duty and failure to meet notice
requirements arising under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 ("ERISA") from the various interest crediting and lump
sum distribution matters of which plaintiffs complain, but only as
to plaintiffs' "whipsaw" claim that remained in the case.  On
December 17, 2013, the Court entered an order certifying a class to
bring "whipsaw" and related breach of fiduciary duty claims
consisting of all persons who received a lump sum distribution
between March 1, 1997 and December 31, 2003.

On February 16, 2018, the Court entered an order limiting the
claims of those participants who received lump sum distributions
prior to March 13, 2002 to alleged violations of ERISA's disclosure
requirements and breaches of fiduciary duty.  Subsequently, the
parties entered into settlement discussions and reached a
settlement.  The Court approved the settlement and dismissed the
case with prejudice on March 22, 2019.  Effective April 24, 2019,
such dismissal is no longer subject to appeal.

The Company said, "The resulting settlement amount to be paid by
the Company is not material to the Company's financial position and
will not have a material effect on its results of operations."

The Hanover Insurance Company, Inc. offers personal and commercial
property and casualty insurance services for individuals, families,
and businesses. Its personal insurance coverage includes umbrella
and personal liability, home, auto, insurance for valuables, and
watercraft and toys insurance. The company is based in Worcester,
Massachusetts.


HCP INC: Still Defends Boynton Beach Pension Fund Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
HCP, Inc. continues to face the putative class action styled,
Boynton Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v. HCP, Inc., et al.,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019.

On May 9, 2016, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action complaint, Boynton Beach Firefighters'
Pension Fund v. HCP, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-01106-JJH, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against
the Company, certain of its officers, HCR ManorCare, Inc.
("HCRMC"), and certain of its officers, asserting violations of the
federal securities laws.

The suit asserts claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"),
and alleges that the Company made certain false or misleading
statements relating to the value of and risks concerning its
investment in HCRMC by allegedly failing to disclose that HCRMC had
engaged in billing fraud, as alleged by the U.S. Department of
Justice ("DoJ") in a suit against HCRMC arising from the False
Claims Act that the DoJ voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.

The plaintiff in the class action suit demands compensatory damages
(in an unspecified amount), costs and expenses (including
attorneys' fees and expert fees), and equitable, injunctive, or
other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

On November 28, 2017, the Court appointed Societe Generale
Securities GmbH (SGSS Germany) and the City of Birmingham
Retirement and Relief Systems (Birmingham) as Co-Lead Plaintiffs in
the class action.  The motion to dismiss was fully briefed on May
21, 2018 and oral arguments were held on October 23, 2018.

Subsequently, on December 6, 2018, HCRMC and its officers were
voluntarily dismissed from the class action lawsuit without
prejudice to such claims being refiled.

HCP said, "The Company believes the suit to be without merit and
intends to vigorously defend against it."

HCP, Inc. is a fully integrated real estate investment trust
(REIT)
that invests in real estate serving the healthcare industry in the
United States. The company is based in Irvine, California.


HERTZ LOCAL: Court Remands T. Belton's Wage & Hour Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand
in the case captioned TROY BELTON, Plaintiff, v. HERTZ LOCAL
EDITION TRANSPORTING, INC., Defendant. Case No. 19-cv-00854-WHO.
(N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Troy Belton initially filed his complaint in the Superior
Court of California, County of Alameda against Hertz Local Edition
Transporting Inc. (Hertz) for a number of employment related claims
under state law.  Belton was employed by Hertz as a transporter.
His duties consisted of driving customers to various locations
after the customers purchased car rental and/or transportation
services from Hertz. Belton alleges that he, and other aggrieved
employees, should have been paid overtime because they were denied
meal and rest breaks during mandatory staff meetings.

Hertz removed the suit  and asserts that this case is removable
under CAFA jurisdiction because Belton's claim for restitution
under California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 (1)
satisfies CAFA's diversity requirement (2) the putative class would
exceed the 100 class member requirement (3) Hertz is not a
government entity and (4) the aggregate amount in controversy
exceeds $5,000,000.  

The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), gives federal courts
original jurisdiction over class actions where there are at least
100 class members, at least one plaintiff is diverse in citizenship
from any defendant, and the amount in controversy exceeds
$5,000,000.  A class action that meets CAFA standards may be
removed to federal court. Unlike the general presumption against
removal, no antiremoval presumption attends cases invoking CAFA.
(2014). In fact, Congress intended CAFA jurisdiction to be
interpreted expansively.

Under CAFA, a defendant's notice of removal needs only a plausible
allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the
jurisdictional threshold and does not need evidentiary submissions.
When testing the amount in controversy alleged, courts look first
to the allegations of the complaint. If the damages are unstated or
if the defendant views the damages as understated, the defendant
must show by a preponderance of evidence that the aggregate amount
in controversy exceeds the $5,000,000 threshold. The defendant in a
jurisdictional dispute has the burden to put forward evidence
showing that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, to
satisfy other requirements of CAFA, and to persuade the court that
the estimate of damages in controversy is a reasonable one.

DOES THE CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS ACT APPLY?

Belton argues that because his ninth cause of action under
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 is not
brought as a class claim, it does not fall under CAFA. In support
of his argument, Belton cites the Ninth Circuit's decision in
Hawaii ex rel. Louie v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., 761 F.3d 1027, 1033
(9th Cir. 2014), where the court considered whether a case brought
by the Hawaii Attorney General under a statute similar to Section
17200 could constitute a class action when it was not styled as
one, even where the relief sought might ultimately require class
certification.

In this case, Belton's Section 17200 claim is not styled as a class
action. It does not assert class allegations under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23 or California Code of Civil Procedure Section
382. The civil cover sheet affirmatively checks the box stating
that this case is not a class action suit. Civil Cover Sheet
attached as Exhibit A to Notice of Removal (NOR). Belton does not
seek class status, plead the existence of a class, define the
limits of a class, or even reference the word class in his
complaint. Thus, as master of his complaint, Belton's decision not
to request class status or its equivalent is fatal to CAFA
jurisdiction.  

In opposition, Hertz argues that the California Supreme Court has
held that a private party may pursue a representative action under
Section 17200 only if the party complies with Section 382 of the
Code of Civil procedure' and such an action must meet the
requirements for a class action.

If Hertz is correct that Belton may only prevail on his Section
17200 claim if it is brought as a class action, Belton has two
choices: he could forfeit his damages under Section 17200, or he
can amend his claim to state a class action. If he later amends to
assert a class action, removal under CAFA would be possible, even
if untimely, as long as the district court finds that the plaintiff
has acted in bad faith in order to prevent a defendant from
removing the action.

The complaint, as it is currently styled, cannot support
jurisdiction under CAFA. The Court do not reach the parties
arguments related to CAFA's amount in controversy requirement.

IS THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY FOR DIVERSITY JURISDICTION MET?

Belton argues that Hertz has failed to establish that his
individual damages will exceed the $75,000 amount in controversy
requirement for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(a).   The parties do not dispute the following amount: (i)
back pay of $20,000, (ii) premium pay of $10,000, (iii) $3,472 in
waiting time penalties, (iv) $8,000 in overtime, (v) $5,000 in
minimum wages and (vi) $4,000 for non-compliant wage statements.
This leads to an undisputed amount of individual damages totaling
$50,472. Id. The parties disagree on the amount of emotional
distress damages, whether attorneys' fees are available, and if
attorneys' fees are available, in what amount.

Emotional Distress Damages

In its notice of removal, Hertz represents that the value of
Belton's emotional distress damages flowing from his constructive
discharge claim would likely be $50,000. Hertz cites cases in its
notice of removal and two cases in its opposition that it believes
are comparable to conclude that $50,000 would constitute a
conservative award. Belton offers no information about his
emotional distress damages and counters that Hertz's valuation is
speculative and that the cases it cited are distinguishable.    

In Davis v. Ayala, No. 09-cv-02629-SI, 2011 WL 7141949 (N.D. Cal.
Dec. 15, 2011), a former nurse in a county jail sued a former
lieutenant and sergeant for retaliation for exercising her First
Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of association. The
nurse stated that after leading a successful campaign that involved
its own instances of retaliation to no longer have her, or other
nurses, answer to an abusive supervisor, the defendants threatened
her with termination and transferred her to a unit of the jail that
housed the most hostile and mentally unstable inmates.

She contended that their conduct was malicious, oppressive, and in
reckless disregard of her rights, and that due to stress, she had
to take medical leave, and ultimately was forced to resign.  

The jury awarded the former nurse $320,157 in lost wages, $8,800 in
past medical expenses and $200,000 for pain and suffering.

Belton states that he was constructively discharged because Hertz
violated the well-established public policy prohibiting employers
from failing to pay employees all wages due and payable to them,
and that Hertz's failed to pay overtime wages, premium pay,
reimbursement, and minimum wages due to him. The facts in Davis are
so clearly distinguishable from those in Belton's complaint that
Davis is barely useful. But if they were, Belton argues that in
Davis, the emotional distress damages were approximately 61% of
compensatory damages, and using the undisputed compensatory damages
figure here would lead to only $12,200 in emotional distress
damages. An award of $12,200 would be insufficient to meet the
amount in controversy requirement.

In Keiffer v. Bechtel Corp., 65 Cal.App.4th 893, 895 (Cal. Ct. App.
1998), the plaintiff was terminated during a period of corporate
downsizing. At trial, he prevailed on claims of age discrimination,
breach of an implied contract to terminate only for cause, and
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Id.
The jury awarded him $322,975 in compensatory damages, $225,000 in
emotional distress damages and $800,000 in punitive damages. Id.
Again, as Belton notes, the facts are dissimilar, and using the
ratio of compensatory damages to emotional distress damages in
Kieffer would only yield $14,000 here.   

Such an award would still be short of the amount in controversy
requirement.

In Silo v. CHW Medical Foundation, 86 Cal.App.4th 947, 955 (Cal.
Ct. App. 2001), a case about religious discrimination, the jury
awarded the plaintiff $6,305 in economic damages and $1 in
noneconomic damages. Silo appears to be wholly inapplicable and it
is unclear why Hertz believes it is helpful to its argument.

In Satrap v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 42 Cal.App.4th 72, 75-76 (Cal.
Ct. App. 1996), an employee of PG&E for at least 27 years, brought
a whistleblower claim against PG&E. Satrap volunteered to cooperate
with the California Public Utilities Commission's investigation of
PG&E's gas purchasing. Before he met with the investigators, PG&E
instructed him not to discuss the contents of an interim report on
its internal investigation of plaintiff.. The report discussed,
among other things, concerns he had expressed over a domestic
contract negotiation he had participated in that he believed
involved some improper political influences, and his suspicion that
PG&E had been overpaying its Canadian gas suppliers. Nevertheless,
he discussed some of these issues with the Utilities Commission and
was allowed to return to work but was demoted and eventually quit
under circumstances that were found by a jury to constitute
constructive termination.  

The case ultimately went to trial for breach of contract, wrongful
termination in violation of public policy, and invasion of privacy.
The jury rendered its verdict in Satrap's favor, awarding him
economic damages of $48,750, noneconomic damages of $225,000, and
punitive damages of $250,000. The jury specifically found that he
had been terminated without cause, and in retaliation for his
disclosures to the Utilities Commission. The jury also found that
public disclosures by PG&E that he was being investigated for
accepting kickbacks were false.

Satrap is unhelpful to Hertz because the facts are too
distinguishable, and it is impossible to tell from the opinion what
part of the award can properly be attributed to his wrongful
termination claim, as opposed to his breach of contract and
invasion of privacy claims.

Hertz has provided no probative evidence to justify its claim that
Belton's emotional distress damages would amount to $50,000.
Although Belton has not submitted any evidence to show what the
likely emotional distress damages would be, there is effectively
nothing from Hertz to counterbalance Belton's lack of evidence.
From the parties' submissions, I am unable to find that the
emotional distress damages would, taken together with the
undisputed damages, meet the amount in controversy requirement
because any doubt about the right of removal requires resolution in
favor of remand. Such a finding would require pure speculation.

Defendant cannot establish jurisdiction under either CAFA. CAFA is
not applicable because the complaint is not styled as a class
action. The amount in controversy required for diversity
jurisdiction is not met. Belton's motion to remand is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 13, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yxa9yggl from Leagle.com.

Troy Belton, Plaintiff, represented by Jocelyn Burton --
jburton@burtonemploymentlaw.com -- Burton Employment Law & Scott S.
Nakama -- snakama@burtonemploymentlaw.com -- Burton Employment
Law.

Hertz Local Edition Transporting, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Charles M. Dyke -- cdyke@nixonpeabody.com -- Nixon Peabody LLP &
Robert A. Dolinko -- rdolinko@nixonpeabody.com -- Nixon Peabody
LLP.


IMERYS TALC: Fong et al. Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------
The case, PUI FONG and THAI WONG, Plaintiffs, v. IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC. (sued individually and as successor-in-interest to
LUZENAC AMERICA, INC. successor-in-interest to CYPRUS INDUSTRIAL
MINERALS COMPANY); et al., Defendants, Case No. BC675449, was
transferred from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California. The grounds for removal include the
reason that district courts have original jurisdiction to hear all
civil proceedings that are, among other things, "related to cases
under title 11." 28 U.S.C. Section 1334(b). The removal of the
aforementioned case is authorized by 28 U.S.C. Sections 1334 and
1452. In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the exposure to the
Imerys' talc caused the Plaintiff's injuries -- specifically,
mesothelioma.

Imerys Talc America, Inc. supplies talc for products including
Johnson & Johnson's baby powder. [BN]

Attorneys for Defendants:

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


INTUIT INC: Sinohui et al Sue over TurboTax Deceptive Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Intuit Inc. for
breach of contract and for violations of the California's Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, the California's Unfair Competition Law, the
New York's General Business Law, and the Pennsylvania's Unfair
Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. The case is captioned
BRIANNA SINOHUI, MICHELE ARENA, JOSEPH BROUGHER, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. INTUIT
INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-02546 (N.D. Cal., May 12, 2019).

Pursuant to an agreement with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Intuit's TurboTax and 11 other tax preparation providers are
required to cumulatively offer 70% of U.S. taxpayers the option to
file their taxes for free. For the 2018 tax season, any taxpayer
whose adjusted gross income is $66,000 or less is eligible to use
tax preparation software from one of these providers to prepare and
file their tax returns for free. However, TurboTax violated its
agreement with the IRS by intentionally diverting qualified
taxpayers away from its "free filing" program in favor of its paid
product offerings. It did this by segregating its "free file"
webpage from its primary website and then altering the website's
code in order to keep it hidden from search engines like Google so
that it would not be easily accessible to qualified taxpayers. In
addition, TurboTax also marketed its paid offerings as "Free
Guaranteed" -- so that qualified taxpayers believed they were
filing their taxes pursuant to the free-filing program, only to be
hit with unexpected charges after they already spent hours entering
information and were getting ready to file. As a result of this
scheme, TurboTax breached its agreement with the government, took
advantage of the U.S. public, and generated millions of dollars of
ill-gotten gains from persons who least can afford it.

Intuit Inc. is headquartered in Mountain View, California, and
incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware. Intuit
markets, sells and operates TurboTax, a tax preparation and filing
software product and service. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
     GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
     505 14th Street, Suite 1110
     Oakland, CA 94612
     Telephone: (510) 350-9700
     Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
     E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com
             
             - and -
             
     Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
     STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
     460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
     Kansas City, MO 64112
     Telephone: (816) 714-7100
     Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
     E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com


J.P. MORGAN: Sept. 6 ERISA Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
If you were a participant or beneficiary in your employer's 401(k)
retirement savings plan through which you were invested at relevant
times in certain JPMorgan stable value funds, you may be eligible
for a payment from this Class Action Settlement.

What is this lawsuit and Settlement about?
A proposed Settlement has been reached in a class action brought by
certain individuals whose 401(k) plan accounts included investments
in the JPMorgan stable value funds. The action is entitled In re:
J.P. Morgan Stable Value Fund ERISA Litigation, Case No.
1:12-cv-02548-VSB (the "Action"), currently pending before the
Honorable Vernon S. Broderick in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.  The Court has given its
preliminary approval to the Settlement.

The Plaintiffs brought the Action alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") concerning the
way Defendants JPMorgan Chase & Co. and other JPMorgan entities
("JPMorgan") managed the Class Members' 401(k) plan investments
that were allocated to certain JPMorgan stable value funds.
JPMorgan denies all claims and nothing in the Settlement is an
admission or concession on JPMorgan's part of any fault or
liability whatsoever.

Who is included in the Settlement?
The Court certified a class and three subclasses of individuals who
were participants or beneficiaries in their employers' 401(k) plans
and had some of their investments allocated to a stable value fund
managed by JPMorgan during the class periods.  

If you believe you are a Class Member, you should read the
applicable Settlement Notice carefully because your legal rights
are affected whether you act or do not act.  

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS

* ACTION

DO NOTHING

EXPLANATION

If you are a Current Participant and you do nothing, you will be
included in the Settlement. If you are a Former Participant or a
Potential Participant and you do nothing, you will get no payment,
and you give up rights to ever sue JPMorgan about the legal claims
in this Action.

DUE DATE

ACTION

SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM

EXPLANATION

(IF YOU ARE A FORMER PARTICIPANT OR POTENTIAL PARTICIPANT)
Submitting a Valid Claim Form is the only way to get a payment from
the Settlement.

DUE DATE

July 9, 2019 (Received)


* ACTION

EXCLUDE YOURSELF

You will receive no payment from the Settlement. You will not be
bound by the terms of the Settlement. This is the only option that
allows you to ever be a part of any other lawsuit against JPMorgan
about the legal claims in the Action.

DUE DATE

July 9, 2019 (Received)

* ACTION

OBJECT

EXPLANATION

Write to the Court about why you do not like the Settlement.

DUE DATE

July 9, 2019 (Received)


* ACTION

FILE A NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAR AT THE FAIRNESS HEARING

EXPLANATION

You or your attorney may ask the court for permission to speak at
the Fairness Hearing.

DUE DATE

July 9, 2019 (Filed By)

* ACTION

ATTEND THE FAIRNESS HEARING

EXPLANATION

You may attend the Fairness Hearing at your own expense but you are
not required to do so.

DUE DATE

September 6, 2019 at 11:00 a.m., Eastern

U.S. District Court,
Southern District of New York
40 Foley Square, Courtroom 518
New York, NY 10007

FOR MORE INFORMATION
Visit this website often to get the most up-to-date information.

Call: 1-844-877-5911
Email: info@jpmsvfclassaction.com
Mail:
JPM Stable Value Fund Litigation
c/o JND Class Action Administration
P.O. Box 91324
Seattle, WA 98111-9424

A copy of the Notice of Class Action Settlement and Fairness
Hearing is available at:

         https://is.gd/tIPLVX


JEFFERSON SESSIONS: Kolev Files Class Suit in D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jefferson Sessions.
The case is styled as Emil Kolev, on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated, Petitioner v. Jefferson Sessions, Attorney
General in his official capacity, Elaine C Duke, in her official
capacity, Thomas D Homan, the senior official performing the duties
of the Director of ICE, in his official capacity, Christopher
Shanahan, the field office Director of Enforcement and Removal
Operations, ICE, New York City, as the warden of the Hudson County
Correctional Facility, in his official capacity and each of their
respective successors and assigns, Does 1 through 5 and H.O. Thomas
Decker, Respondents, Case No. 2:19-cv-10740 (D. N.J., April 23,
2019).

The lawsuit is filed under the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

The Respondents are government representatives.[BN]

The Respondents are represented by:

   Brandon Matthew Waterman, Esq.
   United States Attorney's Office, SDNY
   86 Chambers Street
   New York, NY 10007
   Tel: (212) 637-2741


JESA 31: Delivery Personnel Seek to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Juan De Dios Perez Mijangos and Salvador Pablo-Ortiz, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JESA 31,
Inc., Ekrem Oz, Farrukh Toshkhojaev, Bahovaddin Hakimov and Farrukh
Tojiboev, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-04244 (S.D. N.Y., May 9,
2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages and
redress for Defendants' failure to provide itemized wage statements
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor
Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys'
fees and costs.

Defendants own, operate, or control a Turkish restaurant, located
at 1030 Second Avenue, New York, NY 10022 under the name "Zaytoon"
where Plaintiffs worked as delivery personnel. They claim to have
worked in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum
wage, spread-of-hours and overtime compensation for the hours that
they worked. Defendants also failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of their hours worked. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JLING INC: Ji Appeals E.D.N.Y. Memorandum and Order to 2nd Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Junjiang Ji filed an appeal from the District Court's
memorandum and order issued on March 31, 2019, in the lawsuit
entitled JUNJIANG JI and DECHENG LI on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. JLING INC. d/b/a Showa Hibachi, JANNEN
OF AMERICA, INC. d/b/a Showa Hibachi, JOHN ZHONG E HU, JIA LING HU,
and JIA WANG HU, Case No. 15-cv-4194, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
were employed as cooks in the kitchen of a restaurant, Showa
Hibachi located in Wantagh, New York.  The Corporate Defendants
operated Showa Hibachi during the relevant time period.  According
to the Plaintiffs, the Individual Defendants are principals of the
corporate the Defendants and are liable for all Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL") violations.

The appellate case is captioned as Ji v. Jling Inc., Case No.
19-1245, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Junjiang Ji is represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          JOHN TROY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324
          E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.com

Defendants-Appellees Jling Inc., DBA Showa Hibachi, Jannen of
America, Inc., DBA Showa Hibachi, John Zhong E. Hu, Jia Ling Hu and
Jia Wang Hu are represented by:

          Jian Hang, Esq.
          HANG AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-20 38th Avenue
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353-8588
          E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bailey Talc Injury Suit Removed to E.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit titled ROGER BAILEY,
Individually and as Successor in Interest of the Estate of JOANNA
OSWALD, Deceased; and DANIKA DAVIS, DAVID OSWALD, DAWN DAVIDSON and
DEANNA SUTTON v. IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. (sued individually and
as successor-in-interest to LUZENAC AMERICA, INC.
successor-in-interest to CYPRUS INDUSTRIAL MINERALS COMPANY and
WINDSOR MINERALS, INC. and METROPOLITAN TALC CO.); JOHNSON &
JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC., a subsidiary of JOHNSON &
JOHNSON; and DOES 1-450, Case No. SCV0040443, from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Placer to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-at-00318 to the
proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Brannin Sues over Cancer-Causing Talcum Powder
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A product liability-related class action complaint has been filed
against Johnson & Johnson, Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., and
Imerys Talc America, Inc. for several causes including failure to
warn, negligence, breach of implied warranty and negligent
representation. The case is captioned CARLY BRANNIN, Individually
and as Successor-In-Interest for KATHRYN WILLS, Plaintiff, v.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.;
IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. f/k/a LUZENAC AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 17CV318656 (Cal.
Super., Cty. of Santa Clara, April 26, 2019).

Plaintiff Carly Brannin is the daughter and successor-in-interest
of Decedent, Kathryn Wills. As successor-in-interest, Brannin has
standing in a representative capacity as the daughter to bring
actions on behalf of the estate and the heirs for survival and
wrongful death pursuant to the laws of the State of California. The
claim in this action is a direct and proximate result of the
negligent, willful, and wrongful acts and/or omissions of
Defendants and/or their corporate predecessors in connection with
the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the
products known as Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder and Shower to
Shower. Brannin seeks recovery for damages as a result of
developing ovarian cancer in Decedent, KATHRYN WILLS, which was
directly and proximately caused by such wrongful conduct by
Defendants, the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of
talcum powder, and the attendant effects of developing ovarian
cancer.

Johnson & Johnson is a corporation doing business in and authorized
to do business in the state of California and was incorporated in
New Jersey in 1887. The company maintains an office located at One
Johnson & Johnson Plaza, New Brunswick, New Jersey, as well as
several locations within the state of California, and has
approximately 127,100 employees worldwide. Johnson & Johnson's
family of companies includes more than 250 operating companies
conducting business in 60 countries of the world and organized into
three business segments: Consumer, Pharmaceutical and Medical
Devices. Imerys Talc America, Inc., is a Delaware corporation, with
its principal place of business in San Jose, California in the
County of Santa Clara. Specifically, Imerys maintains its Head
Office and Laboratory at 1732 North First Street, Suite 450, San
Jose, California. The company has been in the business of mining
and distributing talcum powder for use in talcum powder based
products, including Shower to Shower body powder and Johnson &
Johnson's Baby Powder. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Callahan Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------
The case, MARIA DEL CARMEN CALLAHAN, Plaintiff, v. GENUINE PARTS
COMPANY (sued individually and as successor-in interest to NATIONAL
AUTOMOTIVE PARTS ASSOCIATION a/k/a NAPA), a Georgia Corporation
with its principal place of business in the State of Georgia, et
al., Defendants, Case No. JCCP 4674 / BC695364, from the Los
Angeles County Superior Court to the United States District Court
Central District of California on May 1, 2019.

On April 18, 2019, Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. (JJCI) filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware a
Motion to Fix Venue for Claims Related to Imerys' Bankruptcy Under
28 U.S.C. Sections 157(b)(5) and 1334(b). The state court talc suit
is among those personal injury and wrongful death claims that JJCI
seeks to consolidate in the District of Delaware. These claims
center on allegations that exposure to the Imerys' talc caused the
Plaintiff's injuries -- specifically, death due to mesothelioma.
However, JJCI disputes these allegations. Given the pendency of the
Motion, JJCI believes that the United States District Court Central
District 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.

Based in Skillman, New Jersey, JJCI operates as a subsidiary of
Johnson & Johnson. The company manufactures products in the
categories of baby's skin, bathtime, bedtime, playtime, and
natural. [BN]

Attorneys for Defendant:

     Alexander G. Calfo, Esq.
     Julia E. Romano, Esq.
     Bryan L. King, Esq.
     KING & SPALDING LLP
     633 West 5th Street, Suite 1700
     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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Croft et al Sue over Harmful Talcum-Based Powder
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A consumer fraud- and product liability-related class action
complaint has been filed against Johnson & Johnson's family of
companies and Imerys Talc America for several causes including
negligence, failure to warn, breach of warranty of merchantability
and fraud. The case is captioned GLENDA CROFT, an Individual;
CLAIRE WILDSTEIN, an Individual; MELISSA ANDREWS, an Individual,
ANDREW BENSON PERRY, Individually and as Heir At Law; DORIS MELISSA
HAMILTON, Individually and as Heir At Law; CLAYBORN LEONARD PERRY
JR., Individually and as Heir At Law, Plaintiffs, vs. JOHNSON &
JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC. F/N/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. F/K/A LUZENAC
AMERICA, INC. and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-03446 (Cal. Super., Cty. of Los Angeles, April 26, 2019).
Plaintiffs bring this action to seek redress from the damages
relating to the Defendant's design, manufacture, sale, marketing,
advertising, promotion, and distribution of Johnson & Johnson Baby
Powder and Shower to Shower products. The use of such products
allegedly can cause ovarian cancer and other serious health
conditions. As a result of their use of these products, Plaintiffs
reportedly suffered ovarian cancer and other injuries.

Johnson & Johnson is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of New Jersey with its principal place of business in New
Jersey. Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. was engaged in the
business of manufacturing, marketing, testing, promoting, selling,
and/or distributing Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder and Shower to
Shower products. Imerys Talc America, Inc. is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business in the state of
California -- specifically its head office and laboratory are
located at 1732 North First Street, Suite 450, San Jose,
California. This company has been in the business of mining and
distributing talcum powder for use in talcum powder based products,
including Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder and Shower to Shower
products. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

             - and –

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

             - and –

     Zona Jones, Esq.
     PROVOST UMPHREY, LLP
     490 Park Street
     Beaumont, TX 77701
     Telephone: (409) 835-6000
     E-mail: zjones@provostumphrey.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Cunnie Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 28, 2019, the lawsuit entitled KATHLEEN CUNNIE, an
individual v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing
business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. f/k/a
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey
corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA,
INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business
in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03484 to the
proceeding.

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

On March 21, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Superior
Court of San Mateo County, which generally alleges that the
Debtors' talc, through the habitual use of J&J cosmetic talcum
powder products, caused the Plaintiff's personal injury and/or
wrongful death.

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

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

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

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

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

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

               - and -

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Diess Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuits styled LAWRENCE DIESS and
CAROL DIESS v. BAYER CONSUMER CARE HOLDINGS LLC f/k/a BAYER
CONSUMER CARE LLC f/k/a MSD CONSUMER CARE, INC; et al., and DARREN
DIESS, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of
LAWRENCE DIESS, Deceased; CAROL DIESS; and DEBBIE MEDRANO v. CYPRUS
AMAX MINERALS COMPANY (sued individually, doing business as, and as
successor to AMERICAN TALC COMPANY, METROPOLITAN TALC CO. INC. and
CHARLES MATHIEU INC. and SIERRA TALC COMPANY and UNITED TALC
COMPANY), et al., Case No. JCCP 4674/BC663139, from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-00788 to the
proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Heard Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit styled ROSE A. HEARD, an
individual v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing
business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.,
a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of
business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03456 to the
proceeding.

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

On November 6, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the
Superior Court of Santa Clara County, which generally alleges that
the Debtors' talc, through the habitual use of J&J cosmetic talcum
powder products, caused the Plaintiff's personal injury and/or
wrongful death.

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

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

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

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

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

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

               - and -

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Lowe et al Suit Moved to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
THEODORE LOWE, Individually, and as Successor-In-Interest to the
ESTATE OF LORENA LOWE, Deceased; MARY PEARSON, Individually, and as
Successor-In-Interest to the ESTATE OF JOANN PEARSON, Deceased,
Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.
F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendants, Case No.
16CV299025 (Aug. 8, 2016), was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of Santa Clara, to U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on May 2, 2019. The Central District
of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03842 to the
proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Luecker et al Suit Moved to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
LAURIE LUECKER individually and on Behalf of the Estate of
KATHERINE LUECKER; LEANN CAMPBELL; LINDA DOS TER; BRUCE DOSTER;
DIANE FEHER; MICHAEL FEHER; ROSEMARIE PETTI; and TRAVIS SALISBURY
individually and on Behalf of the Estate of JANET SMYTH, the
Plaintiffs, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing
business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey
corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA,
INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business
in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendants,
Case No. 16CV303435 (Dec. 2, 2016), was removed from the Superior
Court of California, County of Santa Clara, to U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on May 2, 2019. The Central
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03839
to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Luther Suit Moved to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
LISA LUTHER, an individual, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a
New Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON &
JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES,
INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS
TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place
of business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100, the
Defendants, Case No. BC700403 (March 29, 2018), was removed from
the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on May 2,
2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:19-cv-03833 to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

          Michelle Partin., Esq.
          Patrick Lyons, Esq.
          ASHCRAFT & GEREL, LLP
          4900 Seminary Road, Suite 650
          Alexandria, VA 22311
          Telephone: 703-931-5500
          Facsimile: 703-820-1656
          E-mail: mparfitt@ashcraftlaw,com
                  plyons@ashcraftlaw.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: McNeal Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the matter entitled WILLIE MCNEAL, JR.
v. AUTOZONE, INC., et al., Case No. JCCP 4674/BC698965, from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03415 to the
proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Dominguez Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26,
2019, the matter titled ROXANA DOMINGUEZ, Individually and as
Personal Representative of the Estate of FRANCISCO DOMINGUEZ,
decedent v. BRENNTAG NORTH AMERICA, INC. (sued individually and as
successor-in-interest to MINERAL PIGMENT SOLUTIONS, INC. and as
successor-in-interest to WHITTAKER CLARK & DANIELS, INC.; et al.,
Case No. JCCP 4674/BC650123, from the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03419 to the
proceeding.

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

The Complaint and First Amended Complaint generally allege that
exposure to asbestos, contained in the Debtors' talc, through the
habitual use of JJCI cosmetic talcum powder products, caused the
Decedent's personal injury and wrongful death.

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

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

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

Defendant JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. is represented by:

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moves Packard Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26,
2019, the matter titled LESLIE PACKARD, individually and as
Personal Representative of the Estate of KATHLEEN PACKARD,
Deceased; PAM PACKARD, CONSTANCE ESPERUM and LESLIE BUTTRAM,
individually v. AMERICAN TALC COMPANY (sued individually and as
successor-in-interest to SUZORITE MINERAL PRODUCTS, INC. f/k/a
PIONEER TALC CO., a wholly owned subsidiary of WOLD COMPANY, INC.),
a Wyoming Corporation with its principal place of business in the
State of Texas, et al., Case No. JCCP 4674/BC716434, from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03458 to the
proceeding.

The State Court Talc Claims against JJCI center on allegations that
exposure to the Debtors' talc caused the Decedent's injuries,
specifically, death due to mesothelioma.  JJCI disputes these
allegations.

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

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

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

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

Defendant JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. is represented by:

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Nicholson Suit Moved to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
CYNTHIA NICHOLSON, an individual, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON &
JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1
through 100, the Defendants, Case No. 18CV331856 (July 25, 2018),
was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Santa
Clara, to U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on May 2, 2019. The Central District of California Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03793 to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Noorda Suit Moved to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
GABRIELA NOORDA, an Individual, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON &
JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1
through 100, the Defendants, Case No. BC690361 (Jan. 17, 2018), was
removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, to U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on May 2, 2019. The Central District of California Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03844 to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          James A. Morris, Esq.
          Shane E. Greenberg, Esq.
          MORRIS LAW FIRM
          4111 W. Alameda Avenue, Suite 611
          Burbank, CA 91505
          Telephone: (747) 283 1144
          Facsimile: (747) 283 1143
          E-mail: jrnorris@jamlawyers.com
                  sgreenbergjamlowyers.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Owens Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit titled SHANTA OWENS v.
CYPRUS AMAX MINERALS COMPANY, et al., Case No. 18STCVO8280, from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03393 to the
proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Petas Talc Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit captioned FRANK GEORGE
PETAS, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of
VICTORIA PETAS, Deceased; SUSAN DOODY; LAURA MARIE LARA and ULISSA
ANN AASPACIA LINDSEY v. AVON PRODUCTS, INC., et al., Case No. JCCP
4674/BC701665, from the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03460 to the
proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Crone Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the matter styled DENIS CRONE v. JOHNSON
& JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California;
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey
corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA,
INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business
in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03449 to the
proceeding.

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

On August 24, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Superior
Court of Los Angeles County, which generally alleges that the
Debtors' talc, through the habitual use of J&J cosmetic talcum
powder products, caused the Plaintiff's personal injury and/or
wrongful death.

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

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

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

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

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

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

               - and -

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Crudge Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit captioned GEORGE CRUDGE and
SHARA CRUDGE v. AMCORD, INC. (sued individually and as
successor-in-interest to RIVERSIDE CEMENT CO.), et al., Case No.
JCCP 4674/BC685901, from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03472 to the
proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Diess Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the matter entitled LAWRENCE DIESS and
CAROL DIESS v. BAYER CONSUMER CARE HOLDINGS LLC f/k/a BAYER
CONSUMER CARE LLC f/k/a MSD CONSUMER CARE, INC; et al., and DARREN
DIESS, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of
LAWRENCE DIESS, Deceased; CAROL DIESS; and DEBBIE MEDRANO v. CYPRUS
AMAX MINERALS COMPANY (sued individually, doing business as, and as
successor to AMERICAN TALC COMPANY, METROPOLITAN TALC CO. INC. and
CHARLES MATHIEU INC. and SIERRA TALC COMPANY and UNITED TALC
COMPANY), et al., Case No. JCCP 4674/BC663139, from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03474-JFW-RAO to
the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Fong Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit styled PUI FONG and THAI
WONG v. IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. (sued individually and as
successor-in-interest to LUZENAC AMERICA, INC.
successor-in-interest to CYPRUS INDUSTRIAL MINERALS COMPANY); et
al., Case No. JCCP 4674/BC675449, from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03435 to the
proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Gagnon Talc Injury Suit to S.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit entitled CHARLOTTE GAGNON v.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON, and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC., Case No.
2019-09714, from the District Court, Harris County, Texas, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-01543 to the
proceeding.

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

The Plaintiff commenced the State Court Talc Claims on or about
February 7, 2019, by filing a Petition in the District Court of
Harris County, Texas, bearing case number 2019-09714.  The
Plaintiffs' Petition generally alleges that exposure to asbestos,
contained in the Debtors' talc, through the habitual use of J&J
cosmetic talcum powder products, caused the Plaintiff's personal
injury and/or wrongful death.

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

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

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

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

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

               - and -

          Cori C. Steinman, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          500 W. 2nd St., Suite 1800
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 457-2008
          E-mail: csteinmann@kslaw.com

One of the Defendants' attorneys certifies that notice was sent to
these attorneys of record:

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

               - and -

          Michael Patronella, Esq.
          LUBEL VOYLES LLP
          675 Bering Drive, Suite 850
          Houston, TX 77057
          Telephone: (713) 284-5200
          Facsimile: (713) 284-5250
          E-mail: mpatronella@lubelvoyles.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Nott Talc Injury Suit to N.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Johnson & Johnson removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit
styled ERNEST NOTT and JUDITH NOTT v. CUMMINS, INC., et al., Case
No. SCV263871, from the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Sonoma to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02293 to the
proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

Defendant JOHNSON & JOHNSON is represented by:

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes O'Dell Suit to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson removed case, ROBERT H. O'DELL, INDIVIDUALLY, AND
AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST FOR JOAN L. O'DELL, DECEASED, the
Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.
f/k/a JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; and IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC. f/k/a LUZENAC AMERICA, INC., the Defendants, Case No.
JCCP 4872 / SCV-261914, from the Superior Court of the State of
California for County of Los Angeles, to U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on May 2, 2019. The Central
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03828
to the proceeding.

On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two
affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada,
Inc., filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition, commencing a
reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys Talc America, Inc., et
al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter 11 Case"). Since the
Chapter 11 Case was commenced, the Debtors have remained as debtors
in possession under 11 U.S.C. section 1101 and have the rights,
powers, and duties set out in 11 U.S.C. sections 1107 and 1108. At
the time the Debtors commenced the Chapter 11 Case, the State Court
Talc Claims were pending in the State Court. The State Court Talc
Claims are not proceeding before the United States Tax Court and
are not brought by a governmental unit to enforce its police or
regulatory powers.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

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

          Michael F. Healy, Esq.
          Emily M. Weissenberger, Esq.
          Sandra L. Sheldon, Esq.
          Alexander Guney, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
          One Montgomery, Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415 544 1900
          Facsimile: 415 391 0281
          E-mail: mfhealy@shb.com
                  eweissenberger@shb.com
                  ssheldon@shb.com
                  aguney@shb.com

               - and -

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

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Root Suit to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson removed case, LINDA ROOT, an individual, the
Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.
f/k/a JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; and IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC. f/k/a LUZENAC AMERICA, INC., the Defendants, Case No.
JCCP 4872 / CIVDS1811937, from the Superior Court of the State of
California for County of Los Angeles, to U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on May 2, 2019. The Central
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03837
to the proceeding.

On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two
affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada,
Inc., filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition, commencing a
reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys Talc America, Inc., et
al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter 11 Case"). Since the
Chapter 11 Case was commenced, the Debtors have remained as debtors
in possession under 11 U.S.C. section 1101 and have the rights,
powers, and duties set out in 11 U.S.C. sections 1107 and 1108. At
the time the Debtors commenced the Chapter 11 Case, the State Court
Talc Claims were pending in the State Court. The State Court Talc
Claims are not proceeding before the United States Tax Court and
are not brought by a governmental unit to enforce its police or
regulatory powers.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

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

          Michael F. Healy, Esq.
          Emily M. Weissenberger, Esq.
          Sandra L. Sheldon, Esq.
          Alexander Guney, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
          One Montgomery, Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415 544 1900
          Facsimile: 415 391 0281
          E-mail: mfhealy@shb.com
                  eweissenberger@shb.com
                  ssheldon@shb.com
                  aguney@shb.com

               - and -

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

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Salamanca Suit to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson removed case, SILVIA FIGUEROA SALAMANCA,
Individually and as Representative of the Estate of SILVIA D.
SALAMANCA DE IGUEROA , the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON;
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. f/k/a JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER
COMPANIES, INC.; and IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. f/k/a LUZENAC
AMERICA, INC., the Defendants, Case No. JCCP 4872 / 18CV327582,
from the Superior Court of the State of California for County of
Los Angeles, to U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on May 2, 2019. The Central District of California Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03826 to the proceeding.

On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two
affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada,
Inc., filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition, commencing a
reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys Talc America, Inc., et
al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter 11 Case"). Since the
Chapter 11 Case was commenced, the Debtors have remained as debtors
in possession under 11 U.S.C. section 1101 and have the rights,
powers, and duties set out in 11 U.S.C. sections 1107 and 1108. At
the time the Debtors commenced the Chapter 11 Case, the State Court
Talc Claims were pending in the State Court. The State Court Talc
Claims are not proceeding before the United States Tax Court and
are not brought by a governmental unit to enforce its police or
regulatory powers.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

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

          Michael F. Healy, Esq.
          Emily M. Weissenberger, Esq.
          Sandra L. Sheldon, Esq.
          Alexander Guney, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
          One Montgomery, Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415 544 1900
          Facsimile: 415 391 0281
          E-mail: mfhealy@shb.com
                  eweissenberger@shb.com
                  ssheldon@shb.com
                  aguney@shb.com

               - and -

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

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Valenzuela Talc Injury Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. removed on April 26,
2019, the matter captioned MARK ANTHONY VALENZUELA, individually
and as successor-in-interest to VERONICA VALENZUELA, Deceased,
ANNALISE ALEXIS VALENZUELA, a minor, by Mark Anthony Valenzuela,
her guardian ad litem, JACOB ALEXANDER VALENZUELA, a minor, by Mark
Anthony Valenzuela, his guardian ad litem, and NOAH ALEXANDER
VALENZUELA, a minor, by Mark Anthony Valenzuela, his guardian ad
litem, individually v. CALPORTLAND COMPANY f/k/a CALIFORNIA
PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY, et al., Case No. JCCP 4674/BC682212, from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03467 to the
proceeding.

The State Court Talc Claims against JJCI center on allegations that
exposure to the Debtors' talc caused the Decedent's injuries,
specifically, death due to mesothelioma. JJCI disputes these
allegations.

The Summons and Complaint generally alleges that exposure to
asbestos, contained in the Debtors' talc, through the habitual use
of JJCI cosmetic talcum powder products, caused the Decedent's
personal injury and wrongful death.

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

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

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

Defendant JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. is represented by:

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Zimmerman Talc Injury Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 26, 2019, the lawsuit captioned LINDA ZIMMERMAN v.
AUTOZONE, INC, et al., Case No. JCCP 4674/BC720153, from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03471 to the
proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

          Alexander G. Calfo, Esq.
          Julia E. Romano, Esq.
          Jennifer T. Stewart, Esq.
          Carter L. George, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          633 West 5th Street, Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443-4355
          Facsimile: (213) 443-4310
          E-mail: acalfo@kslaw.com
                  jromano@kslaw.com
                  jstewart@kslaw.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Injunctive Relief Class Pending
-----------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019, that a class action seeking primarily
injunctive relief continues separately in the Interchange
Litigation.

On the other hand, and as previously reported in the Class Action
Reporter, an amended settlement agreement with the class seeking
monetary relief has been preliminarily approved by the District
Court in January 2019.

A group of merchants and retail associations filed a series of
class action complaints alleging that Visa and Mastercard, as well
as certain banks, conspired to set the price of credit and debit
card interchange fees and enacted respective rules in violation of
antitrust laws.  The parties settled the cases for a cash payment,
a temporary reduction of credit card interchange, and modifications
to certain credit card network rules.  In December 2013, the
District Court granted final approval of the settlement.

A number of merchants appealed the settlement to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which, in June 2016,
vacated the District Court's certification of the class action and
reversed the approval of the class settlement.  In March 2017, the
U.S. Supreme Court declined petitions seeking review of the
decision of the Court of Appeals.  The case was remanded to the
District Court for further proceedings consistent with the
appellate decision.  The original class action was divided into two
separate actions, one seeking primarily monetary relief and the
other seeking primarily injunctive relief.

In September 2018, the parties to the class action seeking monetary
relief finalized an agreement which amends and supersedes the prior
settlement agreement, and the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
preliminary approval of the modified settlement.  Pursuant to this
settlement, the defendants have collectively contributed an
additional US$900 million to the approximately US$5.3 billion
previously held in escrow from the original settlement.  In January
2019, the amended agreement was preliminarily approved by the
District Court, and formal notice of the class settlement is
proceeding in accordance with the District Court's order.

The class action seeking primarily injunctive relief continues
separately.

In addition, certain merchants have filed individual actions
raising similar allegations against Visa and Mastercard, as well as
against the Firm and other banks, and those actions are
proceeding.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. operates as a financial services company
worldwide. It operates through four segments: Consumer & Community
Banking (CCB), Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Commercial
Banking (CB), and Asset & Wealth Management (AWM). JPMorgan Chase &
Co. was founded in 1799 and is headquartered in New York, New
York.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Lawsuits Related to Forex Trading Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019, that, with respect to litigation related to
its foreign exchange ("FX") sales and trading activities, an
indirect purchaser action, a consumer action and an opt-out action
remain pending in district court.

The Firm previously reported settlements with certain government
authorities relating to its foreign exchange ("FX") sales and
trading activities and controls related to those activities.
FX-related investigations and inquiries by government authorities,
including competition authorities, are ongoing, and the Firm is
cooperating with and working to resolve those matters.

In May 2015, the Firm pleaded guilty to a single violation of
federal antitrust law.  In January 2017, the Firm was sentenced,
with judgment entered thereafter and a term of probation ending in
January 2020.  The Department of Labor has granted the Firm a
five-year exemption of disqualification that allows the Firm and
its affiliates to continue to rely on the Qualified Professional
Asset Manager exemption under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act ("ERISA") until January 2023.  The Firm will need to
reapply in due course for a further exemption to cover the
remainder of the ten-year disqualification period.

Separately, in February 2017 the South Africa Competition
Commission referred its FX investigation of the Firm and other
banks to the South Africa Competition Tribunal, which is conducting
civil proceedings concerning that matter.

The Firm is also one of a number of foreign exchange dealers named
as defendants in a class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York by U.S.-based
plaintiffs, principally alleging violations of federal antitrust
laws based on an alleged conspiracy to manipulate foreign exchange
rates (the "U.S. class action").

In January 2015, the Firm entered into a settlement agreement in
the U.S. class action.  Following this settlement, a number of
additional putative class actions were filed seeking damages for
persons who transacted FX futures and options on futures (the
"exchanged-based actions"), consumers who purchased foreign
currencies at allegedly inflated rates (the "consumer action"),
participants or beneficiaries of qualified ERISA plans (the "ERISA
actions"), and purported indirect purchasers of FX instruments (the
"indirect purchaser action").

Since then, the Firm has entered into a revised settlement
agreement to resolve the consolidated U.S. class action, including
the exchange-based actions.  The Court granted final approval of
that settlement agreement in August 2018.

Certain members of the settlement class filed requests to the Court
to be excluded from the class, and certain of them filed a
complaint against the Firm and a number of other foreign exchange
dealers in November 2018 (the "opt-out action").

The District Court has dismissed one of the ERISA actions, and the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed that
dismissal in July 2018.  The second ERISA action was voluntarily
dismissed with prejudice in November 2018.

The indirect purchaser action, the consumer action and the opt-out
action remain pending in the District Court.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. operates as a financial services company
worldwide. It operates through four segments: Consumer & Community
Banking (CCB), Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Commercial
Banking (CB), and Asset & Wealth Management (AWM). JPMorgan Chase &
Co. was founded in 1799 and is headquartered in New York, New
York.  


JPMORGAN CHASE: LIBOR and Benchmark Rate Litigation Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. continues to face investigations and lawsuits
related to LIBOR and Other Benchmark Rate matters, 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.

JPMorgan Chase has received subpoenas and requests for documents
and, in some cases, interviews, from federal and state agencies and
entities, including the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
and various state attorneys general, as well as the European
Commission ("EC"), the Swiss Competition Commission ("ComCo") and
other regulatory authorities and banking associations around the
world relating primarily to the process by which interest rates
were submitted to the British Bankers Association ("BBA") in
connection with the setting of the BBA's London Interbank Offered
Rate ("LIBOR") for various currencies, principally in 2007 and
2008.  Some of the inquiries also relate to similar processes by
which information on rates was submitted to the European Banking
Federation ("EBF") in connection with the setting of the EBF's Euro
Interbank Offered Rate ("EURIBOR").  The Firm continues to
cooperate with these investigations to the extent that they are
ongoing.  ComCo's investigation relating to EURIBOR, to which the
Firm and other banks are subject, continues.  In December 2016, the
EC issued a decision against the Firm and other banks finding an
infringement of European antitrust rules relating to EURIBOR.  The
Firm has filed an appeal of that decision with the European General
Court, and that appeal is pending.

In addition, the Firm has been named as a defendant along with
other banks in a series of individual and putative class actions
related to benchmarks filed in various United States District
Courts, including three putative class actions relating to U.S.
dollar LIBOR during the period that it was administered by ICE
Benchmark Administration.  These actions have been filed, or
consolidated for pre-trial purposes, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  In these actions,
plaintiffs make varying allegations that in various periods,
starting in 2000 or later, defendants either individually or
collectively manipulated various benchmark rates by submitting
rates that were artificially low or high.  Plaintiffs allege that
they transacted in loans, derivatives or other financial
instruments whose values are affected by changes in these rates and
assert a variety of claims including antitrust claims seeking
treble damages.  These matters are in various stages of
litigation.

The Firm has agreed to settle putative class actions related to
exchange-traded Eurodollar futures contracts, Swiss franc LIBOR,
EURIBOR, the Singapore Interbank Offered Rate, the Singapore Swap
Offer Rate and the Australian Bank Bill Swap Reference Rate.  Those
settlements are all subject to further documentation and court
approval.

In actions related to U.S. dollar LIBOR during the period that it
was administered by the BBA, the District Court dismissed certain
claims, including antitrust claims brought by some plaintiffs whom
the District Court found did not have standing to assert such
claims, and permitted certain claims to proceed, including
antitrust claims, claims under the Commodity Exchange Act, claims
under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and common law
claims.  The plaintiffs whose antitrust claims were dismissed for
lack of standing have filed an appeal.  The District Court granted
class certification of antitrust claims related to bonds and
interest rate swaps sold directly by the defendants and denied
class certification motions filed by other plaintiffs.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. operates as a financial services company
worldwide. It operates through four segments: Consumer & Community
Banking (CCB), Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Commercial
Banking (CB), and Asset & Wealth Management (AWM). JPMorgan Chase &
Co. was founded in 1799 and is headquartered in New York, New
York.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Still Faces Suits over Precious Metals Futures
--------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. continues to defend itself in lawsuits related
to alleged manipulation of precious metals futures, 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.

Various authorities, including the Department of Justice's Criminal
Division, are conducting investigations relating to trading
practices in the metals markets and related conduct.  The Firm is
responding to and cooperating with these investigations.

Several putative class action complaints have been filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Firm and certain current and former employees, alleging
a precious metals futures and options price manipulation scheme in
violation of the Commodity Exchange Act.  Some of the complaints
also allege unjust enrichment and deceptive acts or practices under
the General Business Law of the State of New York.  The Court
consolidated these putative class actions in February 2019.

The Firm is also a defendant in a consolidated action filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging monopolization of silver futures in violation of the
Sherman Act.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. operates as a financial services company
worldwide. It operates through four segments: Consumer & Community
Banking (CCB), Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Commercial
Banking (CB), and Asset & Wealth Management (AWM). JPMorgan Chase &
Co. was founded in 1799 and is headquartered in New York, New
York.


LEONARD LAW: Holdner Referred to Oregon District Bankruptcy Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIAM F. HOLDNER, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD A.
KRIETZBERG, STEVEN KRIETZBERG, AMY E. MITCHELL, and JUSTIN D.
LEONARD, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01054-AC (D. Or.), Judge
Michael W. Mosman of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon, Portland Division, (i) granted Defendants Mitchell and
Leonard's Motion to Refer to the Bankruptcy Court; and (ii) granted
in part and denied in part the Krietzberg Defendants' Motion to
Refer to the Bankruptcy Court and Motion to Label Plaintiff a
Vexatious Litigant.

On March 14, 2019, Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued his
Findings and Recommendation ("F&R"), recommending that Judge Mosman
grants Defendants Mitchell and Leonard's Motion to Refer Matter to
the Bankruptcy Court; and grant in part and deny in part the
Krietzberg Defendants' Motion to Refer to Bankruptcy Court and
Motion to Label Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant.  Plaintiff Holdner
filed Objections to the F&R.  No responses were filed.

The F&R finds that the Plaintiff's Claims One, Two, and Four bear a
close nexus to ongoing matters in the Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Oregon and therefore recommends that these claims be
referred to that court.  It also recommends that the Judge dismiss
Claim Three without prejudice due to insufficient pleading and an
underdeveloped record, preserving the Defendants' right to renew
their motion to dismiss should the Plaintiff amend the pleading.
Finally, the F&R recommends that the Judge not label the Plaintiff
a vexatious litigant.

In his Objections, Mr. Holdner asks the Judge to appoint an
attorney to represent a class of minority shareholders, arguing
that the Court has jurisdiction because the current suit is a class
action.  Because no class has been certified nor has Mr. Holdner
moved to certify a class, Judge Mosman agrees with Magistrate Judge
Acosta's findings.

Upon review, he agrees with Magistrate Judge Acosta's
recommendation and adopts the F&R in full.  Defendants Mitchell and
Leonard's Motion to Refer to the Bankruptcy Court is granted; and
the Krietzberg Defendants' Motion to Refer to the Bankruptcy Court
and Motion to Label Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant is granted in
part and denied in part.

The Plaintiff has 30 days in which to file an amended complaint, as
to the third claim, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District
of Oregon.  

The Clerk will transfer the file to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the District of Oregon, the current action before the District
Court is closed.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 23, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/B19li3 from Leagle.com.

William F. Holdner, Plaintiff, pro se.

Richard A. Krietzberg & Steven Krietzberg, Defendants, represented
by Sandra S. Gustitus, Chenoweth Law Group.

Amy E. Mitchell, Trustee, Defendant, represented by Justin D.
Leonard -- jleonard@LLG-LLC.com -- Leonard Law Group LLC & Holly C.
Hayman -- hhayman@LLG-LLC.com -- RCO Legal, PS.

Justin D. Leonard, Attorney, Defendant, represented by pro se.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Bid for Leave to Amend Glover Complaint Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action styled, Glover v. Connecticut General
Life Insurance Company and The Lincoln National Life Insurance
Company, the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint
remains pending, according to Lincoln National Corporation's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

The class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut, No. 3:16-cv-00827, and was served on LNL
on June 8, 2016.

Plaintiff is the owner of a universal life insurance policy who
alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance
than permitted by the policy.  Plaintiff seeks to represent all
universal life and variable universal life policyholders who owned
policies containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions
that are similar to those of Plaintiff's policy and seeks damages
on behalf of all such policyholders.

On January 11, 2019, the court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint in
its entirety.  In response, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to
amend the complaint, which the Company has opposed.

Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: COI Litigation in Pennsylvania Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation still defends itself against a
consolidated class action in Pennsylvania styled, In re: Lincoln
National COI Litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

In re: Lincoln National COI Litigation, pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Master
File No. 2:16-cv-06605-GJP, is a consolidated litigation matter
related to multiple putative class action filings that were
consolidated by an order dated March 20, 2017.

In addition to consolidating a number of existing matters, the
order also covers any future cases filed in the same district
related to the same subject matter.  Plaintiffs own universal life
insurance policies originally issued by Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL).

Plaintiffs allege that LNL and LNC breached the terms of
policyholders' contracts by increasing non-guaranteed cost of
insurance rates beginning in 2016.  Plaintiffs seek to represent
classes of policyowners and seek damages on their behalf.

The Company said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."

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

Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Hanks Class Suit Against Unit, Voya Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action styled, Hanks v. The Lincoln Life and
Annuity Company of New York ("LLANY") and Voya Retirement Insurance
and Annuity Company ("Voya"), is still pending, according to
Lincoln National Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019.

The class action (No. 1:16-cv-6399) was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York and was served on LLANY
on August 12, 2016.

Plaintiff owns a universal life policy originally issued by Aetna
(now Voya) and alleges that (i) Voya breached the terms of the
policy when it increased non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates on
Plaintiff's policy; and (ii) LLANY, as reinsurer and administrator
of Plaintiff's policy, engaged in wrongful conduct related to the
cost of insurance increase and was unjustly enriched as a result.

Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of Aetna life insurance
policies that were subject to non-guaranteed cost of insurance rate
increases in 2016 and seeks damages on their behalf.

The Company said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."

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

Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Iwanski Class Action v. FPP Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2019, that the putative class action styled,
Iwanski v. First Penn-Pacific Life Insurance Company, is still
ongoing.

Iwanski v. First Penn-Pacific Life Insurance Company ("FPP"), No.
2:18-cv-01573 filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania is a putative class action
that was filed on April 13, 2018.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant FPP breached the terms of his life
insurance policy by deducting non-guaranteed cost of insurance
charges in excess of what is permitted by the policies.  Plaintiff
seeks to represent all owners of universal life insurance policies
issued by FPP containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance
provisions that are similar to those of Plaintiff's policy and
seeks damages on their behalf.  Breach of contract is the only
cause of action asserted.

Lincoln National said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."

Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Still Faces 2017 COI Rate Litigation
------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation continues to defend itself against a
consolidated class action suit styled, In re: Lincoln National 2017
COI Rate Litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2019.

In re: Lincoln National 2017 COI Rate Litigation, Master File No.
2:17-cv-04150 is a consolidated litigation matter related to
multiple putative class action filings that were consolidated by an
order of the court in March 2018.

Plaintiffs own universal life insurance policies originally issued
by former Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL).  Plaintiffs allege that LNL
and LNC breached the terms of policyholders' contracts by
increasing non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates beginning in
2017.

Plaintiffs seek to represent classes of policyholders and seek
damages on their behalf.

Lincoln National said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."

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

Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Unit Still Defends Class Action Suit by TVPX ARS
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2019, that The Lincoln National Life
Insurance Company still defends itself against a putative class
action suit initiated by TVPX ARS INC.

TVPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth
Management, LTD. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company,
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, No. 2:18-cv-02989, is a putative class action that
was filed on July 17, 2018.

Plaintiff alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of
insurance than permitted by the policy.  Plaintiff seeks to
represent all universal life and variable universal life
policyholders who own policies issued by LNL or its predecessors
containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are
similar to those of Plaintiff's policy and seeks damages on behalf
of all such policyholders.

Lincoln National said, We are vigorously defending this matter."

Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.


LOS ANGELES, CA: Oct. 9 Gas Users Tax Settlement Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC and the Law Offices of Paul G. Kerkorian on
May 3 disclosed that a settlement has been reached with the City of
Los Angeles (the "City" or "Defendant") in a class action lawsuit
claiming City improperly included in its natural gas utility user
tax calculation charges known as the Public Purpose Surcharge
("PPS") and the State Regulatory Fee ("SRF"). The lawsuit contends
that the City may only calculate the Los Angeles City Users Tax on
the amount of natural gas used, and not on the PPS and SRF. The
City denies the allegations, and the Court did not issue a final
decision in favor of either Plaintiffs or Defendant. Instead, the
parties agreed to a settlement to avoid the expense and risk of
continued litigation.

You are a "Class Member" if you are a Southern California Gas
Company ("SCGC") natural gas customer who was charged the City of
Los Angeles' natural gas utility user tax (described on the SCGC
natural gas bill as the line item "Los Angeles City Users Tax")
with a billing period that includes at least one day that falls on
or after December 12, 2012 through April 12, 2019.

As part of the Settlement, the City has agreed to stop imposing the
Los Angeles City Users Tax on the PPS and the SRF, unless such a
tax is approved by voters in the future, if ever. This change will
result in estimated $6.18 million of tax savings per year. The City
has also agreed to create a $32,500,000 Settlement Fund, that,
after deducting settlement administrative expenses, court-approved
service payments, a payment to a non-profit charitable organization
known as the Alliance for Children's Rights, and court-approved
attorneys' fees and expenses, will be distributed by applying a tax
abatement (i.e., a reduced Los Angeles City Users Tax rate for SCGC
customers who are subject to the Los Angeles Users Tax).

If you are included in the Settlement, you may choose to do
nothing, or object to the Settlement and notify the Court that you
or your lawyer intend to appear at the Court's Final Fairness
Hearing, or exclude yourself from the Settlement.

The Court will hold a hearing in this case (Lavinsky v. City of Los
Angeles, et al., Case No. BC542245) at 10:00 a.m. on October 9,
2019 at Department 11 of the Superior Court of California, County
of Los Angeles, 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California,
90012. If you are a Class Member you may attend this hearing and
request to be heard.

For more information go to www.LAGasTaxSettlement.com or call
1-866-680-6140.


LYFT INC: Carpenters Pension Fund Says IPO Documents Misleading
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Lyft Inc. et al for
violations of the Securities and Exchange Act. The case is
captioned, GREATER PENNSYLVANIA CARPENTERS' PENSION FUND,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, vs. LYFT INC.; LOGAN GREEN; JOHN ZIMMER; BRIAN ROBERTS;
PRASHANT (SEAN) AGGARWAL; BEN HOROWITZ; VALERIE JARRETT; DAVID
LAWEE; HIROSHI MIKITANI; ANN MIURA-KO; MARY AGNES (MAGGIE)
WILDEROTTER; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES
(USA) LLC; JEFFERIES LLC; UBS SECURITIES LLC; STIFEL, NICOLAUS &
COMPANY, INCORPORATED; RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC; KEYBANC CAPITAL
MARKETS INC.; COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC; RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES,
INC.; CANACCORD GENUITY LLC; EVERCORE GROUP L.L.C.; PIPER JAFFRAY &
CO.; JMP SECURITIES LLC; WELLS FARGO SECURITIES, LLC; KKR CAPITAL
MARKETS LLC; ACADEMY SECURITIES, INC.; BLAYLOCK VAN, LLC; PENSERRA
SECURITIES LLC; SIEBERT CISNEROS SHANK & CO., L.L.C.; THE WILLIAMS
CAPITAL GROUP, L.P., CASTLEOAK SECURITIES, L.P.; C.L. KING &
ASSOCIATES, INC.; DREXEL HAMILTON, LLC; GREAT PACIFIC SECURITIES;
LOOP CAPITAL MARKETS LLC; MISCHLER FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.; SAMUEL A.
RAMIREZ & COMPANY, INC.; R. SEELAUS & CO., LLC; and TIGRESS
FINANCIAL PARTNERS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 19-CIV-02377 (Cal.
Super., San Mateo Cty., April 29, 2019).

Plaintiff brings this action under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 against: (1) Lyft, Inc. (2) certain of
the Company's senior executives and directors who signed the
Registration Statement, effective as of March 28, 2019, in
connection with the Lyft's initial public offering and (3) each of
the investment banks that acted as underwriters for the offering.
Plaintiff alleges that the Registration Statement and the
Prospectus, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 29, 2019, contained materially incorrect or misleading
statements and/or omitted material information that was required by
law to be disclosed. Unbeknownst to investors, however, the
Registration Statement's representations were materially
inaccurate, misleading, and/or incomplete because they failed to
disclose, inter alia, that: (1) approximately 3,000 of the bicycles
in Lyft's rideshare program suffered from safety issues that would
lead to their recall; and (2) Lyft's claimed ridesharing market
position was overstated. Accordingly, the price of the Lyft's
shares was artificially and materially inflated at the time of the
offering.

Lyft is a transportation network company based in San Francisco,
California. Lyft was launched in the summer of 2012 by co-founders,
Defendants Logan Green and John Zimmer, to provide an on—demand
ridesharing software platform for their intercity carpooling
company. Today, through its software platform, Lyft operates a
scaled network of drivers, offering riders the ability to select
the mode of transportation suited to their specific needs. Lyft
currently operates in hundreds of cities in the United States and
select cities in Canada. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
     Mark C. Molumphy, Esq.
     Tyson Redenbarger, Esq.
     COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
     840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
     Burlingame, CA 94010
     Telephone: (650) 697-6000
     Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
     E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
             mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com
             tredenbarger@cpmlegal.com

             - and –

     Chris Keller, Esq.
     Eric Belfi, Esq.
     Frank McConville, Esq.
     Alfred L. Fatale III, Esq.
     LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
     140 Broadway
     New York, NY 10005
     Telephone: (212) 907-0700
     Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
     E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com
             ebelfi@labaton.com
             fmcconville@labaton.com
             afatale@labaton.com


MASONITE INT'L: Seeks to Dismiss Consolidated Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Masonite International Corporation has filed a motion to dismiss
all of the claims in the consolidated purported class action direct
purchaser and end-purchaser complaints filed against the Company
and JELD-WEN, Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2019.

The Company said, "With respect to the consolidated purported class
action direct purchaser and end-purchaser complaints filed against
us and JELD-WEN, Inc., the judge denied our motion to transfer the
proceedings from the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond
Division.  On March 1, 2019, we filed a motion to dismiss all of
the claims in both of these complaints."

Masonite International Corporation designs, manufactures, and
distributes interior and exterior doors for the new construction
and repair, renovation, and remodeling sectors of the residential
and non-residential building construction markets worldwide.
Masonite International Corporation was founded in 1925 and is
headquartered in Tampa, Florida.


MCMC LLC: Court Denies Summary Judgment in R. Mauthe TCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum Opinion denying Defendant's Motion
for Summary Judgment in the case captioned ROBERT W. MAUTHE, M.D.,
P.C., a Pennsylvania corporation, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff,
v. MCMC LLC, Defendant. Civil Action No. 18-1901. (E.D. Pa.).

The plaintiff, a doctor and his medical practice of the same name,
brought this class action lawsuit under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, as amended by the Junk Fax Act (TCPA), after
receiving a fax from the defendant advertising a continuing medical
education course.

The defendant also claims that it is entitled to summary judgment
on all the plaintiff's claims because (1) the plaintiff lacks both
Article III and prudential standing and (2) applying the TCPA to
the offending fax would violate the defendant's First Amendment
rights.

As to the plaintiff's claim for treble damages, the defendant
argues that summary judgment is appropriate because there is no
evidence that the defendant willfully or knowingly violated the
TCPA.

The defendant further argues that, after granting judgment in its
favor on the plaintiff's federal causes of action, the court should
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff's
conversion claim.

Article III Standing

Article III standing is essential to federal subject matter
jurisdiction and is thus a threshold issue that must be addressed
before considering issues of prudential standing. There are two
types of Article III standing challenges: facial attacks and
factual attacks. A facial attack contests the sufficiency of the
pleadings, whereas a factual attack concerns the actual failure of
a plaintiff's claims to comport factually with the jurisdictional
prerequisites.

In evaluating a facial attack, the court must only consider the
allegations of the complaint and documents referenced therein and
attached thereto, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.

Although MCMC raises the Article III standing issue on a motion for
summary judgment, its argument constitutes a facial attack, because
it does not dispute Dr. Mauthe's allegation that the fax used his
toner and paper and annoyed him. Instead, MCMC argues that, as a
matter of law, a claim that the fax would have been permissible but
for the absence of a valid opt-out notice does not establish
constitutional standing, regardless of the lost paper and toner or
annoyance.  

There are three elements a plaintiff must satisfy to demonstrate
Article III standing:

First, the plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact an
invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and
particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or
hypothetical.

Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and
the conduct complained of the injury has to be fairly traceable to
the challenged action of the defendant, and not the result of the
independent action of some third party not before the court.

Third, it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that
the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.

Although MCMC's standing argument focuses primarily on
traceability, it also argues, Dr. Mauthe has not and cannot meet
Article III's injury-in-fact requirement and has no standing to
pursue his TCPA claim.

The court will therefore address both elements.

A plaintiff establishes that a legislatively-defined intangible
harm constitutes a constitutional injury-in-fact where (1) the
plaintiff sues under a statute alleging the very injury the statute
is intended to prevent and (2) the injury has a close relationship
to a harm traditionally providing a basis for a lawsuit in English
or American courts. Susinno v. Work Out World Inc., 862 F.3d 346,
351 (3d Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks, omissions, and
alterations omitted) (quoting In re Horizon Healthcare Servs. Inc.
Data Breach Litig., 846 F.3d 625, 639-40 (3d Cir. 2017)
(Horizon)).

In Susinno, the Third Circuit applied the Horizon factors in the
TCPA context to determine that the plaintiff suffered a concrete
injury from a prerecorded call to her cell phone, even though she
was not charged for the call. The court determined that the
plaintiff satisfied both parts of the Horizontest: first, Congress
squarely identified the alleged] injury because t]he TCPA addresses
itself directly to single prerecorded calls from cell phones, and
states that its prohibition acts in the interest of privacy rights,
and second, Congress sought to protect the same interests
implicated in the traditional common law cause of action, namely
intrusion upon seclusion.

In assessing whether a TCPA action satisfies the second part of the
Horizon test, the Susinno court cited a Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals holding that TCPA claims closely relate to traditional
claims for invasions of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, and
nuisance which have long been heard by American courts.

Here, like in Susinno, the complaint's allegations that an
unsolicited fax interrupts the recipient's privacy and wastes the
recipient's valuable time are precisely the types of nuisance and
intrusion upon seclusion that parallel interests long recognized to
be cognizable at common law.

Therefore, Dr. Mauthe has satisfied the second factor of the
Horizon test, and he has adequately alleged a concrete injury.

Next, MCMC argues that Dr. Mauthe cannot satisfy Article III
standing's traceability requirement, because his alleged harm lost
use of his fax machine, paper, ink toner and annoyance would have
occurred even if the fax contained an opt-out notice.   

As Dr. Mauthe articulated during his deposition, the harm the
challenged fax imposed upon him was an annoyance and junk that he
didn't need in the course of his day. MCMC argues Dr. Mauthe would
have been just as annoyed had the fax contained a valid opt-out
notice. But the court disagrees. The TCPA requires a valid opt-out
notice on faxes sent in connection with an EBR because Congress
determined it was necessary to provide recipients with the ability
to stop future unwanted faxes sent pursuant to such relationships.

That requirement reflects that a consumer very likely will be less
annoyed and have his privacy less intruded upon by an unsolicited
fax if he knows there is a cost-free mechanism to ensure he will
not receive additional faxes in the future.  A single fax with an
explicit option to avoid all future communications certainly
intrudes upon the seclusion of an individual less than a fax that,
on its face, appears to be the first of a potential stream of
unsolicited advertisements to come, without any mechanism to stop
the annoyance.

And if anything, MCMC's point that Dr. Mauthe did not know to check
for an opt-out provision when he received the fax further supports
the necessity of a valid opt-out notice. Without one, Dr. Mauthe,
and presumably other fax recipients, would not know how to put a
stop to unwelcome communications.

Thus, Dr. Mauthe has adequately alleged constitutional standing.

Prudential Standing

The court next evaluates MCMC's claim that Dr. Mauthe lacks
prudential standing. MCMC argues that Dr. Mauthe is analogous to
the plaintiff who the Western District of Pennsylvania held lacked
prudential standing in Stoops v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 197
F.Supp.3d 782 (2016). In that case, the plaintiff owned more than
thirty-five cell phone numbers which she used as part of a business
suing offenders of the TCPA.

The court held that the plaintiff lacked prudential standing,
because she lacked the sort of interest in privacy, peace, and
quiet that Congress intended to protect.  Although Dr. Mauthe has
filed other TCPA lawsuits, there is no evidence in the record to
suggest that he seeks out unsolicited communications the way the
Stoops plaintiff did. Dr. Mauthe testified that he runs a small
one-physician medical practice where he sees approximately 25
patients a day.  

There is no evidence in the record to suggest that Dr. Mauthe runs
his practice to receive unsolicited telecommunications, as the
plaintiff did in Stoops. To the contrary, Dr. Mauthe testified, I
consider unsolicited faxes an annoyance and junk that I don't need
in the course of my day. It's not about the money. It's just the
annoyance of it. That annoyance places Dr. Mauthe squarely within
the zone of interest Congress meant to protect through the TCPA.
The fact that Dr.

Mauthe has been sufficiently annoyed by other faxes to sue before
does not change that result.

Whether the Fax was Solicited

As discussed above, there is no dispute that the fax did not
contain a valid opt-out notice, so the only question is whether it
was solicited so that the TCPA does not apply at all. Whether a
plaintiff expressly consented to receive fax advertisements must be
assessed on a case-by-case basis and express permission requires
that the consumer understand that by providing a fax number, he or
she is agreeing to receive faxed advertisements.

The defendant bears the burden of establishing that the plaintiff
provided express permission.

Here, MCMC argues that Dr. Mauthe consented to receive the fax by
entering into the IME Agreement, providing MCMC his fax number
several times in connection with that agreement, and regularly
communicating with MCMC via fax throughout the parties'
relationship. Dr. Mauthe responds that MCMC's argument depends on
the idea that it inferred consent for the fax, but the TCPA
requires that permission must be express.  

A fax is solicited under the TCPA if the recipient provided prior
express invitation or permission, in writing or otherwise to
receive it. A recipient can provide express consent by providing
the sender a contact number, but only for communications related to
the reason why he provided his number in the first place.

In cases, such as this, where the plaintiff provided his fax number
to the defendant, the court will have to analyze whether any fax
sent to that recipient relates to the reason the contact info was
provided in the first place, because if it does, then express
consent was provided for the fax, and it cannot be an unsolicited
advertisement.

In Physicians Healthsource, Judge Padova held that the plaintiff
doctor had expressly consented to receive fax advertisements from
the defendant where he provided his business card to its
representatives following discussions about its products. 340 F.
Supp. 3d at 452. MCMC discusses this case, but ignores the critical
distinctions that separate it from the facts here.

In that case, the doctor testified during his deposition that the
plaintiff, his employer, encouraged its doctors to meet with drug
company representatives to obtain information about the drug
companies' products. Following discussions between the doctor and
the defendant's representatives about those products, the
representatives left product information with [him] and also
obtained his permission to follow up by sending him additional
information.

The defendant obtained the fax numbers from business cards the
plaintiff left on its receptionist's desk, which it did, in part,
so that drug company representatives could use that number to
contact its doctors. Judge Padova concluded that the doctor had
consented to receive the challenged faxes, which advertised a
dinner meeting program to discuss a drug and a luncheon program to
discuss breakthrough pain for opioid-tolerant cancer patients, by
discussing both that drug of which the defendant had sent him
samples) and the topic of "narcotic drugs for chronic pain with the
defendant's representatives.  

Here, there is no dispute that Dr. Mauthe voluntarily provided his
fax number to MCMC. The question is whether the fax at issue was
closely related enough to the reason he provided the number, i.e..,
the IME Agreement, to render the fax solicited.

MCMC argues that the fax was part and parcel of the IME Agreement
between Mauthe and MCMC in which Mauthe specifically agreed to
perform independent medical examinations of individuals referred by
MCMC and maintain any and all applicable, pertinent licenses,
permits or certifications required by law. Those certification
requirements included obtaining 25 CME credits every two years.

Unfortunately for MCMC, that connection is too tangential to
warrant a ruling in its favor, at least at the summary judgment
stage.

Of course, MCMC is free to argue to a jury that all these
circumstances, taken together, demonstrate that Dr. Mauthe's
express consent was sufficiently connected to the subject of the
fax to escape TCPA liability. The court simply cannot hold at this
stage that no reasonable jury could reach a different conclusion.


First Amendment Protections

MCMC argues that a holding that the challenged fax ran afoul of the
TCPA would violate its First Amendment right to free speech,
because Dr. Mauthe denied during his deposition that the fax
invaded his privacy, the sole congressionally recognized
justification for requiring opt-out notices.

Specifically, Dr. Mauthe testified that he considered the fax to be
an annoyance and junk that he did not need in the course of his
day. But MCMC's argument mischaracterizes the privacy interest that
underlies the TCPA.

As to MCMC's first argument, there is no denying that the TCPA has
First Amendment implications. But as MCMC acknowledges, those
implications do not rise to the level of a First Amendment
violation if the Central Hudson standard is satisfied. Nothing
about American Association alters the analysis above concerning the
Central Hudson standard.

Nor is MCMC's second argument availing, because, as discussed
extensively above, a genuine issue of material fact exists as to
the scope of consent Dr. Mauthe provided. If the jury determines
that Dr. Mauthe consented to receive the fax at issue, then MCMC's
actions fall outside of the TCPA and it could not succeed on an
as-applied constitutional challenge.  

Therefore, holding MCMC liable under the facts at issue here would
not violate its First Amendment rights.

MCMC has undoubtedly provided undisputed evidence that Dr. Mauthe
provided his express permission to receive fax communications
concerning the parties' IME Agreement. What is less clear is
whether that permission was broad enough to cover the fax at issue
here. The fact that the IME Agreement required Dr. Mauthe to
maintain his medical certification, which in turn required him to
earn CME credits, is certainly evidence that the subject of the fax
was related to the parties' agreement, but that relationship is not
direct enough to warrant a holding that the provided consent
extends to the fax as a matter of law.

Therefore, the court will deny MCMC's motion for summary judgment.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 13, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2sgosfo from
Leagle.com.

M.D., P.C. ROBERT W. MAUTHE, A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF A CLASS OF
SIMILARLY-SITUATED PERSONS, Plaintiff, represented by DANIEL J.
COHEN , BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC, MOLLY S. GANTMAN ,
BOCK HATCH LEWIS & OPPENHEIM LLC, 134 North La Salle Street, Suite
1000 Chicago, Illinois 60602, RICHARD E. SHENKAN, SHENKAN INJURY
LAWYERS LLC, 6550 Lakeshore Street, West Bloomfield, MI, 48323 &
PHILLIP A. BOCK, BOCK HATCH LEWIS & OPPENHEIM LLC, 134 North La
Salle Street, Suite 1000 Chicago, Illinois 60602

MCMC LLC, Defendant, represented by WILLIAM P. SHELLEY --
wshelley@grsm.com -- GORDON & REES LLP & ALEXANDER BROWN --
abrown@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP.


MEDNAX INC: Bid to Nix Suit over Anesthesiology Business Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mednax, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the securities class action
lawsuit related to the Company's anesthesiology business remains
pending, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019.

The Company said, "On July 10, 2018, a securities class action
lawsuit was filed against our company and certain of our officers
and a director in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida (Case No. 0:18-cv-61572-WPD) that purports to state a
claim for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, based on statements made
by the defendants primarily concerning our anesthesiology business.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and other costs.  We believe this lawsuit to be without merit and
intend to vigorously defend against it.  The lawsuit is in the
early stages and, at this time, no assessment can be made as to its
likely outcome or whether the outcome will be material to us.  A
lead plaintiff has been chosen and has filed an amended complaint,
and we have filed a motion to dismiss, which is pending."

Mednax, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides newborn,
anesthesia, maternal-fetal, radiology and teleradiology, pediatric
cardiology, and other pediatric subspecialty physician services in
the United States and Puerto Rico. The company was founded in 1979
and is based in Sunrise, Florida.


MELITTA USA: Dennis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Melitta USA, Inc. The
case is styled as Derrick U Dennis on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Melitta USA, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04632 (S.D. N.Y., May 20, 2019).

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

Melitta USA, Inc. sells and markets Melitta coffee filters, coffee,
and non-electric coffee systems in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
     Shalom Law, PLLC
     124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
     Kew Gardens, NY 11374
     Phone: (516) 807-1748
     Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com


MOMENTA PHARMA: Faces 2 Suits Related to M923 Biosimilar Candidate
------------------------------------------------------------------
Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2019, that it has been named as a defendant
in two lawsuits related M923, a biosimilar candidate of HUMIRA(R)
(adalimumab).

On March 19, 2019, UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, or UFCW, filed a
class action suit against AbbVie Inc., AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd.,
Amgen Inc., Samsung Bioepsis Co., Ltd., Mylan, Inc., Mylan
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sandoz, Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, Pfizer
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and the Company, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated for alleged violations of
state and federal antitrust and consumer protection laws.
According to the complaint, UFCW is seeking injunctive and other
equitable relief and damages.

A second complaint mirroring that filed by UFCW, was filed on April
19, 2019 in United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois by the Sheet Metal Workers' location Union No. 28
Welfare Fund on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated
also names AbbVie Inc., AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd., Amgen Inc.,
Samsung Bioepsis Co., Ltd., Mylan, Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Sandoz, Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
and the Company as defendants.

The Company said, "While the outcome of litigation is inherently
uncertain, the Company believes both of these suits are without
merit, and it intends to vigorously defend itself in these
litigations."

Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biotechnology company, focuses on
the discovery and development of novel biologic therapies for the
treatment of rare immune-mediated diseases in the United States.
The company was formerly known as Mimeon, Inc. and changed its name
to Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in September 2002. Momenta
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in
Cambridge, Massachusetts.


MOMENTA PHARMA: Still Defends Remaining Claims in LOVENOX Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. continues to defend itself against
the surviving portions of the amended complaint in a class action
lawsuit filed by The Hospital Authority of Metropolitan Government
of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, d/b/a Nashville
General Hospital, or NGH, related to the drug LOVENOX, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

On October 14, 2015, The Hospital Authority of Metropolitan
Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, d/b/a
Nashville General Hospital, or NGH, filed a class action suit
against the Company and Sandoz in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of certain
purchasers of LOVENOX or generic Enoxaparin Sodium Injection.

The complaint alleges that, in connection with filing the September
2011 patent infringement suit against Amphastar and Actavis, the
Company and Sandoz sought to prevent Amphastar from selling generic
Enoxaparin Sodium Injection and thereby exclude competition for
generic Enoxaparin Sodium Injection in violation of federal
anti-trust laws.

NGH is seeking injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits and
unspecified damages and fees.  In December 2015, the Company and
Sandoz filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to transfer the case
to the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

On March 21, 2017, the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee dismissed NGH's claim for damages against the
Company and Sandoz, but allowed the case to move forward, in part,
for NGH's claims for injunctive and declaratory relief.  In the
same opinion, the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee denied the Company's motion to transfer.

On June 9, 2017, NGH filed a motion to amend its complaint to add a
new named plaintiff, the American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees District Council 37 Health & Security Plan, or
DC37.  NGH and DC37 seek to assert claims for damages under the
laws of more than 30 different states, on behalf of a putative
class of indirect purchasers of LOVENOX or generic Enoxaparin.

On June 30, 2017, the Company and Sandoz filed a brief opposing the
motion to amend the complaint.  On December 14, 2017, the District
Court granted NGH's motion to amend.  In January 2018, the Company
and Sandoz filed three motions to dismiss the amended complaint.
On December 6, 2018 the District Court granted one of the motions,
granted one in part and denied one.

The Company said, "As a result, the suit will continue pursuant to
the surviving portions of the amended complaint.  While the outcome
of litigation is inherently uncertain, the Company believes this
suit is without merit, and intends to vigorously defend itself in
this litigation."

Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biotechnology company, focuses on
the discovery and development of novel biologic therapies for the
treatment of rare immune-mediated diseases in the United States.
The company was formerly known as Mimeon, Inc. and changed its name
to Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in September 2002. Momenta
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in
Cambridge, Massachusetts.


MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Zamarripa Class Settlement Has Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California issued a Judgment granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case captioned MARIO
ZAMARRIPA, as an individual and on behalf of all similarly situated
employees, Plaintiff, v. MONDELĒZ GLOBAL, LLC and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Defendant. Case No. 8:16-cv-02193. (C.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff MARIO ZAMARRIPA (Plaintiff) and Defendant MONDELEZ
GLOBAL, LLC have reached terms of settlement of this putative class
action.

This Court approves the terms set forth in the Settlement,
including the requested settlement award, Released Claims and all
other terms therein, and finds that the Settlement is, in all
respects, fair, reasonable and adequate to the Parties and Class
Members and directs the Parties to effectuate the settlement
according to its terms. The Court makes this finding based on a
weighing of the strength of Plaintiff's claims and Defendant's
defenses with the risk, expense, complexity, and duration of
further litigation. The Court also finds that the Settlement is the
result of non-collusive, arms-length negotiations between
experienced counsel representing the interests of the Class and
Defendant, after thorough legal and factual investigation. In
granting final approval of the Settlement, the Court considered the
nature of the claims, the overall amount of the Settlement and the
allocation of settlement proceeds among the Class Members, and the
fact that the Settlement represents a compromise of the Parties'
respective positions rather than the result of a finding of
liability at trial.   

This Final Judgment applies to all Class Members as defined by the
Settlement.

The Settlement is not an admission by Defendant nor is this Final
Judgment a finding of the validity of any claims in the Class
Action or of any wrongdoing by Defendant. Furthermore, the
Settlement is not a concession by Defendant and shall not be used
as an admission of any fault, omission or wrongdoing by Defendant.
Neither Final Judgment, the Settlement, nor any document referred
to herein, nor any action taken to carry out the Settlement is, may
be construed as, or may be used as an admission by or against
Defendant of any fault, wrongdoing or liability whatsoever.  

The Court finds and determines that the Settlement Payments to be
paid to the Class Members as provided for by the Settlement are
fair and reasonable. The Court hereby gives final approval to and
orders the payment of those amounts to be made to the Class Members
in accordance with the terms of the Settlement.

The Court further approves and directs Phoenix, the appointed
Settlement Administrator, to disburse the settlement funds in the
manner set forth in the Settlement.

The Court awards reasonable attorneys' fees in the amount of five
hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00) to Class Counsel. All fees
are paid in accordance with the terms of the Settlement.

The Court awards costs in the amount of seventeen thousand nine
hundred forty-one dollars and seventy-seven cents ($17,941.77) to
Class Counsel. All costs are paid in accordance with the terms of
the Settlement.

The Court awards service enhancement payment of seven thousand five
hundred dollars ($7,500.00) collectively to the Named Plaintiff.

The Court finds and determines that the ten thousand dollars
($10,000.00) amount to be paid from the Maximum Settlement Amount
to the LWDA for civil penalties under PAGA, as provided for in the
Settlement, is fair and reasonable. Of the ten thousand
($10,000.00), seventy five percent or seven thousand five hundred
dollars ($7,500.00) shall go the LWDA and two thousand five hundred
dollars ($2,500.00) shall be paid to the Class. The Court hereby
gives final approval to and orders said payment to the LWDA in
accordance with the terms of the Settlement.

The Court awards costs in the amount of twenty-five thousand
dollars ($25,000.00) to Phoenix Settlement Administrators for the
administration of the settlement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 13, 2019 Judgment is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y4l9os3g from Leagle.com.

Mario Zamarripa, as an individual and on behalf of all similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Mahoney --
kmahoney@mahoney-law.net -- Mahoney Law Group APC.

Mondelez Global LLC, Defendant, represented by Daniel Francisco De
La Cruz -- ddelacruz@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter
and Hampton LLP & Samantha D. Hardy -- shardy@sheppardmullin.com --
Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP.


MONOLITH PROPERTIES: Carradine Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Arkansas
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monolith Properties
Corp. The case is styled as Jennifer Carradine on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Monolith Properties
Corp. doing business as: Park Hotel of Hot Springs, Joann
Privitello, Defendants, Case No. 6:19-cv-06056-SOH (W.D. Ark., May
20, 2019).

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

The Park Hotel is a seven-story hotel in downtown Hot Springs,
Arkansas near Bathhouse Row within Hot Springs National Park.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert W. Cowan, Esq.
     Bailey Peavy Bailey Cowan Heckaman PLLC
     Houston, TX 77002, Suite 2100
     Phone: (713) 425-7100
     Fax: (713) 425-7101
     Email: rcowan@bpblaw.com

MONSANTO CO: Faces Ross Suit Over Roundup(R)-related Injuries
-------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Ross v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-01008 (E.D. Mo.,
April 28, 2019), arises from injuries allegedly suffered by the
Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's
negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing,
advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide
Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO CO: Faces Wiley Suit Over Roundup-Related Death & Injuries
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ESTATE OF STANLEY WILEY, by and through his personal representative
Janice Wiley; and JANICE WILEY, surviving spouse of Stanley Wiley
on behalf of all legal heirs of Stanley Wiley v. MONSANTO COMPANY,
a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 4:19-cv-01001 (E.D. Mo., April 26,
2019), is brought for wrongful death damages and personal injuries
sustained over exposure to Roundup(R) containing the active
ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow
amine.

As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup,
Decedent developed Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and died as a result
thereof on April 30, 2017, the Plaintiffs allege.  The Plaintiffs
maintain that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous
to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in
commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the
dangers associated with its use.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          E. Elliot Adler, Esq.
          Brittany S. Zummer, Esq.
          ADLER LAW GROUP, APLC
          402 W. Broadway, Suite 860
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 531-8700
          Facsimile: (619) 342-9600
          E-mail: EAdler@TheAdlerFirm.com
                  bzummer@theadlerfirm.com


MONSANTO CO: Ferkel Sues Over Roundup(R)-Related Injuries
---------------------------------------------------------
Randy Ferkel v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-01009 (E.D. Mo.,
April 28, 2019), alleges that the Plaintiff suffered injuries as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO CO: Harrison Suit Seeks Damages for Roundup(R) Injuries
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Harrison v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-01013
(E.D. Mo., April 28, 2019), seeks damages for injuries allegedly
suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of the
Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the
design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting,
marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the
herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO CO: McMillan Sues Over Roundup(R)-Related Injuries
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gwendolyn McMillan v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-01017
(E.D. Mo., April 28, 2019), alleges that the Plaintiff suffered
injuries as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's
negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing,
advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide
Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO CO: Reid Files Suit Over Sale of Dangerous Herbicide
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carolyn Reid v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-01006 (E.D. Mo.,
April 28, 2019), accuses the Defendant of designing, developing,
manufacturing, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing,
advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or selling a defective
product, the herbicide Roundup(R), which contains the active
ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO CO: Stohler Sues Over Roundup(R)-Related Injuries
----------------------------------------------------------
Floyd Stohler v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-01012 (E.D.
Mo., April 28, 2019), seeks damages for injuries allegedly suffered
by the Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of the
Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the
design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting,
marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the
herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO CO: Sued by Short for Damages Over Roundup(R) Injuries
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stan Short v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-01004 (E.D. Mo.,
April 28, 2019), is brought for damages from injuries allegedly
suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of the
Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the
design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting,
marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the
herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Chatman Suit Moved to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled JANIEL CHATMAN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02293, 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-02170-VC to the proceeding. The Case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Erb Suit Moved to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled JAMES ERB, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02282, was removed from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern Disctrict 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-02166-VC 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:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Lazenbys Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES W. LAZENBY and KATHRYN E. LAZENBY, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01065-CAS (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. Charles W.
Lazenby'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: Perales Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
LINDA J. PERALES and PETE PERALES, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01071 (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. Linda J.
Perales'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: Ruff Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD J. RUFF SR., the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01073 (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: Wright et al. Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN M. WRIGHT and STACY CULVER, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01074 (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. John M.
Wright'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

MONTMORENCY, MI: Morris Seeks Review of Circuit Court Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Stephen Morris and Robin Morris filed an appeal from a
Court ruling in their lawsuit titled STEPHEN MORRIS, et al. v.
COUNTY OF MONTMORENCY, et al., Case No. 18-724294-CZ, in the
Roscommon Circuit Court.

The appellate case is captioned as STEPHEN MORRIS, et al. v. COUNTY
OF MONTMORENCY, et al., Case No. 348537, in the Michigan Court of
Appeals.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants STEPHEN MORRIS and ROBIN MORRIS AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED are represented by:

          Philip L. Ellison, Esq.
          OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL PLC
          PO Box 107
          Hemlock, MI 48626
          Telephone: (989) 642-0055
          Facsimile: (888) 398-7003
          E-mail: pellison@olcplc.com

Defendants-Appellee COUNTY OF MONTMORENCY and JEAN M. KLEIN are
represented by:

          Allan C. Vander Laan, Esq.
          CUMMINGS, MCCLOREY, DAVIS & ACHO P.L.C.
          2851 Charlevoix Drive, S.E., Suite 327
          Grand Rapids, MI 49546
          Telephone: (616) 975-7470
          Facsimile: (616) 975-7471
          E-mail: avanderlaan@cmda-law.com


MOWI ASA: Prime Steakhouse Alleges Price-Fixing of Salmon
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against several producers
of farm-raised salmon, including Mowi ASA and Marine Harvest USA,
LLC, for violations of federal antitrust law and various state
antitrust and unfair competition, consumer protection and unfair
trade practices, and unjust enrichment laws. The case is captioned
Prime Steakhouse, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Mowi ASA (fka Marine Harvest ASA), Marine
Harvest USA, LLC, Marine Harvest Canada, Inc., Ducktrap River of
Maine LLC, Grieg Seafood ASA, Grieg Seafood BC Ltd., Bremnes
Seashore AS, Ocean Quality AS, Ocean Quality North America Inc.,
Ocean Quality USA Inc., Ocean Quality Premium Brands, Inc., SalMar
ASA, Leroy Seafood Group ASA, Leroy Seafood USA Inc., and Scottish
Sea Farms Ltd., Case No. 2:19-cv-00207-JAW (D. Me., May 9, 2019).

Plaintiff Prime Steakhouse alleges that the Defendants are engaged
in an unlawful coordination of the price of farm-raised salmon and
salmon products. Plaintiff also accuses the Defendants of
participating in anti-competitive agreements and/or concerted
practices related to different ways of price coordination in order
to sustain and possibly increase the prices for Norwegian salmon.

Mowi ASA (fka Marine Harvest ASA) is a Norwegian seafood company
with operations in several countries around the world. The company
engages in the production, processing, and sale of farmed salmon,
the operations of which are focused on Norway, Scotland, British
Columbia, Canada, the Faroe Islands, Ireland, and Chile. Mowi has a
share of between 25% and 30% of the global salmon and trout market,
making it the world's largest company in the sector. The company is
headquartered at Sandviksboder, 77AB, 5035, Bergen, Norway.

Marine Harvest USA, LLC is Florida limited liability company that
maintains its principal place of business at 8550 N.W. 17th Street
#105, Miami, Florida 33126. Marine Harvest USA, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Mowi, processes salmon in Florida and Texas and
distributes it to wholesalers, retailers, and others in Florida and
elsewhere in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Taylor A. Asen, Esq.
     BERMAN & SIMMONS, P.A.
     P.O. Box 961
     Lewiston, ME 04243-0961
     Telephone: (207) 784-3576
     E-mail: tasen@bermansimmons.com

             - and –

     Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
     Daniel Cohen, Esq.
     Jennifer Kelly, Esq.
     Blaine Finley, Esq.
     CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
     4725 Wisconsin Ave. NW
     Suite 200
     Washington, DC 20016
     Telephone: (202) 789-3960
     E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com
             danielc@cuneolaw.com
             jkelly@cuneolaw.com
             bfinley@cuneolaw.com


NANTKWEST INC: $12MM Settlement in Sudunagunta Suit Has Final OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California issued a Judgment granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case captioned SUNIL
SUDUNAGUNTA, v. NANTKWEST, INC., PATRICK SOON-SHIONG, RICHARD
GOMBERG, BARRY J. SIMON, STEVE GORLIN, MICHAEL D. BLASZYK, HENRY
JI, RICHARD KUSSEROW, JOHN T. POTTS, JR., ROBERT ROSEN, JOHN C.
THOMAS JR., MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INC., CITIGROUP
GLOBAL MARKETS INC., JEFFERIES LLC, PIPER JAFFRAY & CO., and MLV &
CO., LLC., Case No. 16-cv-01947-MWF-JEM, Consolidated with No.
2:16-cv-3438-MWF-JEM. (C.D. Cal.).

The Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Plan
Allocation (Settlement Motion) and the Motion for Attorneys' Fees,
Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, and Plaintiffs' Awards (Fee
Motion), filed by Plaintiffs Donald Hu and Brayton Li (Plaintiffs),
came regularly for hearing before this Court.

The Settlement set forth in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable,
and adequate.

The Settlement was vigorously negotiated at arm's length by Class
Plaintiffs on behalf of the Class and by Defendants, all of whom
were represented by highly experienced and skilled counsel. The
case settled only after: (a) a mediation conducted by an
experienced mediator who was thoroughly familiar with this
litigation; (b) the exchange of detailed mediation statements prior
to the mediation which highlighted the factual and legal issues in
dispute; (c) extensive paper and deposition discovery; and (d)
class certification.

Accordingly, both Class Plaintiffs and Defendants were
well-positioned to evaluate the Settlement value of this Action.
The Stipulation has been entered into in good faith and is not
collusive.

If the Settlement had not been achieved, both Class Plaintiffs and
Defendants faced the expense, risk, and uncertainty of extended
litigation. The Court takes no position on the merits of either
Class Plaintiffs' or Defendants' arguments, but notes these
arguments as evidence in support of the reasonableness of the
Settlement.

Class Plaintiffs and Class Counsel have fairly and adequately
represented the interest of the Class Members in connection with
the Settlement.

All Class Members who have not made their objections to the
Settlement, or any aspect thereof (including Plaintiffs'
application for an award of attorneys' fees and for reimbursement
of their out-of-pocket costs incurred in the prosecution of the
Action (the "Fee Request")), in the manner provided in the Notice
are deemed to have waived any objections by appeal, collateral
attack, or otherwise.

All Class Members who have failed to properly file requests for
exclusion (requests to opt out) from the Class are bound by the
terms and conditions of the Stipulation and this Final Judgment.

The Plaintiffs are barred and enjoined from instituting,
commencing, maintaining, or prosecuting in any court or tribunal
any of the Released Claims against any of the Released Parties.

The Class Counsel are awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of 25%
of the Gross Settlement Fund (which is equal to the Settlement
Amount, plus interest earned thereon from the date the Settlement
Fund was funded to the date of payment), and $177,408.07 in
reimbursement of Class Counsel's litigation expenses (which fees
and expenses shall be paid from the Settlement Fund), which sums
the Court finds to be fair and reasonable.

The Settlement has created a fund of $12,000,000 in cash, plus
interest, that has been funded into escrow pursuant to the terms of
the Stipulation, and that numerous Class Members who or which
submit acceptable Claim Forms will benefit from the Settlement that
occurred because of the efforts of Class Counsel.

Approximately 25,375 copies of the Notice were mailed to potential
Class Members and nominees stating that Class Counsel would apply
for attorneys' fees in an amount not exceed 25% of the Settlement
Amount and reimbursement of Lead Counsel's litigation expenses in
an amount not to exceed $250,000.

Class Counsel devoted over 5,000 hours of professional time, with a
lodestar value of approximately $3,123,720, to achieve the
Settlement.

The two Court-appointed Class Plaintiffs (Donald Hu and Brayton Li)
are awarded $7,500 each, to be paid from the Settlement Fund as
reimbursement for the reasonable costs and expenses, including time
spent, directly related to his representation of the Settlement
Class.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 13, 2019 Judgment and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y52zwttm from
Leagle.com.

Sunil Sudunagunta, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Schall --
brian@schallfirm.com  -- Goldberg Law PC, J. Alexander Hood, II --
ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Jeremy A.
Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice,
Joshua B. Silverman -- jbsilverman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro
hac vice, Michael M. Goldberg, Goldberg Law PC, 31 E 32nd St Fl 4,
New York, NY, 10016-5509, Omar Jafri -- ojafri@pomlaw.com --
Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick V. Dahlstrom --
pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice & Jennifer
Pafiti -- jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Nantkwest, Inc., Patrick Soon-Shiong & Richard Gomberg, Defendants,
represented by Boris Feldman -- Boris.Feldman@wsgr.com -- Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati, Cynthia Ann Dy -- CDy@wsgr.com --
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Michael R. Petrocelli --
mpetrocelli@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsin Goodrich and Rosati, Cali D.
Tran, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati LLP, 650 Page Mill Road.
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050, Gideon A. Schor -- gschor@wsgr.com --
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati PC, pro hac vice, Olivia M. Kim
-- okim@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati PC & Sheryl
S. Bassin -- sbassin@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati
PC, pro hac vice.


NCAA: Ruiz Sues over Football Injuries
--------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against the National
Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) for its negligence, breach
of express warranty and fraudulent concealment. The case is
captioned LEJANDRO RUIZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01882-JRS-DLP (S.D. Ind.,
May 9, 2019).

Plaintiff Lejandro Ruiz alleges that the NCAA has breached its
duties to its student-athletes, including him, by ignoring the
dangers of concussions and failing to implement adequate concussion
management protocols. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to obtain
redress for injuries sustained as a result of Defendant's reckless
disregard for the health and safety of generations of the
student-athletes of the University of Texas at El Paso.

NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal place of
business located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis,
Indiana. It is registered as a tax-exempt organization with the
Internal Revenue Service. NCAA is the governing body of collegiate
athletics that oversees 23 college sports and over 400,000 students
who participate in intercollegiate athletics. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeff Raizner, Esq.
     RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
     2402 Dunlavy Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Telephone: (713) 554-9099
     Facsimile: (713) 554-9098
     E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com

             - and -

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Telephone: (312) 589-6370
     Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
     E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
             brichman@edelson.com

             - and -

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Telephone: (415) 212-9300
     Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
     E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com


NCAA: Scott Sues over Negligence in Collegiate Football
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against the National
Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) for negligence, breach of
express warranty and fraudulent concealment. The case is captioned,
CEPHUS SCOTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01885-RLY-MJD (S.D. Ind., May 9,
2019).

Plaintiff Cephus Scott alleges that the NCAA breached its
contractual agreement by failing to ensure him and other Kansas
State University (KSU) student-athletes were provided a safe
environment in which to participate in collegiate football. The
NCAA further breached its contractual agreement by concealing
and/or failing to properly educate and warn Plaintiff Scott and
other KSU football players about the symptoms and long-term risks
of concussions and concussion-related traumatic injury.
Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to obtain redress for injuries
sustained as a result of NCAA's reckless disregard for the health
and safety of generations of KSU student-athletes.

NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal place of
business located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis,
Indiana. It is registered as a tax-exempt organization with the
Internal Revenue Service. NCAA is the governing body of collegiate
athletics that oversees twenty-three college sports and over
400,000 students who participate in intercollegiate athletics.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeff Raizner, Esq.
     RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
     2402 Dunlavy Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Telephone: (713) 554-9099
     Facsimile: (713) 554-9098
     E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com

             - and –

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Telephone: (312) 589-6370
     Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
     E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
             brichman@edelson.com
          
             - and –

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Telephone: (415) 212-9300
     Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
     E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com


NETGEAR INC: Hearing Today on Motion to Stay State Court Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
NETGEAR, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019, that in the case styled, John Pham v. Arlo
Technologies, Inc., NETGEAR Inc., et al., and other related cases,
a May 31, 2019 hearing has been scheduled to consider the
defendants' motions to stay these state court cases.

On January 9, 2019 and January 10, 2019, February 1, 2019 and
February 8, 2019, the Company was sued in four separate securities
class action suits in Superior Court of California, County of Santa
Clara, along with Arlo Technologies, individuals, and underwriters
involved in the spin-off of Arlo.  Two more similar state actions
have been filed against Arlo Technologies Inc. et al.

In total, six putative class action complaints have now been filed
in California state court in Santa Clara County.  The Company is
named as a defendant in five of the six lawsuits.

The complaints generally allege that Arlo's IPO materials contained
false and misleading statements, hiding problems with Arlo's Ultra
product.  These claims are styled as violations of Sections 11,
12(a), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

There is also a putative class action pending in federal court in
the Northern District of California, on behalf of the same class of
plaintiffs, making very similar claims.  The Company is not
presently named in the federal action.  Defendants are planning to
file motions to stay the state court actions in deference to the
federal court action.

A hearing in state court was scheduled on April 26, 2019, where the
court would consider whether to consolidate the six lawsuits and
appoint a "lead plaintiff."

The Company is opposing the appointment of a lead plaintiff in the
state court actions.  There will be another hearing on May 31, 2019
to consider defendants' motions to stay the state court cases.

The Company said, "It is too early to reasonably estimate any
financial impact to the Company resulting from this litigation
matter."

NETGEAR, Inc. designs, develops and markets networking products for
home users and small businesses worldwide.  The Company, based in
Santa Clara, Calif., was founded in 1996.



NEW YORK, NY: Allen et al. Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------
The case, Clarence Bowen Allen, et al. v. City of New York, et al.,
Index No. 161679/2018 (Filed on April 8, 2019), was transferred
from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New
York, to the United States District Court, Southern District of New
York on April 29, 2019. In this complaint, Plaintiffs allege that
the Defendants discriminated against them in violation of the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.

The New York City government employs more than 300,000 civil
servants who work to ensure the city promotes public safety, public
health and opportunity. NYC Health + Hospitals is the largest
public health care system in the United States. It provides
essential inpatient, outpatient, and home-based services to more
than one million New Yorkers every year in more than 70 locations
across the city's five boroughs. Operated by NYC Health +
Hospitals, Jacobi Medical Center is located in the Morris Park
neighborhood of The Bronx in New York City. [BN]

Attorneys for Defendants:

     Zachary W. Carter, Esq.
     CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
     100 Church Street, 2nd Floor
     New York, NY 10007
     Telephone: (212)356-1104
     E-mail: abalog@law.nyc.gov


NRA GROUP: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Isaac FDCPA Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Aldean Issac and Julissa Ortiz filed an appeal from the
District Court's memorandum and order dated March 29, 2019, and
judgment dated April 1, 2019, entered in their lawsuit titled
Issac, et al. v. NRA Group, LLC, et al., Case No. 16-cv-5210, in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 29, 2019, Judge
Joseph F. Bianco (i) granted the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment as to Count 1; and (ii) granted the Plaintiffs' request to
dismiss Count II.

Isaac and Ortiz brought the putative class action against NRA and
NRA's CEO, Steven C. Kusic, for alleged violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").  They filed the complaint on
Sept. 19, 2016.

The Plaintiffs assert one cause of action ("Count I") against both
NRA and Kusic, alleging that debt collection letters sent by NRA to
the Plaintiffs in September 2015 misrepresented the amount of debt
that they owed in violation of FDCPA Sections 1692g and 1692e.  The
second cause of action ("Count II") alleges that both the
Defendants violated Sections 1692e and 1692f of the FDCPA because
the September 2015 letters falsely implied that NRA had the legal
right to collect interest and fees from plaintiffs.

The appellate case is captioned as Issac, et al. v. NRA Group, LLC,
et al., Case No. 19-1227, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Aldean Issac and Julissa Ortiz, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented
by:

          David Michael Barshay, Esq.
          BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 741-4799
          E-mail: dbarshay@sanderslawpllc.com

Defendants-Appellees NRA Group, LLC, DBA National Recovery Agency,
Inc., and Steven C. Kusic are represented by:

          Hilary Korman, Esq.
          BLANK ROME LLP
          The Chrysler Building
          405 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10174
          Telephone: (212) 885-5118
          E-mail: hkorman@blankrome.com


OLIN CORP: 6 Class Suits over Caustic Soda Sales Underway in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Olin Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019, that the Company and a subsidiary are defending
themselves in six purported class action suits in New York related
to the caustic soda market.

Olin, K.A. Steel Chemicals (a wholly owned subsidiary of Olin) and
other caustic soda producers were named as defendants in six
purported class action civil lawsuits filed March 22, 25 and 26,
2019 and April 12, 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York.  The lawsuits allege the defendants conspired
to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price of caustic soda,
restrict domestic (U.S.) supply of caustic soda and allocate
caustic soda customers.

The other defendants named in the lawsuits are Occidental Petroleum
Corporation, Occidental Chemical Corporation d/b/a OxyChem,
Westlake Chemical Corporation, Shin-Etsu Chemical Co., Ltd.,
Shintech Incorporated, Formosa Plastics Corporation, and Formosa
Plastics Corporation, U.S.A.

The lawsuits are filed on behalf of the respective named plaintiffs
and a putative class comprised of all persons and entities who
purchased caustic soda in the U.S. directly from one or more of the
defendants, their parents, predecessors, subsidiaries or affiliates
at any time between October 1, 2015 and the present.  Plaintiffs
seek an unspecified amount of damages and injunctive relief.

The Company said, "We believe we have meritorious legal positions
and will continue to represent our interests vigorously in this
matter.  Any losses related to this matter are not currently
estimable because of unresolved questions of fact and law which, if
resolved unfavorably to Olin, could have a material adverse effect
on our financial position, cash flows or results of operations."


PANDA RESTAURANT: Block Sues over Non-Accessible Facilities
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Panda Restaurant
Group, Panda Express, Inc., and Does 1-5 for violations of Title
III of the Americans with Disabilities Act 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 these restaurants.
The case is captioned CHRISTOPHER BLOCK, an individual,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP; PANDA EXPRESS, INC., DOES
1-5, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00625-LA (E.D. Wis., April 30,
2019). Plaintiff asserts that he was denied full and equal access
as a result of Defendants' inaccessible parking lots and paths of
travel.

Panda Restaurant Group parent company of Panda Inn, Panda Express
and Hibachi-San, was founded by Andrew and Peggy Tsiang Cherng and
Andrew's father, Master Chef Ming-Tsai Cherng, the family
originating in the Yangzhou region of China's Jiangsu province.
They started their first Panda Inn restaurant in 1973 in Pasadena,
California. The group has its headquarters in Rosemead, California.
Panda Express, Inc. operates a chain of fast casual Chinese
restaurants in California. The company's menu includes entrees,
side dishes, appetizers, and desserts. It also provides catering
services for meetings, events, or gatherings. Panda Express
operates in 43 U.S. states, Puerto Rico, and Mexico. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Guri Ademi, Esq.
     John D. Blythin, Esq.
     Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
     3620 East Layton Avenue
     Cudahy, WI 53110
     Telephone: (414) 482-8000
     Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
     E-mail: gademi@ademilaw.com
             jblythin@ademilaw.com
             meldridge@ademilaw.com
             
             - and -

     Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
     THE SWEET LAW FIRM, PC
     186 Mohawk Drive
     Pittsburgh, PA 15228
     Telephone: (412) 742-0631
     E-mail: ben@sweetlawpc.com

             - and -

     Jonathan Miller, Esq.
     Holly Blackwell, Esq.
     NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER LLP
     33 West Mission St., #201
     Santa Barbara, CA 93101
     Telephone: (805) 963-2345
     E-mail: jonathan@nshmlaw.com


PAYCRON INC: Court OKs Conditional Certification in Jackson Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional
Certification in the case captioned JEREMY JACKSON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
PAYCRON INC., a Florida company, Defendant. Case No.
8:19-CV-00609-WFJ-AAS. (M.D. Fla.).

The Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against the Defendant,
asserting two claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
One claim was for violation of the TCPA's prohibition against
making autodialed solicitations to cellular telephone numbers. The
second claim was for violation of the TCPA's prohibition against
making two or more solicitation calls in a 12-month period to
telephone numbers registered on the national Do Not Call registry
for more than 30 days.

There are four prerequisites for class certification under Federal
Rule 23(a): numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of
representation. In addition, the Plaintiff must establish that one
or more of the grounds for maintaining the suit as a class action
are met under Rule 23(b). The Plaintiff seeks certification under
Rule 23(b)(3), which requires (1) predominance of the questions of
law or fact common to the members of the class over any questions
affecting only individual members; and (2) superiority of a class
action for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.


Based on the Plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations of fact, which
are deemed admitted as a result of Defendant's default, and the
Court finds that each of the prerequisites for class certification
is satisfied and conditionally certifies the following class
pursuant to Federal Rule 23(b)(3):

Autodialed Class: All persons in the United States who from four
years prior to the filing of this action: (1) Defendant (or an
agent acting on behalf of Defendant) called (2) using the same
dialing equipment used to call Plaintiff (3) for substantially the
same reason Defendant called Plaintiff and (4) for whom Defendant
claims (a) it obtained prior express written consent in the same
manner as Defendant claims it obtained prior express written
consent to call Plaintiff or (b) Defendant does not claim to have
obtained prior express written consent.

Numerosity

Rule 23(a)(1) requires that the class is so numerous that joinder
of all members is impracticable.

The Court finds that there are likely hundreds of class members.
This evidenced by the fact that telemarketing campaigns generally
place calls to hundreds of thousands or even millions of potential
customers, the many online complaints regarding Defendant's
unsolicited calls, the fact that Defendant ignored Plaintiffs
request to stop calling him, and that Defendant used an autodialer,
which is used precisely because of its capacity to call consumers
en masse.  

Commonality

The commonality requirement ensures that class certification is
predicated on questions of law or fact common to the class. The
commonality element is generally satisfied when a plaintiff alleges
that defendants have engaged in a standardized course of conduct
that affects all class members.

The Court finds that the entire case revolves around an alleged
common course of telemarketing that resulted in the same injury to
Plaintiff and Class members. The common questions for the Class
therefore include: whether Defendant utilized an automatic
telephone dialing system to make its calls to Plaintiff and the
members of the Classes; whether Defendant made calls to Plaintiff
and members of the Classes without first obtaining prior express
written consent to make the calls; whether Defendant made
autodialed telephone calls to Plaintiff and members of the Classes
despite being asked to stop calling; whether Defendant's conduct
constitutes a violation of the TCPA; and whether members of the
Classes are entitled to treble damages based on the willfulness of
Defendant's conduct.  

Typicality

Typicality requires that the claims or defenses of the
representative parties be typical of the claims or defenses of the
class. Representative claims are typical if they are reasonably
coextensive with those of absent class members; they need not be
substantially identical. Moreover, if "the same unlawful conduct
was directed at or affected both the class representatives and the
class itself, the typicality requirement is usually met
irrespective of varying fact patterns which underlie the individual
claims.

The Court finds that Plaintiff satisfies the typicality requirement
because he received the same unsolicited, autodialed calls made by
or on behalf of Defendant as the other members of the Class.  

Adequacy

The adequacy element of Rule 23(a)(4) requires that Plaintiff and
his counsel be able to fairly and adequately protect the interests
of the class. This means Plaintiff must have no interests
antagonistic to the class, and his counsel must be qualified to
represent the class.  

The Court finds that Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to
those of the Class, and Defendant has no defenses unique to
Plaintiff. Plaintiff and his counsel have demonstrated that they
are committed to vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of
the members of the Class, and have the financial resources to do
so.

Predominance

The Rule 23(b)(3) predominance inquiry test whether proposed
classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by
representation. Predominance focuses on the relationship between
the common and individual issues. When common questions present a
significant aspect of the case and they can be resolved for all
members of the class in a single adjudication, there is clear
justification for handling the dispute on a representative rather
than on an individual basis.

The Court finds that the predominance requirement is satisfied
because the common questions of law and fact relevant to the
Class's TCPA claim have common answers for the Class, including
specifically the question of whether the calls made by or on behalf
Defendant were made using an autodialer.  

Superiority

A class action is superior if separate actions by each of the class
members would be repetitive, wasteful, and an extraordinary burden
on the courts.

The Court finds that class treatment is superior to other available
methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this
controversy. Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds
generally applicable to the Class.  Defendant's business practices
apply to and affect the members of the Class uniformly, and
Plaintiffs challenge of those practices hinges on Defendant's
conduct with respect to the Class as whole, not on facts or law
applicable only to Plaintiff. Additionally, the damages suffered by
individual members of the Class will likely be small relative to
the burden and expense of individual prosecution of the litigation
necessitated by Defendant's actions.  

The Court conditionally certifies the Autodialed Class.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 13, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y29bce4l from Leagle.com.

Jeremy Jackson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Avi Robert Kaufman, Kaufman
P.A., Avi R. Kaufman, 31 Samana Dr, Miami, FL, 33133-2609


PDC ENERGY: Dufresne Suit Stayed Due to Partnerships' Chapter 11
----------------------------------------------------------------
PDC Energy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019, that the action entitled Dufresne, et al. v. PDC
Energy, et al., is stayed as a result of the bankruptcy proceedings
of the Company's two affiliated partnerships, Rockies Region 2006
LP and Rockies Region 2007 LP (collectively, the "Partnerships")

On October 30, 2018, the Partnerships filed petitions under Chapter
11 of the Bankruptcy Code (the "Chapter 11 Proceedings") in the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas,
Dallas Division (the "Bankruptcy Court").

In December 2017, the Company received an action entitled Dufresne,
et al. v. PDC Energy, et al., filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado (the "Dufresne Case").  The
original complaint stated that it was a derivative action brought
by a number of limited partner investors seeking to assert claims
on behalf of the Company's two affiliated partnerships, Rockies
Region 2006 LP and Rockies Region 2007 LP (collectively, the
"Partnerships"), against PDC and includes claims for breach of
fiduciary duty and breach of contract.  The plaintiffs also
included claims against two of the Company's senior officers and
three independent members of the Company's Board of Directors for
allegedly aiding and abetting PDC's breach of fiduciary duty.

The lawsuit accuses PDC, as the managing general partner of the
Partnerships, of, among other things, failing to maximize the
productivity of the Partnerships' crude oil and natural gas wells
and improperly assigning the Partnerships only interests in the
wells, as opposed to leasehold interests in surrounding acreage.

In late April 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amendment to their
complaint, which alleges additional facts and purports to add
direct class action claims in addition to the original derivative
claims.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss this amended
complaint and the claims against the individuals named as
defendants on July 31, 2018.

On February 19, 2019, the court granted the motion to dismiss, in
part.  It dismissed all claims against the individuals named as
defendants.  It also held that that the plaintiffs were time-barred
from using the failure to assign acreage assignments to support
their claims for breach of fiduciary duty against PDC.  The Company
filed an answer to the remaining claims on March 5, 2019.

The Company said, "We understand that this action is stayed as a
result of the partnership bankruptcy proceedings.  We are currently
unable to estimate any potential damages resulting from this
lawsuit."

PDC Energy, Inc., an independent exploration and production
company, acquires, explores for, develops, and produces crude oil,
natural gas, and natural gas liquids in the United States. The
company's operations are primarily located in the Wattenberg Field
in Colorado and the Delaware Basin in Texas. The company was
formerly known as Petroleum Development Corporation and changed its
name to PDC Energy, Inc. in June 2012. PDC Energy, Inc. was founded
in 1969 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Broiler Chicken Grower Class Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action complaint styled as In re Broiler Chicken
Grower Litigation, Pilgrim's Pride Corporation disclosed in its
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that plaintiffs have
not amended the consolidated complaint to comply with a Bankruptcy
Court's injunction order or confirmation order.

On January 27, 2017, a purported class action on behalf of broiler
chicken farmers was brought against PPC and four other producers in
the Eastern District of Oklahoma, alleging, among other things, a
conspiracy to reduce competition for grower services and depress
the price paid to growers.

Plaintiffs allege violations of the Sherman Act and the Packers and
Stockyards Act and seek, among other relief, treble damages.  The
complaint was consolidated with a subsequently filed consolidated
amended class action complaint styled as In re Broiler Chicken
Grower Litigation, Case No. CIV-17-033-RJS (the "Grower
Litigation").

The defendants (including PPC) jointly moved to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint on September 9, 2017.  The Court
initially held oral argument on January 19, 2018, during which it
considered and granted only motions from certain other defendants
who were challenging jurisdiction.  Oral argument on the remaining
pending motions in the Oklahoma court occurred on April 20, 2018.
Rulings on the motion are pending.

In addition, on March 12, 2018, the Northern District of Texas,
Fort Worth Division ("Bankruptcy Court") enjoined plaintiffs from
litigating the Grower Litigation complaint as pled against the
Company because allegations in the consolidated complaint violate
the confirmation order relating to the Company's 2008-2009
bankruptcy proceedings.  Specifically, the 2009 bankruptcy
confirmation order bars any claims against the Company based on
conduct occurring before December 28, 2009.

On March 13, 2018, Pilgrim's notified the trial court of the
Bankruptcy Court's injunction.

To date, plaintiffs have not amended the consolidated complaint to
comply with the Bankruptcy Court's injunction order or the
confirmation order.

Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing,
marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added
chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe,
and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered
in
Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of
JBS S.A.


PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Adamov Appeals Decision to Ninth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Yury Adamov filed an appeal from a Court ruling in his
lawsuit titled Yury Adamov v. PriceWaterhouseCoopers, LLP, Case No.
2:13-cv-01222-TLN-AC, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California, Sacramento.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
filed a putative class action against PwC alleging violations of
California labor laws, including failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to provide itemized employee wage statements, failure to
provide meal periods, and failure to provide rest periods.  The
Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint asserting the same causes
of action. The Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (SAC)
asserting only the following causes of action: (1) Violations of
California Labor Code Sections 510 & 1194 for failure to pay
overtime wages and (2) Violations of California Business and
Professions Code Section 17200.

The appellate case is captioned as Yury Adamov v.
PriceWaterhouseCoopers, LLP, Case No. 19-15915, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript was to be ordered by May 29, 2019;

   -- Transcript is due on June 28, 2019;

   -- Appellant Yury Adamov's opening brief is due on August 7,
      2019;

   -- Appellee PriceWaterhouseCoopers, LLP's answering brief is
      due on September 9, 2019; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant YURY ADAMOV, individually, and on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated current and former
employees of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, is represented by:

          Lyle W. Cook, Esq.
          William A. Kershaw, Esq.
          Stuart Talley, Esq.
          KERSHAW COOK & TALLEY PC
          401 Watt Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95864
          Telephone: (916) 448-9800
          E-mail: lyle@kctlegal.com
                  bill@kctlegal.com
                  stuart@kctlegal.com

Defendant-Appellee PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS, LLP, is represented by:

          Norman C. Hile, Esq.
          ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
          400 Capitol Mall
          Sacramento, CA 95814-4497
          Telephone: (916) 329-7900
          E-mail: nhile@orrick.com

               - and -

          Daniel J. Thomasch, Esq.
          Julie A. Totten, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166-0193
          Telephone: (212) 351-4000
          E-mail: dthomasch@gibsondunn.com
                  jatotten@orrick.com


PURDUE PHARMA: Schneider Sues over Deceptive Marketing of Opioids
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against several
manufacturers of prescription opioids, including Purdue Pharma L.P.
and Endo Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., for several causes of action
including violations of Wisconsin's Deceptive Trade Practices Act,
the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
fraudulent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. The case is
captioned ZACHARY R. SCHNEIDER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P.; PURDUE
PHARMA INC.; THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.; INSYS
THERAPEUTICS, INC.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD.; TEVA
PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON;
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ACTAVIS PLC; ACTAVIS, INC.; WATSON
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.; MCKESSON
CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.; and AMERISOURCEBERGEN
CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00611-DEJ (E.D. Wis.,
April 26, 2019).

Plaintiff Zachary R. Schneider alleges that the Manufacturer
Defendants have engaged in a cunning and deceptive marketing scheme
to encourage doctors and patients to use opioids to treat chronic
pain.

Purdue Pharma L.P. is a limited partnership organized under the
laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business
in Connecticut. Defendant Purdue Pharma Inc. is a New York
corporation with its principal place of business in Connecticut.
Defendant Purdue Frederick Company is a Delaware corporation with
its principal place of business in Connecticut. Purdue
manufactures, promotes, sells, and distributes opioids such as
OxyContin, MS Contin, Dilaudid/Dilaudid HP, Butrans, Hysingla ER,
and Targiniq ER in the United States and Wisconsin. OxyContin is
Purdue's best-selling opioid, and it accounts for nearly one-third
of the national painkiller market. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in
Pennsylvania, and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Endo Health
Solutions Inc. Defendant Endo Health Solutions Inc. is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania.
Endo develops, markets, and sells prescription drugs, including the
opioids Opana/Opana ER, Percodan, Percocet, and Zydone, in the
United States and Wisconsin. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Steven G. Kluender, Esq.
     Casey P. Shorts, Esq.
     THE PREVIANT LAW FIRMS, S.C.
     310 W. Wisconsin Avenue
     Suite 100MW
     Milwaukee, WI 53203
     Telephone: (414) 271-4500
     Facsimile: (414) 271-6308
     E-mail: sgk@previant.com
             cps@previant.com

             - and -

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     David I. Mindell, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Telephone: (312) 589-6370
     Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
     E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
             brichman@edelson.com
             dmindell@edelson.com

             - and -

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     Todd Logan, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Telephone: (415) 212-9300
     Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
     E-mail: tlogan@edelson.com

             - and –

     William S. Consovoy, Esq.
     Thomas R. McCarthy, Esq.
     CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PARK PLLC
     3033 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 700
     Arlington, VA 22201
     Telephone: (703) 243-9423
     E-mail: will@consovoymccarthy.com
             tom@consovoymccarthy.com

             - and -

     Michael H. Park, Esq.
     CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PARK PLLC
     745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
     New York, NY 10151
     Telephone: (212) 247-8006
     E-mail: park@consovoymccarthy.com
           
             - and –

     Ashley Keller, Esq.
     Travis Lenkner, Esq.
     Seth Meyer, Esq.
     KELLER LENKNER LLC
     150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2570
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Telephone: (312) 741-5220
     E-mail: ack@kellerlenkner.com
             tdl@kellerlenkner.com
             sam@kellerlenkner.com


QUANTENNA COMMUNICATIONS: Wheby Balks at Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Quantenna
Communications, Inc. and its board of directors for an alleged
violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. The case is captioned EARL M. WHEBY, JR., Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v.
QUANTENNA COMMUNICATIONS, INC., SAM HEIDARI, GLENDA DORCHAK, NED
HOOPER, HAROLD HUGHES, JACK LAZAR, JOHN SCULL, and MARK A. STEVENS,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00877-UNA (D. Del., May 9, 2019).

Plaintiff Earl M. Wheby, Jr. alleges that the Defendants have filed
a false and misleading proxy statement that omits material
information with respect to the proposed transaction announced on
March 27, 2019, pursuant to which Quantenna will be acquired by ON
Semiconductor Corporation and Raptor Operations Sub, Inc.
Specifically, the proxy statement omits material information
regarding the Quantenna's financial projections and the analyses
performed by the Company's financial advisor in connection with the
proposed transaction, Qatalyst Partners LP. With respect to
Qatalyst's Selected Transactions Analysis, the proxy statement
fails to disclose the equity values of the transactions observed by
Qatalyst.

Quantenna is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal
executive offices at 1704 Automation Parkway, San Jose, California.
Quantenna's common stock is traded on the NASDAQ Global Select
Market under the ticker symbol QTNA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

            - and –

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


REVOLUTION LIGHTING: Remer Sues over False Financial Statements
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Revolution Lighting
Technologies, Inc., Robert V. Lapenta, Charles J. Schafer, and
James A. Depalma for violations of the Securities and Exchange Act
of 1934. The case is captioned FRED REMER, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. REVOLUTION
LIGHTING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ROBERT V. LAPENTA, CHARLES J. SCHAFER,
and JAMES A. DEPALMA, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04252 (S.D.N.Y.,
May 10, 2019).

Plaintiff Fred Remer alleges that the Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the company was
improperly recognizing revenue for certain transactions; (2) that,
as a result, the company's financial statements were misstated; (3)
that the Company lacked adequate internal controls over financial
reporting; (4) that, as a result, company would be subject to
regulatory scrutiny and incur substantial costs; and (5) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
company's business, operations, and prospects and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Revolution Lighting is incorporated in Delaware with its principal
executive offices located in Stamford, Connecticut. Revolution
Lighting's common stock trades on the NASDAQ exchange under the
symbol RVLT. The company purports to design and manufacture
light-emitting diode ("LED") lighting solutions for industrial,
commercial, and government markets. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard W. Gonnello, Esq.
     Megan M. Sullivan, Esq.
     Sherief Morsy, Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Telephone: 212-983-9330
     Facsimile: 212-983-9331
     E-mail: rgonnello@faruqilaw.com
             msullivan@faruqilaw.com
             smorsy@faruqilaw.com


SCORES HOLDING: Santos de Oliveira Suit in Discovery Phase
----------------------------------------------------------
Scores Holding Company, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2018, that the lawsuit by Luisa Santos de
Oliveira is currently in the discovery phase.

The Company was served with a Summons and Complaint in the action
entitled Luisa Santos de Oliveira v. Scores Holding Company, Inc.;
Club Azure, LLC; Robert Gans; Mark S. Yackow; Howard Rosenbluth,
Docket No. 1:18-cv-06769-GBD, in the United States District Court
of the Southern District.

Plaintiff claims that the Defendants violated the minimum wage and
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA");
violated the New York Minimum Wage Act and the overtime provisions
of the New York State Labor Law ("NYLL"); violated the Spread of
Hours Wage Order of the New York Commissioner of Labor; violated
the Notice and Recordkeeping requirements of the NYLL; violated the
wage statement provisions of the NYLL; recovery of equipment costs
in violation of the FLSA and NYLL; and unlawful deductions from
tips in violation of the NYLL.

Plaintiff brought this action as a class action and seeks
certification of this action as a collective action on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated employees and former
employees of Defendants.

The Company has submitted an Answer to Plaintiff's claims and the
case is currently in the discovery phase.  The Company, along with
the Co-defendants, intends to vigorously defend itself against the
claims asserted against it in this lawsuit.

Scores Holding said, "The likelihood of an unfavorable outcome is
remote because the Company's records show, inter alia, that the
Plaintiff never worked more than 25 hours per week."

Scores Holding Company, Inc. is an adult entertainment company.


SEE'S CANDY: Ping Claims Uniform Cost Reimbursement
---------------------------------------------------
Laci Ping, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. See's Candy Shops, Inc., See's Candies,
Inc. and Does 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, inclusive, Case No.
19-cv-02504 (N.D. Cal., May 9, 2019), seeks redress for Defendants'
failure to reimburse necessary business expenditures, failure to
pay for required work uniforms, failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to furnish accurate wage statements, and failure to pay all
wages due at termination of employment. The complaint further seeks
damages, restitution and penalties, as well as interest, attorney's
fees, costs and injunctive relief, all under California law.

Defendants own and operate retail candy stores in California,
throughout the United States, and internationally with more than
100 stores in California. Laci Ping worked as a non-exempt store
employee from approximately October 2010 until approximately
December 2018. See's requires its employees to purchase and wear
nude pantyhose, black shoes of a specific design, white or nude
slips yet did not reimburse Plaintiffs for the expense of obtaining
these clothing items, asserts the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Randall B. Aiman-Smith, Esq.
      Reed W.L. Marcy, Esq.
      Hallie Von Rock, Esq.
      Carey A. James, Esq.
      Brent A. Robinson, Esq.
      7677 Oakport St. Suite 1150
      Oakland, CA 94621
      Tel: (510) 817-2711
      Fax: (510) 562-6830
      Email: ras@asmlawyers.com
             rwlm@asmlawyers.com
             hvr@asmlawyers.com
             caj@asmlawyers.com
             bar@asmlawyers.com


SOURCE CONSTRUCTION: Sastre Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Source Construction
Contracting, Inc. and Gerald V. Clancy for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). The
case is captioned GABRIEL SASTRE, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated, Plaintiff, -against- SOURCE CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACTING, INC, and GERALD V CLANCY, as an individual,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02508-PKC-VMS (E.D.N.Y., April 29,
2019). Defendants allegedly did not pay Plaintiff Gabriel Sastre
time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of
the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL. In
addition, Defendants has also violated the spread of hours
provisions of NYLL by not paying Plaintiff an extra hour at the
legally prescribed minimum wage for each day worked over 10 hours.

Source Construction Contracting, Inc, is a corporation organized
under the laws of New York with a principal executive office at 67
West Street, Suite 608, Brooklyn, New York. Gerald V. Clancy is the
Chief Executive Officer of Source Construction Contracting, Inc.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
     HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
     Kew Gardens, NY 11415
     Telephone: (718) 263-9591


SPIRITUAL GANGSTER: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spiritual Gangster
Holdings, Inc. The case is styled as Linda Slade individually and
as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. Spiritual Gangster Holdings, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-04593 (S.D. N.Y., May 20, 2019).

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

Spiritual Gangster Holdings, Inc. retails Yoga inspired clothing
online. It sells men's, women's, and children's clothing.[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
     Fax: (718) 504-7555
     Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


STERICYCLE INC: Contract Class Accord Opt-Out Members File Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stericycle, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019, that certain class members who have opted out of
the Final Settlement in the Contract Class Action Lawsuits have
filed lawsuits against the Company.

Beginning on March 12, 2013, the Company was served with several
class action complaints filed in federal and state courts in
several jurisdictions.  These complaints asserted, among other
things, that the Company had imposed unauthorized or excessive
price increases and other charges on the Company's customers in
breach of its contracts and in violation of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.  The complaints sought
certification of the lawsuit as a class action and the award to
class members of appropriate damages and injunctive relief.  These
related actions were ultimately transferred to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for
centralized pretrial proceedings (the "MDL Action").

On February 16, 2017, the Court entered an order granting
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The Court certified a
class of "[a]ll persons and entities that, between March 8, 2003
through the date of trial resided in the United States (except
Washington and Alaska), were identified by Stericycle as ‘Small
Quantity' or ‘SQ' customer, and were charged and paid more than
their contractually-agreed price for Stericycle's medical waste
disposal goods and services pursuant to Stericycle's automated
price increase policy.  Governmental entities whose claims were
asserted in United States ex rel. Perez v. Stericycle Inc. shall be
excluded from the class."

The parties engaged in discussions through and overseen by a
mediator regarding a potential resolution of the matter and reached
an agreement in principle for settlement in July 2017, which was
subsequently documented in a definitive settlement agreement (the
"Settlement") on October 17, 2017.  The Settlement provided a
global resolution of all cases and claims against the Company in
the MDL Action.  It also provided that the Company would establish
a common fund of US$295.0 million from which would be paid all
compensation to members of the settlement class, attorneys' fees to
class counsel, incentive awards to the named class representatives
and all costs of notice and administration.  It also provided that
the Company's existing contracts with customers would remain in
force, while the Company would also establish as part of the
Settlement guidelines for future price increases and provide
customers additional transparency regarding such increases.  Under
the terms of the Settlement, the Company admitted no fault or
wrongdoing whatsoever, and it entered into the Settlement to avoid
the cost and uncertainty of litigation.  The Settlement provided
that, upon final approval by the Court following a fairness
hearing, it would fully and finally resolve all claims against the
Company alleged in the MDL Action.

The court held a fairness hearing on March 8, 2018 and granted
approval of the Proposed MDL Settlement that same day.  The
Proposed MDL Settlement became finally effective on June 7, 2018
(the "Final Settlement"), and the Company funded the Final
Settlement on July 6, 2018.

Certain class members who have opted out of the Final Settlement
have filed lawsuits against the Company, and the Company will
defend and resolve those actions.  The Company has accrued its
estimate of the probable loss for these collective matters, which
is not material.

Stericycle, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides
regulated and compliance solutions to the healthcare, retail, and
commercial businesses in the United States and internationally.
Stericycle, Inc. was founded in 1989 and is based in Lake Forest,
Illinois.


STERICYCLE INC: July 22 Fairness Hearing for Securities Class Pact
------------------------------------------------------------------
A fairness hearing has been scheduled for July 22, 2019 with
regards to Stericycle, Inc.'s settlement agreement for the
securities class action lawsuit in Illinois, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

On July 11, 2016, two purported stockholders filed a putative class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.  The plaintiffs purported to sue for
themselves and on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's
publicly traded securities between February 7, 2013 and April 28,
2016, inclusive, and all those who purchased securities in the
Company's public offering of depositary shares, each representing a
1/10th interest in a share of the Company's mandatory convertible
preferred stock, on or around September 15, 2015.  The complaint
named as defendants the Company, its directors and certain of its
current and former officers, and certain of the underwriters in the
public offering.  The complaint purports to assert claims under
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
well as SEC Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder.  The complaint
alleges, among other things, that the Company imposed unauthorized
or excessive price increases and other charges on its customers in
breach of its contracts, and that defendants failed to disclose
those alleged practices in public filings and other statements
issued during the proposed class period beginning February 7, 2013
and ending April 28, 2016.  Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint
on August 4, 2016 and a Corrected Amended Complaint on October 21,
2016.

On November 1, 2016, the Court appointed the Public Employees'
Retirement System of Mississippi and the Arkansas Teacher
Retirement System as Lead Plaintiffs and their counsel as Lead
Counsel.  On February 1, 2017, Lead Plaintiff filed a Consolidated
Amended Complaint with additional purported factual material
supporting the same legal claims from the prior complaints for a
class period from February 7, 2013 through September 18, 2016.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended
Complaint on April 1, 2017.  On May 19, 2017, plaintiffs filed a
response in opposition to the motion to dismiss and on June 19,
2017, Defendants filed a reply brief in support of their motion.

On March 31, 2018, plaintiffs filed a further Amended Complaint,
alleging additional corrective disclosures and extending the
purported class period through February 21, 2018.  Defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint on May 25,
2018.  The Motion was fully briefed on July 13, 2018, and awaited a
ruling by the Court.

The parties engaged in discussions through and overseen by a
mediator regarding a potential resolution of the matter and reached
an agreement in principle for settlement in December 2018 (the
"Proposed Securities Class Action Settlement").

As the Company disclosed on December 20, 2018, the terms of the
Proposed Securities Class Action Settlement provided that the
Company would establish a common fund of US$45 million, from which
would be paid all compensation to members of the settlement class,
attorneys' fees to class counsel, incentive awards to the named
class representatives and all costs of notice and administration.
In the Proposed Securities Class Action Settlement, the Company
admitted no fault or wrongdoing whatsoever.  The Company entered
into the Proposed Securities Class Action Settlement in order to
avoid the cost and uncertainty of litigation.

On February 14, 2019, the Company executed a definitive written
settlement agreement (the "Settlement"), which incorporated the
terms of the agreement in principle announced in December 2018.
The Settlement incorporated the terms of the Proposed Securities
Class Action Settlement.  Under the terms of the Settlement, the
Company admitted no fault or wrongdoing whatsoever, and it entered
into the Settlement to avoid the cost and uncertainty of
litigation.  The Settlement provided that, upon final approval by
the Court following a fairness hearing, it would fully and finally
resolve all claims against the Company alleged in the Securities
Class Action.

On February 25, 2019, plaintiffs in the Securities Class Action
filed Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for an Order Preliminarily
Approving Class Settlement and Authorizing Dissemination of Notice
of Settlement (the "Preliminary Approval Motion").  The Preliminary
Approval Motion asked the Court to preliminarily approve the
Settlement, to approve the manner and content of the notice to be
given to potential class members, and to set a schedule for, among
other things, deadlines for potential class members to file claims,
object to the Settlement, or seek exclusion from the Settlement
class.

The Court approved the Preliminary Approval Motion on March 12,
2019, and the Company funded the settlement on March 25, 2019.  The
large majority of the US$45 million common fund has been funded by
the Company's insurers.  The Court has scheduled a fairness hearing
for July 22, 2019.

Stericycle, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides
regulated and compliance solutions to the healthcare, retail, and
commercial businesses in the United States and internationally.
Stericycle, Inc. was founded in 1989 and is based in Lake Forest,
Illinois.


STERLING INFOSYSTEMS: Faces Wright Labor Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
Sterling Infosystems, Inc. The case is captioned Reid Isaac Wright
vs. Sterling Infosystems Inc, Case No. 34-2019-00255349-CU-OE-GDS
(Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., April 29, 2019).

Sterling Infosystems, Inc. offers employment screening and
background check services. The company provides services in several
areas, including criminal background checks and drug and health
screening. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Eric B Kingsley, Esq.
     KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY
     16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1200
     Encino, CA 91436
     Telephone: (888) 500-8469


SUNRUN INC: Saunders Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
The case, CURTIS SAUNDERS, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, vs. SUNRUN, INC., a
Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2019CH04252 (Filed on
April 2, 2019), was transferred from the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
on May 9, 2019.

In the complaint, Plaintiff Curtis Saunders alleges that Sunrun
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by
purportedly sending unauthorized text messages using an automatic
telephone dialing system to Plaintiff and members of the putative
class. The United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-03127 to the proceeding. The
district court has the original jurisdiction over this complaint
because Plaintiffs' claim arises under the laws of the United
States, namely the TCPA.

Headquartered in San Francisco, California, Sunrun, Inc. provides
residential solar electricity. It offers design, development,
installation, and maintenance services of residential solar energy
systems in the United States. [BN]

Attorneys for Defendant:

     Givonna S. Long, Esq.
     KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP
     333 West Wacker Drive, 26th Fl.
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Telephone: (312) 857-7070
     Facsimile: (312) 857-7095


TACO MIX: Sanchez-Torres Seeks Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Filadelfo Sanchez
aka Jorge Sanchez, Alejo Sanchez, Joanna Sanchez and Taco Mix LLC
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law. The case is captioned JESSICA SANCHEZ-TORRES,
Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. FILADELFO SANCHEZ aka JORGE SANCHEZ, ALEJO SANCHEZ, JOANNA
SANCHEZ, Individually and TACO MIX LLC, TACO MIX II LLC, TACO MIX
III LLC, TACO MIX OF INDUSTRY CITY LLC, TACO MIX DELANCEY LLC, TACO
MIX OF QUEENS LLC d/b/a TACO MIX, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-04222 (S.D.N.Y., May 9, 2019).

Plaintiff Jessica Sanchez-Torres alleges that the Defendants
unlawfully failed to pay her one and one-half times her regular
rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.
The Defendants also did not pay Plaintiff a spread of hours premium
pursuant to New York state law when her workdays lasted ten or more
hours. In addition, Defendants allegedly failed to provide
Plaintiff with a written notice of her rate of pay and failed to
keep proper payroll records as required under New York law.

Taco Mix is a Mexican restaurant that currently has three locations
in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TD AMERITRADE: Court Dismisses T. Gray's FINRA Suit
---------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion granting
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned THACKERY S.
GRAY, and YELENA F. GRAY, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TD AMERITRADE, INC., and SHEAFF
BROCK INVESTMENT ADVISORS, LLC, Defendants. No. 18 C 00419. (N.D.
Ill.).

Before the Court is Defendant TD Ameritrade, Inc. (TD Ameritrade)
and Sheaff Brock Investment Advisors, LLC's (Sheaff Brock)
(Defendants) motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Thackery and Yelena
Gray's (Plaintiffs) Class Action Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated the FINRA rules
by casting the put options income strategy as conservative, when it
was actually an aggressive and speculative strategy that augmented
risks, as it sought to make money through speculative bets about
the future price of the underlying asset. Due to the significant
exposure the seller faces and the volatility of the investment,
Plaintiffs allege that the put options income strategy resulted in
"staggering losses" to themselves and the putative classes.

The Defendants urge the Court to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint
because the allegations are barred by the Securities Litigation and
Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA).

This statute prohibits state-law class-action claims relating to
misrepresentations, omissions, or manipulative or deceptive devices
in connection with the purchase or sale of covered securities.
However, PSLRA had the unintended consequence of displacing federal
securities fraud class action litigation to state courts under the
guise of common law actions, such as breach of contract.  

To successfully claim SLUSA preclusion, Defendants must show that
Plaintiffs' claim is: (1) a covered class action (2) based on state
law (3) that alleges a misrepresentation or omission of a material
fact, or the use of any manipulative or deceptive decide or
contrivance (4) in connection with the purchase or sale of (5) a
covered security. Plaintiffs concede that the first three elements
are met.

Therefore, the Court will only consider the disputed fourth and
fifth elements.

Misrepresentations Were Made "In Connection With" a Purchase or
Sale

The Plaintiffs dispute the fourth element of SLUSA preclusion,
namely whether the misrepresentations at issue were made in
connection with a purchase or sale of a covered security.
Plaintiffs claim that the misrepresentations were not made in
connection with a purchase or sale, but rather in connection with
the decision to hire Sheaff Brock as their investment advisor.
Moreover, Plaintiffs emphasize that because they gave Defendants
complete discretion over investment decisions, Plaintiffs were not
in the position to make a decision in connection with a purchase or
sale.  

The Supreme Court and courts in this Circuit have affirmed that a
plaintiff need not personally make the investment decision to
satisfy the in connection with requirement; rather, the fraud has
to coincide with the covered securities transaction.  

Given the weight of the authority rejecting Plaintiffs' argument,
the Court cannot find that Plaintiffs decision to give investment
discretion to Sheaff Brock bars their misrepresentations from being
"in connection with" the purchase or sale of a covered security.

Instead, as the Supreme Court instructs, the fraud has to coincide
with the securities transaction. Defendants' alleged
misrepresentations about the conservative nature of the put options
income strategy and the expected returns certainly coincide with a
securities transaction because such a transaction is the foundation
for their claim. Indeed, these misrepresentations were the catalyst
for Plaintiffs to hire Sheaff Brock to engage in securities
transactions on their behalf. Any other conclusion would put too
fine a point on the in connection with requirement.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the fourth element of SLUSA
preclusion is satisfied.

Misrepresentations Involved a "Covered Security"

The Plaintiffs next dispute whether the alleged misrepresentations
involved the purchase or sale of a covered security. SLUSA
incorporates the definition of covered security from Section 18 of
the Securities Act of 1933.  

The Plaintiffs maintain that the complaint does not accuse
Defendants of making any misrepresentations about the underlying
stocks or options that caused Plaintiffs' losses, but rather about
the Defendants' services and put options income strategy.
Plaintiffs argue that Defendants' services and strategy cannot be
considered a "covered security, so SLUSA cannot preclude their
claims.

However, that is far too narrow a reading of the statute. According
to the Supreme Court, a narrow reading of the statute would
undercut the effectiveness of [PSLRA] and thus run contrary to
SLUSA's stated purpose.

Therefore, considering the practical implications of the
Plaintiffs' argument, the Court finds that any misrepresentation
regarding the success or failure of a particular securities trading
strategy necessarily involves the underlying securities. Given that
the underlying securities are subject to the rules of the Options
Clearing Corporation, traded on national exchanges, and regulated
by the Securities and Exchange Commission, they are "covered
securities" for purposes of SLUSA preclusion.

Consequently, all five preclusion elements are satisfied, and SLUSA
bars Plaintiffs' state-law class-action claims.

Implications of SLUSA Bar

Because SLUSA preclusion applies, the Court must dismiss
Plaintiffs' state-law class-action claims, which make up the
entirety of the complaint. Plaintiffs maintain that the Court's
dismissal should be without prejudice.  

However, the dismissal does not mean that the Plaintiffs are left
with no recourse. SLUSA does not prevent Plaintiffs from bringing
claims against Defendants to recover for their losses, it simply
denies plaintiffs the right to use the class-action device to
vindicate certain claims. If Plaintiffs want to pursue their state
law claims, they have to proceed in the usual way: one litigant
against another. Further, the parties agreed to arbitrate their
individual disputes, so Plaintiffs should direct their claims to
the proper forum.

The Court grants Defendants' motion.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 13, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y52zwttm from
Leagle.com.

Thackery S. Gray & Yelena F. Gray, On Behalf Of Themselves And All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Sean M.
Sweeney -- sms@hallingcayo.com -- Halling & Cayo, S.c., Andrew
Douglas Welker -- adw@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler Wallace Llp,
Benjamin Aaron Kaplan -- bak@cruegerdickinson.com -- Crueger
Dickinson LLC, Charles J. Crueger -- cjc@cruegerdickinson.com --
Crueger Dickinson LLC, Patrick T. O'Neill -- pto@hallingcayo.com --
Halling & Cayo, S.C. & Edward A. Wallace -- eaw@wexlerwallace.com
-- Wexler Wallace LLP.

TD Ameritrade, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lauren Jennifer
Caisman --  lauren.caisman@bclplaw.com -- Bryan Cave Leighton
Paisner LLP, Dana Sirkis Gloor, Miles & Stockbridge, P.C., 54011,
Red Wing MN 55066, Saint Paul MN 55125, pro hac vice & John Michael
Clear  -- jmclear@bclplaw.com -- pro hac vice.

Sheaff Brock Investment Advisors, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Eric L. Samore -- esamore@salawus.com -- SmithAmundsen LLC, Kenneth
L. Cunniff, Kenneth L. Cunniff Ltd., 30 N. La Salle St.Chicago, IL
60603, Ronald P. Kane, Kane & Fischer, Ltd., 208 S. La Salle St.
Ste. 1800Chicago, IL 60604- 1157& Kathryn Victoria Long --
klong@salawus.com -- SmithAmundsen LLC.


TEVA PHARMA: Bids to Dismiss Ontario Teachers' Fund Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to dismiss the second amended complaint in the securities
class actions led the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board are
still pending, according to Teva Pharmaceutical Industries
Limited's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

On November 6, 2016 and December 27, 2016, two putative securities
class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California against Teva and certain of its current and
former officers and directors.  After those two lawsuits were
consolidated and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut, the court appointed the Ontario Teachers'
Pension Plan Board as lead plaintiff (the "Ontario Teachers
Securities Litigation").  The lead plaintiff then filed a
consolidated amended complaint.

On April 3, 2018, the court dismissed the case without prejudice.

Lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on June 22, 2018,
purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Teva's securities between
February 6, 2014 and August 3, 2017.  The second complaint asserts
that Teva and certain of its current and former officers and
directors violated federal securities laws in connection with
Teva's alleged failure to disclose pricing strategies for various
drugs in its generic drug portfolio and by making allegedly false
or misleading statements in certain offering materials issued
during the class period.  The second complaint seeks unspecified
damages, legal fees, interest, and costs.

Teva and the current and former officer and director defendants
filed motions to dismiss the second complaint on September 14,
2018.  Those motions are pending before the court.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide.  It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
The Company was founded in 1901 and is headquartered in Petach
Tikva, Israel.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Class Actions Pending in Israel
----------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited disclosed in its Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that it is facing legal
actions, including class-related complaints, in Israel.

Motions to approve derivative actions against certain past and
present directors and officers have been filed in Israel alleging
negligence and recklessness with respect to the acquisition of the
Rimsa business and the acquisition of Actavis Generics.  Motions
for document disclosure prior to initiating derivative actions were
filed with respect to dividend distribution, executive
compensation, several patent settlement agreements, opioids and the
U.S. price-fixing investigations.  Motions to approve securities
class actions against Teva and certain of its current and former
directors and officers were filed in Israel based on allegations of
improper disclosure of the above-mentioned pricing investigation,
as well as lack of disclosure of negative developments in the
generic sector, including price erosion with respect to Teva's
products.  Other motions were filed in Israel to approve a
derivative action, discovery and a class action related to claims
regarding Teva's Foreign Corrupt Practices Act resolution with the
Securities and Exchange Commission and Department of Justice.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide.  It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
The Company was founded in 1901 and is headquartered in Petach
Tikva, Israel.



TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Employee Stock Purchase Plan Suit Still Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited disclosed in its Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the class suit related
to the Teva Employee Stock Purchase Plan remains stayed pending
resolution of the motions to dismiss filed in the Ontario Teachers
Securities Litigation.

On July 17, 2017, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio derivatively on behalf of the
Teva Employee Stock Purchase Plan, and alternatively as a putative
class action lawsuit on behalf of individuals who purchased Teva
stock through that plan.  That lawsuit seeks unspecified damages,
legal fees, interest and costs.

The complaint alleges that Teva failed to maintain adequate
financial controls based on the facts underpinning Teva's U.S.
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act three-year deferred prosecution
agreement (FCPA DPA) and also based on allegations substantially
similar to those in the Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation.

On November 29, 2017, the court granted Teva's motion to transfer
the litigation to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut where the Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation is
pending.  On February 12, 2018, the district court stayed the case
pending resolution of the motions to dismiss filed in the Ontario
Teachers Securities Litigation.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide.  It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
The Company was founded in 1901 and is headquartered in Petach
Tikva, Israel.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Grodko/Baker Securities Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited disclosed in its Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the consolidated
putative securities class complaints initiated by Elliot Grodko and
Barry Baker are still pending. The consolidated action was
previously transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania to the District of Connecticut in 2018.

On August 21 and 30, 2017, Elliot Grodko and Barry Baker filed
putative securities class actions in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania purportedly on behalf of
purchasers of Teva's securities between November 15, 2016 and
August 2, 2017 seeking unspecified damages, legal fees, interest,
and costs.  The complaints allege that Teva and certain of its
current and former officers violated the federal securities laws
and Israeli securities laws by making false and misleading
statements in connection with Teva's acquisition and integration of
Actavis Generics.

On November 1, 2017, the court consolidated the Baker and Grodko
cases.  On April 10, 2018, the court granted Teva's motion to
transfer the consolidated action to the District of Connecticut
where the Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation is currently
pending.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide.  It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
The Company was founded in 1901 and is headquartered in Petach
Tikva, Israel.



TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Suits over Sales of Generics Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited said in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2019, that Teva and Actavis deny having
engaged in any conduct that would give rise to liability with
respect to complaints over alleged conspiracies to fix prices
and/or allocate market share of generic products.

Beginning on March 2, 2016, numerous complaints have been filed in
the United States on behalf of putative classes of direct and
indirect purchasers of several generic drug products, as well as
several individual direct purchaser opt-out plaintiffs.  These
complaints, which allege that the defendants engaged in
conspiracies to fix prices and/or allocate market share of generic
products have been brought against various manufacturer defendants,
including Teva and Actavis.  The plaintiffs generally seek
injunctive relief and damages under federal antitrust law, and
damages under various state laws.

On April 6, 2017, these cases were transferred to the Pennsylvania
MDL.  Additional cases were transferred to that court and the
plaintiffs filed consolidated amended complaints on August 15,
2017.

On October 16, 2018, the court denied certain of the defendants'
motions to dismiss as to certain federal claims, and on February
15, 2019, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants'
motions to dismiss as to certain state law claims.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide.  It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
The Company was founded in 1901 and is headquartered in Petach
Tikva, Israel.


TRENTON, NJ: Court Dismisses A. Guille's Prisoner's Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued a Memorandum and Order dismissing the action for failure to
state a claim in the case captioned ADRIAN GUILLE, Plaintiff, v.
STEVEN JOHNSON, et al, Defendants. Civil Action No. 18-1472
(PGS-TJB). (D.N.J.).

Plaintiff is proceeding, in forma pauperis, with an amended civil
rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.  

The Court must review the amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1915(e)(2)(B) to determine whether it should be dismissed
as frivolous or malicious, for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or because it seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from suit. Having completed this screening,
the Court will permit the complaint to proceed in part.

The Plaintiff raises a variety of claims against prison officials
at New Jersey State Prison (NJSP) in Trenton, New Jersey including
excessive force, unconstitutional conditions of confinement,
retaliation, and denial of medical care.

The Plaintiff attempts to bring certain claims on behalf of all
prisoners at NJSP. Plaintiff lacks standing to assert claims on
behalf of other prisoners.  

The Plaintiff's first claim alleges that Officers Martini, Piazza,
and Sgt. Smith used excessive force against him in his cell.
Accepting the facts alleged in the complaint as true for screening
purposes only, the Court will permit this claim to proceed.

The Plaintiff next alleges Sgt. Smith and unknown officers used
excessive force against him in an elevator. The Court will permit
this claim to proceed as well.

The Court will also permit the Plaintiff's allegations that Sgt.
Smith and others violated the Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights
when they refused to permit him to decontaminate from the
pepper-spray and forced him to remain in the dirty clothing. The
Plaintiff also alleges various conditions of confinement claims
against various defendants, but the Court will only permit the
claim to proceed against Mr. Johnson, Sgt. Patterson, Sgt. Smith,
Officer Martini, Officer Piazza, Officer Brodzinski, Officer Pedre,
and Officer Jenkins. Plaintiff has not stated how the other named
defendants participated in the alleged wrongdoings.  

The Court will permit the Plaintiff's claims against Sgt. Smith and
Steven Johnson arising out of the allegedly contaminated drinking
water to proceed.  

The Court will dismiss the Plaintiff's claims regarding the
lighting, volume of announcements, and being housed with
psychotics. The Eighth Amendment prohibits the unnecessary and
wanton infliction of pain and deliberate indifference to serious
medical needs.

The Court will permit the Plaintiff's conditions of confinement
claim alleging failure to remedy the vermin situation to proceed
against Steven Johnson, David Richards, Raymond Royce, and Amy
Emrich.

The Court dismisses the Plaintiff's claim for failure to implement
a confidential hotline in accordance with the Prison Rape
Elimination Act (PREA).

The Plaintiff's claims brought on behalf of the class are dismissed
without prejudice for failure to state a claim.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 13, 2019 Memorandum
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2pm27js from
Leagle.com.

ADRIAN GUILLE, Plaintiff, pro se.


TYSON FOODS: Sevy Alleges Price-Fixing of Fed Cattle
----------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Tyson Foods, Inc.,
Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., JBS S.A., JBS USA Food Company, Swift Beef
Company, JBS Packerland, Inc., Cargill, Incorporated, Cargill Meat
Solutions Corporation, Marfrig Global Foods S.A., and National Beef
Packing Company, LLC for violations of Sherman Act and Commodity
Exchange Act, and for unjust enrichment in violation of common law.
These companies allegedly engaged in a conspiracy to suppress the
price of fed cattle that they purchased in the United States. The
case is captioned MICHAEL SEVY, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TYSON FOODS, INC.; TYSON FRESH
MEATS, INC.; JBS S.A.; JBS USA FOOD COMPANY; SWIFT BEEF COMPANY;
JBS PACKERLAND, INC.; CARGILL, INCORPORATED; CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS
CORPORATION; MARFRIG GLOBAL FOODS S.A.; NATIONAL BEEF PACKING
COMPANY, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-10; Defendants, Case No.
0:19-cv-01243 (D. Minn., May 9, 2019).

Plaintiff Michael Sevy alleges that the Defendants coordinated
conduct, including slashing their respective slaughter volumes and
curtailing their purchases of fed cattle in the cash cattle market,
precipitated an unprecedented collapse in fed cattle prices in
2015. In addition, the Defendants then continued to suppress the
price of fed cattle through coordinated procurement practices and
periodic slaughter restraint. The conspiracy directly impacted the
market for live cattle futures and options traded on the Chicago
Mercantile Exchange.

Tyson Foods, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business located at 2200 Don Tyson Parkway, Springdale,
Arkansas. Located at 800 Stevens Port Drive, Dakota Dunes, South
Dakota, Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Tyson Foods. JBS S.A. is a Brazilian corporation with its principal
place of business located at Av. Marginal Direta do Tiete, 500
Bloco 3-3o. andar, Vila Jaguara, Sao Paulo 05.118-100, Brazil. JBS
USA Food Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business located at 1770 Promontory Circle, Greeley, Colorado.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
     Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
     PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
     800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Telephone: (612) 389-0600
     E-mail: mweiner@pswlaw.com
             jbourne@pswlaw.com
        
             - and -

     Bruce L. Simon, Esq.
     PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
     44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Telephone: (415) 433-9000
     E-mail: bsimon@pswlaw.com

             - and -

     Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
     Bobby Pouya, Esq.
     Matthew A. Pearson, Esq.
     PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
     15165 Ventura Blvd., Suite 400
     Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
     Telephone: (818) 788-8300
     E-mail: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
             bpouya@pswlaw.com
             mapearson@pswlaw.com

             - and –

     David E. Kovel, Esq.
     Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
     Karen Lerner, Esq.
     Anthony E. Maneiro, Esq.
     KIRBY McINERNEY LLP
     250 Park Avenue, Suite 820
     New York, NY 10177
     Telephone: (212) 371-6600
     E-mail: dkovel@kmllp.com
             telrod@kmllp.com
             klerner@kmllp.com
             amaneiro@kmllp.com

             - and –

     Brian Levin, Esq.
     LEVIN LAW, P.A.
     2665 South Bayshore Drive, PH2B
     Miami, FL 33133
     Telephone: (305) 539-0593
     E-mail: brian@levinlawpa.com


UNITED AIRLINES: Faces Ward Labor Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
United Airlines, Inc. The case is captioned CHARLES E WARD ET AL
VS. UNITED AIRLINES, INC. ET AL, Case No. CGC19575737 (Cal. Super.,
April 26, 2019). Plaintiff Charles E. Ward alleges that United
Airlines has violated the California Labor Code.

Headquartered at the Willis Tower in Chicago, Illinois, United
Airlines is a major American airline that operates a large domestic
and international route network. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kirk D. Hanson, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF KIRK D. HANSON
     2790 Truxtun Road, Suite 140
     San Diego, CA 92106
     Telephone: (619) 523-1992
     Facsimile: (619) 523-9002
     E-mail: Hansonlaw@cox.net


US SECURITY ASSOCIATES: Faces Scott Labor Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against U.S. Security
Associates, Inc. d/b/a Andrews International, LLC for violations of
the New York Labor Law (NYLL), the New York Code of Rules and
Regulations, and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act. The case
is captioned NICHELLE SCOTT, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, -against- U.S. SECURITY ASSOCIATES,
INC. d/b/a ANDREWS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. Case
7:19-cv-03817 (N.Y. Sup., April 29, 2019). Plaintiff Nichelle Scott
alleges that the Defendant failed to pay her overtime pay for those
hours worked in excess of 40. Further, she asserts that the
Defendant never provided accurate wage statements accompanying each
payment of wages and never paid any uniform maintenance pay or
reimbursement for the cost of maintaining the uniform.

U.S. Security Associates is a wholly-owned American security
company, with locally-responsive offices providing premier national
security services and global consulting and investigations. The
company conducts business throughout the state of New York. Andrews
International, LLC is an affiliate company of U.S. Security
Associates. Headquartered in Los Angeles, California, Andrews
International is an industry-leading full service provider of
security and risk mitigation services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark Gaylord, Esq.
     BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP
     400 Jericho Turnpike Suite 226
     Jericho, NY 11753
     Telephone: (516) 742-4949
     Facsimile: (516) 742-1977


US STEEL: Facing Class Action over 2018 Clairton Fire
-----------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation has been named as a defendant in a
class action complaint related to a December 2018 fire at Clairton,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019

On April 24, 2019, U.S. Steel was served with a class action
complaint that was filed in the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas
related to the December 24, 2018 fire at its Clairton Coke Works
Plant in Pennsylvania. The complaint asserts common law nuisance
and negligence claims and seeks compensatory and punitive damages
that allegedly were the result of U.S. Steel's conduct that
resulted in the fire and U.S. Steel's operations subsequent to the
fire.

The Company said, "We are actively defending this matter; however,
it is too early to predict the ultimate outcome or estimate
potential damages."

United States Steel produces and sells flat-rolled and
tubular steel products primarily in North America and Europe. It
operates through three segments: North American Flat-Rolled
(Flat-Rolled), U. S. Steel Europe (USSE), and Tubular Products
(Tubular). United States Steel was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


US STEEL: Underwriters Dropped as Defendants in Shareholder Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel 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 the Plaintiffs in a consolidated
shareholder class action suit pending before the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania has withdrawn the
claims against the Defendants related to the Company's 2016
secondary public offering, which means that the underwriter
defendants are no longer parties to the case.

On October 2, 2017, an Amended Shareholder Class Action Complaint
was filed in Federal Court in the Western District of Pennsylvania
consolidating previously-filed actions.  Separately, four related
shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed in State and Federal
courts in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

The underlying consolidated class action lawsuit alleges that U.S.
Steel, certain current and former officers, an upper level manager
of the Company and the financial underwriters who participated in
the August 2016 secondary public offering of the Company's common
stock (collectively, Defendants) violated federal securities laws
in making false statements and/or failing to discover and disclose
material information regarding the financial condition of the
Company.

The lawsuit claims that this conduct caused a prospective class of
plaintiffs to sustain damages during the period from January 27,
2016 to April 25, 2017 as a result of the prospective class
purchasing the Company's common stock at artificially inflated
prices and/or suffering losses when the price of the common stock
dropped.

The derivative lawsuits generally make the same allegations against
the same officers and also allege that certain current and former
members of the Board of Directors failed to exercise appropriate
control and oversight over the Company and were unjustly
compensated.

The plaintiffs seek to recover losses that were allegedly
sustained.  The class action Defendants moved to dismiss
plaintiffs' claims.

On September 29, 2018 the Court ruled on those motions granting
them in part and denying them in part.  On March 18, 2019, the
plaintiffs withdrew the claims against the Defendants related to
the 2016 secondary offering.  Therefore, the underwriters are no
longer parties to the case.  The Company and the individual
defendants are vigorously defending the remaining claims.

United States Steel produces and sells flat-rolled and
tubular steel products primarily in North America and Europe. It
operates through three segments: North American Flat-Rolled
(Flat-Rolled), U. S. Steel Europe (USSE), and Tubular Products
(Tubular). United States Steel was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.



VACATIONS INTERNATIONAL CLUB: Williams Sues over Autodialed Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against the Vacations
International Club, LLC (VCI) for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991. The case is captioned CLAYTON
WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, vs. VACATIONS INTERNATIONAL CLUB, LLC AND DOES 1 THRU 25
INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-1364-RMG (D.S.C., May 9,
2019).

Plaintiff Clayton Williams alleges that VCI has repeatedly harassed
him by telephone calls to their residential or cellular telephone
lines using an automated dialing system to deliver messages
concerning VCI vacation packages. Plaintiff Clayton Williams is one
of the millions of consumers who have listed telephone numbers,
including the number assigned to his cellular telephone, on the Do
Not Call Registry. Nonetheless, he has received numerous
telemarketing sales calls from one or more telephone call centers
VCI. These calls were made to his cellular telephone without prior
express consent.

VCI is a South Carolina limited liability company, which at all
relevant times to this action was engaged in conducting extensive
business in the state of South Carolina. VCI sells its vacation
timeshare packages through one or more telemarking service call
centers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brian M. Knowles, Esq.
     KNOWLES LAW FIRM, PC
     768 St. Andrews Blvd., Charleston, SC 29407
     P.O. Box 50201, Summerville, SC 29485
     Telephone: 1 (843) 810-7596
     Facsimile: 1 (877) 408-1078
     E-mail: brian@knowlesinternational.com
     Website: www.knowlesinternational.com

             - and -

     Robert M. Turkewitz, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT M. TURKEWITZ, LLC
     768 St. Andrews Blvd., Charleston, SC 29412
     Telephone: 1 (843) 628-7868
     Facsimile: 1 (843) 277-1438
     E-mail: rob@rmtlegal.com
     Website: www.rmtlegal.com

              - and -

     Steven M. Abrams, Esq.
     ABRAMS CYBER LAW & FORENSICS, LLC
     P.O. Box 305, Sullivans Island, SC 29482
     Telephone: 1 (843) 216-1100
     Facsimile: 1 (843) 278-5107


WAITR HOLDINGS: Bobbys Country Cookin' Sues over Service Fee
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Waitr Holdings,
Inc. for breach of contract, a violation of the duty of good faith
and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. The case is captioned
BOBBY'S COUNTRY COOKIN', LLC Plaintiff, v. WAITR HOLDINGS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00552-UDJ-KK (W.D. La., April 30,
2019). Plaintiff brings this action to challenge Waitr's breach of
the form agreements it enters with its restaurant customers by
charging more for its services than agreed. Waitr made a deal with
Plaintiff and thousands of other restaurants: it would include them
in its online ordering platform in exchange for a Service
Transaction Fee of 10% of the order amounts placed on that
platform. However, Waitr broke that agreement by unilaterally,
unlawfully imposing a Service Transaction Fee of 15% of the order
amounts.

Bobby's Country Cookin', LLC is a small business that owns and
operates a restaurant in Little Rock, Arkansas. Waitr is a large,
publicly traded company which allows more than a million users to
order food from thousands of restaurants across the United States
in exchange for a delivery fee and driver tip that it charges users
on each order.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Adras Paul LaBorde, III, Esq.
     DUDLEY DEBOISER, PC
     1075 Government Street
     Baton Rouge, LA 70802
     Telephone: (225) 478-4122
     Facsimile: (225) 478-4172
     E-mail: PLaborde@dudleydebosier.com

             - and -

     Nicholas W. Armstrong, Esq.
     Garrett Owens, Esq.
     PRICE ARMSTRONG, LLC
     2226 First Avenue South, Suite 105
     Birmingham, AL 35223
     Telephone: (205) 208-9588
     Facsimile: (205) 208-9598
     E-mail: nick@pricearmstrong.com
             garrett@pricearmstrong.com

             - and -

     John Rainwater, Esq.
     RAINWATER, HOLT & SEXTON, P.A.
     P.O. Box 17250
     Little Rock, AR 72222
     Telephone: (501) 868-2500
     Facsimile: (501) 868-2508
     E-mail: john@rainfirm.com


WASHINGTON GAS: Still Defends Silver Spring Incident Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Washington Gas Light Company and majority-owned subsidiary WGL
Holdings, Inc. (WGL) continue to defend themselves against lawsuits
related to the August 2016 explosion and fire at an apartment
complex on Arliss Street in Silver Spring, Maryland, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

On April 23, 2019, the National Transportation Safety Board held a
hearing during which it found, among other things, that the
probable cause of the August 10, 2016, explosion and fire at an
apartment complex on Arliss Street in Silver Spring, Maryland "was
the failure of an indoor mercury service regulator with an
unconnected vent line that allowed natural gas into the meter room
where it accumulated and ignited from an unknown ignition source.
Contributing to the accident was the location of the mercury
service regulators where leak detection by odor was not readily
available." Washington Gas disagrees with the NTSB's probable cause
findings.

A total of 40 civil actions related to the incident have been filed
against WGL and Washington Gas in the Circuit Court for Montgomery
County, Maryland.  All cases have been consolidated for discovery
purposes.  All of these suits seek unspecified damages for personal
injury and/or property damage.  The one action seeking class action
status has been amended to assert property damage and loss of use
claims and is no longer seeking class status.  The trial date for
the civil actions has been scheduled for December 2, 2019.

Washington Gas maintains excess liability insurance coverage from
highly-rated insurers, subject to a nominal self-insured retention.
Washington Gas believes that this coverage will be sufficient to
cover any significant liability that may result from this incident.
Given the early stage of the litigation, the outcome is not yet
determinable and management is unable to make an estimate of any
potential loss or range of potential losses that are reasonably
possible of occurring.  As a result, management has not recorded a
reserve associated with this incident.

Washington Gas Light Company, a regulated public utility, sells and
delivers natural gas to retail customers in the United States. As
of November 3, 2018, it served approximately 1.1 million customers
in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia. The company
was incorporated in 1848 and is based in Washington, the District
of Columbia. Washington Gas Light Company is a subsidiary of WGL
Holdings, Inc.



WEIGHT WATCHERS: Securities Class Action Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Weight Watchers International, Inc. continues to face securities
class action matters, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 30, 2019.

In March 2019, two substantially identical class action complaints
alleging violations of the federal securities laws were filed by
individual shareholders against the Company, certain of the
Company's current officers and the Company's former controlling
shareholder, Artal Group S.A., in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

One complaint was filed on behalf of all purchasers of the
Company's common stock and the other on behalf of all purchasers of
the Company's securities, between May 4, 2018 and February 26,
2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").  The complaints allege that,
during the Class Period, the defendants disseminated materially
false and misleading statements and/or concealed or recklessly
disregarded material adverse facts.  The complaints allege claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
thereunder.  The plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified damages on
behalf of the class members.  The Company believes that the suits
are without merit and intends to vigorously defend them.

On March 26, 2019, the Company received a shareholder litigation
demand letter alleging breaches of fiduciary duties by certain
current and former Company directors and executive officers, to the
alleged injury of the Company.  The allegations in the letter
relate to those contained in the ongoing securities class action
litigation.  In response to the letter, pursuant to Virginia law,
the Board of Directors is creating a special committee to review
and evaluate the facts and circumstances surrounding the claims
made in the demand letter.

Weight Watchers International, Inc. (NYSE: WTW), provides weight
management services worldwide.  The Company was founded in 1961 and
is headquartered in New York, New York.


WELLCARE HEALTH: Merger Documents Misleading, Clarke Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against WellCare Health
Plans, Inc and the members of the company's board of directors for
their their violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with the proposed
merger between WellCare and Centene Corporation. The case is
captioned PATRICK CLARKE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. WELLCARE HEALTH PLANS, INC.,
CHRISTIAN P. MICHALIK, KENNETH A. BURDICK, WILLIAM L. TRUBECK,
KEVIN F. HICKEY, PIYUSH JINDAL, DR. GLENN D. STEELE JR., H. JAMES
DALLAS, PAUL E. WEAVER, KATHLEEN E. WALSH, RICHARD C. BREON, and
AMY COMPTON-PHILLIPS, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00873-UNA (D.
Del., May 9, 2019).

On May 3, 2019, in order to convince WellCare shareholders to vote
in favor of the proposed merger, the company's board of directors
authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading
Form S-4 Registration Statement with the Securities and Exchange
Commission. The S-4 contains materially incomplete and misleading
information concerning the financial projections for the WellCare.
The materially incomplete and misleading financial projections
undervalue the Company on a standalone basis. Indeed, even Centene
appears to believe the WellCare is worth more than the merger
consideration, as earlier in the bidding process Centene submitted
an offer valued at $380 per share comprised of 55% cash and 45%
Centene stock.

WellCare is a managed care company that primarily focuses on
providing government-sponsored managed care services to families,
children, seniors and individuals with complex medical needs
primarily through Medicaid, Medicare Advantage and Medicare
Prescription Drug Plans. The company also provides services to
individuals in the Health Insurance Marketplace. As of Dec. 31,
2018, the company operated Medicaid health plans in 13 states,
Medicare Advantage coordinated plans in 21 states, and stand-alone
Medicare Prescription Drug Plans in all 50 states and the District
of Columbia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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


WELLS FARGO: Aug. 1 Derivative Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
IN RE WELLS FARGO & COMPANY SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION, Lead
Case No. 3:16-cv-05541-JST (N.D. Cal.)

TO: ALL RECORD AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
COMMON STOCK AS OF FEBRUARY 26, 2019 (THE "RECORD DATE"), WHO
CONTINUE TO OWN SUCH SHARES ("WELLS FARGO SHAREHOLDERS")

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, that pursuant to an Order of the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California, a
hearing will be held on August 1, 2019, at 2 p.m., before the
Honorable Jon S. Tigar, United States District Judge, at the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California, 450
Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102, for the
purpose of determining whether the proposed settlement of the above
captioned derivative action (the "Derivative Action"), with a total
settlement value of $320 million (as described below), should be
approved as fair, reasonable and adequate, and whether a judgment
dismissing the Defendants (as identified in the Stipulation of
Settlement ("Stipulation")) from the Derivative Action with
prejudice should be entered.

As part of the hearing, the Court will consider an application by
Co-Lead Counsel in the Derivative Action for an award of attorneys'
fees not to exceed $68 million and reimbursement awards for Co-Lead
Plaintiffs to be paid from Co-Lead Counsel's attorneys' fees not to
exceed $25,000. Because this is a shareholder derivative action
brought for the benefit of Wells Fargo, no individual Wells Fargo
shareholder has the right to receive any individual compensation as
a result of the settlement of this action.

The benefits to the Company of the proposed Settlement, which is
subject to Court approval, include Monetary Consideration of $240
million in value. Wells Fargo also agrees and acknowledges that
facts alleged in the Derivative Action were a significant factor in
causing (i) certain corporate governance changes undertaken by
Wells Fargo during the pendency of the Derivative Action (the
"Corporate Governance Reforms") (see Stipulation Ex. A), which
include improvement to Wells Fargo's internal controls, internal
reporting, and expanded and enhanced oversight of risk management
by Wells Fargo's Board of Directors; and (ii) certain remedial
steps with respect to compensation reductions and forfeitures
undertaken by Wells Fargo during the pendency of the Derivative
Action (the "Clawbacks") (see Stipulation Ex. B). The Parties
agreed that the Corporate Governance Reforms and the Clawbacks set
forth in Exhibits A and B to the Stipulation have a value to Wells
Fargo of $80 million, for a total Settlement value to Wells Fargo
of $320 million, not including the Co-Lead Plaintiffs' counsel's
fee award.

IF YOU ARE AN OWNER OF WELLS FARGO COMMON STOCK, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE
AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT. A more detailed form of notice
describing the Settlement has been published as a Current Report on
Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, has
been published on Wells Fargo's company website, and is also
available, as is the Stipulation and other relevant documents, at
wellsfargoderivativesettlement.com. More information is also
available by calling 1-888-334-6164.

Inquiries, other than requests for the detailed form of notice, may
be made to a representative of Co-Lead Counsel. Should you have any
other questions regarding the proposed Settlement or the Derivative
Action, please contact Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs:

LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
Richard M. Heimann
Katherine C. Lubin
Michael K. Sheen
415-956-1000
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
rheimann@lchb.com

SAXENA WHITE P.A.
Maya Saxena
Joseph E. White, III
Lester R. Hooker
561-394-3399
150 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 600
Boca Raton, FL 33432
jwhite@saxenawhite.com


Wells Fargo shareholders who have no objection to the Settlement do
not need to appear at the final approval hearing or take any
action.

If you wish to object to any aspect of the Settlement, the Fee
Application, the Reimbursement Awards, or the Final Judgment and
Order of Dismissal (as defined in the Stipulation), you must
provide in writing your full name, appropriate proof of your Wells
Fargo stock ownership as of the Record Date, the basis for your
objection, and your signature. You may not ask the Court to order a
larger settlement; the Court can only approve or deny the
Settlement. You may also appear at the Settlement Hearing on August
1, 2019, either in person or through your own attorney.

If you appear through your own attorney, you are responsible for
paying that attorney. All written objections and supporting papers
must: (a) clearly identify the case name and number (In re Wells
Fargo & Company Shareholder Derivative Litigation,
3:16-cv-05541-JST (N.D. Cal.)); (b) be submitted to the Court
either by mailing them to the Clerk of the Court for the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California, 450
Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36060, San Francisco, CA 94102, or by
filing them in person at any location of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California; and (c) be filed or
postmarked on or before twenty-one (21) calendar days prior to the
Settlement Hearing.

PLEASE DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT OR THE CLERK OF THE COURT
REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

DATED: May 14, 2019
BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


WILLIS TOWERS: Awaits Court Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that with regards to the
motions to dismiss the amended complaint filed by City of Fort
Myers General Employees' Pension Fund ('Fort Myers') and Alaska
Laborers-Employers Retirement Trust ('Alaska') in a consolidated
action, the Delaware Court of Chancery heard argument on the
motions on April 11, 2019 and reserved judgment.

On February 27, 2018 and March 8, 2018, two purported former
stockholders of Legacy Towers Watson, City of Fort Myers General
Employees' Pension Fund ('Fort Myers') and Alaska
Laborers-Employers Retirement Trust ('Alaska'), filed putative
class action complaints on behalf of a putative class of Legacy
Towers Watson stockholders against the former members of the Legacy
Towers Watson board of directors, Legacy Towers Watson, Legacy
Willis and ValueAct, in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned
City of Fort Myers General Employees' Pension Fund v. Towers Watson
& Co., et al., C.A. No. 2018-0132, and Alaska Laborers-Employers
Retirement Trust v. Victor F. Ganzi, et al., C.A. No. 2018-0155,
respectively.

Based on similar allegations as the Eastern District of Virginia
action, the complaints assert claims against the former directors
of Legacy Towers Watson for breach of fiduciary duty and against
Legacy Willis and ValueAct for aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty.

On March 9, 2018, Regents filed a putative class action complaint
on behalf of a putative class of Legacy Towers Watson stockholders
against the Company, Legacy Willis, ValueAct, and Messrs.  Haley,
Casserley, and Ubben, in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned
The Regents of the University of California v. John J. Haley, et
al., C.A. No. 2018-0166.  Based on similar allegations as the
Eastern District of Virginia action, the complaint asserts claims
against Mr. Haley for breach of fiduciary duty and against all
other defendants for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty.

Also on March 9, 2018, Regents filed a motion for consolidation of
all pending and subsequently filed Delaware Court of Chancery
actions, and for appointment as Lead Plaintiff and for the
appointment of Bernstein as Lead Counsel for the putative class.

On March 29, 2018, Fort Myers and Alaska responded to Regents'
motion and cross-moved for appointment as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and
for the appointment of their counsel, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. and
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as Co-Lead Counsel.

On April 2, 2018, the court consolidated the Delaware Court of
Chancery actions and all related actions subsequently filed in or
transferred to the Delaware Court of Chancery.

On June 5, 2018, the court denied Regents' motion for appointment
of Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel and granted Fort Myers' and
Alaska's cross-motion.

On June 20, 2018, Fort Myers and Alaska designated the complaint
previously filed by Alaska (the 'Alaska Complaint') as the
operative complaint in the consolidated action.

On September 14, 2018, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
Alaska Complaint.

On October 31, 2018, Fort Myers and Alaska filed an amended
complaint, which, based on similar allegations, asserts claims
against the former directors of legacy Towers Watson for breach of
fiduciary duty and against ValueAct and Mr. Ubben for aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty.

On January 11, 2019, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint, and on March 29, 2019, the parties completed
briefing on the motions.  The court heard argument on the motions
on April 11, 2019 and reserved judgment.

Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company operates as an
advisory, broking, and solutions company worldwide. Its Human
Capital and Benefits segment provides actuarial support, plan
design, and administrative services for traditional pension and
retirement savings plans; plan management consulting, broking, and
administration services for health and group benefit programs; and
benefits outsourcing services. The company is based in London,
England.


WILLIS TOWERS: Awaits Ruling on Appeals from Stanford Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company disclosed in its Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that with regards to the
appeals from the approval of an agreement to settle lawsuits
related to the collapse of The Stanford Financial Group, the
briefing is now completed and oral argument on the appeals was
heard on December 3, 2018.

The Company said that there is no date certain for when the appeals
will be decided and that it will not make the US$120 million
settlement payment unless and until the appeals are decided in its
favor and the settlement is not subject to any further appeal.

The Company has been named as a defendant in 15 similar lawsuits
relating to the collapse of The Stanford Financial Group
('Stanford'), for which Willis of Colorado, Inc. acted as broker of
record on certain lines of insurance.  The complaints in these
actions generally allege that the defendants actively and
materially aided Stanford's alleged fraud by providing Stanford
with certain letters regarding coverage that they knew would be
used to help retain or attract actual or prospective Stanford
client investors.  The complaints further allege that these
letters, which contain statements about Stanford and the insurance
policies that the defendants placed for Stanford, contained
untruths and omitted material facts and were drafted in this manner
to help Stanford promote and sell its allegedly fraudulent
certificates of deposit.

The 15 actions are as follows:

   * Troice, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A.  No.
3:9-CV-1274-N, was filed on July 2, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings
plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and a Willis associate, among others.
On April 1, 2011, plaintiffs filed the operative Third Amended
Class Action Complaint individually and on behalf of a putative,
worldwide class of Stanford investors, adding Willis Limited as a
defendant and alleging claims under Texas statutory and common law
and seeking damages in excess of US$1 billion, punitive damages and
costs.  On May 2, 2011, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
Third Amended Class Action Complaint, arguing, inter alia, that the
plaintiffs' claims are precluded by the Securities Litigation
Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ('SLUSA').

   On May 10, 2011, the court presiding over the Stanford-related
actions in the Northern District of Texas entered an order
providing that it would consider the applicability of SLUSA to the
Stanford-related actions based on the decision in a separate
Stanford action not involving a Willis entity, Roland v. Green,
Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-0224-N ('Roland').  On August 31, 2011,
the court issued its decision in Roland, dismissing that action
with prejudice under SLUSA.

   On October 27, 2011, the court in Troice entered an order (i)
dismissing with prejudice those claims asserted in the Third
Amended Class Action Complaint on a class basis on the grounds set
forth in the Roland and (ii) dismissing without prejudice those
claims asserted in the Third Amended Class Action Complaint on an
individual basis.  Also on October 27, 2011, the court entered a
final judgment in the action.

   On October 28, 2011, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a notice of
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Subsequently, Troice, Roland and a third action captioned Troice,
et al. v. Proskauer Rose LLP, Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-01600-N,
which also was dismissed on the grounds set forth in the Roland
decision and on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, were consolidated for purposes of briefing and oral
argument.  Following the completion of briefing and oral argument,
on March 19, 2012, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded the
actions.  On April 2, 2012, the defendants-appellees filed
petitions for rehearing en banc.  On April 19, 2012, the petitions
for rehearing en banc were denied.  On July 18, 2012,
defendants-appellees filed a petition for writ of certiorari with
the United States Supreme Court regarding the Fifth Circuit's
reversal in Troice.  On January 18, 2013, the Supreme Court granted
the Company's petition.  Opening briefs were filed on May 3, 2013
and the Supreme Court heard oral argument on October 7, 2013.  On
February 26, 2014, the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's
decision.

   On March 19, 2014, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a Motion to
Defer Resolution of Motions to Dismiss, to Compel Rule 26(f)
Conference and For Entry of Scheduling Order.

   On March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and the Janvey, et al.
v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al. action stipulated to the
consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes under Rule
42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  On March 28, 2014,
the Court 'so ordered' that stipulation and, thus, consolidated
Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under Rule 42(a).

   On September 16, 2014, the court (a) denied the plaintiffs'
request to defer resolution of the defendants' motions to dismiss,
but granted the plaintiffs' request to enter a scheduling order;
(b) requested the submission of supplemental briefing by all
parties on the defendants' motions to dismiss, which the parties
submitted on September 30, 2014; and (c) entered an order setting a
schedule for briefing and discovery regarding plaintiffs' motion
for class certification, which schedule, among other things,
provided for the submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification (following the completion of briefing and discovery)
on April 20, 2015.

   On December 15, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in
part the defendants' motions to dismiss.  On January 30, 2015, the
defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc answered the Third
Amended Class Action Complaint.

   On April 20, 2015, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification, the defendants filed their opposition to plaintiffs'
motion, and the plaintiffs filed their reply in further support of
the motion.  Pursuant to an agreed stipulation also filed with the
court on April 20, 2015, the defendants on June 4, 2015 filed
sur-replies in further opposition to the motion.  The Court has not
yet scheduled a hearing on the motion.

   On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.  On
November 17, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc withdrew the motion.

   On March 31, 2016, the parties in the Troice and Janvey actions
entered into a settlement in principle.

   * Ranni v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A.  No. 9-22085,
was filed on July 17, 2009 against Willis Group Holdings plc and
Willis of Colorado, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.  The complaint was filed on behalf of
a putative class of Venezuelan and other South American Stanford
investors and alleges claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule 10b-5 thereunder) and Florida
statutory and common law and seeks damages in an amount to be
determined at trial.  On October 6, 2009, Ranni was transferred,
for consolidation or coordination with other Stanford-related
actions (including Troice), to the Northern District of Texas by
the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the 'JPML').
The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Ranni.
On August 26, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal of the action without prejudice.

   * Canabal, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A.  No.
3:9-CV-1474-D, was filed on August 6, 2009 against Willis Group
Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis
associate named as a defendant in Troice, among others, also in the
Northern District of Texas.  The complaint was filed individually
and on behalf of a putative class of Venezuelan Stanford investors,
alleged claims under Texas statutory and common law and sought
damages in excess of US$1 billion, punitive damages, attorneys'
fees and costs.  On December 18, 2009, the parties in Troice and
Canabal stipulated to the consolidation of those actions (under the
Troice civil action number), and, on December 31, 2009, the
plaintiffs in Canabal filed a notice of dismissal, dismissing the
action without prejudice.

   * Rupert, et al. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2009C115137, was
filed on September 14, 2009 on behalf of 97 Stanford investors
against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the
same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court (Bexar
County).  The complaint alleges claims under the Securities Act of
1933, Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and
seeks special, consequential and treble damages of more than US$300
million, attorneys' fees and costs.  On October 20, 2009, certain
defendants, including Willis of Colorado, Inc., (i) removed Rupert
to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, (ii)
notified the JPML of the pendency of this related action and (iii)
moved to stay the action pending a determination by the JPML as to
whether it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas
for consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related
actions.  On April 1, 2010, the JPML issued a final transfer order
for the transfer of Rupert to the Northern District of Texas.  On
January 24, 2012, the court remanded Rupert to Texas state court
(Bexar County), but stayed the action until further order of the
court.  On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to lift
the stay, which motion was denied by the court on September 16,
2014.  On October 10, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the court's
denial of their motion to lift the stay to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  On January 5, 2015, the Fifth
Circuit consolidated the appeal with the appeal in the Rishmague,
et ano.  v. Winter, et al. action, and the consolidated appeal, was
fully briefed as of March 24, 2015.  Oral argument on the
consolidated appeal was held on September 2, 2015.  On September
16, 2015, the Fifth Circuit affirmed.  The defendants have not yet
responded to the complaint in Rupert.

   * Casanova, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 3:10-CV-1862-O, was filed on September 16, 2010 on behalf of
seven Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis
Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate,
among others, also in the Northern District of Texas.  The
complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law and
seeks actual damages in excess of US$5 million, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs.  On February 13, 2015, the parties filed
an Agreed Motion for Partial Dismissal pursuant to which they
agreed to the dismissal of certain claims pursuant to the motion to
dismiss decisions in the Troice action and the Janvey action.  Also
on February 13, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group Holdings
plc answered the complaint in the Casanova action.  On June 19,
2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.  Plaintiffs have not
opposed the motion.

   * Rishmague, et ano.  v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2011CI2585,
was filed on March 11, 2011 on behalf of two Stanford investors,
individually and as representatives of certain trusts, against
Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of
Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas
state court (Bexar County).  The complaint alleges claims under
Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks
special, consequential and treble damages of more than US$37
million and attorneys' fees and costs.  On April 11, 2011, certain
defendants, including Willis of Colorado, Inc., (i) removed
Rishmague to the Western District of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML
of the pendency of this related action and (iii) moved to stay the
action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should
be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation
or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions.  On August
8, 2011, the JPML issued a final transfer order for the transfer of
Rishmague to the Northern District of Texas, where it is currently
pending.  On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs joined with the
plaintiffs in the Rupert action in their motion to lift the court's
stay of the Rupert action.  On September 9, 2014, the court
remanded Rishmague to Texas state court (Bexar County), but stayed
the action until further order of the court and denied the
plaintiffs' motion to lift the stay.  On October 10, 2014, the
plaintiffs appealed the court's denial of their motion to lift the
stay to the Fifth Circuit.  On January 5, 2015, the Fifth Circuit
consolidated the appeal with the appeal in the Rupert action, and
the consolidated appeal was fully briefed as of March 24, 2015.
Oral argument on the consolidated appeal was held on September 2,
2015.  On September 16, 2015, the Fifth Circuit affirmed.  The
defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Rishmague.

   * MacArthur v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2013-07840, was filed on
February 8, 2013 on behalf of two Stanford investors against Willis
Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of Texas, Inc.
and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court
(Harris County).  The complaint alleges claims under Texas and
Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks actual,
special, consequential and treble damages of approximately US$4
million and attorneys' fees and costs.  On March 29, 2013, Willis
of Colorado, Inc. and Willis of Texas, Inc. (i) removed MacArthur
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas and
(ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related action.  On
April 2, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and Willis of Texas, Inc.
filed a motion in the Southern District of Texas to stay the action
pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be
transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or
coordination with the other Stanford-related actions.  Also on
April 2, 2013, the court presiding over MacArthur in the Southern
District of Texas transferred the action to the Northern District
of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other
Stanford-related actions.  On September 29, 2014, the parties
stipulated to the remand (to Texas state court (Harris County)) and
stay of MacArthur until further order of the court (in accordance
with the court's September 9, 2014 decision in Rishmague), which
stipulation was 'so ordered' by the court on October 14, 2014.  The
defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in MacArthur.

   * Florida suits: On February 14, 2013, five lawsuits were filed
against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited and Willis of
Colorado, Inc. in Florida state court (Miami-Dade County), alleging
violations of Florida common law.  The five suits are: (1) Barbar,
et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al.,
Case No. 13-05666CA27, filed on behalf of 35 Stanford investors
seeking compensatory damages in excess of US$30 million; (2) de
Gadala-Maria, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited
Company, et al., Case No. 13-05669CA30, filed on behalf of 64
Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of
US$83.5 million; (3) Ranni, et ano.  v. Willis Group Holdings
Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05673CA06, filed on
behalf of two Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in
excess of US$3 million; (4) Tisminesky, et al. v. Willis Group
Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05676CA09,
filed on behalf of 11 Stanford investors seeking compensatory
damages in excess of US$6.5 million; and (5) Zacarias, et al. v.
Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No.
13-05678CA11, filed on behalf of 10 Stanford investors seeking
compensatory damages in excess of US$12.5 million.  On June 3,
2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. removed all five cases to the
Southern District of Florida and, on June 4, 2013, notified the
JPML of the pendency of these related actions.  On June 10, 2013,
the court in Tisminesky issued an order sua sponte staying and
administratively closing that action pending a determination by the
JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern
District of Texas for consolidation and coordination with the other
Stanford-related actions.  On June 11, 2013, Willis of Colorado,
Inc. moved to stay the other four actions pending the JPML's
transfer decision.  On June 20, 2013, the JPML issued a conditional
transfer order for the transfer of the five actions to the Northern
District of Texas, the transmittal of which was stayed for seven
days to allow for any opposition to be filed.  On June 28, 2013,
with no opposition having been filed, the JPML lifted the stay,
enabling the transfer to go forward.

   On September 30, 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion
to remand in Zacarias, and, on October 3, 2014, the court denied
the plaintiffs' motions to remand in Tisminesky and de Gadala
Maria.  On December 3, 2014 and March 3, 2015, the court granted
the plaintiffs' motions to remand in Barbar and Ranni,
respectively, remanded both actions to Florida state court
(Miami-Dade County) and stayed both actions until further order of
the court.  On January 2, 2015 and April 1, 2015, the plaintiffs in
Barbar and Ranni, respectively, appealed the court's December 3,
2014 and March 3, 2015 decisions to the Fifth Circuit.  On April
22, 2015 and July 22, 2015, respectively, the Fifth Circuit
dismissed the Barbar and Ranni appeals sua sponte for lack of
jurisdiction.  The defendants have not yet responded to the
complaints in Ranni or Barbar.

   On April 1, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group Holdings
plc filed motions to dismiss the complaints in Zacarias, Tisminesky
and de Gadala-Maria.  On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc
filed motions to dismiss the complaints in Zacarias, Tisminesky and
de Gadala-Maria for lack of personal jurisdiction.  On July 15,
2015, the court dismissed the complaint in Zacarias in its entirety
with leave to replead within 21 days.  On July 21, 2015, the court
dismissed the complaints in Tisminesky and de Gadala-Maria in their
entirety with leave to replead within 21 days.  On August 6, 2015,
the plaintiffs in Zacarias, Tisminesky and de Gadala-Maria filed
amended complaints (in which, among other things, Willis Group
Holdings plc was no longer named as a defendant).  On September 11,
2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended
complaints.  The motions await disposition by the court.

   * Janvey, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:13-CV-03980-D, was filed on October 1, 2013 also in the Northern
District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis
Limited, Willis North America Inc., Willis of Colorado, Inc. and
the same Willis associate.  The complaint was filed (i) by Ralph S.
Janvey, in his capacity as Court-Appointed Receiver for the
Stanford Receivership Estate, and the Official Stanford Investors
Committee (the 'OSIC') against all defendants and (ii) on behalf of
a putative, worldwide class of Stanford investors against Willis
North America Inc. Plaintiffs Janvey and the OSIC allege claims
under Texas common law and the court's Amended Order Appointing
Receiver, and the putative class plaintiffs allege claims under
Texas statutory and common law.  Plaintiffs seek actual damages in
excess of US$1 billion, punitive damages and costs.  As alleged by
the Stanford Receiver, the total amount of collective losses
allegedly sustained by all investors in Stanford certificates of
deposit is approximately US$4.6 billion.

   On November 15, 2013, plaintiffs in Janvey filed the operative
First Amended Complaint, which added certain defendants
unaffiliated with Willis.  On February 28, 2014, the defendants
filed motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, which
motions, other than with respect to Willis Group Holding plc's
motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, were granted
in part and denied in part by the court on December 5, 2014.  On
December 22, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend the court's
December 5 order to certify an interlocutory appeal to the Fifth
Circuit, and, on December 23, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend
and, to the extent necessary, reconsider the court's December 5
order.  On January 16, 2015, the defendants answered the First
Amended Complaint.  On January 28, 2015, the court denied Willis's
motion to amend the court's December 5 order to certify an
interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit.  On February 4, 2015,
the court granted Willis's motion to amend and, to the extent
necessary, reconsider the December 5 order.

   On March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and Janvey stipulated
to the consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes
under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  On March
28, 2014, the Court 'so ordered' that stipulation and, thus,
consolidated Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under Rule
42(a).

   On January 26, 2015, the court entered an order setting a
schedule for briefing and discovery regarding the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification, which schedule, among other things,
provided for the submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification (following the completion of briefing and discovery)
on July 20, 2015.  By letter dated March 4, 2015, the parties
requested that the court consolidate the scheduling orders entered
in Troice and Janvey to provide for a class certification
submission date of April 20, 2015 in both cases.  On March 6, 2015,
the court entered an order consolidating the scheduling orders in
Troice and Janvey, providing for a class certification submission
date of April 20, 2015 in both cases, and vacating the July 20,
2015 class certification submission date in the original Janvey
scheduling order.

   On November 17, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc withdrew its
motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

   On March 31, 2016, the parties in the Troice and Janvey actions
entered into a settlement in principle.

   * Martin v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case No.
201652115, was filed on August 5, 2016, on behalf of one Stanford
investor against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited, Willis
of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate in Texas state
court (Harris County).  The complaint alleges claims under Texas
statutory and common law and seeks actual damages of less than
US$100,000, exemplary damages, attorneys' fees and costs.  On
September 12, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
added five more Stanford investors as plaintiffs and seeks damages
in excess of US$1 million.  The defendants have not yet responded
to the amended complaint in Martin.

   * Abel, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A.  No.
3:16-cv-2601, was filed on September 12, 2016, on behalf of more
than 300 Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc,
Willis Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis
associate, also in the Northern District of Texas.  The complaint
alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeks
actual damages in excess of US$135 million, exemplary damages,
attorneys' fees and costs.  On November 10, 2016, the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint, which, among other things, added
several more Stanford investors as plaintiffs.  The defendants have
not yet responded to the complaint in Abel.


The plaintiffs in Janvey and Troice and the other actions above
seek overlapping damages, representing either the entirety or a
portion of the total alleged collective losses incurred by
investors in Stanford certificates of deposit, notwithstanding the
fact that Legacy Willis acted as broker of record for only a
portion of time that Stanford issued certificates of deposit.  In
the fourth quarter of 2015, the Company recognized a US$70 million
litigation provision for loss contingencies relating to the
Stanford matters based on its ongoing review of a variety of
factors as required by accounting standards.

On March 31, 2016, the Company entered into a settlement in
principle for US$120 million relating to this litigation, and
increased its provisions by US$50 million during that quarter.

The settlement is contingent on a number of conditions, including
court approval of the settlement and a bar order prohibiting any
continued or future litigation against Willis related to Stanford,
which may not be given.  Therefore, the ultimate resolution of
these matters may differ from the amount provided for.  The Company
continues to dispute the allegations and, to the extent litigation
proceeds, to defend the lawsuits vigorously.

Settlement.  On March 31, 2016, the Company entered into a
settlement in principle, as reflected in a Settlement Term Sheet,
relating to the Stanford litigation matter.  The Company agreed to
the Settlement Term Sheet to eliminate the distraction, burden,
expense and uncertainty of further litigation.  In particular, the
settlement and the related bar orders, if upheld through any
appeals, would enable the Company (a newly-combined firm) to
conduct itself with the bar orders' protection from the continued
overhang of matters alleged to have occurred approximately a decade
ago.  Further, the Settlement Term Sheet provided that the parties
understood and agreed that there is no admission of liability or
wrongdoing by the Company.  The Company expressly denies any
liability or wrongdoing with respect to the matters alleged in the
Stanford litigation.

On or about August 31, 2016, the parties to the settlement signed a
formal Settlement Agreement memorializing the terms of the
settlement as originally set forth in the Settlement Term Sheet.
The parties to the Settlement Agreement are Ralph S. Janvey (in his
capacity as the Court-appointed receiver (the 'Receiver') for The
Stanford Financial Group and its affiliated entities in
receivership (collectively, 'Stanford')), the Official Stanford
Investors Committee, Samuel Troice, Martha Diaz, Paula
Gilly-Flores, Punga Punga Financial, Ltd., Manuel Canabal, Daniel
Gomez Ferreiro and Promotora Villa Marina, C.A.  (collectively,
'Plaintiffs'), on the one hand, and Willis Towers Watson Public
Limited Company (formerly Willis Group Holdings Public Limited
Company), Willis Limited, Willis North America Inc., Willis of
Colorado, Inc. and the Willis associate (collectively,
'Defendants'), on the other hand.  Under the terms of the
Settlement Agreement, the parties agreed to settle and dismiss the
Janvey and Troice actions (collectively, the 'Actions') and all
current or future claims arising from or related to Stanford in
exchange for a one-time cash payment to the Receiver by the Company
of US$120 million to be distributed to all Stanford investors who
have claims recognized by the Receiver pursuant to the distribution
plan in place at the time the payment is made.

The Settlement Agreement also provides the parties' agreement to
seek the Court's entry of bar orders prohibiting any continued or
future litigation against the Defendants and their related parties
of claims relating to Stanford, whether asserted to date or not.
The terms of the bar orders therefore would prohibit all
Stanford-related litigation, and not just the Actions, but
including any pending matters and any actions that may be brought
in the future.  Final Court approval of these bar orders is a
condition of the settlement.

On September 7, 2016, Plaintiffs filed with the Court a motion to
approve the settlement.  On October 19, 2016, the Court
preliminarily approved the settlement.  Several of the plaintiffs
in the other actions objected to the settlement, and a hearing to
consider final approval of the settlement was held on January 20,
2017, after which the Court reserved decision.  On August 23, 2017,
the Court approved the settlement, including the bar orders.
Several of the objectors appealed the settlement approval and bar
orders to the Fifth Circuit.  The briefing related to the appeals
is now completed and oral argument on the appeals was heard on
December 3, 2018.  There is no date certain for when the appeals
will be decided.

The Company will not make the US$120 million settlement payment
unless and until the appeals are decided in its favor and the
settlement is not subject to any further appeal.

Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company operates as an
advisory, broking, and solutions company worldwide. Its Human
Capital and Benefits segment provides actuarial support, plan
design, and administrative services for traditional pension and
retirement savings plans; plan management consulting, broking, and
administration services for health and group benefit programs; and
benefits outsourcing services. The company is based in London,
England.


WILLIS TOWERS: UC Regents' Appeal in Securities Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal taken by Lead Plaintiff Regents of the University of
California from a court order dismissing a merger-related
securities class action lawsuit remains pending, according to
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2019.

On November 21, 2017, a purported former stockholder of Legacy
Towers Watson filed a putative class action complaint on behalf of
a putative class consisting of all Legacy Towers Watson
stockholders as of October 2, 2015 against the Company, Legacy
Towers Watson, Legacy Willis, ValueAct Capital Management
('ValueAct'), and certain current and former directors and officers
of Legacy Towers Watson and Legacy Willis (John Haley, Dominic
Casserley, and Jeffrey Ubben), in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia.

The complaint asserted claims against certain defendants under
Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 'Exchange
Act') for allegedly false and misleading statements in the proxy
statement for the Merger; and against other defendants under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act for alleged 'control person'
liability with respect to such allegedly false and misleading
statements.  The complaint further contended that the allegedly
false and misleading statements caused stockholders of Legacy
Towers Watson to accept inadequate Merger consideration.  The
complaint sought damages in an unspecified amount.

On February 20, 2018, the court appointed the Regents of the
University of California ('Regents') as Lead Plaintiff and
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP ('Bernstein') as Lead
Counsel for the putative class, consolidated all subsequently
filed, removed, or transferred actions, and captioned the
consolidated action 'In re Willis Towers Watson plc Proxy
Litigation,' Master File No. 1:17-cv-1338-AJT-JFA.  On March 9,
2018, Lead Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint.  On April 13,
2018, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the Amended
Complaint, and, on July 11, 2018, following briefing and argument,
the court granted the motions and dismissed the Amended Complaint
in its entirety.

On July 30, 2018, Lead Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the
court's July 11, 2018 dismissal order to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and, on December 6, 2018, the
parties completed briefing on the appeal.

The appeal was scheduled to be argued on May 8, 2019.

Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company operates as an
advisory, broking, and solutions company worldwide. Its Human
Capital and Benefits segment provides actuarial support, plan
design, and administrative services for traditional pension and
retirement savings plans; plan management consulting, broking, and
administration services for health and group benefit programs; and
benefits outsourcing services. The company is based in London,
England.


WISCONSIN: ACLU's Class Action Seeks Parole Opportunities
---------------------------------------------------------
Ed Treleven, writing for Lacrosse Tribune, reports that Wisconsin's
parole system violates the U.S. Constitution by effectively
creating life-without-parole sentences for people who committed
heinous crimes as juveniles, and they should instead be offered
meaningful opportunities for release by demonstrating maturity and
rehabilitation, according to a federal class-action lawsuit filed
on April 30 by the American Civil Liberties Union.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Madison, contends that
the state parole system "fails to provide this meaningful
opportunity; thus, by ostensibly creating a life-without-parole
sentence, it violates the U.S. Constitution."

The lawsuit was filed by the ACLU Foundation of Wisconsin and
lawyers from Quarles & Brady and Foley & Lardner, along with two
other lawyers, on behalf of five men who were all convicted as
teen-agers of first-degree intentional homicide or attempted
first-degree intentional homicide and have been denied parole
multiple times.

The lawsuit does not ask that their convictions be overturned or
invalidated.

Instead, plaintiffs are asking that the state Parole Commission
give the men "a meaningful opportunity to obtain release as of
their parole eligibility date, based on the constitutionally
mandated standard of demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation."

Only a "minuscule" number of parole-eligible juvenile lifers --
fewer than six out of more than 120 -- have been paroled during the
past 15 years, the lawsuit states.

"Wisconsin's parole system unnecessarily keeps people behind bars
who are no longer the impulsive children who committed serious
crimes, but are mature, reformed adults with real contributions to
make to their families and their communities," Larry Dupuis, legal
director for the ACLU of Wisconsin, said in a statement. "The
constitution requires that they be given a chance at redemption in
the free world."

The U.S. Supreme Court, the lawsuit contends, "has held that it is
unconstitutional to sentence juveniles, even those who commit
heinous crimes, to life without parole, except for the 'rare
juvenile offender whose crime reflects irreparable corruption.'"

Absent that finding, states must offer those who committed crimes
as juveniles a "meaningful opportunity" to seek release "based on
demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation."

Members of the Wisconsin Parole Commission and the state Department
of Corrections, the lawsuit states, "consistently deny release on
parole to juvenile lifers who demonstrate unmistakable maturity,
rehabilitation and reform, and a low risk to public safety, in
violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution."

According to the lawsuit, the state Parole Commission also violates
the Sixth Amendment by relying on facts that were not vetted by a
jury or admitted by the defendants at the time of their
convictions.

Two of the plaintiffs committed first-degree intentional homicide
at age 14. One of them, Thaddeus Karow, who was convicted in
Winnebago County, was at the time of his trial in 1988 the youngest
person to be tried as an adult in Wisconsin history. He has been
denied parole six times.

Defendants in the case include the three-member state Parole
Commission, along with Kevin Carr, secretary-designee of the DOC,
and Mark Heise, director of DOC's Bureau of Classification and
Movement. A DOC spokeswoman said the agency does not comment on
pending litigation.

The lawsuit cites scientific studies noting differences between
children and adults and showing children's culpability is
diminished. Lack of maturity, studies show, "often results in
impetuous and ill-considered actions and decisions" leading to
reckless behavior.

The U.S. Supreme Court, recognizing those differences, the lawsuit
argues, have set limits on the punishment that can be imposed on
children, even for very serious crimes, because they have
"diminished culpability and greater prospects for reform."
Sentencing a child to life without parole is unconstitutionally
excessive, the court's rulings have concluded.

In Wisconsin, children as young as 10 are required to be tried as
adults for first-degree intentional homicide. And while the
Wisconsin courts are required to impose life sentences for
first-degree intentional homicide, the lawsuit states, those
sentenced prior to the start of the state's "truth in sentencing"
law in 2000 are eligible for parole consideration by the Parole
Commission. For those convicted after 2000, circuit court judges
are supposed to decide whether to release them on extended
supervision.

For those who face the Parole Commission, the lawsuit charges that
the commission doesn't base its release decisions on whether those
convicted have matured and been rehabilitated and present a low
risk to society.

"Instead, the Commission denies parole despite clear records and
explicit findings of rehabilitation and maturation on the grounds
that, in their subjective judgment, release would 'depreciate the
seriousness of the crime' or simply that, often in the view of a
single commissioner, parole applicant needs to serve 'more time' in
prison," the lawsuit states. [GN]


WYNDHAM HOTEL GROUP: Kang Says Website Not Accessible
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Wyndham Hotel
Group, LLC for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA). The case is captioned JACK KANG, an individual, Plaintiff v.
WYNDHAM HOTEL GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-CV-11753
(D.N.J., April 29, 2019). Plaintiff Jack Kang alleges that Wyndham
Hotel failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by him
and other blind or visually-impaired people. He further claims that
the Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the website is a
violation of his civil rights under the ADA.

Wyndham Hotel is a corporation, incorporated in Delaware and has
its principal place of business in Parsippany, New Jersey. The
company operates hotel and resort destinations and online
reservations locations. It maintains its commercial website,
https://www.wyndhamhotel.com, to the public. [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


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 347 Cases vs. AK Steel Still Pending at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation had 347 asbestos-related cases pending
at March 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "...[S]ince 1990 we have been named as a
defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result
of exposure to asbestos.  The great majority of these lawsuits have
been filed on behalf of people who claim to have been exposed to
asbestos while visiting the premises of one of our current or
former facilities.  The majority of asbestos cases pending in which
we are a defendant do not include a specific dollar claim for
damages.  In the cases that do include specific dollar claims for
damages, the complaint typically includes a monetary claim for
compensatory damages and a separate monetary claim in an equal
amount for punitive damages, but does not attempt to allocate the
total monetary claim among the various defendants.

"Since the onset of asbestos claims against us in 1990, five
asbestos claims against us have proceeded to trial in four separate
cases.  All five concluded with a verdict in our favor.  We
continue to vigorously defend the asbestos claims.  Based upon
present knowledge, and the factors, we believe it is unlikely that
the resolution in the aggregate of the asbestos claims against us
will have a materially adverse effect on our consolidated results
of operations, cash flows or financial condition.  However,
predictions about the outcome of pending litigation, particularly
claims alleging asbestos exposure, are subject to substantial
uncertainties.  These uncertainties include (1) the significantly
variable rate at which new claims may be filed, (2) the effect of
bankruptcies of other companies currently or historically defending
asbestos claims, (3) the litigation process from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction and from case to case, (4) the type and severity of
the disease each claimant is alleged to suffer, and (5) the
potential for enactment of legislation affecting asbestos
litigation."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/NDJZkY


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Rocketdyne Faces 59 Cases at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. still faces 59 asbestos cases
pending as of March 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended: March 31, 2019.

Aerojet Rocketdyne states, "The Company has been, and continues to
be, named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury or
death due to exposure to asbestos in building materials, products,
or in manufacturing operations.  The majority of cases are pending
in Illinois state courts.  There were 59 asbestos cases pending as
of March 31, 2019.

"Given the lack of any significant consistency to claims (i.e., as
to product, operational site, or other relevant assertions) filed
against the Company, the Company is generally unable to make a
reasonable estimate of the future costs of pending claims or
unasserted claims.  As of March 31, 2019, the Company has accrued
an immaterial amount related to pending claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/8fQKyY


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bankruptcy Court Confirms Maremont Plan
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kevin Carey of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Delaware on May 17 issued a findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and order confirming the joint prepackaged Chapter 11 plan of
reorganization of Maremont Corp. and its debtor affiliates.

Prior to the plan confirmation hearing, Judge Carey said he will
sign off on the former auto parts' Chapter 11 plan once some final
details are in place to protect an asbestos claims trust from
potentially fraudulent claims, according to Law360.

During a brief hearing in Wilmington, Judge Carey, who had raised
concerns in March about whether an asbestos claims trust set up as
part of the bankruptcy had enough fraud safeguards in place, said
that revisions to the trust's fund distribution procedures have
addressed the red flags, Law360 reported.

A copy of Judge Carey's Plan Confirmation Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yxaan3o3 from Donlin Recano at no charge.

A blacklined version of the Modified Plan is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yyrh7dsc from Donlin Recano at no charge.

A blacklined version of the PI Trust Distribution Procedure is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yx9l529r from Donlin Recano at no
charge.

The Debtors are represented by James F. Conlan, Esq., Andrew F.
O'Neill, Esq., Allison Ross Stromberg, Esq., and Blair M. Warner,
Esq., at Sidley Austin LLP, in Chicago, Illinois; and Norman L.
Pernick, Esq., and J. Kate Stickles, Esq., at Cole Schotz P.C., in
Wilmington, Delaware.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Busch Case to Impact Maryland Product ID Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor M. McAuliffe, Esq. -- tmcauliffe@milesstockbridge.com -- at
Miles & Stockbridge, wrote that on March 4, 2019, the Court of
Appeals of Maryland heard oral argument on an appeal from a $7.28
million jury verdict in favor of Plaintiffs William Busch and his
wife Kathleen against the asbestos settlement trust established by
Wallace & Gale (W&G). Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Tr. v.
Busch, 238 Md. App. 695, cert. granted, 462 Md. 84 (2018). In the
absence of any direct evidence that W&G used asbestos-containing
products at the construction site at issue, the Baltimore County
Circuit Court found that the evidence presented was sufficient for
the case to go to the jury.     

Mr. Busch brought suit against seven different defendants claiming
exposure to their asbestos-containing products caused his
mesothelioma. With respect to W&G, Mr. Busch alleged that he was
exposed to asbestos-containing materials installed by W&G at Loch
Raven High School in Baltimore County. In 1972, for a total of
three to four months, Mr. Busch worked on the construction of Loch
Raven -- mostly in the boiler room. Mr. Busch introduced evidence
that the sawing of magnesia insulation blocks in the boiler room
contributed to his mesothelioma. W&G sold and installed insulation
products, and at trial, evidence was presented that W&G performed a
significant amount of construction work at Loch Raven, including
insulation work. The only evidence connecting W&G to the boiler
room was a partial billing statement for work performed to insulate
fire lines with "foamglass" insulation, which does not contain
asbestos. While W&G acknowledged that it performed insulation work
at Loch Raven, it contended that there was no evidence that W&G
insulators worked with any asbestos-containing products at the high
school. Indeed, no direct evidence was ever produced at trial
connecting W&G to any asbestos-containing insulation installed at
the high school. In fact, Mr. Busch testified that he had no
recollection of which company installed the insulation in the
boiler room, and two of Mr. Busch's fact-witnesses testified that a
company other than W&G installed the insulation in the boiler
room.

Despite the lack of any direct evidence that W&G installed the
asbestos-containing insulation blocks in the boiler room, the jury
returned a verdict in favor of Mr. Busch.  On appeal, the Maryland
Court of Special Appeals considered whether the Circuit Court erred
by denying W&G's motion and renewed motion for judgment as a matter
of law based on insufficient evidence to support a rational
inference of causation. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed and
saw this as a product identification issue -- whether the evidence
was sufficient to support an inference that W&G installed asbestos
containing magnesia block in the boiler room at Loch Raven. The
Court held that although the evidence was "slight," it was
"sufficient to allow the case to go to the jury." The Court
determined that a reasonable fact finder could have found that,
more likely than not, W&G was the primary or only insulator at Loch
Raven at the time, and therefore W&G installed the
asbestos-containing magnesia block in the boiler room.

This case is now pending in the Maryland Court of Appeals. A
decision in this case will impact the product identification
standard in Maryland asbestos cases. If the Court of Appeals
affirms, a plaintiff could get his or her case to a jury with only
the slightest evidence connecting the plaintiff's asbestos exposure
to the defendant's product.  Alternatively, a reversal would
protect manufacturers from the risk of a multi-million-dollar jury
verdict based on circumstantial evidence and merely an inference of
product identification.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chubb Not Obligated to Contribute to Asbestos Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Greenwald, writing for Business Insurance, reported that Chubb
Ltd. is not obligated to contribute to a $1.5 million asbestos
settlement on Anheuser-Busch LLC's behalf because of a pollution
exclusion in its coverage, said a federal court, in ruling against
a Zurich Insurance Group Ltd. unit.

Zurich American Insurance Co. provided coverage to St. Louis-based
Anheuser-Busch for personal injury liability and excess liability
coverage from July 1972 until July 1980, when Insurance Co. of
North America, now part of Chubb, began insuring the company for
bodily injury liability for the next 17 consecutive years,
according to Tuesday's ruling by the U.S. District Court in St.
Louis in Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Insurance Co. of North
America, et al.

In 2008, the estate of the wife of a former Anheuser-Busch employee
filed a wrongful death suit against the company, contending her
husband allegedly carried asbestos and asbestos dust from the
company brewery where he worked, and she "inhaled and ingested"
these asbestos dust particles and fibers when she came into contact
with her husband and while laundering his work clothes, according
to the ruling.

Zurich agreed to defend Anheuser-Busch in the case subject to a
reservation of rights to seek contribution for the periods insured
after 1980. The case was settled in 2014 for $1.5 million.

Zurich filed suit against INA seeking a contribution to the
settlement in district court, and both insurers filed motions for
summary judgment on the issue of whether INA was obligated to
contribute to the $1.5 million settlement as well as $79,298 in
defense costs.

The court ruled in INA's favor, based on its policy's pollution
exclusion even though Zurich contended the exclusion does not
"expressly or clearly include asbestos."

INA contends its pollution exclusion bars coverage because it
involved "an irritant, contaminant, and/or pollution which
'discharge(d), dispers(ed), release(d) or escape(d) into 'the
atmosphere' thereby injuring the underlying decedent," said the
ruling.

The court agreed. "There is no ambiguity in the terms of the
policy, which plainly bars coverage for the types of asbestos
claims" raised in the case, said the ruling.

Zurich's attorney had no comment while Chubb's attorney did not
immediately respond to a request for comment.

A federal appeals court upheld dismissal of litigation filed
against Liberty Mutual Insurance Group based on a policy pollution
exclusion, after agreeing with the lower court that the testimony
of the plaintiff's expert witness should be excluded.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Financial Has $113MM Unfavorable Development
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation recognized a net unfavorable prior year
development of US$113 million before consideration of cessions to
the Loss Portfolio Transfer (LPT) for the three months ended March
31, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "Based upon the Company's 2018 first quarter
A&EP reserve review, net unfavorable prior year development of
US$113 million was recognized before consideration of cessions to
the LPT for the three months ended March 31, 2018.  The 2018
unfavorable development was driven by higher than anticipated
defense costs on direct asbestos and environmental accounts and
paid losses on assumed reinsurance exposures.  Additionally, in
2018, the Company released a portion of its provision for
uncollectible third-party reinsurance.

"As of March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, the cumulative amounts
ceded under the LPT were US$3.1 billion.  The unrecognized deferred
retroactive reinsurance benefit was US$352 million and US$374
million as of March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018 and is included
within Other liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance
Sheets.

"NICO established a collateral trust account as security for its
obligations to the Company.  The fair value of the collateral trust
account was US$3.0 billion and US$2.7 billion as of March 31, 2019
and December 31, 2018.  In addition, Berkshire Hathaway Inc.
guaranteed the payment obligations of NICO up to the aggregate
reinsurance limit as well as certain of NICO's performance
obligations under the trust agreement.  NICO is responsible for
claims handling and billing and collection from third-party
reinsurers related to the majority of the Company's A&EP claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/ewzjEs


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had $292MM Accrual at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc. (fka Crown Cork & Seal Co Inc.) had an accrual
of US$292 million for pending and future asbestos-related claims
and related legal costs as of March 31, 2019, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "Crown Cork has entered into arrangements with
plaintiffs' counsel in certain jurisdictions with respect to claims
which are not yet filed, or asserted, against it.  However, Crown
Cork expects claims under these arrangements to be filed or
asserted against Crown Cork in the future.  The projected value of
these claims is included in the Company's estimated liability as of
March 31, 2019.

"As of March 31, 2019, the Company's accrual for pending and future
asbestos-related claims and related legal costs was US$292 million,
including US$244 million for unasserted claims.  The Company
determines its accrual without limitation to a specific time
period.

"It is reasonably possible that the actual loss could be in excess
of the Company's accrual.  However, the Company is unable to
estimate the reasonably possible loss in excess of its accrual due
to uncertainty in the following assumptions that underlie the
Company's accrual and the possibility of losses in excess of such
accrual: the amount of damages sought by the claimant (which was
not specified for approximately 81% of the claims outstanding at
the end of 2018), the Company and claimant's willingness to
negotiate a settlement, the terms of settlements of other
defendants with asbestos-related liabilities, the bankruptcy
filings of other defendants (which may result in additional claims
and higher settlements for non-bankrupt defendants), the nature of
pending and future claims (including the seriousness of alleged
disease, whether claimants allege first exposure to asbestos before
or during 1964 and the claimant's ability to demonstrate the
alleged link to Crown Cork), the volatility of the litigation
environment, the defense strategies available to the Company, the
level of future claims, the rate of receipt of claims, the
jurisdiction in which claims are filed, and the effect of state
asbestos legislation (including the validity and applicability of
the Pennsylvania legislation to non-Pennsylvania jurisdictions,
where the substantial majority of the Company's asbestos cases are
filed)."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/7FzvSl


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Still Defends Suits at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. remains a defendant in
asbestos-related lawsuits pending in Louisiana state courts,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "We are one of several unrelated defendants in
lawsuits filed in Louisiana state courts alleging that defendants
manufactured, distributed or utilized drilling mud containing
asbestos and, in our case, allowed such drilling mud to have been
utilized aboard our drilling rigs.  The plaintiffs seek, among
other things, an award of unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages.  The manufacture and use of asbestos-containing drilling
mud had already ceased before we acquired any of the drilling rigs
addressed in these lawsuits.  We believe that we are not liable for
the damages asserted in the lawsuits pursuant to the terms of our
1989 asset purchase agreement with Diamond M Corporation.  We are
unable to estimate our potential exposure, if any, to these
lawsuits at this time but do not believe that our ultimate
liability, if any, resulting from this litigation will have a
material effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/TIYdnD


ASBESTOS UPDATE: District Court Upholds $33MM Award for Widow
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mesothelioma.net reported that Ann Finch lost her husband Franklin
to malignant mesothelioma in January of 2017, just months after he
had been diagnosed with the rare and fatal form of cancer. In
October a North Carolina federal jury awarded her $32.7 million in
damages, assigning blame to Covil Corporation, a pipe insulation
company that had sold all of the insulation used in the
construction of the tire plant where Finch worked for years. Though
Covil filed a motion for a new trial on damages in the case, a
district court ruled against the manufacturer, telling them that
they owed the amount that the jury awarded the widow.

Covil Corporation argued that they should not be held responsible
for Mr. Finch's malignant mesothelioma during the jury trial, then
after they lost at that point they argued that the jury's verdict
was excessive and that the widow had not presented enough evidence
to support the verdict. Upon reviewing the case, the U.S. District
Court disagreed, making note of the asbestos victim's significant
suffering in the months before his death: Mr. Finch endured months
of being hospitalized, underwent numerous surgeries and experienced
multiple painful complications. The court also pointed out that
Civil had ample opportunity to make counterpoints during the
original trial, and that the widow had presented a good deal of
evidence that Covil was well aware of the dangers of asbestos prior
to starting to sell it to the tire factory, but sold it anyway,
without warnings.

According to testimony provided at trial, Franklin Finch's
mesothelioma diagnosis came after twenty years working at the tire
plant as a mold changer. In the course of his duties he worked in
close proximity to insulated steam pipes supplied by Covil that fed
the tire presses. Despite knowing that the pipes were insulated
with asbestos and exposed Mr. Fitch and countless others to
potential harm, the company failed to provide any warning or
protection to those at risk of exposure. Upon review of the
original case, the court determined that extensive direct and
circumstantial evidence had shown that Covil sold the products to
the tire factory at a time when it either knew or should have known
of its dangers. They also determined that asbestos from the pipes
was the cause of Mr. Fitch’s death, remarking on his close
proximity to the pipes, the fact that whenever he bumped into them
a cloud of asbestos dust would rise, and that the factory had high
concentrations of airborne asbestos fibers.

It is unfortunate that profit motive was behind so many
mesothelioma deaths. If you or someone you love has been affected
by this tragic disease and you need information about the resources
available to you, contact the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net
today at 1-800-692-8608.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eaton Corp. Still Faces Claims at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eaton Corporation plc said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019, that it remains subject to claims from historic
products which may have contained asbestos.

The Company states, "Eaton is subject to a broad range of claims,
administrative and legal proceedings such as lawsuits that relate
to contractual allegations, tax audits, patent infringement,
personal injuries, antitrust matters, and employment-related
matters.  Eaton is also subject to asbestos claims from historic
products which may have contained asbestos.  Insurance may cover
some of the costs associated with these claims and proceedings.
Although it is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome
or cost of these matters, the Company believes they will not have a
material adverse effect on the consolidated financial statements."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/pzMVUR


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Can't Escape Mechanic's Claims Under La. Law
------------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reported that a Louisiana federal judge denied Ford Motor
Co.'s motion to dismiss all wrongful death claims by the family of
a former mechanic who say the auto giant caused his fatal
mesothelioma, finding that, with just one exception, the claims are
not barred by the Louisiana Workers' Compensation Act.

U.S. District Judge Sarah S. Vance found that the family of
mechanic Victor Michel is barred only from making claims of
wrongful death under the theory of employer liability, as the LWCA
prevents in that instance.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Saw Doctor Dies from Asbestos Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Pridding, writing for Derby Telegraph, reported that a Burton
granddad who once worked as a 'saw doctor' repairing and servicing
saws which were used to cut asbestos died from being exposed to the
dust, a coroner has ruled.

Horace Orton was 83 when he died at his home in Central Way,
Burton, on March 16, 2019.

An inquest held into the death held on Wednesday, May 15, heard
that Mr Orton had got an apprenticeship working as a saw doctor as
a teenager.

In this job, he would repair and sharpen industrial saws from
various factories across the area.

Some of these saws had been used to cut asbestos and many still had
dust on them when Mr Orton was given them to repair.

This is believed to have caused a cancer called mesothelioma, a
condition that can take decades for symptoms  to develop.

According to the NHS, mesothelioma is "almost always" caused by
exposure to asbestos, a substance made of microscopic fibres that
used to be widely used in construction.

These tiny fibres can easily get in the lungs, where they get stuck
and gradually damage the lungs over time.

The use of asbestos was banned in the UK in 1999, so the risk of
exposure is much lower nowadays. However, materials containing
asbestos can still be found in many older buildings.

In Mr Orton's case, it was said at the the hearing that he had
begun to feel unwell towards the end of last year, and was
diagnosed with mesothelioma in January.

He received palliative care at home, as the condition itself is
untreatable.

South Staffordshire Coroner Andrew Haigh said: "Mr Orton did an
unusual job as a saw doctor, in which, he came into contact with
asbestos dust after working with saws that had been used to cut
asbestos.

"In later years, he went on to perform another role and there is no
evidence of him coming into contact at any other point in his
working life, or outside of work.

"I am confident that his death has occurred due to him being
exposed to asbestos during his working life."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler On Hook for $2.25MM Asbestos Award
------------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reported that a Louisiana appellate panel upheld a $2.25
million award in a suit accusing engineering firm Foster Wheeler
and others of subjecting a woman to secondhand asbestos exposure
that caused her cancer, saying the verdict was supported by the
evidence.

A three-judge Court of Appeal panel affirmed a jury verdict in
favor of Lynda Berry in a suit accusing Foster Wheeler LLC,
asbestos supplier J. Graves Insulation Co., and several other
companies of causing her mesothelioma, which resulted from decades
of inhaling asbestos fibers her paper mill worker husband brought
home on his clothes, which she handled and washed daily.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver Had $105.2MM Reserve at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gardner Denver Holdings, Inc. had total litigation reserve of
US$105.2 million as of March 31, 2019, with regards to potential
liability arising from the Company's asbestos-related litigation,
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.

Gardner Denver states, "The Company has been named as a defendant
in a number of asbestos-related and silica-related personal injury
lawsuits.  The plaintiffs in these suits allege exposure to
asbestos or silica from multiple sources and typically the Company
is one of approximately 25 or more named defendants.

"Predecessors to the Company sometimes manufactured, distributed
and/or sold products allegedly at issue in the pending asbestos and
silica-related lawsuits (the "Products").  However, neither the
Company nor its predecessors ever mined, manufactured, mixed,
produced or distributed asbestos fiber or silica sand, the
materials that allegedly caused the injury underlying the lawsuits.
Moreover, the asbestos-containing components of the Products, if
any, were enclosed within the subject Products.

"Although the Company has never mined, manufactured, mixed,
produced or distributed asbestos fiber or silica sand nor sold
products that could result in a direct asbestos or silica exposure,
many of the companies that did engage in such activities or
produced such products are no longer in operation.  This has led to
law firms seeking potential alternative companies to name in
lawsuits where there has been an asbestos or silica related
injury.

"The Company believes that the pending and future asbestos and
silica-related lawsuits are not likely to, in the aggregate, have a
material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position,
results of operations or liquidity, based on: the Company's
anticipated insurance and indemnification rights to address the
risks of such matters; the limited potential asbestos exposure from
the Products; the Company's experience that the vast majority of
plaintiffs are not impaired with a disease attributable to alleged
exposure to asbestos or silica from or relating to the Products or
for which the Company otherwise bears responsibility; various
potential defenses available to the Company with respect to such
matters; and the Company's prior disposition of comparable matters.
However, inherent uncertainties of litigation and future
developments, including, without limitation, potential insolvencies
of insurance companies or other defendants, an adverse
determination in the Adams County Case, or other inability to
collect from the Company's historical insurers or indemnitors,
could cause a different outcome.  While the outcome of legal
proceedings is inherently uncertain, based on presently known
facts, experience, and circumstances, the Company believes that the
amounts accrued on its balance sheet are adequate and that the
liabilities arising from the asbestos and silica-related personal
injury lawsuits will not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or
liquidity.  "Accrued liabilities" and "Other liabilities" of the
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets include a total litigation
reserve of US$105.2 million and US$105.8 million as of March 31,
2019 and December 31, 2018, respectively, with regards to potential
liability arising from the Company's asbestos-related litigation.
Asbestos related defense costs are excluded from the asbestos
claims liability and are recorded separately as services are
incurred.  In the event of unexpected future developments, it is
possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters may be
material to the Company's consolidated financial position, results
of operation or liquidity.

"The Company has entered into a series of agreements with certain
of its or its predecessors' legacy insurers and certain potential
indemnitors to secure insurance coverage and/or reimbursement for
the costs associated with the asbestos and silica-related lawsuits
filed against the Company.  The Company has also pursued litigation
against certain insurers or indemnitors, where necessary.  The
Company has an insurance recovery receivable for probable asbestos
related recoveries of approximately US$102.9 million and US$103.0
million as of March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, respectively,
which was included in "Other assets" of the Condensed Consolidated
Balance Sheets.

"The largest such recent action, Gardner Denver, Inc. v. Certain
Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, et al., was filed on July 9, 2010,
in the Eighth Judicial Circuit, Adams County, Illinois, as case
number 10-L-48 (the "Adams County Case").  In the lawsuit, the
Company seeks, among other things, to require certain excess
insurer defendants to honor their insurance policy obligations to
the Company, including payment in whole or in part of the costs
associated with the asbestos-related lawsuits filed against the
Company.  In October 2011, the Company reached a settlement with
one of the insurer defendants, which had issued both primary and
excess policies, for approximately the amount of such defendant's
policies that were subject to the lawsuit.  Since then, the case
has been proceeding through the discovery and motions process with
the remaining insurer defendants.  On January 29, 2016, the Company
prevailed on the first phase of that discovery and motions process
("Phase I").  Specifically, the Court in the Adams County Case
ruled that the Company has rights under all of the policies in the
case, subject to their terms and conditions, even though the
policies were sold to the Company's former owners rather than to
the Company itself.  On June 9, 2016, the Court denied a motion by
several of the insurers who sought permission to appeal the Phase I
ruling immediately rather than waiting until the end of the whole
case as is normally required.  The case is now proceeding through
the discovery process regarding the remaining issues in dispute
("Phase II").

"A majority of the Company's expected future recoveries of the
costs associated with the asbestos-related lawsuits are the subject
of the Adams County Case.

"The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related
liabilities and insurance recoveries are based on currently
available information and assumptions that the Company believes are
reasonable based on an evaluation of relevant factors.  The actual
liabilities or insurance recoveries could be higher or lower than
those recorded if actual results vary significantly from the
assumptions.  There are a number of key variables and assumptions
including the number and type of new claims to be filed each year,
the resolution or outcome of these claims, the average cost of
resolution of each new claim, the amount of insurance available,
allocation methodologies, the contractual terms with each insurer
with whom the Company has reached settlements, the resolution of
coverage issues with other excess insurance carriers with whom the
Company has not yet achieved settlements, and the solvency risk
with respect to the Company's insurance carriers.  Other factors
that may affect the future liability include uncertainties
surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction and from case to case, legal rulings that may be made
by state and federal courts, and the passage of state or federal
legislation.  The Company makes the necessary adjustments for the
asbestos liability and corresponding insurance recoveries on an
annual basis unless facts or circumstances warrant assessment as of
an interim date."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/jGTfhN


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurer Faces Pushback in Bid for Victims' Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reported that an asbestos settlement trust and three
insurance claims processors are asking a New York bankruptcy court
to limit discovery demands from Rapid-American Corp. insurance
carrier National Union, saying its demands are excessive by orders
of magnitude.

The Western Asbestos Settlement Trust and the three claims
processors said in a motion that National Union Fire Insurance Co.
of Pittsburgh only needs files on no more than a few thousand of
the more than 242,000 asbestos claimants they are seeking
information on in their dispute over whether Rapid exhausted their
coverage on asbestos claims.

The adversary proceeding is captioned RAPID-AMERICAN CORPORATION,
THE OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS, AND LAWRENCE
FITZPATRICK, THE FUTURE CLAIMANTS' REPRESENTATIVE, Plaintiffs, v.
TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE
INSURANCE COMPANY, AND NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF
PITTSBURGH, PA, Defendants, Adv. No. 15-01095 (SMB) (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y.)

Rapid-American Corporation, The Official Committee of Unsecured
Creditors, and Lawrence Fitzpatrick, The Future Claimant's
Representative, Plaintiff, represented by Paul E. Breene, Reed
Smith LLP, Michael B. Rush -- rushm@gotofirm.com --  Gilbert LLP &
Paul M. Singer -- psinger@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP.

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, Plaintiff, represented
by Paul E. Breene, Reed Smith LLP, Elihu Inselbuch --
einselbuch@capdale.com -- Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered & Michael B.
Rush, Gilbert LLP.

Lawrence Fitzpatrick, Future Claimants' Representative, Plaintiff,
represented by Michael B. Rush, Gilbert LLP.

St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, Travelers Casualty and
Surety Company & The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, Defendants,
represented by Barbara M. Almeida  --barbara.almeida@clydeco.us --
Clyde & Co US LLP & Daren S. McNally -- daren.mcnally@clydeco.us --
Clyde & Co US LLP.

National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, Defendant,
represented by Barbara M. Almeida, Clyde & Co US LLP, James R.
Bradford -- james.braford@mendes.com -- Mendes & Mount, LLP, David
Christian -- dchristian@dca.law -- David Christian Attorneys LLC &
Britt A. Eilhardt, Mendes & Mount, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Win for Pep Boys Upheld in Exposure Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Hayes, writing for Bloomberg Law, reported that Pep Boys
successfully defended its trial win in a case alleging it
negligently sold asbestos-containing auto parts to a California
couple who died of mesothelioma.

A jury verdict in favor of the auto parts retailer, the full name
of which is Pep Boys -- Manny, Moe & Jack, will stand in a wrongful
death action brought by the children of Philip and Febi Mettias,
the California Court of Appeals said in an unpublished May 14
ruling.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Jury Awards $25MM Verdict in J&J Talc Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reported that a New York jury found Johnson & Johnson
responsible for a woman's mesothelioma and awarded $25 million plus
punitive damages on the same day a South Carolina jury found no
talc in J&J's cosmetic talc-based products.

The Richland County verdict came on the same day a New York City
jury ordered J&J to pay $25 million in compensatory damages in
another cosmetic talc case, leaving the door open for potential
additional punitive damages pending further deliberations. That
case is believed to be the first involving J&J's cosmetic talc
products to go to trial in New York, David Siegel, writing for
Courtroom View Network, reported.

CNV further reported that J&J spokesperson Kim Montagnino
attributed the trial outcomes to the South Carolina jury hearing
evidence related to the viability of testing methods employed by a
key plaintiff expert in both cases, Dr. William Longo. J&J argued
Longo failed to disclose that samples of talc he tested were not
randomly collected, but instead were provided by a relative of an
attorney representing plaintiffs in talc litigation.

"Unlike a similar case in New York where the jury did not hear
critical information regarding false testimony by the plaintiff's
central testing expert, this South Carolina jury heard that
information and unanimously concluded that Johnson's Baby Powder
does not contain asbestos and was not the cause of the plaintiff's
disease," Montagnino said in an email. "This is the fifth verdict
in favor of Johnson & Johnson in recent months, and the two cases
finding in favor of the plaintiff this year have suffered
significant evidentiary errors which we believe will warrant
reversal on appeal."

John O'Brien at Legal Newsline said lawyers at Levy Konigsberg
successfully fended off this strategy in the NYC case, claiming
Longo did not know of the connection until March of this year.

"Not only has J&J thoroughly examined Dr. Longo about these samples
and his testing of them, J&J has had a full and fair opportunity to
examine the samples. Despite ample opportunity to produce new
evidence that the samples were compromised, J&J has not done so,"
they wrote.

Longo has admitted that he has made more than $30 million through
the years by offering mostly pro-plaintiff testimony.

Longo also testified he hadn't tested for asbestos in cosmetic talc
before 2017 when he had actually tested some earlier this century
and found it didn't contain asbestos, J&J claims.

HarrisMartin reported that the New York Supreme Court for New York
County jury reached the verdict just moments ago after three days
of deliberations, sources told HarrisMartin. The jury's "yes"
answer as to whether the plaintiffs were entitled to punitive
damages has triggered a second phase of trial, sources added.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: OSHA Cites Kansas Contractors for Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Construction & Demolition Rcycling reported that an investigation
by the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) has found that Belfor Property Restoration
and subcontractor Custom Crushing & Company -- both based in Kansas
City, Missouri -- failed to comply with OSHA's asbestos removal
standards while performing rehabilitation work at Kansas State
University's Hale Library in Manhattan, Kansas. Custom Crushing &
Company faces $193,596 in proposed penalties, and Belfor Property
Restoration faces proposed penalties totaling $39,780.

OSHA cited Custom Crushing & Company for 23 serious health
violations, including exposing employees to asbestos and failing
to: provide respiratory protection and personal protective
clothing; develop a written hazard communication program; train
workers on asbestos hazards; properly dispose of material and waste
containing asbestos; and conduct medical surveillance for employees
exposed to health hazards.

OSHA cited Belfor Property Restoration for three serious violations
after determining asbestos abatement on the project did not comply
with OSHA standards. Inspectors also determined that the company
failed to inform the building's owner and other employees of the
location and quantity of presumed asbestos-containing material.

"Asbestos is a well-known health hazard that can cause lung cancer,
mesothelioma and other life-threatening illnesses," says OSHA
Wichita Area Director Ryan Hodge. "Employers working in the
restoration industry are required to remediate asbestos hazards to
ensure workers are adequately protected."

Both companies have 15 business days from receipt of the citations
and penalties to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA's
area director, or contest the findings before the independent
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. See citations
issued to Custom Crushing here and Belfor here.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: San Diego Firefighters File Asbestos Exposure Docs
-------------------------------------------------------------------
David Garrick, writing for The San Diego Union-Tribune, reported
that hundreds of San Diego firefighters are filing documents
establishing their right to financial compensation for cancer
caused by asbestos, a potentially dangerous building material
discovered last year throughout the city's fire training facility.

Firefighters unwittingly exposed themselves to asbestos for nearly
two decades at the training facility near San Diego International
Airport, leaders of the city's firefighters union said.

While no active or retired firefighters have been diagnosed with
asbestos-related cancer, the documents establish -- in case anyone
does get sick -- that firefighters spent hundreds of hours training
in a facility with exposed asbestos.

"It's not a lawsuit or a claim, it's just simply a form that all
employees can submit to risk management saying that they had some
type of minor injury or exposure," said Jesse Connor, union
president.

"It basically preserves their right, so if anything happens in the
future, they can point back to this minor injury report and say,
‘It's because I had 20-plus years of exposure,'" he said by phone
this week. "But unless they come down with something, it
essentially just lives in a file. There's no monetary exchange."

Connor said he believes nearly all of the city's 908 firefighters
have filed such reports since the exposed asbestos was discovered
last summer in the training facility, which the city acquired from
the U.S. Navy.

Because the problem stretches back to when the city established the
training facility in the late 1990s, Connor said union officials
have also encouraged retired firefighters who trained there to file
the same documents.

"If you had an exposure in that 20-plus years, then you could
potentially be eligible for some type of recovery if you come down
with symptoms," he said. "We've done the best that we can to notice
the retired folks who are in touch with other firefighters. But
when people retire, you kind of lose touch with them because they
sometimes move away and become hard to get a hold of."

Connor said the problem stems from the training activities
conducted at the facility, which spans four buildings constructed
between 1954 and 1967 just south of the airport as part of the
Naval Training Center.

The asbestos was undisturbed within walls, floor tiles and
insulation during the years the Navy controlled the buildings, but
the firefighter training activities began disturbing the dangerous,
fibrous material.

"The problem started when firefighters began doing destructive
training in those buildings," Connor said. "Obviously we have an
inherently dangerous job and have to participate in training where
we breach walls and breach doors, and it wasn't well known which
areas had the asbestos."

Asbestos has been linked to lung cancer and mesothelioma, a cancer
occurring in tissue surrounding internal organs. The federal
government banned new construction using asbestos in 1989.

Complaints from firefighters prompted the city to cease training
exercises in the affected buildings last summer, Connor said.

The city recently completed $210,000 in asbestos abatement and
clean-up work on buildings the Fire-Rescue Department plans to
continue using for firefighter training, department spokeswoman
Monica Munoz said by email on Thursday.

Some other buildings where no future training is planned have been
closed and permanently secured, she said.

The closures and abatement work didn't force the city to relocate
training away from the site next to the airport, but a few training
activities were relocated to different areas of the property, she
said.

"The health and safety of our employees remains a top priority,"
Fire-Rescue Chief Colin Stowell said in an emailed statement. "The
city of San Diego has completed the required abatement work at NTC
in the areas we occupy and use for training, and we will continue
to restrict all access to areas not abated or cleaned."

City Councilman Chris Cate of Mira Mesa said by phone on Thursday
that the problems at the site should accelerate city efforts to
establish a modern training facility, possibly for both
firefighters and police officers.

"As a city we've been making the best of what we have," Cate said.
"I don't think it was ever meant to be a long-term training
facility for fire given the conditions there and long-term
neighborhood development that was going to be occurring."

Cate said the city has handled facilities for public safety
training in the same shortsighted way it's handled other
infrastructure challenges in recent decades, that is, instead of
focusing on long-term solutions that might be more expensive, city
officials have opted for cheaper fixes that come with problems.

"My hope is the city can begin a serious conversation about a
long-term option for a training site," he said, suggesting
available land on Copley Drive in Kearny Mesa could be an option.

Councilman Chris Ward of University Heights agreed that proper
facilities for firefighter training should be a priority.

"The city of San Diego has a responsibility to ensure first
responders have access to the equipment, training and facilities
they need to protect our communities," Ward said in a statement.
"We depend on the men and women of Fire-Rescue to run into danger
every day. They need to be able to depend on us as well."

The city acquired the NTC land as part of a federal Base
Realignment and Closure effort that led to several military bases
being decommissioned. In addition to the site near the airport
where firefighters now train, the NTC site also included the land
where the Liberty Station mixed-use development is located.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: SC Jury Finds No Asbestos in J&J Baby Powder
-------------------------------------------------------------
A jury in a South Carolina state court unanimously rejected claims
that asbestos is present in Johnson & Johnson's cosmetic talc
products causing a woman to develop a rare and fatal form of
cancer, David Siegel, writing for Courtroom View Network,
reported.

Jurors deliberated for less than two hours before returning a
verdict in favor of J&J. The case marks the third cosmetic
talc-related lawsuit to go to trial in South Carolina. The previous
two trials, both stemming from the same lawsuit, ended in
mistrials.

Attorneys for plaintiff Beth-Anee Johnson claimed that inhalation
and ingestion of asbestos allegedly present in Johnson & Johnson's
Baby Powder going as far back as the 1960's caused her to develop
peritoneal mesothelioma.

However J&J successfully argued that Johnson's form of mesothelioma
is naturally occurring. They relied on medical tests showing no
asbestos present in Johnson's lungs, which the company maintained
would be impossible if the asbestos also made it to her peritoneum,
which lines the abdominal cavity.

J&J spokesperson Kim Montagnino attributed the trial outcomes to
the South Carolina jury hearing evidence related to the viability
of testing methods employed by a key plaintiff expert in both
cases, Dr. William Longo. J&J argued Longo failed to disclose that
samples of talc he tested were not randomly collected, but instead
were provided by a relative of an attorney representing plaintiffs
in talc litigation.

"Unlike a similar case in New York where the jury did not hear
critical information regarding false testimony by the plaintiff's
central testing expert, this South Carolina jury heard that
information and unanimously concluded that Johnson's Baby Powder
does not contain asbestos and was not the cause of the plaintiff's
disease," Montagnino said in an email. "This is the fifth verdict
in favor of Johnson & Johnson in recent months, and the two cases
finding in favor of the plaintiff this year have suffered
significant evidentiary errors which we believe will warrant
reversal on appeal."

Johnson's attorneys Nate Finch and Christopher Swett of Motley Rice
LLC said in a statement that they would continue to push talc cases
to trial, noting that the jury initially claimed to be deadlocked
before rendering their final decision.

"We continue to believe that the daily use of talcum powder on
Beth-Anee from birth led to her mesothelioma diagnosis. She
ultimately wanted to share her story with others through her suit,
which I think she accomplished, so that more people are aware of
the potential dangers of seemingly harmless baby powder," they
wrote.

The other plaintiff verdict referenced in Montagnino's statement
took place in March and was also covered by CVN, when a jury in
Alameda County, California hit J&J with a $29.5 million verdict in
another cosmetic talc case.

The firm which secured that verdict, Kazan McClain Satterley and
Greenwood, also represents the plaintiff in another ongoing talc
trial in Alameda County involving both J&J and Colgate that CVN is
also webcasting.

Johnson's case in South Carolina was among the thousands removed to
federal court by J&J in recent weeks, citing the pending bankruptcy
proceedings involving their main talc supplier Imerys.

J&J argued that state court talc cases from throughout the country
should be grouped together in Delaware due to insurance
indemnification agreements with Imerys.

The result would be consolidation of cases in federal district
court, generally viewed as a venue less favorable to plaintiff
personal injury claims. However numerous federal judges have
rejected that argument, remanding large swaths of talc cases back
to state court.

"Imerys is not a party to this claim; as such, Plaintiffs do not
seek relief from Imerys or its bankruptcy estate," wrote South
Carolina Senior United States District Judge Margaret B. Seymour in
her remand order. "Additionally, the court notes that this and
related cases are close to trial in state court, with the instant
action set for trial on May 13, 2019. Recommencing these cases in
federal court would result in injustice to plaintiffs."

J&J was represented at trial by Michael Brown from Nelson Mullins
Riley & Scarborough's Baltimore office, Allison Brown out of Weil
Gotshal & Manges LLP's New York City office, and local South
Carolina counsel Louis P. Herns with Milligan Herns LLC.

The case is captioned Beth-Anee F. Johnson and John W. Greenley,
Jr. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., case number 2018CP4001781, in the
Richland County Court of Common Pleas.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Had 1,490 Fibro Cases at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 1,490 cases were outstanding at March 31, 2019, for
which Standard Motor Products, Inc. may be responsible for any
related liabilities in connection to its former brake business,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "In 1986, we acquired a brake business, which
we subsequently sold in March 1998 and which is accounted for as a
discontinued operation in the accompanying statement of operations.
When we originally acquired this brake business, we assumed future
liabilities relating to any alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
products manufactured by the seller of the acquired brake business.
In accordance with the related purchase agreement, we agreed to
assume the liabilities for all new claims filed on or after
September 2001.  Our ultimate exposure will depend upon the number
of claims filed against us on or after September 2001, and the
amounts paid for settlements, awards of asbestos-related damages,
and defense of such claims.

"At March 31, 2019, approximately 1,490 cases were outstanding for
which we may be responsible for any related liabilities.  Since
inception in September 2001 through March 31, 2019, the amounts
paid for settled claims are approximately US$27 million.  We do not
have insurance coverage for the indemnity and defense costs
associated with the claims we face."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/tqjPvY


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Swiss Billionaire Convicted Over Asbestos Deaths
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Dawkins, writing for Forbes, reported that Swiss billionaire
Stephan Schmidheiny, 71, the former majority shareholder in Italian
asbestos company Eternit Genova, has been found guilty of
involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to four years in prison
after the death of two people in Turin.

The ruling marks the latest twist in a decade-long battle between
Schmidheiny, the Turin prosecution, former Eternit workers and
residents of towns near the company's asbestos plants.  

Prosecutor Gianfranco Colace said the ruling was the "first step"
in setting a precedent on deaths from cancer and pulmonary
diseases, which can take years to develop after contact with
asbestos fibers.

Although Stephan Schmidheiny was not present at court, he has spent
much of the last decade fighting to clear his name in Italy. After
charges were dropped in Switzerland, Schmidheiny was sentenced to
16 years’ imprisonment in 2012 by a Turin court over the deaths
of 3,000 people allegedly exposed to asbestos from Eternit building
materials in Italy. However, in 2014 the Italian Supreme Court
quashed the sentence, saying that the case was invalid as the
statute of limitations had passed.

Schmidheiny faces further hearings over asbestos-related deaths in
Vercelli (in Piedmont) and Naples. Lisa Meyerhans Sarasin,
representing the Schmidheiny Family told Forbes: "We are confident
to win the case before the Supreme Court."

Schmidheiny’s lawyers indicated they will appeal the ruling,
which means the legal battle could continue for several years and
the billionaire is unlikely to face time in prison until Italy’s
highest court rules on the case.

Who is Stephan Schmidheiny?

Stephan Schmidheiny is a Swiss entrepreneur, philanthropist and
advocate of sustainable development with a net worth of $2.3
billion. The Schmidheiny family fortune dates back to 1912 when his
grand-uncle founded a business that eventually became a giant in
building materials.

Schmidheiny became board president of Swiss Eternit Group, his
father's construction materials company, in 1976 at age 29.
Schmidheiny sold his holdings in the late 1980s. In 2003 he placed
$1 billion in business assets into a charitable trust that helps
entrepreneurs in Central and South America.

Schmidheiny told Swiss newspaper Neuen Zürcher Zeitung in 2014
that the case against him had become absurd after the presiding
Italian judge compared him to Adolf Hitler. Schmidheiny has long
argued that he ended his involvement with the Eternit group long
before the health risks of asbestos were understood, and long
before the fire-retardant material was banned in Italy in 1992.

Schmidheiny's legal team has responded to a request for comment
from Forbes, describing the conviction as lacking "legal
foundation". The statement says: "Stephan Schmidheiny is
responsible for neither the asbestos tragedy nor the deaths of the
two individuals concerned. The restaging of a trial lost by the
prosecution is a violation of the double jeopardy principle that is
also enshrined in the Italian constitution."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Had 184 PI Suits at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Transocean Ltd. still defends itself against
approximately 184 asbestos-related lawsuits as of March 31, 2019,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "One of our subsidiaries has been named as a
defendant, along with numerous other companies, in lawsuits arising
out of the subsidiary's manufacture and sale of heat exchangers,
and involvement in the construction and refurbishment of major
industrial complexes alleging bodily injury or personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos.

"As of March 31, 2019, the subsidiary was a defendant in
approximately 184 lawsuits with a corresponding number of
plaintiffs.  For many of these lawsuits, we have not been provided
sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine whether all
or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the subsidiary, the
basis of any such claims, or the nature of their alleged injuries.
The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold in 1989.

"In September 2018, the subsidiary and certain insurers agreed to a
settlement of outstanding disputes that leaves the subsidiary with
funding, including cash, annuities and coverage in place
settlement, that we believe will be sufficient to respond to both
the current lawsuits as well as future lawsuits of a similar
nature.

"While we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the outcome of
these matters, we do not expect the ultimate liability, if any,
resulting from these claims to have a material adverse effect on
our condensed consolidated statement of financial position, results
of operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/gm0Zor


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Had 370 Pending Cases at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
TriMas Corporation has 370 pending asbestos-related personal injury
cases as of March 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "As of March 31, 2019, the Company was a party
to 370 pending cases involving an aggregate of 4,811 claims
primarily alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos
containing materials formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated
and otherwise) manufactured or distributed by certain of its
subsidiaries for use primarily in the petrochemical, refining and
exploration industries.

"In addition, the Company acquired various companies to distribute
its products that had distributed gaskets of other manufacturers
prior to acquisition.  The Company believes that many of its
pending cases relate to locations at which none of its gaskets were
distributed or used.

"The Company may be subjected to significant additional
asbestos-related claims in the future, the cost of settling cases
in which product identification can be made may increase, and the
Company may be subjected to further claims in respect of the former
activities of its acquired gasket distributors.  The Company is
unable to make a meaningful statement concerning the monetary
claims made in the asbestos cases given that, among other things,
claims may be initially made in some jurisdictions without
specifying the amount sought or by simply stating the requisite or
maximum permissible monetary relief, and may be amended to alter
the amount sought.  The large majority of claims do not specify the
amount sought.

"Of the 4,811 claims pending at March 31, 2019, 54 set forth
specific amounts of damages (other than those stating the statutory
minimum or maximum).  At March 31, 2019, of the 54 claims that set
forth specific amounts, there were no claims seeking specific
amounts for punitive damages.

"In addition, relatively few of the claims have reached the
discovery stage and even fewer claims have gone past the discovery
stage.

"Total settlement costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all such
cases, some of which were filed over 25 years ago, have been
approximately US$9.0 million.  All relief sought in the asbestos
cases is monetary in nature.  To date, approximately 40% of the
Company's costs related to settlement and defense of asbestos
litigation have been covered by its primary insurance.  Effective
February 14, 2006, the Company entered into a coverage-in-place
agreement with its first level excess carriers regarding the
coverage to be provided to the Company for asbestos-related claims
when the primary insurance is exhausted.  The coverage-in-place
agreement makes asbestos defense costs and indemnity insurance
coverage available to the Company that might otherwise be disputed
by the carriers and provides a methodology for the administration
of such expenses.  The Company's primary insurance exhausted in
November 2018, and the Company will be solely responsible for
defense costs and indemnity payments prior to the commencement of
coverage under this agreement, the duration of which would be
subject to the scope of damage awards and settlements paid.

"Based on the settlements made to date and the number of claims
dismissed or withdrawn for lack of product identification, the
Company believes that the relief sought (when specified) does not
bear a reasonable relationship to its potential liability.  Based
upon the Company's experience to date, including the trend in
annual defense and settlement costs incurred to date, and other
available information (including the availability of excess
insurance), the Company does not believe these cases will have a
material adverse effect on its financial position and results of
operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/HHaAXw


ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK Social Housing Firm Launches Asbestos Probe
---------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reported that a social housing tenant claims workmen have
potentially exposed his family to asbestos.

Jerome Sorroll, from Dormanstown on Teesside, said men working for
Beyond Housing had scattered debris while repairing a ceiling
vent.

Separate engineers later warned him the ceiling contained asbestos,
he said.

Beyond Housing said it could neither confirm nor deny the presence
of asbestos until it had investigated but the house was safe.

"Independent tests show there is no airborne asbestos within the
house meaning it is safe for the customer to remain there," a
spokeswoman said.

Mr Sorroll, 23, said holes were drilled in his ceiling to deal with
a damp problem but a later set of workmen raised concerns, the
Local Democracy Reporting Service said.

"They said the work should never have been carried because the
ceiling had asbestos in it," he said.

"They said they should not have touched the ceiling unless it was
done properly."

Safe if not disturbed
Mr Sorroll said he was told the ceiling contained asbestos and was
waiting to hear if it was also in the loft.

"I would have liked some warning about the asbestos before moving
into the property so we'd know where it was," he said.

White asbestos was a popular building material before it was banned
in the UK in 1999 and can still be found in many structures.

It is responsible for more than 5,000 UK deaths a year from
conditions such as mesothelioma, lung cancer and asbestosis.

Health and Safety Executive advice is that it poses little risk if
in good condition and left alone but is a danger to health if
disturbed or damaged.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Pleas to Luton Workers Over Asbestos Death
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Luton Today reported that the widow of a former electrician who
worked in Luton and died of asbestos-related disease last year is
calling on his old workmates to help them gain answers regarding
how he came to develop the illness.

Royston Pothan, from Lowestoft, died aged 80 on 2 March 2018 after
he was diagnosed with mesothelioma -- a cancer most commonly
associated with exposure to asbestos-related materials.

Royston's wife Edna, instructed specialist asbestos-related disease
lawyers at Irwin Mitchell's Cambridge office to investigate
Royston's illness and whether it could be related to asbestos
exposure which is thought to have occurred during his working
life.

They are looking to gather more information on whether Royston came
into contact with the material during his time while he was
involved in projects related to Scrivens of Luton, Hearsons of
London and A C Delco between 1950 and 1960.

Rosemary Giles, at Irwin Mitchell, said: "This case is sadly like
so many we are involved in, with Royston developing mesothelioma
many years after his contact with asbestos is thought to have taken
place. We would be hugely grateful to anyone who may be able to
shed light on the work conditions Royston may have faced during
this specific time period, as such information could be key to
getting Edna the answers and justice she deserves."

Royston met Edna while they were both working at A C Delco, which
manufactured car parts, in Dunstable and married in April 1956.
Royston was employed by Scrivens of Luton which was contracted by
Hearsons of London to undertake work on the site.

Edna recalled: "Royston used to talk to me about how he worked in
boiler houses doing rewiring work and how sometimes his job meant
going into roof spaces too. It is only as time has gone by that
I've realised that asbestos could well have been present.

"It was very hard seeing how his health deteriorated in the final
months of his life.

"I miss him so much every day and would hugely appreciate any help
in getting some answers regarding the illness which ultimately took
his life."

Contact Rosemary Giles on 01223 791 810 or email
rosemary.giles@irwinmitchell.com



                            *********

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 ***