CAR_Public/190603.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, June 3, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 110

                            Headlines

240 BBJ: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ortiz et al. Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: Dawson Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
ACCOUNT CONTROL: Ford Wage Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration
AMAZON.COM INC: Can't Compel Arbitration in Rittmann FLSA Suit
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Dennis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

ARRIAGA STEEL: Underpays Construction Workers, Amador et al. Say
AVANGRID INC: Appeal from Nixed Breiding Suit Still Pending
BANNER HEALTH: Summary Judgment Bid in Ramos Suit Partly Granted
BECK BUILDING: Kelly Sues Over Unpaid Compensation
BLUE HORSESHOE: Underpays Consultants, Risbrook Suit Alleges

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Isley Sues Over Defective Vehicles
BOYAS EXCAVATING: Ruling on Garfield Heights Immunity Affirmed
BP EXPLORATION: Court Dismisses With Prejudice Deacon's BELO Suit
BROTEN GARAGE: Underpays Service Technicians, Ali Alleges
CAL. PUBLIC: Class Certification Denial in Kesterson Suit Affirmed

CHICAGO, IL: Faces Class Action Over "Impound Scheme"
COMMUNITY MEDICAL: Franklin Sues Over Unpaid Wages
CRAFTMASTER PAINTING: Must Reply to Questions on Boutell Settlement
CREDIT CONTROL: Park Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
CV SCIENCES: Court Stays Securities Suit Scheduling Order

E.I. DU PONT: Banks Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Substances
EATALY CHICAGO: Denton Hits Misclassification, Seeks Unpaid Wages
ELEMENT SERVICES: Davis Files Class Action Over Unauthorized Calls
ENDO: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Class Action
FAIRFAX BEHAVIORAL: Faces Class Action Over Invasive Searches

FARMERS GROUP: Dennis Sues Over Blind Inaccessible Website
FAVERGRAY COMPANY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bearden Alleges
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: 2d Cir. Affirms Judgment in Securities Suit
FIRST NATIONAL: Court Grants Bid for Leave to Amend Lundquist Suit
FIVE STAR PIZZA: Kellogg Sues Over Unpaid Compensations

FOUNDATION FOR THE ELDERLY: Marte Seeks Proper Wages
FREEDOM FOREVER: Naiman TCPA Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend
FRESNO BEVERAGE: Cal. App. Affirms Arbitration Denial in Nieto
GC SERVICES: Dealmeida Files Suit Over Vague Collection Letter
GENCO INC: Settlement in Ortiz FCRA Suit Has Final Approval

GLOBAL BRASS: Kent Files Securities Class Action in Del.
GNC HOLDINGS: Mislabels Food Supplements, Arora et al. Allege
GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: Dennis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Geolocation Data Tracking
GOOGLE LLC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss 1st Amended Roley Suit

GROSSMAN & KARASZEWSKI: Solovyova Files FDCPA Suit in E.D.N.Y.
GTX INC: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action in Delaware
HANLEES FREMONT: Chaiwong Suit Remanded to Calif. Superior Court
HAWTHORNE RESIDENTIAL: Davis Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
HERTZ CORPORATION: Figueroa Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Airbags
INTEL CORP: N.D. Cal. Dismisses Securities Suit With Prejudice
JINX INC: Dennis Sues Over Blind Inaccessible Website
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Donald Gustafson Suit Moved to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moore Suit Moved to C.D. California

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Norman Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Nunez Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removed Kanji Suit to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Daugherty Suit to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Luna Suit to C.D. California

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Roberts Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sabella Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sampson Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sanchez Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Schadel Suit Moved to C.D. California

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Schindler Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Schroers Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Schwab Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Schwarz Suit Moved to C.D. California
JUGAMAXA LLC: N. Aponte Suit Alleges FLSA Violation

JUUL LABS: Zampa Suit Moved to N.D. Calif.
KPMG: Settles Discovery Metals Shareholders' Class Action
KUSHCO HOLDING: Pomerantz Files Securities Fraud Suit
LAMPS PLUS: Court Flips Arbitration/Dismissal Order in Varela Suit
LFT CLUB: Lust Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation

LIVING SPACES: Dennis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LLR INC: Loses Bid for Attorneys' Fees in Van's Sales Tax Suit
LVNV FUNDING: Can't Compel Arbitration in Kennedy FDCPA Suit
M.J. BROTHERS: $525K Settlement in Rodriguez Has Prelim Approval
MADO HEALTH CARE: James Sues Over BIPA Violation

MALLINCKRODT PLC: Still Defends Consolidated Class Suit in D.C.
MDL 2624: $8.3MM Settlement in Lenovo Adware Suit Has Final OK
MDL 2672: Court Denies Pro Se Plaintiff's Bid to Litigate Case
MDL 2741: Adams v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Cossentino v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated

MDL 2741: Lewis v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Pippis v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Watterses v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Wilkening v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MERIDIAN FINANCIAL: Hochstrasser Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York

MIDLAND CREDIT: Nagy Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Kennemer Sues Over TCPA Violation
MONSANTO COMPANY: Clifton Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MOUNTAIN VIEW: Dixon Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
MOWI ASA: Cape Florida Sues Over Salmon Price-Fixing

MY CHOICE: Court Dismisses State Law Claims in Paczkowski FLSA Suit
NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: Munson Sues Over FDCPA Breach
NATIONAL PLAN: Long Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
NEVELL GROUP: Cal. App. Affirms Arbitration Denial in Nunez Suit
NEW MEXICO: Magistrate Suggests Setting Aside Default Judgment

NORTH BERGEN, NJ: Faces Class Action Over Proposed Power Plant
NOVA SOUTHEASTERN: Class Action Over Sterilization Breach Okayed
NVIDIA CORP: Ohman Fonder Named Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit
OREGON: Court Narrows Claims in Torres Sexual Assault Suit
PAPA MURPHYS: Faces Scarantino Suit Over Proposed Merger

PROVIDENT TRUST: Ct. Dismisses Murray Investors Suit With Prejudice
SAS INSTITUTE: UIA's Bid to Quash Subpoena in Cahoo Suit Denied
SEECO INC: Court Denies Bid to Certify Questions of Law in Smith
SEECO INC: Denial of Charter's Bid to Intervene in Smith Upheld
SELECT EXPRESS: Underpays Courier Drivers, Almanza Alleges

SMART & FINAL: Franchi Files Class Action Over Sale to Apollo
SOLERA HOLDINGS: $255K Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Foreman Suit
SPECTRUM BRANDS: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action
STAFF PRO INC: Amaya Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
STATE FARM: Bilhimer Files Class Action in Kansas

SUN-MAID GROWERS: Bid to Remand Diaz Suit to State Court Denied
TCF FINANCIAL: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
TEVA PHARMA: Appeals Pending over Aggrenox End-Payer Pact
TEVA PHARMA: Bid to Nix Actos Direct Buyers' Suit Pending
TEVA PHARMA: Cephalon-FTC Modafinil Consent Decree Amended

TEVA PHARMA: Lamictal Class Suit Stayed Pending Appeal in 3rd Cir.
TEVA PHARMA: Settles With Most of AndroGel Retailer Plaintiffs
TEVA PHARMA: Still Defends Antitrust Suits over Niaspan(R)
TEVA PHARMA: Still Defends Class Suits over Intuniv Drug
TEVA PHARMA: Still Defends Suits over Effexor XR Antitrust Matters

TEVA PHARMA: Still Faces Namenda IR End Payer Class Suit
THINK FINANCE: Dismissal/Arbitration Bids Denial in Gingras Upheld
TRADER JOE'S: Barrere Files Slack-Fill Class Action in Calif.
UNITED STATES: Immigrant Children's Class Action Certified
UNITED STATES: Veterans' Dental Care Class Action Tossed

VERMONT: West Files Prisoner Civil Rights Suit
VESTA PROPERTY: Cioci Says Background Checks Violate FCRA
WALGREEN CO: Johnson Files Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
WAYFAIR INC: 2 Securities Class Suits Underway in Massachusetts
WELLS FARGO: Bankruptcy Court Orders in Weidenbenner Suit Reversed

WESTERN EXPRESS: Class of Truck Drivers in Elmy FLSA Suit Certified
WISCONSIN: Enjoined from Enforcing Challenged Exclusion vs. Flack
WOOD-MODE INC: Clapper Seeks to Recover Damages Under WARN Act
WORLDPAY INC: Faces Sabatini Suit over Proposed Merger
ZF FRIEDRICHSHAFEN: Sued Over Defective Airbag Control Units

ZF TRW AUTOMOTIVE: Heilman-Ryan Sues Over Defective Airbags

                            *********

240 BBJ: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ortiz et al. Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
ABRAHAM ROJAS ORTIZ; LUIS BELISARIO GUAMAN CHIMBORAZO; and PEDRO
JAVIER ROSALES ROJAS, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 240 BBJ PUB INC. d/b/a JACK
DOYLE'S IRISH PUB; LAML LLC d/b/a JOHN SULLIVAN'S BAR & GRILL; JOHN
CREEGAN; BRENDAN CREEGAN; and BRENDAN DONOGHUE, Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-03869 (S.D.N.Y., April 30, 2019) seeks to recover from
the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as hourly paid,
non-exempt employees.

240 BBJ Pub Inc. d/b/a Jack Doyle's Irish Pub is engaged in the
restaurant business. [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


3M COMPANY: Dawson Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, ALLEN DAWSON, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, AEARO
HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE, LLC, AEARO, LLC and AEARO
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01358-MCR-EMT
(N.D. Fla., May 3, 2019), seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing loss
or damage Plaintiff allegedly suffered while serving variously in
the U.S. military, including during foreign conflicts. The
Plaintiff contends that Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2
("CAEv2") manufactured and sold by Aearo were defectively designed
and failed to provide adequate hearing protection. 3M denies these
allegations.

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

ACCOUNT CONTROL: Ford Wage Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------
In the putative wage and hour class suit captioned ALYSHEA FORD, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
ACCOUNT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY, INC., a California Corporation; ACT
HOLDINGS, INC., a corporation; DOES 1 through 50; Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-CV-203 AWI-JLT (E.D. Calif.), Senior District Judge
Anthony W. Ishii of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California ordered that the Plaintiff must
arbitrate, on an individual basis, the claims she asserts in this
action against the Defendants, pursuant to the terms of her
arbitration agreement, and the action is stayed pending completion
of the arbitration proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y5ul8q87 from Leagle.com.

Alyshea Ford, Plaintiff, represented by:

     David Harmik Yeremian, Esq.
     Emil Davtyan, Esq.
     Natalie Haritoonian, Esq.
     David Yeremian & Associates Inc.
     5959 Topanga Canyon Blvd, Suite 130
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Tel: (844) 332-4332

Account Control Technology, Inc., a California Corporation & ACT
Holdings, Inc., a corporation, Defendants, represented by:

     Rachel Anne Patta, Esq.
     Sandra Hanian, Esq.
     Adria Krystine Harris, Esq.
     Tracey Adano Kennedy, Esq.
     Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
     E-mail: rhoward@sheppardmullin.com
             shanian@sheppardmullin.com
             aharris@sheppardmullin.com
             tkennedy@sheppardmullin.com


AMAZON.COM INC: Can't Compel Arbitration in Rittmann FLSA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John C. Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Washington, Seattle, denied the Defendants' motion to
compel arbitration in the case, BERNADEAN RITTMANN, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
C16-1554-JCC (W.D. Wash.).

The Plaintiffs are delivery drivers working for Defendants
Amazon.com or Amazon Logistics.  They are parties to individual
contracts with the Defendants, and the Defendants have classified
them as independent contractors.  Of the tens of thousands of
putative class members, all but approximately 165 are parties to a
contract with the Defendants containing a provision mandating
individual arbitration.  The Arbitration Provision further mandates
that the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") will govern any disputes
arising between the parties.

Directly after the contract's Arbitration Provision, a provision
entitled "Governing Law" states: These Terms are governed by the
law of the state of Washington without regard to its conflict of
laws principles. However, the preceding sentence does not apply to
the Arbitration Provision, which is governed by the Federal
Arbitration Act and applicable federal law.

At the heart of the Plaintiffs' complaint is their allegation that
the Defendants have misclassified them as independent contractors
instead of employees.  Simultaneous to when the lawsuit was filed,
the Ninth Circuit and the United States Supreme Court were poised
to answer questions relevant to the arbitrability of the
Plaintiffs' claims.  As a result, the Court stayed the action,
pending those decisions.  Those questions have now been answered,
and the parties stipulate to a partial lift of the stay so that the
Court can determine the arbitrability of the Plaintiffs' claims.

Judge Coughenour finds that a strike by a large group of the
Plaintiffs and those similarly-situated would interrupt interstate
commerce.  As mentioned previously, the Defendants are one of the
country's largest businesses engaged in the interstate shipment of
packages and goods.  A strike by the Plaintiffs would be akin to
local UPS or FedEx drivers striking -- a strike by UPS or FedEx
drivers, who only personally travel intrastate, would cause a
ripple effect in interstate commerce because goods travelling
interstate would still not make it to their final destination.
Therefore, the Plaintiffs fall within the FAA's transportation
worker exemption.

He also finds that the Washington law cannot be used to enforce the
Arbitration Provision.  Because it is not clear what law to apply
to the Arbitration Provision or whether the parties intended the
Arbitration Provision to remain enforceable in the event that the
FAA was found to be inapplicable, the Judge finds that there is not
a valid agreement to arbitrate.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Coughenour denied the Defendants'
motion to compel arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 23, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/oxi0Zj from Leagle.com.

Bernadean Rittmann, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Freddie Carroll, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated & Julia Wehmeyer, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Adelaide Pagano -- apagano@llrlaw.com -- LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN,
P.C., pro hac vice, Harold Lichten -- hlichten@llrlaw.com --
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C., pro hac vice, Shannon Liss-Riordan --
sliss@llrlaw.com -- LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C., pro hac vice &
Michael C. Subit -- msubit@frankfreed.com -- FRANK FREED SUBIT &
THOMAS.

Raef Lawson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated; in his capacity as Private Attorney General
Representative, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew David Carlson --
mdcarlson@llrlaw.com -- LICHTEN AND LISS-RIORDAN PC & Shannon
Liss-Riordan, LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C., pro hac vice.

Iain Mack, in his capacity as Private Attorney General
Representative, Plaintiff, represented by Adelaide Pagano, LICHTEN
& LISS-RIORDAN, P.C., pro hac vice, Marc C. Cote, FRANK FREED SUBIT
& THOMAS, Matthew David Carlson, LICHTEN AND LISS-RIORDAN PC,
Michael C. Subit, FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS & Shannon Liss-Riordan
, LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C., pro hac vice.

Amazon.com Inc, Defendant, represented by Allison N. Powers --
llison.powers@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, pro hac
vice, Christopher Banks -- christopher.banks@morganlewis.com --
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, pro hac vice, James Walsh, Jr. --
james.walsh@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, pro hac
vice, John S. Battenfeld -- john.battenfeld@morganlewis.com --
MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP, Meredith Riccio, MORGAN LEWIS &
BOCKIUS, pro hac vice, Richard G. Rosenblatt, MORGAN LEWIS &
BOCKIUS, pro hac vice, Robin Marie Lagorio, MORGAN LEWIS AND
BOCKIUS LLP, Theresa Mak, MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, pro hac vice &
Suzanne J. Thomas -- suzanne.thomas@klgates.com -- K&L GATES LLP.

Amazon Logistics Inc, Defendant, represented by Allison N. Powers,
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, pro hac vice, Christopher Banks, MORGAN
LEWIS & BOCKIUS, pro hac vice, James Walsh, Jr., MORGAN LEWIS &
BOCKIUS, pro hac vice, John S. Battenfeld, MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS
LLP, Meredith Riccio, MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, pro hac vice, Richard
G. Rosenblatt, MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, pro hac vice, Theresa Mak,
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, pro hac vice & Suzanne J. Thomas, K&L GATES
LLP.

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Dennis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Express
Company. The case is styled as Derrick U Dennis on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. American
Express Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04654 (S.D. N.Y., May
21, 2019).

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

The American Express Company, also known as Amex, is an American
multinational financial services corporation headquartered in Three
World Financial Center in New York City.[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


ARRIAGA STEEL: Underpays Construction Workers, Amador et al. Say
----------------------------------------------------------------
IRIS M. AMADOR; FERNANDO H. LOPEZ; AUNER K. VASQUEZ; JOSE L.
RODRIGUEZ; ELDER A. VASQUEZ; and JUAN A. XEC, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. ARRIAGA STEEL, INC.;
ORTEGA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LLC; and ANTONIO ARRIAGA, individually,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-21799-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 4, 2019) is
an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and
the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as construction
workers.

Arriaga Steel, Inc. is engaged in the construction business. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


AVANGRID INC: Appeal from Nixed Breiding Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Avangrid, 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 an appeal remains pending regarding the
dismissed claims in the class action case styled, Breiding et al.
v. Eversource and Avangrid.

On November 16, 2017, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of
customers in New England against the Company and Eversource
alleging that certain of their respective subsidiaries that take
gas transportation service over the Algonquin Gas Transmission
(AGT), which for AVANGRID would be its indirect subsidiaries SCG
and CNG, engaged in pipeline capacity scheduling practices on AGT
that resulted in artificially increased electricity prices in New
England.

These allegations were based on the conclusions of a whitepaper
issued by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), an environmental
advocacy organization, on October 10, 2017, purporting to analyze
the relationship between the New England electricity market and the
New England local gas distribution companies.

The plaintiffs assert claims under federal antitrust law, state
antitrust, unfair competition and consumer protection laws, and
under the common law of unjust enrichment.  They seek damages,
disgorgement, restitution, injunctive relief, and attorney fees and
costs.

On February 27, 2018, the FERC released the results of a FERC staff
inquiry into the pipeline capacity scheduling practices on the AGT.
The inquiry arose out of the allegations made by the EDF in its
whitepaper.  The FERC announced that, based on an extensive review
of public and non-public data, it had determined that the EDF study
was flawed and led to incorrect conclusions.  FERC also stated that
the staff inquiry revealed no evidence of anticompetitive
withholding of natural gas pipeline capacity on the AGT and that it
would take no further action on the matter.

On April 27, 2018, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss all of the
claims based on federal preemption and lack of any evidence of
antitrust behavior, citing, among other reasons, the results of the
FERC staff inquiry conclusion.  The plaintiffs filed opposition to
the motion to dismiss on May 25, 2018.

On September 11, 2018, the District Court granted the Company's
Motion and dismissed all claims.  On October 10, 2018, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and on February 25, 2019,
plaintiffs filed their brief on appeal.

The Company said, "We cannot predict the outcome of this appeal."

Avangrid, Inc. operates as an energy services holding company in
the United States. It engages in the generation, transmission, and
distribution of electricity, as well as distribution,
transportation, and sale of natural gas. Avangrid, Inc. was founded
in 1852 and is headquartered in Orange, Connecticut.  Avangrid,
Inc. is a subsidiary of Iberdrola, S.A.


BANNER HEALTH: Summary Judgment Bid in Ramos Suit Partly Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LORRAINE M. RAMOS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BANNER
HEALTH, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-cv-2556-WJM-NRN (D.
Colo.), Judge William J. Martinez of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Colorado granted in part and denied in part Jeffrey
Slocum & Associates, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment.

The case arises out of alleged mismanagement of Defendant Banner
Health's employee 401(k) plan.  Plaintiff Ramos and others bring
the lawsuit against Banner Health and certain current and former
employees, and Slocum, alleging that the Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 ("ERISA").  The Plaintiffs earlier moved for class
certification, which the Court granted as to the Banner Defendants
and denied as to Slocum.

Currently before the Court is Slocum's Motion for Summary Judgment.


The Plaintiffs contend that Slocum was a fiduciary and breached its
duty of loyalty in two ways: (1) providing imprudent investment
advice, and (2) failing to monitor and advise Banner Defendants of
excessive recordingkeeping and administrative fees.  On summary
judgment, the Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving that (1) Slocum
was a fiduciary with respect to the challenged conduct; (2) Slocum
breached its fiduciary duties; and (3) those breaches caused
Plaintiffs to incur losses.

Judge Martinez granted in part and denied in part the Motion.  The
Motion is granted in favor of Defendant Slocum as follows: (i) with
respect to claims arising out of Slocum's conduct related to Level
3 Funds/Mutual Fund Window, as well as the Balanced Funds; (ii)
with respect to claims against Slocum related to monitoring
recordkeeping fees or arising out of the negotiation of Fidelity's
recordkeeping fees; (iii) the Plaintiffs may not bring direct
action claims for losses to the entire Plan allegedly attributable
to Slocum; and (iv) the Plaintiffs' claims for losses arising from
Slocum's conduct prior to Nov. 9, 2010 are time-barred.  The Judge
denied the Motionin all other respects.

Among other things, he finds that while the Plaintiffs cherry-pick
Slocum's expert's deposition testimony to the effect that the
Contracts alone are somewhat ambiguous, given the plain meaning of
the Contracts and the IPSs, as well as the parties' own course of
conduct in compliance with these documents, the Plaintiffs have
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact that Slocum was
a fiduciary for the Level 3 Funds.  Slocum was not paid to render
investment advice as to the Level 3 Funds nor did it have any
responsibility to do so.

He also finds that the Plaintiffs have presented expert testimony
that a reasonably prudent investment advisor would have recommended
replacement significantly earlier (starting in 2011).  The
Plaintiffs also point to evidence that Slocum seemed to mildly
suggest, rather than emphatically advocate, that the RPAC consider
alternatives, resulting in the RPAC improperly retaining the
Freedom Funds for longer than it should have, and ultimately
causing losses to the Plan.  The parties offer differing views of
what a prudent process would be for responding to and evaluating
the Freedom Funds as of 2011.  Such evidence is sufficient to
create a genuine dispute of material fact that must be resolved at
trial.

Next, he finds that the single e-mail alone cannot reasonably
support a conclusion that Slocum assumed a fiduciary duty to
negotiate reasonable recordkeeping fees with Fidelity.  The absence
of such additional evidence is telling, and substantially undercuts
the Plaintiffs' position on this point.  Nor do they tie any
supposed discretion for negotiating recordkeeping fees to any
alleged deficiency of the Plan Reviews.  They fail to tie these
purported deficiencies to a breach of a fiduciary duty on the part
of Slocum to negotiate recordkeeping fees.  On this record, no
reasonable finder of fact could conclude that Slocum was a
fiduciary with respect to the recordkeeping fees of the Plan.

The Judge holds that the Plaintiffs may recover their individual
Plan losses allegedly attributable to Slocum, but not such losses
for the Plan as a whole.  And given that there is no genuine
dispute on the statute of limitations issue, he agrees with Slocum
that claims arising from conduct or losses prior to Nov. 9, 2010
are time-barred.

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

Lorraine M. Ramos, Constance R. Williamson, Karen F. McLeod, Robert
Moffitt, Cherlene M. Goodale, Linda Ann Heyrman & Delri Hanson,
individually and as reprentatives of a class of plan participants,
on behalf of the Banner Health Employees 401 (k) Plan, Plaintiffs,
represented by Heather Lea, Schlichter Bogard and Denton, LLP, Kurt
Charles Struckhoff, Schlichter Bogard and Denton, LLP, Michael
Armin Wolff, Schlichter Bogard and Denton, LLP, Troy Andrew Doles,
Schlichter Bogard and Denton, LLP & Jerome Joseph Schlichter --
jschlichter@uselaws.com -- Schlichter Bogard and Denton, LLP.

Banner Health, Banner Health Board of Directors, Laren Bates,
Wilford A. Cardon, Ronald J. Creasman, Gilbert Davila, Peter S.
Fine, Susan B. Foote, Michael J. Frick, Michael Garnreiter, Barry
A. Hendin, David Kikumoto, Larry S. Lazarus, Steven W. Lynn, Anne
Mariucci, Quentin P. Smith, Jr., Christopher Volk, Cheryl
Wenzinger, Banner Health Retirement Plans Advisory Committee,
Brenda Schaefer, Charles P. Lehn, Colleen Hallberg, Dan Weinman,
Dennis Dahlen, Ed Niemann, Jr., Ed Oxford, Jeff Buehrle, Jennifer
Sherwood, Julie Nunley, Margaret Dehaan, Patricia K. Block,
Paulette Friday, Richard O. Sutton, Robert Lund & Thomas R. Koelbl,
Defendants, represented by Jennifer B. Routh, McDermott Will &
Emery LLP, Linda L. Siderius, Caplan & Earnest, LLC, Margaret H.
Warner, McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Meghan Elizabeth Pound , Caplan
& Earnest, LLC, Richard Jason Pearl -- richard.pearl@dbr.com --
Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP & Theodore M. Becker --
theodore.becker@dbr.com -- Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP.

Jeffrey Slocum & Associates, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Christopher Joseph Boran -- christopher.boran@morganlewis.com --
Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Emily Taylor Jastromb --
emily.jastromb@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP,
Hillary E. August -- hillary.august@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis
& Bockius, LLP, James P. Looby -- james.looby@morganlewis.com --
Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Jeremy P. Blumenfeld --
jeremy.blumenfeld@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP &
Sari M. Alamuddin -- sari.alamuddin@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis
& Bockius, LLP.


BECK BUILDING: Kelly Sues Over Unpaid Compensation
--------------------------------------------------
PAUL C. KELLY, III, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. BECK BUILDING SERVICES, INC.; DROPOUT
HOLDINGS, LLC f/k/a BECK JANITORIAL, LLC; BECK FACILITY SERVICES,
LLC; CHARLES D. BECK, JR.; and RYAN BROOKS, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-00049-TCB (N.D. Ga., May 17, 2019) is a collective action
for unpaid wages brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA")

The Defendants willfully violated the FLSA by failing to compensate
him and other similarly situated employees for all hours worked,
including those in excess of 40 per week at the required overtime
premium rate, by (a) subjecting them to a company-wide policy of
automatically deducting time for meal periods in excess of the time
permitted for meals, (b) excluding non-discretionary bonuses from
the calculation of the regular rate used to compute overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 per week, and (c)
paying them based on their scheduled shift times, instead of their
actual hours worked, says the complaint.

Named Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an hourly-paid janitor,
scrubber driver, and supervisor.

Beck Building provides janitorial, maintenance, and material
handling services to its customers through various
subsidiaries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John L. Mays, Esq.
     Jennifer K. Coalson, Esq.
     Melissa A. Carpenter, Esq.
     PARKS, CHESIN & WALBERT, P.C.
     75 Fourteenth Street, Suite 2600
     Atlanta, GA 30309
     Phone: 404-873-8000
     Fax: 404-873-8050
     Email: jmays@pcwlawfirm.com
            jcoalson@pcwlawfirm.com
            mcarpenter@pcwlawfirm.com



BLUE HORSESHOE: Underpays Consultants, Risbrook Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
EMMANUEL RISBROOK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLUE HORSESHOE NETWORK, LLC, d/b/a
BLUE HORSESHOE NETWORK, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-11262
(E.D. Mich., April 30, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendant
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff Risbrook was employed by the Defendant as
consultant.

Blue Horseshoe Solutions, Inc. provides consulting services for
system implementation and integration. It offers services ranging
from consulting to building and implementing supply chain
management, enterprise resource planning, warehouse management, and
transportation management systems. Blue Horseshoe Solutions, Inc.
was founded in 2001 and is based in Carmel, Indiana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         David M. Blanchard, Esq.
         Frances J. Hollander, Esq.
         BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC
         221 N. Main Street, Suite 300
         Ann Arbor, MI 48104
         Telephone: (734) 929-4313
         E-mail: blanchard@bwlawonline.com
                 hollander@bwlawonline.com

              - and -

         Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
         Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
         Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
         BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
         1622 Locust Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 875-3000
         Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
         E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                 sschalman-bergen@bm.net
                 apiazza@bm.net

               - and -

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


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Isley Sues Over Defective Vehicles
--------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS ISLEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC and BAVARIAN
MOTOR WORKS AG, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-12680 (D. N.J., May
17, 2019) is a putative class action against BMW of North America,
LLC ("BMW NA") and Bavarian Motor Works AG ("BMW AG") (collectively
"BMW") on behalf of individuals who purchased or leased a
2012-present BMW automobile equipped with any variant of the N63TU
engine, including certain model years of the BMW 5 Series, 6
Series, 7 Series, X5, and X6 (the "Class Vehicles").

According to the complaint, BMW cars containing the N63TU engines
and its subsequent variants are defective and were deceptively
marketed and sold to consumers. Specifically, BMW cars equipped
with BMW's turbocharged V8 engines have long suffered from a defect
causing excessive oil consumption (the "Oil Consumption Defect").
BMW has known about this for many years, and in fact faced a prior
class action concerning earlier model cars equipped with N63
engines, which is the predecessor of the N63TU. BMW never fixed the
defect, which continues to plague the Class Vehicles at issue in
this action, says the complaint.

As a direct result of BMW's wrongful conduct, owners of the Class
Vehicles have suffered damages, including, inter alia: (1)
out-of-pocket expenses for increased oil purchases, increased
service visits, engine repair and/or engine replacement that would
not be necessary but for the Oil Consumption Defect; (2) costs for
future repairs or replacements; (3) sale of their vehicle at a
loss; and/or (4) diminished value of their vehicles, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Mr. Isley purchased a 2015 BMW X5 xDrive50i equipped with
an N63TU engine from Rick Hill BMW in Kingsport, TN, in 2015.

BMW NA was created in 1975 to act as the United States importer of
BMW luxury and performance vehicles, which were traditionally
manufactured in Munich, Germany.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
     Joel D. Smith, Esq.
     BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
     990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
     Walnut Creek, CA 94596
     Phone: (925) 300-4455
     Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
     Email: fklorczyk@bursor.com
            jsmith@bursor.com


BOYAS EXCAVATING: Ruling on Garfield Heights Immunity Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the appeals case captioned JOHN C. BERDYSZ, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BOYAS EXCAVATING, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellants, No. 107109 (Ohio App.), the Court of Appeals
of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County, affirmed the trial
court's order denying Defendant-appellant the city of Garfield
Heights' claim that they are statutorily immune from the
plaintiffs-appellees' claim.

The plaintiffs-appellees in this action are John Berdysz, Colette
Berdysz, John Drab, Marianne Eckhoff, Patricia Masa, Alberta Krupp,
and Kathleen Tucciarelli. They are all residents of Garfield
Heights and the gravamen of their complaint is that noxious odors
in their neighborhood affected the use and enjoyment of their
properties.

After the court affirmed the trial court's decision to certify the
class, Garfield Heights then filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings.  The trial court denied the motion, and Garfield Heights
filed this appeal assigning one error for the court's review: The
trial court erred in failing to dismiss the Plaintiffs' nuisance
cause of action as the City of Garfield Heights is statutorily
immune from such a claim.

The Court ruled that the trial court's denial of Garfield Heights'
motion for judgment on the pleadings does not constitute a final
appealable order.  However, R.C. 2744.02(C) provides that "[a]n
order that denies a political subdivision or an employee of a
political subdivision the benefit of an alleged immunity from
liability as provided in this chapter or any other provision of the
law is a final order."  Thus, R.C. 2744.02(C) grants appellate
courts jurisdiction to review the denial of a motion to dismiss
based upon immunity.

Ruling on the merits of the appeal, the Court held that based on
the plain language of R.C. Chapter 2744.09(A), immunity does not
apply to Garfield Heights on the appellees' claims for breach of
contract.  Garfield Heights, similarly to the issue the appellants
in Windsor Realty & Mgt., Inc. v. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer
Dist., 2016-Ohio-4865, 68 N.E.3d 327, contended, argues that the
appellees are attempting to fashion a simple common nuisance claim
into a breach of contract claim. Garfield Heights may be correct
that, on the facts here, the appellees cannot establish, as a
matter of law, the existence of an enforceable contract.

However, pursuant to R.C. 2744.02(C), the Court has jurisdiction to
consider only whether the trial court properly denied appellants'
motion to dismiss on immunity grounds, i.e., whether the trial
court's denial of appellants' motion to dismiss denied appellants
the benefit of an alleged immunity from liability -- not whether
the trial court correctly concluded that the allegations of the
amended complaint were sufficient to state a claim for breach of
contract as a matter of law.

This assignment of error is based "upon alleged defenses that are
unrelated to immunity and the trial court's denial of appellants'
motion to dismiss those claims is not otherwise a final, appealable
order."

Therefore, the Court rules, Garfield Heights' sole assignment of
error is overruled.

A full-text copy of the Opinion is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yxv244ez from Leagle.com.

David Mack, Garfield Heights Law Director; Reminger Co., L.P.A.,
Holly M. Wilson, Gregory G. Guice, Brian D. Sullivan, for
appellants.

Cochran & Cochran, Edward W. Cochran ; Weltman Weinberg & Reis Co.,
L.P.A., David Mullen ; Connick Law, L.L.C., Thomas J. Connick ;
Weyls Peters, L.L.C., Timothy J. Weyls ; Bisgaard, & Smith L.L.P.,
Ryan K. Rubin, Lewis Brisbois ; Kushner & Hamed Co., L.P.A.,
Christian J. Grostic ; and Gray, P.L.L.C., Anthony J. Trzaska, for
appellees.

BP EXPLORATION: Court Dismisses With Prejudice Deacon's BELO Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Carl Barbier of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana dismissed with prejudice the case, KATHLEEN
DEACON, v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION J(2).
Related to: 12-968 BELO in MDL 10-2179, Civil Action No. 19-711
(E.D. La.).

Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation from the Magistrate
Judge, the Plaintiff's objection, and BP's response.  The
Magistrate Judge recommends that the Plaintiff's BELO complaint be
dismissed with prejudice because it was not filed within six months
of being notified by the Claims Administrator of BP's election not
to mediate, as required under the Medical Benefits Class Action
Settlement Agreement Section VIII(G)(1)(b).

After considering the Plaintiff's objections de novo, the Judge
approved the Report and Recommendation and adopted it as his
Opinion in the matter.  Accordingly, he granted BP' Motion to
Dismiss, and dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiff's complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 24, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/1sB9m6 from Leagle.com.

Kathleen Deacon, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy John Falcon,
Falcon Law Firm, Allen W. Lindsay, Jr. -- awl@lal-law.com --
Lindsay & Andrews, PA, Jarrett S. Falcon, Falcon Law Firm &
Jeremiah A. Sprague, Falcon Law Firm.

BP Exploration & Production, Inc. & BP America Production Company,
Defendants, represented by Don Keller Haycraft --
dkhaycraft@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis, Catherine Pyune McEldowney
-- CPM@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley and Anderson LLC,
Georgia Lee Lucier -- georgialucier@HuntonAK.com -- Hunton Andrews
Kurth LLP & Kevin Michael Hodges -- khodges@wc.com -- Williams &
Connolly, LLP.


BROTEN GARAGE: Underpays Service Technicians, Ali Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
ABDUL-BASIR ALI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BROTEN GARAGE DOOR SALES, LLC f/k/a BROTEN
GARAGE DOOR SALES, INC.; and GREGG D. DAVIS, Defendants, Case No.
0:19-cv-61126-RKA (S.D. Fla., May 3, 2019) seeks to recover from
the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Ali was employed by the Defendants as service
technician.

Broten Garage Door Sales, LLC provides door installation and repair
services. The company offers residential garage doors, commercial
garage doors, and custom garage doors. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
          SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
          20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800
          Aventura, FL 3180
          Telephone: (305) 503-5131
          E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


CAL. PUBLIC: Class Certification Denial in Kesterson Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARY KESTERSON et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM et al., Defendants
and Respondents, Case No. B284977 (Cal. App.), Judge Victoria M.
Chavez of the Court of Appeals of California for the Second
District, Division Two, affirmed the trial court's denial of the
Plaintiffs-Appellants' motion for class certification.

The Appellants filed the action in March 2013, alleging that
members of the class were owed interest and penalties based on a
variety of different types of benefits that the California Public
Employees' Retirement System ("CalPERS") allegedly withheld or paid
late.
The purported class was defined as all individuals who had or have
funds, credits, monies, benefits, contributions, or assets that are
or were on deposit withheld by, entrusted to, or under the control
of CalPERS, including during which time CalPERS failed to timely
pay the funds (or refund the contributions) and failed to accrue,
credit or pay interest on said funds.

The various types of benefits included contributions; death
benefits; ongoing survivor continuance benefits; "group life
insurance" or similar benefits; service allowances or benefits;
industrial disability allowances or benefits; "regular" or
"ordinary" disability allowances or benefits; funds divided or
accounted for pursuant to a legal separation, community property,
or marriage dissolution; voluntary contributions, including to buy
benefits; refunds; funds arising from contracts or settlement
agreements or breaches thereof, including benefit elections; funds
arising from benefit adjustments under collective bargaining,
statute, contract, or otherwise; Replacement Benefits Plan funds,
or those funds that exceed certain legal limits; funds held,
reimbursed or paid late associated with expenses, fees, costs, "out
of network," or other expenditures by participants for health or
medical care; aggregated, accumulated lump sum payments of funds,
whether service, disability, death, or other funds; other funds
that a participant has on deposit with, administered by, held by,
or owed from CalPERS.  For each type of benefit, appellants
asserted that the common legal issue was that, pursuant to Civil
Code section 3287, subdivision (a), interest was generally required
when pensions, benefits or other payments are withheld or untimely
paid.  

Further, the Appellants sought to certify a subclass of individuals
who were allegedly entitled to payment of an additional "penalty
interest" benefit under Government Code section 21499.

The trial court denied the Appellants' motion for class
certification on the grounds that (1) the size of the class is
uncertain; and (2) the class was not amenable to class treatment.
Specifically, the trial court found that the Appellants failed to
develop an appropriate trial plan including a means to litigate
CalPERS's affirmative defenses and various individual variations in
rights among the class members.

On Sept. 11, 2017, the Appellants timely filed their notice of
appeal.

Judge Chavez holds that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in denying class certification.  She discerns no abuse
of discretion in the trial court's finding that the proposed class
is not ascertainable.  The two parties had vastly differing
estimates as to the number of individuals the class would include.
The Appellants acknowledge the dispute between the parties
regarding how many members CalPERS paid late, yet provide no
rational basis for determining the size of the class.

She also finds that trial court did not abuse its discretion in
determining that the Appellants' proposed trial methodology plan
was inadequate.  The trial court noted that four years of
litigation produced, not a date certain, but rather a remand to the
superior court for a factual determination" regarding the date that
the employee was wrongfully denied pay.  It noted that the
Appellants' trial plan ignored such factual complexities.

Next, the Judge finds that the Appellants' questions presented are
largely irrelevant in reviewing the denial of class certification.
She declines to address in detail the Appellants' arguments that
the trial court was simply incorrect in determining that they had
failed to come up with an adequate trial management plan.  The
trial court, reviewing the evidence in the first instance, was
entitled to credit the evidence suggesting that a class action was
not the appropriate vehicle for the Appellants' claims.  Although
the Appellants may have a different perspective on this question,
the Court is obligated to give the trial court great deference when
reviewing a class certification order on appeal, and reverse only
for a manifest abuse of that discretion.

She further finds that CalPERS's failure to retain data does not
undermine the trial court's decision denying class certification.
The Appellants point to no specific evidence that CalPERS has
failed to fulfill its obligation to maintain records in a
reasonable way for the benefit of participants and their
beneficiaries.  Instead, the Appellants imply that CalPERS is
required to maintain its records in a way that anticipated this
lawsuit.  The Judge declines to impose such a difficult standard on
the obligations set forth in article XVI, section 17 of the
California Constitution.

As to death and disability benefits subclasses, the Judge finds
that CalPERS's liability for late payments or underpayments is
contested in separate proceedings involving records from his
individual file.  There was evidence that the retirement date in
the spreadsheets was different from the date that CalPERS had the
information needed to put an individual into disability retirement
status.  As to death benefits, CalPERS has submitted evidence that
its data often records lump sum payments without segregating
individual components, such as interest.  The trial court did not
abuse its discretion in determining that individual liability
issues prevailed in these two sub-categories, thus rendering class
action inappropriate.

Finally, the Judge finds that without citation to legal authority
or reasoned argument, the Appellants repeat their position that
Ylvisaker's opinion showed there was sufficient data to calculate
the interest and entitlement such that there was no need for
statistics.  This is inadequate to show an abuse of discretion.

Based on this, Judge Chavez affirmed the judgment.  The Respondents
are awarded their costs of appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 24, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/MqL94G from Leagle.com.

Law Offices of John Michael Jensen and John Michael Jensen --
johnjensen@johnmjensen.com -- for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Reed Smith, Raymond A. Cardozo -- rcardozo@reedsmith.com -- and
Terence N. Hawley -- thawley@reedsmith.com -- for Defendants and
Respondents.


CHICAGO, IL: Faces Class Action Over "Impound Scheme"
-----------------------------------------------------
Charlie Wojciechowski, writing for NBC Chicago, reports that the
last time Seymour Byrd saw his car was three years ago.

He had stopped to help a broken-down car here on the Dan Ryan at
95th Street and was giving the man a lift home, when police pulled
him over and found drugs on his new passenger.

"I think it was unfair," he told NBC 5. "I mean once the
investigation was over with, whatever they had to do, because I
didn't get arrested or anything. They just took the vehicle because
that's what the officer said he was going to take it."

Byrd's car, a 1996 Cadillac, was impounded. He said he's facing
more than $17,000 in fines.

"Like I say, it's a ridiculous situation," he said.

But Institute for Justice attorney Diana Simpson says Byrd's story
is all too common. Her organization filed on April 30 a class
action lawsuit on his behalf.

"It requires innocent owners to pay fines for the actions of
someone else," she said. "That is unconstitutional. You cannot
require someone to pay for someone else's activity."

It is an expensive process: impound rates start at $20 a day, but
they go up from there. So if your car is here more than a month,
the bill could easily top $1,000

And the institute says Chicago's practice is big business,
impounding 22,000 cars in 2017 and raking in $28 million in fines
and fees.

Veronica Davis says her car was impounded and disposed of after a
body shop worker with a revoked license took it out on the street.

"I feel like the city of Chicago made me feel like a criminal and
took away all of my human rights," Davis said.

The city's law department said on April 30 it cannot comment on
this class action lawsuit but the group filing it says its goals
are clear.

"This system is unconstitutional and it is time to stop," Simpson
said. [GN]


COMMUNITY MEDICAL: Franklin Sues Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------
ISABELLE FRANKLIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COMMUNITY MEDICAL CENTERS, INC.
and COMMUNITY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER f/k/a FRESNO COMMUNITY
HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-at-00381
(E.D. Cal., May 20, 2019) is a class and collective action on
behalf of Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals who
have worked for Defendants as nursing staff, nurse aides, nurse
assistants, and other non-exempt hourly employees and been subject
to Defendants' policy and practice of deducting time from recorded
hours for meal periods.

The complaint alleges that Plaintiff and similarly situated nursing
staff have been denied payment for all hours worked, including
overtime, and have been denied meal and rest periods that comply
with California law. This case implicates the longstanding policy
and practice of Community Medical, which fails to properly
compensate non-exempt employees for work performed during meal
periods, for work performed while "off-the-clock," and for missed
rest and meal periods. The Defendants' policies and practices
result in nursing staff being denied wages due under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and California law, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Ms. Franklin was employed as a nurse by Defendants at
Community Regional Medical Center in Fresno, California from
approximately December 2017 to January 2018.

Community Medical Centers, Inc. operates a healthcare network of
hospitals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
     David C. Leimbach, Esq.
     Michelle S. Lim, Esq.
     SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
     2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
     Emeryville, CA 94608
     Phone: (415) 421-7100
     Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
     Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
            dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com
            mlim@schneiderwallace.com


CRAFTMASTER PAINTING: Must Reply to Questions on Boutell Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANTHONY BOUTELL, BRIAN STOUT SHANE MORN and ROGER
ANDERSON, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. CRAFTMASTER PAINTING, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
17-cv-317-bbc (W.D. Wis.), Judge Barbara B. Crabb of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin ordered the
parties to respond to her questions before she considers approval
of the parties' motion for final approval of the proposed
settlement and the Plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees.  

The named Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit as a class and collective
action against the Defendant, alleging that several of its wage
practices violated the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), and Wisconsin's wage law.  A hearing is
scheduled for April 30, 2019, to consider the parties' motion for
final approval of the proposed settlement and the Plaintiffs'
motion for attorney fees.  

However, after reviewing the parties' motions and proposed
settlement agreement, Judge Crabb concludes that the settlement
cannot be approved until the parties submit information addressing
the following questions:

     a. Why were Rule 23 class members required to submit claim
forms for prevailing wage claims but not for overtime wage claims?
- Upon review of the parties' proposed settlement agreement, it
appears that the parties required the Rule 23 class members to
submit claim forms for their prevailing wage claims but not for
claims of unpaid overtime.  The parties should explain why they
chose to distinguish between these claims.  They also should
explain whether it would be possible to calculate damages owed for
each type of claim for each class member by using the Defendant's
records.

     b. How many Rule 23 class members will receive an award? - The
parties have stated that there are more than 100 class members in
the Rule 23 class.  However, they have not submitted a spreadsheet
showing damages calculations for more than 100 class members.  The
Plaintiffs do not explain clearly who these individuals are or what
happened to the remaining class members.

     c. Did the parties calculate potential damages for each class
member before distributing notices and if so, did they include
damages calculations in the notices? - The parties' proposed
settlement agreement does not actually include a settlement amount.
They have not submitted any spreadsheets or other documents
showing whether they actually made these calculations.
Additionally, the notices that were distributed to class members do
not appear to include any calculations of the amount that the class
members would receive by making a claim.  Before final approval can
be given to the proposed settlements, the parties must describe
what steps they took to calculate individual damage awards and
whether they included those awards on their notices.  If they did
not, it is likely that the Judge will require the Plaintiffs to
submit new notice and claim forms to class members.

     d. What is the total amount defendant will pay under the
agreement? - Before the Judge will approve the settlement, the
parties must submit a new proposed settlement agreement that
specifies the exact amount that the Defendant will pay under the
agreement.  If that number is unknown, the parties should calculate
the total amount of potential damages that the Defendant could pay
and then explain what will happen to any amount that is unclaimed
by the class members.

     e. What is the total amount the Plaintiffs are seeking in
attorney fees? - The Plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees includes
a request for 1/3 of the total amount recovered by the class,
excluding recoveries by the four named Plaintiffs and class member
Krystal Cribb.  The Judge cannot determine whether this amount is
appropriate because it is not clear how much the Defendant will be
paying to the class members.  The parties must provide more
information regarding the specific amount the Plaintiffs are
seeking for attorney fees.

     f. Did the parties comply with the notice provision of 28
U.S.C. Section 1715? - Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1715, the parties
must provide notice of any class action settlement to appropriate
federal and state authorities.  The Court cannot give final
approval of a proposed settlement until 90 days after the parties
provide the notice.  The parties have provided no information
showing that they complied with this provision.

     g. Do the parties object to Brian Costigan's claim for
prevailing wages? - Brian Costigan, a former employee of the
Defendant, apparently did not opt in to the collective action by
the deadline for doing so.  He has contacted the Court stating that
he intends to make a claim for prevailing wages at the final
approval hearing.  The parties should notify the court whether they
intend to object to Costigan's claim for unpaid wages.

In light of these outstanding questions, the Judge struck the final
approval hearing that is scheduled for April 30, 2019.  After the
parties respond to the questions, she will reschedule the final
approval hearing.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 26, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/k5pgAy from Leagle.com.

Anthony Boutell, Brian Stout, Shane Morn & Roger Anderson,
Plaintiffs, represented by Yingtao Ho -- yh@previant.com -- The
Previant Law Firm, S.C.

Craftmaster Painting, LLC, Defendant, represented by Douglas E.
Witte  -- dwitte@boardmanclark.com -- Boardman & Clark LLP.


CREDIT CONTROL: Park Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
----------------------------------------------
Nancy Park, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Credit Control, LLC d/b/a Credit Control &
Collections, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03017 (E.D. N.Y., May
21, 2019) seeks to recover for violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").

In its efforts to collect an alleged Debt, Defendant contacted
Plaintiff by letter dated June 28, 2018. The Letter provides
various settlement options. The Letter further provides multiple
addresses for Defendant in the coupon to be detached and sent with
payment.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Letter fails to state whether the
payment must be mailed to the first address or the second or third
address. As a result, in the eyes of the least sophisticated
consumer, the Letter is open to more than one reasonable
interpretation, at least one of which is inaccurate, in violation
of the FDCPA, says the complaint.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CV SCIENCES: Court Stays Securities Suit Scheduling Order
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Brenda Weksler of the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada approved a stipulation vacating the scheduling
order and staying discovery in the securities fraud case styled IN
RE CV SCIENCES, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No.
2:18-cv-01602-JAD-PAL (D. Nev.) pending the resolution of the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss filed on March 5, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yxk3p6lu from Leagle.com.

Richard Ina, as Trustee for The Ina Family Trust, Plaintiff,
represented by Dillon Hagius, Esq. -- dhagius@faruqilaw.com --
Faruqi & Faruqi LLP, pro hac vice, Katherine Lenahan, Esq. --
klenahan@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, pro hac vice,
Richard Gonnello, Esq. -- rgonnello@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi &
Faruqi LLP & Sherief Morsy, Esq. -- smorsy@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi
& Faruqi LLP, pro hac vice.

David Smith, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Martin Muckleroy, Esq.
     Patrick R. Leverty, Esq.
     Leverty & Associates Chtd.
     832 Willow St.
     Reno, NV 89502
     Tel: 775-322-6636

Kenneth Zelden, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Andrew R. Muehlbauer, Esq.
     Muehlbauer Law Office, Ltd.
     7915 W Sahara Ave., Suite 104
     LAS VEGAS, NV, 89117, USA(702) 330-4505

Lenny Alvarado, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew R. Muehlbauer,
Muehlbauer Law Office, Ltd., pro hac vice.

CVI Investor Group, Movant, represented by Patrick R. Leverty,
Leverty & Associates Chtd.

CV Sciences, Inc., Michael Mona, Jr., Joseph D Dowling & Michael
Mona, III, Defendants, represented by Terry A. Coffing, Esq. --
tcoffing@maclaw.com -- Marquis & Aurbach, Eric Andrew Plourde, Esq.
-- eric.plourde@procopio.com -- Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves &
Savitch LLP, Michael David Maupin, Esq. -- mmaupin@maclaw.com --
Marquis Aurbach Coffing & S. Todd Neal, Esq. --
todd.neal@procopio.com -- Procopio Cory Hargreaves & Savitch LLP,
pro hac vice.

Jerry Faulkner, Defendant, represented by Andrew R. Muehlbauer,
Muehlbauer Law Office, Ltd.


E.I. DU PONT: Banks Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Substances
----------------------------------------------------------
DORIS BANKS, CANDY CAPORALE, BRUCE DAVIS, GENE SULLENBERGER, and
CHRISTINE WOOTTEN, for themselves and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, THE 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota
Mining and Manufacturing, Co.), PROCINO PLATING, INC., a/k/a
PROCINO ENTERPRISES, a/k/a PROCINO, and BLADES DEVELOPMENT LLC,
Defendants, Case No. S19C-05-024 ESB (Del. Super. Ct., May 17,
2019) seek recovery from Defendants for injuries, damages and
losses suffered by the Plaintiffs, each of whom suffered injuries
as a result of exposure to the introduction of PFOA, PFOS and other
toxic substances into the drinking water of the Town of Blades.

The Town of Blades is located in Sussex County, Delaware. For
decades, the operators of two companies in the Town of Blades used
products containing perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and/or
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS") in hard chrome plating
processes and/or to manufacture commercial and/or consumer nonstick
cookware, and carelessly discharged PFOA and/or PFOS into the
environment, contaminating the ground water and water supply of the
Town of Blades. In 1947, the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company ("3M") began producing PFOA via electrochemical
fluorination. Over the years, a number of companies, including but
not limited to, E. I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company ("DuPont") and
The Chemours Company ("Chemours"), have manufactured PFOA and/or
PFOS within the United States.

PFOA and PFOS are extremely stable fluorine-containing chemicals
that do not breakdown in the environment. They are used in the
production of commercial and consumer nonstick cookware and is
utilized in the hard chrome plating process. Upon information and
belief, PFOA and PFOS were components of the manufacturing
processes conducted by the Procino Enterprises ("Procino") and
Peninsula Plating ("Peninsula") in the Town of Blades. Human
studies show associations between PFOA and PFOS levels in blood and
an increased risk of several health effects, including effects on
the liver, the immune system, high cholesterol levels, increased
risk of high blood pressure, Changes in thyroid hormone, ulcerative
colitis (autoimmune disease), pre-eclampsia (a complication of
pregnancy that includes high blood pressure), and kidney and
testicular cancer. These injuries can arise months or years after
exposure to PFOA and/or PFOS.

3M, DuPont and Chemours manufactured, marketed, and sold products
containing PFCs, including to Procino and Peninsula, for use in
their hard chrome plating and commercial and consumer nonstick
cookware manufacturing processes. 3M, DuPont and Chemours
repeatedly assured Plaintiffs, Class Members, purchasers of its
products, and the public that their products containing PFCs were
safe but this was not the case. As a result of years of consuming
contaminated water, the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class, as
residents in the Town of Blades, have been unknowingly exposed for
many years to PFCs at concentrations hazardous to their health
through the ingestion and dermal absorption of PFOA and PFOS.

The Defendants are responsible, negligently, intentionally, and/or
in some actionable manner, for the events and happenings, and
caused and continue to cause injuries and damages to Plaintiffs, as
alleged, either through each Defendant's own conduct or through the
conduct of their agents, servants, or employees, or due to the
ownership, maintenance, or control of the instrumentality causing
them injury, or in some other actionable manner, says the
complaint.

Plaintiffs are residents of the Town of Blades.

E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY ("DuPont") operates as a science
and technology based company in the United States and
internationally. It is and was at all times relevant hereto a
corporation organized under the laws of Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     R. Joseph Hrubiec, Esq.
     NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, LLC
     919 N. Market Street, Ste. 1801
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Phone: (302) 330-8025
     Email: RHrubiec@NapoliLaw.com

          - and -

     HUNTER SHKOLNIK, ESQ.
     PAUL J. NAPOLI, ESQ.
     TATE J. KUNKLE, ESQ.
     360 Lexington Avenue, Eleventh Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 397-1000
     Email: Hunter@NapoliLaw.com
            PNapoli@NapoliLaw.com
            TKunkle@NapoliLaw.com


EATALY CHICAGO: Denton Hits Misclassification, Seeks Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
DANAE LOUISA DENTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EATALY CHICAGO, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2019CH06141 (Circuit Ct., Cook Cty., Ill., May 17, 2019)
is a class action under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), on
behalf of all persons who worked for Defendant as Sous Chefs in
Illinois and who were misclassified as exempt employees not
entitled to overtime pay pursuant to the IMWL.

Throughout her employment, Plaintiff was not exempt from the
overtime provisions of the IMWL. Plaintiff routinely worked in
excess of 40 hours per week. On average, Plaintiff worked 50 hours
per week in September, October, November, and December 2018. From
September 2018 through January 2019, Defendant paid Plaintiff a
fixed salary that did not fluctuate based upon her actual hours
worked. Plaintiff and the putative Class members have been deprived
of all compensation they are owed under the law, and specifically
of overtime compensation to which they are entitled pursuant to the
IMWL, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Danae Louisa Denton worked for Defendant as a Sous Chef
at Eatalys establishment located in Chicago, Illinois from
September 2018 through the January 2019.

Eataly Chicago, LLC is a "bustling Italian marketplace with 65,000
square feet overflowing with restaurants, take-away counters, and a
cooking school".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
     Madeline K. Engel, Esq.
     Caffarelli & Associates Ltd.
     Firm No. 58616
     224 S. Michigan Ave., Ste. 300
     Chicago, IL 60604
     Phone: (312) 763-6880


ELEMENT SERVICES: Davis Files Class Action Over Unauthorized Calls
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINA DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. ELEMENT SERVICES LLC, a California limited
liability company, JOSEPHINE MENDOZA, an individual Defendants,
Case No. 3:19-cv-02685 (N.D. Cal., May 17, 2019) is a Class Action
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial against Defendant to stop their
illegal practice of making unauthorized calls that play prerecorded
voice messages to the telephones of consumers nationwide, and to
obtain redress for all persons injured by their conduct.

As a primary part of their marketing efforts, Defendants and their
agents placed thousands of automated calls employing a prerecorded
voice message to cell phones and residential phones nationwide.
Unfortunately, Defendants did not obtain consent prior to placing
these calls and, therefore, are in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). By placing the calls at issue,
Defendants have violated the privacy and statutory rights of
Plaintiff and the Class. Plaintiff, therefore, seeks an injunction
requiring Defendants to stop its unconsented calling, as well as an
award of actual and statutory fines to the Class members, together
with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.

Plaintiff CHRISTINA DAVIS is a natural person and is a citizen of
the Northern District of California.

Defendants are businesses that refinance student loans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark L. Javitch, Esq.
     Javitch Law Office
     480 S. Ellsworth Ave
     San Mateo, CA 94401
     Phone: 650-781-8000
     Facsimile: 650-648-0705
     Email: mark@javitchlawoffice.com


ENDO: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that the Second Circuit affirmed on April 29 a lower
court's decision to dismiss a securities class action accusing Endo
of lying to investors about changes to its business model, ruling
the investors failed to show they were misled by the pharmaceutical
company. [GN]


FAIRFAX BEHAVIORAL: Faces Class Action Over Invasive Searches
-------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys from Hagens Berman and Disability Rights Washington filed
a class-action complaint on behalf of a proposed class of hundreds
of patients that were arbitrarily strip-searched and/or video
recorded while receiving treatment for mental illness at Fairfax
psychiatric facilities located in Kirkland, Everett and Monroe,
WA.

If you were a patient at a Fairfax Behavioral Health facility and
were strip-searched or feel you may have been video monitored,
contact us to find out your rights.

According to the lawsuit, filed Apr. 30, 2019 in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle, the suit's
named plaintiff recalls being ordered to undress for an invasive
strip-search and cavity search when she presented for inpatient
admission, even after disclosing her history of sexual abuse to the
staff member. She was not given a gown or towel to cover up during
the search, and the staff member watched her undress and left the
door open where other staff members could see her, and threatened
to restrain her if she did not comply.

Video cameras were located in the hallway, the holding area outside
bathroom and the room where the strip search was conducted. The
cameras recorded her undressing and the strip-search.

The complaint states that Fairfax's practices—and its failure to
limit the discretion of its staff—means that a substantial number
of its mental health patients are harmed instead of receiving
adequate inpatient care.

"Fairfax violated their duty of care by performing invasive
searches without suspicion and using video cameras throughout the
hospital," said Steve Berman. "Our class-action lawsuit seeks
systemic changes to Fairfax's protocols that will create safer
hospitals for patients needing help."

The plaintiffs seek punitive damages and injunctive relief
restraining Fairfax from strip searching patients without an
individualized assessment that the patient possesses drugs or
weapons that constitute an immediate threat to life or safety and
restrains Fairfax from recording patients during the search. The
plaintiffs also seek an order requiring Fairfax to create protocols
for conducting invasive searches that require an individualized
assessment of immediate danger to self or others.

Victims Can Remain Anonymous

Your protection is our top priority. We welcome any information,
and those who contact our firm may remain anonymous in their
potential case. Attorneys will request that the Court permit our
clients to proceed anonymously as a Jane Doe. Our attorneys have
experience in protecting plaintiffs who wish to remain anonymous,
both as whistleblowers and as survivors of discriminatory or sexual
misconduct.

Discrimination Experience

Our attorneys are experienced in representing victims of various
kinds of discrimination, fraud, negligence, abuse and sexual
harassment. We take on large entities and corporations on behalf of
those most vulnerable to wrongdoing, and hold them accountable.

Our team has the knowledge, experience and resources. Your claim
will be handled by experts in this area of law who will care for
your rights.

Your Rights and Protections

If you were a patient at a Fairfax-operated location and believe
your rights were violated, we want to hear from you. Please fill
out the form to contact our legal team or call Hagens Berman
attorney Shelby Smith at 206-268-9370 or Disability Rights
Washington attorney Alexa Polaski at 206-324-1521. Our secure
messaging offers a safe space to those speaking out.

Our firm strives to protect the rights and safety of victims
everywhere. Let us take a stand for you.

                      About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a
consumer-rights class-action law firm with nine offices across the
country. The firm's tenacious drive for plaintiffs' rights has
earned it numerous national accolades, awards and titles of "Most
Feared Plaintiff's Firm," and MVPs and Trailblazers of class-action
law. [GN]


FARMERS GROUP: Dennis Sues Over Blind Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------
Derrick U Dennis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. FARMERS GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-04538 (S.D. N.Y., May 17, 2019) is a civil rights action
against Defendant for the Defendant's failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA"), says the complaint.

Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.

Defendant operates FARMERS GROUP, INC., along with multiple stores
and a website, www.farmers.com, offering features which should
allow all consumers to access the services which Defendant offers
in connection with its offices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
     SHALOM LAW, PLLC
     124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
     Kew Gardens, NY 11415
     Phone: (718) 971-9474
     Facsimile: (718) 865-0943
     Email: Jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com


FAVERGRAY COMPANY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bearden Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROGER BEARDEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE FAVERGRAY COMPANY; and US FRAMING
INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00083-MW-GRJ (N.D.
Fla., May 3, 2019) is an action against the Defendant's failure to
pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

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

The FaverGray Company offers construction management and general
contracting services for commercial, residential, and off-campus
student housing. The company serves real estate owners, developers,
and investors. The company was founded in 2005 and is based in
Jacksonville Beach, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan Richards, Esq.
          USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS -
          JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
          805 E. Broward Blvd. Suite 301
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 871-0050
          E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: 2d Cir. Affirms Judgment in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: FERRELLGAS PARTNERS, L.P., SECURITIES
LITIGATION, SUSAN BATAI, JOEL BRENNER, TRUSTEE FOR THE JOEL BRENNER
MPP PLAN & TRUST, KEVIN GABERLAVAGE, LAZY DOGS PARTNERSHIP LLLP,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, JONATHAN HANSEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JAMES A. MASSIE, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, THOMAS BABCOCK,
INDIVIDUALLY, ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiffs, v. FERRELLGAS PARTNERS, L.P., FERRELLGAS, INC., STEPHEN
L. WAMBOLD, ALAN C. HEITMANN, JULIO E. RIOS, II,
Defendants-Appellees, J. RYAN VANWINKLE, Consolidated-Defendant,
Case No. 18-1286 (2d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment entered on
March 30, 2018 in favor of the Defendants-Appellees.

The Plaintiffs brought the putative class action claiming
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as well as Exchange Act Rule 10b-5.  The district
court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim, and the appeal follows.

Upon such review, the Court concludes that the district court
properly dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims because they fail
adequately to allege any aterial misrepresentation or omission and
further fail plausibly to allege scienter.  Specifically, he agrees
with the district court that the Plaintiffs' complaint suffers from
a fatal defect: it assumes without sufficient supporting
allegations that Defendants knew or should have known that a
contractual counterparty would ultimately default on payments owed.
For that reason, and substantially the reasons stated by the
district court in its thorough and well-reasoned March 30, 2018
decision, he affirmed.

The Judge has considered the Plaintiffs' remaining arguments and
find them to be without merit.  The judgment of the district court
is affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 24, 2019 Summary Order is
available at https://is.gd/fFeNYs from Leagle.com.

Appearing for Plaintiffs-Appellants: JOHNSTON DE F. WHITMAN, JR. --
jwhitman@ktmc.com -- (Kimberly A. Justice, Joshua A. Materese --
jmaterese@ktmc.com -- on the brief), Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP, Radnor, PA.

Appearing for Defendants-Appellees: MELISSA ARBUS SHERRY --
melissa.sherry@lw.com -- (Miles N. Ruthberg --
miles.ruthberg@lw.com -- Jamie L. Wine -- jamie.wine@lw.com --
Thomas Giblin -- thomas.giblin@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, New
York NY, Samir Deger-Sen , Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC, on
the brief), Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington DC.


FIRST NATIONAL: Court Grants Bid for Leave to Amend Lundquist Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CAMERON LUNDQUIST, an individual, and LEEANA LARA, and
individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. FIRST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF
AMERICA, a New Hampshire Corporation, LM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants, Case No. 18-5301 RJB (W.D. Wash.), Judge Robert J.
Bryan of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Tacoma, granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to
Amend Complaint and Add Additional Party.

In the putative class action, the Plaintiffs assert that the
Defendants' practice of using unexplained and unjustified condition
adjustments to comparable vehicles when valuing a total loss claim
for a vehicle, violates the Washington Administrative Code ("WAC"),
specifically WAC 284-30-391 (4)(b) and (5)(d), and so constitutes:
(1) breach of contract, (2) breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, and (3) violation of Washington's Consumer
Protection Act ("CPA").  First National's motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (b)(6) was denied
on July 9, 2018.

After some discovery, Plaintiff Lundquist timely moved for, and was
granted, leave to amend the complaint to add Plaintiff Leena Lara
and Defendant LM General Insurance Co.  Further discovery occurred.
On Dec. 5, 2018, the parties, including the newly added parties,
stipulated to an extension of the case schedule, which was
granted.

On March 2, 2019, the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to add an
additional party, CCC Information Services, and motion for a
six-month extension of all case deadlines was granted.  The
Plaintiffs were given until April 12, 2019 to file a proposed
amended complaint.

On April 4, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to amend
the complaint to: (1) add CCC as a Defendant, (2) make a claim for
violation of the CPA against CCC, and (3) add a Washington state
civil conspiracy claim against CCC and the remaining Defendants.
They attached a red-lined version of the proposed amended complaint
to their motion.

The Defendants do not oppose the addition of CCC as a Defendant or
the assertion of the CPA claim against CCC.  They raise concerns
over potential extension of the case schedule.  They further oppose
the addition of the civil conspiracy claim against them, asserting
that they are prejudiced by its late addition and that it is
futile.  The Plaintiffs replied.

Judge Bryan holds that the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend
Complaint and Add Additional Party should be granted.  There is no
showing of bad faith, undue delay, futility, or undue prejudice as
to the addition of CCC as a Defendant or the addition of the CPA
claim against CCC.  Although the Defendants express concern about a
delay in the case schedule, the Judge finds that there is no motion
for an extension of the case schedule pending, so that issue is not
before the Court.

As to the addition of the conspiracy claim against all the
Defendants, the Judge cannot say that it is futile to allow
addition of the civil conspiracy claim at this time.  The
Plaintiffs' proposed amended complaint asserts that the Defendants
entered into agreements to accomplish unlawful purposes, to wit,
the breach of the insurance contracts (including the provisions of
Washington law that dictate the method by which total loss claims
are valued) and Washington's prohibitions of unfair and deceptive
claims handling practices.  While the Plaintiffs could have pled
the claim with more clarity, it is sufficient, and amendment is not
futile.

Therefore, Judge Bryan granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to
Amend Complaint and Add Additional Party.  The Plaintiffs will file
a clean version of their amended complaint by May 6, 2019.  The
Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies to all the counsel of
record and to any party appearing pro se at their last known
address.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 24, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/NKHPdy from Leagle.com.

Cameron Lundquist, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by David L.
Woloshin -- dwoloshin@astorweiss.com -- ASTOR WEISS KAPLAN &
MANDEL, LLP, pro hac vice, Dina S. Ronsayro --
dronsayro@astorweiss.com -- ASTOR WEISS KAPLAN & MANDEL, LLP, pro
hac vice, John M. DeStefano -- johnd@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN
SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, pro hac vice, Marc A. Goldich --
mgoldich@axgolaw.com -- AXLER GOLDICH LLC, pro hac vice, Robert B.
Carey -- robl@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, pro
hac vice & Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN
SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP.

First National Insurance Company of America, a New Hampshire
Corporation, Defendant, represented by James A. Morsch --
jmorsch@butlerrubin.com -- BUTLER RUBIN SALTARELLI & BOYD, pro hac
vice, John O. Leahy -- jleahy@butlerrubin.com -- BUTLER RUBIN
SALTARELLI & BOYD LLP, pro hac vice, John Michael Silk --
silk@wscd.com -- WILSON SMITH COCHRAN & DICKERSON & Julie Rodriguez
Aldort -- jaldort@butlerrubin.com -- BUTLER RUBIN SALTARELLI & BOYD
LLP, pro hac vice.


FIVE STAR PIZZA: Kellogg Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
-------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON KELLOGG, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiffs, v. FIVE STAR PIZZA CO., INC. and ERIC ARNTSON,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00396 (W.D. Mich., May 17, 2019) is a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), to
recover unpaid minimum wages owed to himself and similarly situated
delivery drivers employed by Defendants at their Domino's stores.

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

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from approximately March 2018
until June 2018 as a delivery driver at Defendants' Domino's
stores.

Defendants operate numerous Domino's franchise stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David M. Blanchard, Esq.
     Frances J. Hollander, Esq.
     BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC
     221 N. Main Street, Suite 300
     Ann Arbor, MI 48104
     Phone: (734) 929-4313
     Email: blanchard@bwlawonline.com
            hollander@bwlawonline.com

          - and -

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


FOUNDATION FOR THE ELDERLY: Marte Seeks Proper Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Marlie Rodriguez Marte, Carmen Vargas, and Luisa Feliz, on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Foundation for the Elderly d/b/a Rockaway Manor Home Care, Premier
Home Health Care Services, Inc., and Claudio Ruiz, jointly and
severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02959 (E.D. N.Y., May 19,
2019) is an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to
remedy Defendants' wrongful withholding of Plaintiffs' earned wages
and overtime compensation. Plaintiffs also bring claims under New
York Labor Law ("NYLL"), as well as the supporting New York State
Department of Labor Regulations for violations of minimum and
overtime wage requirements, unpaid spread-of-hours pay, and failure
of the Defendants to comply with notice and record-keeping
requirements.

Throughout their employment and until in or about July 2018,
Plaintiffs consistently stayed over at the patient's home for
24-hour shifts, which Defendants characterized as "Live-In" Shifts.
The term "Live-in" was used by Defendants for payroll purposes to
indicate that Plaintiffs performed a 24-hour shift. While working
24-hour "Live-In" shifts, Defendants only accounted for and paid
the Plaintiffs for 13 hours of work. Defendants presumably
subtracted 8 hours for sleep and 3 hours for meal periods. In
addition, Plaintiffs never received any extra pay for their work
when the interval between the beginning and end of their shift
exceeded 10 hours.

The Defendants engaged in their unlawful conduct pursuant to a
corporate policy of minimizing labor costs and denying employees
compensation by knowingly violating the FLSA and NYLL. Defendants'
conduct extended beyond the Plaintiffs to all other similarly
situated employees, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants and performed work in New
York as Home Health Aides.

Defendants were employers engaged in interstate commerce and/or the
production of goods for commerce.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Ariadne Panagopoulou, Esq.
     Pardalis & Nohavicka, LLP
     950 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: (718) 777-0400
     Facsimile: (718) 777-0599



FREEDOM FOREVER: Naiman TCPA Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SIDNEY NAIMAN, Plaintiff, v. FREEDOM FOREVER, LLC, et
al., Defendants, Case No.19-cv-00256-JSC (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California granted Defendant Freedom Forever's
motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6).

On Jan. 14, 2019, Plaintiff Naiman filed the action on his own
behalf and as a putative class action against Defendants Freedom
Forever, LLC and Freedom Solar Services, LL alleging violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").  Beginning in
October 2017, the Plaintiff received multiple calls on his cellular
phone from the "Defendant" -- characterized in the complaint as a
single "solar energy company" consisting of Rayosun, LLC, Freedom
Solar Services, LLC and Freedom Forever, LLC -- soliciting its
services.  At the time of the calls, each and every Defendant was
acting as an agent and/or employee of each of the other Defendants
and was acting within the course and scope of said agency and/or
employment with the full knowledge and consent of each of the other
Defendants.  The Defendant used an 'automatic telephone dialing
system' to place its call to the Plaintiff seeking to solicit its
services.

The Plaintiff did not give the "Defendant" his "prior express
consent" to receive such calls.  Further, her cellular phone number
was added to the National Do-Not-Call Registry on or about April
11, 2004.  Nevertheless, the Defendant continued to call the
Plaintiff in an attempt to solicit its services, in violation of
the TCPA.

The Plaintiff brings the action individually and on behalf of three
distinct classes of similarly situated individuals -- the Automatic
Telephone Dialing System ("ATDS") class, the ATDS Revocation class,
and the Do-Not-Call class.

The Plaintiff brings four separate causes of action under the TCPA
on behalf of himself and the putative classes: (1) negligent
violations of section 227(b); (2) willful violations of section
227(b); (3) negligent violations of section 227(c); and (4) willful
violations of 227(c).

Freedom Forever moves to dismiss all claims against it pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6).  It moves to dismiss the section 227(b) claims
because the Plaintiff's assertion that he received the calls at
issue through an ATDS merely parrots the language of the TCPA
without providing any supporting facts.  It further argues that the
Plaintiff fails to identify which of the three named Defendants
actually enabled an ATDS to call the Plaintiff's cell phone, or
allege any facts supporting the existence of an agency relationship
between the named Defendants.  

Magistrate Judge Corley agrees that dismissal is warranted because
the complaint is devoid of any factual allegations giving rise to a
reasonable inference that Freedom Forever violated the TCPA.
Absent factual allegations giving rise to an inference that the
calls were made using an ATDS (i.e., that the manner of the calls
indicated that they were random or impersonal), and absent any
factual allegations giving rise to a plausible inference that
Freedom Forever "made" the calls at issue under the meaning of the
TCPA, the Plaintiff's section 227(b) claims against Freedom Forever
fail.

Freedom Forever moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims under
section 227(c), incorporating its arguments regarding dismissal as
to the section 227(b) claims.  The Magistrate Judge again agrees
that the Plaintiff's section 227(c) claims are similarly deficient
because she fails to plead any facts giving rise to a reasonable
inference that Freedom Forever, or an entity under its control,
made the calls at issue.

For the reasons set forth, Magistrate Judge Corley granted Freedom
Forever's motion to dismiss with leave to amend.  The Plaintiff
will file an amended complaint within 20 days of the Order.  The
case management conference scheduled for May 2, 2019 is continued
to June 20, 2019.  A joint case management conference statement
will be filed seven days prior.  The Order disposes of Docket No.
7.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 24, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/Cfx8zZ from Leagle.com.

Sidney Naiman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Todd Michael Friedman --
tfriedman@toddflaw.com -- Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.,
Adrian R. Bacon -- abacon@toddflaw.com -- Law Offices of Todd M.
Friedman, P.C., Meghan Elisabeth George -- mgeorge@toddflaw.com --
Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. & Tom E. Wheeler --
twheeler@toddflaw.com -- Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, PC.

Freedom Forever, LLC & Freedom Solar Services LLC, Defendants,
represented by Dominic Ganalongo Mendoza -- dgm_law@yahoo.com.ph --
Freedom Forever LLC.


FRESNO BEVERAGE: Cal. App. Affirms Arbitration Denial in Nieto
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Fifth District, affirmed the
trial court's order denying the petition to compel arbitration in
the case captioned DANIEL NIETO, Plaintiff and Respondent, v.
FRESNO BEVERAGE COMPANY, INC., Defendant and Appellant, No. F074704
(Cal. App.).

Plaintiff Daniel Nieto was employed for many years as a delivery
driver for defendant Fresno Beverage Company, Inc., doing business
as Valley Wide Beverage Company (VWB).  After being terminated from
his employment, Nieto filed a class action lawsuit against VWB
alleging various wage and hour violations under California labor
law.

VWB responded by filing a petition to compel arbitration, since
Nieto had signed a written arbitration agreement when he was hired.
VWB argued that under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C.
Section 1 et seq., Nieto must be ordered to arbitrate the dispute
in accordance with the terms of the parties' arbitration
agreement.

Nieto opposed the petition, primarily arguing that his employment
at VWB came within a statutory exemption to the FAA granted to
transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce.  Nieto
reasoned that since the FAA did not apply, a California law
allowing court actions on wage claims notwithstanding the existence
of an arbitration agreement (i.e., Lab. Code, Section 229) was not
preempted by the FAA, meaning the lawsuit may proceed in court.

The trial court agreed with Nieto's exemption argument and denied
the petition to compel arbitration.  VWB appealed from that order.

The California Appeals Court concluded the trial court correctly
found that Nieto's employment came within the FAA exemption.  The
California Appeals Court also concluded that Nieto was engaged in
interstate commerce during his employment as a delivery driver for
VWB.

The following facts were admitted by VWB in the declaration filed
in support of its petition to compel arbitration: "VWB is a
beverage distributor located in Fresno, California.  It sells and
distributes beer, wine, and other related beverages and products
throughout Central California.  While VWB's principal place of
business is in California, it contracts with and buys from
companies nationally and internationally.  It[] sells beer, wine,
and other beverages manufactured in the United States, including
states outside of California, and countries worldwide.  These
beverages are delivered from out-of-state to VWB's warehouse where
they are held for a short period before delivery to VWB's
customers. . . .  VWB and its drivers, including [Nieto], are
subject to and must comply with federal Department of
Transportation regulations, and other federal laws and regulations
governing motor vehicle safety. VWB drivers traverse interstate
highways and roads."

As VWB acknowledged in its points and authorities filed in support
of its petition: "Even if the drivers are not transporting goods
across state lines, their transportation is part of a 'practical
continuity of movement' in the flow of interstate commerce."

The California Appeals Court ruled that it is apparent from the
above information and concessions that Nieto's deliveries, although
intrastate, were essentially the last phase of a continuous journey
of the interstate commerce (i.e., beer and other beverages
delivered to VWB's warehouse from out-of-state) being transported
until reaching its destination(s) to VWB's customers.  Accordingly,
as a delivery truck driver for VWB, Nieto was engaged in interstate
commerce through his participation in the continuation of the
movement of interstate goods to their destinations.  Therefore, the
trial court did not err in concluding that Nieto was employed as a
transportation worker engaged in interstate commerce to whom the
exemption of section 1 of the FAA was applicable.

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

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Thomas M. Peterson, Esq. --
thomas.peterson@morganlewis.com -- Brian C. Rocca, Esq. --
brian.rocca@morganlewis.com -- and Kathryn T. McGuigan, Esq. --
kathryn.mcguigan@morganlewis.com -- for Defendant and Appellant.

Yoon Law, Kenneth H. Yoon, Stephanie E. Yasuda, and Brian G. Lee ;
Justice Law Corporation, Douglas Han, Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, and
Daniel J. Park, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


GC SERVICES: Dealmeida Files Suit Over Vague Collection Letter
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joao Dealmeida, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. GC Services Limited Partnership, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-02964 (E.D. N.Y., May 20, 2019) seeks to recover
for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA").

In its efforts to collect an alleged Debt, Defendant contacted
Plaintiff by letter ("the Letter") dated June 7, 2018.

The complaint asserts that the Letter buries the required
validation notice within its text. The required validation notice
is contained on the second page of the Letter in the same font size
and color as the rest of the body of the Letter. The Letter diverts
attention to various other rights and information listed in
pointers in the body of the letter. It further diverts the
consumer's attention to the license information. The required
validation notice cannot be readily discerned from the rest of the
language in the Letter. The manner in which the Letter is formatted
would likely make the least sophisticated consumer uncertain as to
her rights.

As a result of the foregoing, the Letter would likely discourage
the least sophisticated consumer from exercising her right to
dispute the alleged Debt. Because the Letter is reasonably
susceptible to an inaccurate reading by the least sophisticated
consumer it violates the FDCPA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Joao Dealmeida is an individual who is a natural person
allegedly obligated to pay a debt.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


GENCO INC: Settlement in Ortiz FCRA Suit Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ADAN ORTIZ, an individual on behalf of himself, all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GENCO, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, KRAFT HEINZ FOOD COMPANY and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case Nos. 4:16-cv-04601-YGR, 4:17-cv-03692-YGR (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California granted Plaintiff Ortiz's
motion for final approval of the class settlement.

A hearing on Plaintiff's motion for final approval was held on
April 2, 2019.   The Court preliminarily approved class settlement
under the terms of the Settlement Agreement by its order entered on
Aug. 13, 2018.

Having reviewed the Settlement, the supporting papers filed by the
parties, the evidence, and the arguments in support of the
Preliminary Approval Order and final approval, Judge Rogers granted
final approval of the Settlement.

She finds and determines that the Classes, as conditionally
certified by the Preliminary Approval Order meet all of the legal
requirements for class certification for settlement purposes only
under F.R.C.P 23(a) and 23(b)(3) and she ordered that the classes
are finally certified for settlement purposes.  She further ordered
that the Settlement is finally approved.

A list of those individuals who have requested to be excluded is
attached to the Order as Exhibit 7.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, "Released Claims" will mean
all known and unknown claims, demands, rights, liabilities, and
causes of action that were asserted (whether in tort, contract, or
otherwise), based upon the factual allegations in the Actions as
follows:

     a. Wage and Hour Claims: failure to provide meal periods;
failure to provide rest periods; failure to pay hourly wages;
failure to provide accurate written wage statements; failure to
timely pay all final wages; unfair competition; civil penalties;
and failure to pay California employees for all hours worked under
the FLSA.

     b. Background Check Claims: (Released FCRA/CCRAA/ICRAA
Claims): violation of the FCRA pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
1681b(b)(2)(A); violation of the FCRA pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section
1681b(b)(2)(A); violation of the FCRA pursuant to 15 U.S.C. section
1681(a)(1) and g(c); violation of the ICRAA; violation of the
CCRAA); and unfair competition.

Upon completion of administration of the Settlement, the Settlement
Administrator will provide written certification of such completion
to the Court and the counsel for the parties.

The Judge entered final judgment in accordance with the terms of
the Settlement, the Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class
Action Settlement filed on Aug. 13, 2018, and the order.  The Order
will constitute a final judgment (and a separate document
constituting the judgment) for purposes of Rule 58, Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.

The Parties will bear their own costs and attorneys' fees except as
provided in the Order.

The Judge granted the Plaintiff's request for $787,500 in fees (25%
of the Settlement Amount) and $16,809.70 in costs.  These amounts
will be paid to the Plaintiff's counsel from the Settlement Amount.
Also from the Settlement Amount, the Settlement Administrator will
be paid $55,000, and the Plaintiff's requested service award of
$5,000.

Except as provided in the Order, the captioned actions are
dismissed with prejudice.  The Clerk will enter judgment
immediately.

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

Adan Ortiz, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh --
info@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group, Thomas Alistair Segal --
thomas@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group, Ashley N. Batiste --
ashley@setarehlaw.com  -- Setareh Law Group & Farrah Grant, Setareh
Law Group.

Genco I, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by
Nicole A. Legrottaglie -- nlegrottaglie@cdflaborlaw.com --
Carothers DiSante Freudenberger LLP, Teresa Wang Ghali --
tghali@cdflaborlaw.com -- Carothers DiSante & Freudenberger, LLP &
Jeremy T. Naftel -- jnaftel@martensonlaw.com -- Carothers DiSante &
Freudenberger LLP.


GLOBAL BRASS: Kent Files Securities Class Action in Del.
--------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL KENT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. GLOBAL BRASS AND COPPER HOLDINGS, INC.,
JOHN H. WALKER, VICKI L. AVRIL, DONALD L. MARSH, JR., BRADFORD T.
RAY, MARTIN E. WELCH, III, and RONALD C. WHITAKER, Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00920-UNA (D. Del., May 17, 2019) is an action stemming
from a proposed transaction announced on April 10, 2019 (the
"Proposed Transaction"), pursuant to which Global Brass and Copper
Holdings, Inc. ("GBC" or the "Company") will be acquired by
Wieland-Werke AG and its affiliates.

On April 9, 2019, GBC's Board of Directors (the "Board" or
"Individual Defendants") caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Weiland
Holdings, Inc. ("Parent"), Wieland-Werke Aktiengesellschaft
("Parent Holdco"), and Elephant Acquisition Corp. ("Merger Sub,"
and together with Parent, Parent Holdco, and Wieland-Werke AG,
"Wieland"). Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, GBC's
stockholders will receive $44.00 in cash for each share of GBC
common stock they own. On May 10, 2019, defendants filed a proxy
statement (the "Proxy Statement") with the United States Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") in connection with the Proposed
Transaction.

The Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the
Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading. Accordingly, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act") in connection
with the Proxy Statement, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is, and has been continuously throughout all times
relevant hereto, the owner of GBC common stock.

GBC, through its wholly-owned principal operating subsidiary,
Global Brass and Copper, Inc., is a leading, value-added converter,
fabricator, processor, and distributor of specialized non-ferrous
products in North America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


GNC HOLDINGS: Mislabels Food Supplements, Arora et al. Allege
-------------------------------------------------------------
RICHA ARORA; RANDY CLINTON; and WALTER JOHNSTON, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GNC
HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-02414-LB (N.D. Cal.,
May 3, 2019) seeks to recover for injuries suffered by the
Plaintiffs and the Class, as a direct result of the Defendant's
unlawful, deceptive, and misleading labeling, marketing, and sale
of its proprietary brand dietary supplements.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants products
do not bear the required disclaimers on all panels with structure
or function claims, and the disclaimer lacks the prominence
required, the products are thus misbranded and unlawful.

The Defendant's products also qualify as "drugs" under the United
States Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act since it markets the
products with structure/function claims but does not include the
disclaimers. In order to avoid being regulated as drugs under the
FFDCA, dietary supplements bearing structure/function claims must
comply with the disclaimer requirements. Drugs require pre-market
approval from the federal Food & Drug Administration. The
Defendant's products lacks pre-market approval rendering them not
just misbranded but unapproved drugs. These products are unlawful
and cannot be sold legally.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lawrence King, Esq
          Mario M. Choi, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772-4700
          Facsimile: (415) 772-4707
          E-mai: lking@kaplanfox.com
                 mchoi@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Maia C. Kats, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          6109 32nd Place, NW
          Washington, DC 20015
          Telephone: (202) 669-0658
          E-mail: mkats@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          George V. Granade, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
                  ggranade@reesellp.com


GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: Dennis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Golden Entertainment,
Inc. The case is styled as Derrick U Dennis on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Golden
Entertainment, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04658 (S.D. N.Y.,
May 21, 2019).

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

Golden Entertainment is a gaming company based in Enterprise,
Nevada that operates casinos, taverns, and slot routes.[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


GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Geolocation Data Tracking
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel R. Stoller, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Alphabet
Inc.'s Google is facing allegations that it tracked geolocation
data through millions of mobile devices without giving users the
ability to avoid the secretive monitoring.

Owners of Apple and Android-based mobile devices filed a
consolidated class complaint April 29 in the U.S. District Court of
the Northern District of California, after the court appointed
co-interim lead class counsel. The plaintiffs, who seek to
represent similarly impacted mobile device owners, alleged that
Google didn't give users meaningful options to opt-out. [GN]


GOOGLE LLC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss 1st Amended Roley Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANDREW ROLEY, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-07537-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth Labdon Freeman of
the U.S. District Court for the Nothern District of California, San
Jose Division, denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss Roley's
First Amended Complaint in the consumer class action case.

In early 2015, Google created its "Local Guides" program to improve
its Google Maps and Google Earth products.  Individuals who sign up
to be local guides share photographs, comments, reviews, and the
like about various establishments and locations in their
communities, which benefits Google through increased page views and
advertising revenue.  In return for these benefits and to encourage
enrollment in and participation in the program, Google offers local
guides various benefits for their participation.  One such benefit
Google offered was a free terabyte of data storage for those local
guides who achieved "Level 4 status" in the program.

On April 4, 2016, Roley, who had previously uploaded pictures to
Google, received an email from Google inviting him to join the
Local Guides program.  Relying on the perceived promise of a
terabyte of free data storage, Roley joined the Local Guides
Program and thereafter received an email acknowledging his
enrollment.   In order to enroll, Roley had to agree to the
program's rules -- the Local Guides Program Terms and Conditions.

Two years later, in April 2018, Google notified Roley that his free
Drive storage was expiring and that he would have to begin paying
monthly for his terabyte of storage.  Roley was surprised to learn
that his free storage was ending because none of the offers or
information he had received relating to the terabyte of storage
ever included a time limitation.  He alleges that through these
actions Google converted the offer of a 'free terabyte' of data to
a service that cost $10/month.  He was then forced to either delete
some of his data or pay $10/month to continue using the terabyte of
storage.  He ultimately was shut out of some Google services until
he deleted some of his data.

Roley alleges that no reasonable consumer would have understood
that the offer of free storage was time-limited to two years.  And
he alleges that Google intentionally failed to disclose this time
limit (and thus misrepresented the benefit) in an effort to induce
Roley and members of the putative class to sign up for Local Guides
to the benefit of Google.  Based on these alleged actions, Roley
brings the following claims against Google: (1) unfair business
practices, in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law
("UCL"); (2) breach of contract; (3) fraud; (4) conversion; and (5)
violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA").

The breach of contract claim is premised on the allegation that
Google promised the Plaintiff and the Class members a free terabyte
of data storage if they achieved 'Level 4' status as a Local Guide"
in exchange for Roley's and the class' performance of certain
pservices for Google, like uploading photos and reviews.  Roley
alleges that he accepted the terms of the contract through
erformance.  The fraud claim is based on Google's misrepresentation
of a material fact and/or a material and misleading omission to the
Plaintiff by which Google intended to deceive average consumers
into believing that the storage would last indefinitely, all the
while knowing that the free storage would end after two years.

The Plaintiff brings his claims on behalf of a putative class of
individuals residing in the United States who attained 'Level 4' as
a Google Local Guide after having been offered one free terabyte of
Google Drive storage space without a time limitation in the offer,
and who claimed their terabyte of data storage space, but whose
free use of the terabyte was terminated after two years of having
been given the terabyte.

Before the Court is Google's motion to dismiss Roley's FAC.  The
Court held a hearing on the motion on April 17, 2019.

On the facts as alleged in the FAC, Judge Freeman finds that Roley
has successfully alleged the existence of a binding offer from
Google that Roley fully accepted through performance, such that
Google allegedly breached by failing to satisfy said offer.

As to the remaining claims, Google argues that because the Terms
gave Google discretion to change the benefits, Roley's claims fail
as a matter of law.  It does not argue that the FAC fails to meet
the particularity requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
9(b).

The Judge finds that the FAC presents a question of fact as to
whether Roley justifiably relied on Google's representations
because the scope of Google's discretion under the Terms was
ambiguous.  As such, Google's motion to dismiss Roley's fraud claim
on this ground is denied.

She also denied Google's motion to dismiss Roley's conversion
claim.  She finds that the scope of Google's discretion to modify
the benefits is a question of fact, the Judge cannot say that Roley
consented to Google's actions, and thus cannot dismiss the
conversion claim on this ground.  Roley alleges that under the
parties' contract, read in his favor, he had a right to the
terabyte of data storage indefinitely and Google converted the
storage by forcing Roley to pay for it.

Finally, Google seeks to dismiss Roley's UCL and CLRA claims in
part because they rely on Roley's fraud claim and related
allegations, and Google believes it has demonstrated that Roley
could not have justifiably relied on Google's representations.  The
Judge denied Google's motion to dismiss Roley's UCL and CLRA
claims.  Because she has held that Roley has plausibly alleged
justifiable reliance and thus will not dismiss the fraud claim at
this stage, Roley's UCL and CLRA claims survive as well.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Freeman denied Google's motion to
dismiss Roley's FAC.  The temporary stay of discovery imposed at
the case management conference is lifted.

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

Andrew Roley, Plaintiff, represented by Christian Schreiber --
christian@osclegal.com -- Olivier Schreiber & Chao LLP, Monique
Olivier -- monique@osclegal.com -- Olivier Schreiber & Chao LLP,
Marisa Carolyn Katz -- katz@tkkrlaw.com -- Teske, Katz, Kitzer and
Rochel, PLLP, pro hac vice, Rebecca Anne Peterson --
rapeterson@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Robert
K. Shelquist -- rkshelquist@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen
P.L.L.P., pro hac vice, Seth J. Leventhal -- seth@leventhalpllc.com
-- LEVENTHAL pllc, pro hac vice, Stephanie Alicia Chen, Lockridge
Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., pro hac vice & Vildan Teske --
teske@tkkrlaw.com -- Teske, Katz, Kitzer and Rochel, PLLP, pro hac
vice.

Google LLC, Defendant, represented by Michael Graham Rhodes --
rhodesmg@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Maxwell Evan Alderman --
malderman@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP & Whitty Somvichian --
wsomvichian@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP.


GROSSMAN & KARASZEWSKI: Solovyova Files FDCPA Suit in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grossman &
Karaszewski, PLLC. The case is styled as Anna Solovyova
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Grossman & Karaszewski, PLLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-02996 (E.D. N.Y., May 21, 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


GTX INC: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action in Delaware
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on April 30 disclosed that it has filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware on behalf of holders of GTx, Inc. ("GTx")
(NasdaqCM: GTXI) common stock in connection with the proposed
merger of GTx with Oncternal Therapeutics, Inc. ("Oncternal")
announced on March 7, 2019 (the "Complaint").  The Complaint, which
alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against
GTx, its Board of Directors (the "Board"), and Oncternal, is
captioned Wheby v. GTx, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-00668 (D. Del.).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's
counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at Rigrodsky & Long,
P.A., 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220, Wilmington, DE 19801, by
telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl-legal.com, or at
http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/.

On March 6, 2019, GTx entered into an agreement and plan of merger
(the "Merger Agreement") with Oncternal.  Pursuant to the terms of
the Merger Agreement, shareholders of GTx will own approximately
25% of the outstanding shares of common stock of the combined
company (the "Proposed Transaction").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction, defendants
issued materially incomplete disclosures in a registration
statement (the "Registration Statement") filed with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission.  The Complaint alleges
that the Registration Statement omits material information with
respect to, among other things, GTx's and Oncternal's financial
projections and the background of the Proposed Transaction.  The
Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages on
behalf of holders of GTx common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than July 1, 2019.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

With offices in Delaware, New York, and California, Rigrodsky &
Long, P.A. -- http://www.rigrodskylong.com-- has recovered
hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of investors and achieved
substantial corporate governance reforms in numerous cases
nationwide, including federal securities fraud actions, shareholder
class actions, and shareholder derivative actions. [GN]


HANLEES FREMONT: Chaiwong Suit Remanded to Calif. Superior Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California declined to exercise
jurisdiction and remanded to the Alameda County Superior Court the
case captioned WEERACHAI CHAIWONG, Plaintiff, v. HANLEES FREMONT,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-04074-HSG (N.D. Calif.).

One of the original defendant, Ally Financial, Inc., removed the
case under the Class Action Fairness Act, based on the Plaintiff's
putative class action claims. Now that Ally has been dismissed, the
Plaintiff's remaining claims are individual state law claims
against Hanlees. Thus, the Court ruled it has neither CAFA
jurisdiction nor federal question jurisdiction over this dispute.

A full-text copy of the Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yx8q2pko from Leagle.com.

Weerachai Chaiwong, Plaintiff, represented by Sharon Elizabeth
Glassey, Glassey Smith, Christopher T. Smith, Glassey/Smith &
Joshua Charles Anaya, Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP.

Hanlees Fremont, Inc., a California corporation, Defendant,
represented by Louis Allen Liberty, Louis Liberty & Associates, a
PLC & Martin Stevens Putnam, Law Offices of Martin Putnam.

Ally Financial Inc., Defendant, represented by Erik Wayne Kemp,
Esq. -- ek@severson.com -- Severson & Werson A Professional
Corporation, Andrew S. Elliott, Esq. -- ase@severson.com --
Severson & Werson, A Professional Corporation & Mary Catherine
Kamka, Severson and Werson, PC.

Hanlees Fremont, Inc., a California corporation, Cross-claimant,
represented by Martin Stevens Putnam, Law Offices of Martin Putnam
& Louis Allen Liberty, Louis Liberty & Associates, a PLC.

Ally Financial Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Andrew S.
Elliott, Severson & Werson, A Professional Corporation & Mary
Catherine Kamka, Severson and Werson, PC.


HAWTHORNE RESIDENTIAL: Davis Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
TRINA DAVIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
Plaintiff, v. HAWTHORNE RESIDENTIAL PARTNERS, LLC, a Foreign
Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00051-CAR
(M.D. Ga., May 20, 2019) is an action against Defendant, under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (the “FLSA”) for unpaid overtime
compensation.

Plaintiff worked over 40 hours during one or more of the workweeks
during her employment with Defendants. The Defendant paid Plaintiff
time and a half but did not include commissions within the regular
rate of pay calculation for some hours worked by Plaintiff over 40
in a workweek.

The Defendant failed to comply with the FLSA because Defendant did
not compensate Plaintiff at time and a half her hourly rate, which
should have included commissions for those hours worked by
Plaintiff, in excess of 40 within a workweek, says the complaint.

Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an assistant manager in, Clarke
County Georgia from on or about August 2018 through March 2019.

Defendant is a Foreign Limited Liability Company with its principal
place of business in Greensboro, North Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
     THE LEACH FIRM, P.A.
     1950 Lee Rd., Suite 213
     Winter Park, FL 32789
     Phone: (407) 574-4999
     Facsimile: (833) 423-5864
     Email: cleach@theleachfirm.com
            yhernandez@theleachfirm.com


HERTZ CORPORATION: Figueroa Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL FIGUEROA and GRANT SCHROEDER, on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated employees, Plaintiffs, v. THE HERTZ
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00326-SPC-UAM (M.D. Fla.,
May 17, 2019) seeks to recover overtime compensation for Plaintiffs
and similarly situated employees who have worked as Location
Managers, Functional Managers, Counter Managers and similarly
titled individuals ("LMs") for Defendant  pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA").

Hertz utilizes LMs as part of its workforce at its airport rental
locations. Their primary duties are waiting on customers at the
vehicle rental counter, driving vehicles from one location to
another, washing vehicles, handling vehicle returns, and general
customer service. Throughout the Relevant Period, it was Hertz's
policy to uniformly classify LMs as exempt from federal overtime
provisions and not to pay LMs any overtime wages.

To serve its customers' needs and maximize profits, Hertz regularly
required LMs to work in excess of 40 hours per week during the
Relevant Period. The primary duties of LMs do not fall under any of
the exemptions to the FLSA. By the conduct described in this
Collective Action Complaint, Hertz has violated the FLSA by failing
to pay LMs, including Plaintiffs, the overtime wages they have
earned and to which they are entitled by law, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs were employed by Hertz from approximately January 2017
to February 2019 as LMs at Defendant's airports.

Hertz operates its worldwide vehicle rental business through
multiple brands, including Hertz, Dollar, and Thrifty.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
     Alan L. Quiles, Esq.
     Tamra C. Givens, Esq.
     SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
     951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
     Boca Raton, FL 33431
     Phone: (561) 447-8888
     Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
     Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
            aquiles@shavitzlaw.com
            tgivens@shavitzlaw.com

          - and -

     Michael Palitz, Esq.
     SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A
     830 3rd Avenue, 5th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: (800) 616-4000
     Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
     Email: mapalitz@shavitzlaw.com


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Airbags
--------------------------------------------------------
Perry Cooper, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Hyundai Motor
America Inc., Kia Motor America Inc., and an airbag maker concealed
a deadly airbag defect from consumers, "putting profits ahead of
safety," a class action filed April 29 alleges.

ZF-TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. and the car makers became aware of
a defect that prevented airbags from deploying as early as 2011 but
did nothing to protect or warn consumers until 2018, the complaint
says. [GN]


INTEL CORP: N.D. Cal. Dismisses Securities Suit With Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Oakland Division, entered final
judgment in the case, IN RE INTEL CORPORATION SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 4:18-CV-00507-YGR (N.D. Cal.), and dismissed
it with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54.

On March 29, 2019, the Court granted the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, but allowed Lead
Plaintiff Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund leave to
amend.

On April 16, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Intention Not to
Further Amend the Consolidated Class Action Complaint.

Each party will bear its own costs.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 26, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/T6h8us from Leagle.com.

Meerain Ali, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence Matthew Rosen, The
Rosen Law Firm, P.A., J. Alexander Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com --
Pomerantz LLP, Jeremy A. Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com --
Pomerantz LLP, Patrick V. Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com --
Pomerantz LLP & Jennifer Pafiti -- jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz
LLP.

Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund, Consol Plaintiff,
represented by John J. Rizio-Hamilton, Bernstein Litowitz Berger
and Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan Daniel Uslaner, Bernstein
Litowitz et al & Richard D. Gluck, Bernstein Litowitz Berger
Grossmann LLP.

Elvis Alvira, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Laurence Matthew
Rosen, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.

Intel Corporation, Brian M. Krzanich & Robert H. Swan, Defendants,
represented by Margaret Ann Keeley -- mkeeley@wc.com -- Williams
and Connolly, Colette Tyrrell Connor , Williams and Connolly LLP,
George Anthony Borden, Williams and Connolly LLP, John Michael
Gildersleeve -- John.Gildersleeve@mto.com -- Munger, Tolles, Olson
LLP, John W. Spiegel, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Robert Leo Dell
Angelo, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Steven M. Farina, Williams &
Connolly LLP & Tian Huang, Williams and Connolly LLP, pro hac
vice.

Navin Shenoy, Consol Defendant, represented by Margaret Ann Keeley,
Williams and Connolly, Colette Tyrrell Connor, Williams and
Connolly LLP, George Anthony Borden, Williams and Connolly LLP,
John W. Spiegel, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Robert Leo Dell Angelo,
Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Steven M. Farina, Williams & Connolly
LLP & Tian Huang, Williams and Connolly LLP, pro hac vice.

Daniel E. Tavares, Movant, represented by Jennifer Pafiti,
Pomerantz LLP, Laurence Matthew Rosen, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.,
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP & Phillip Kim, Rosen Law Firm,
P.A. P.C..


JINX INC: Dennis Sues Over Blind Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------
Derrick U Dennis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. JINX, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-04541 (S.D. N.Y., May 17, 2019) is a civil rights action
against Defendant for the Defendant's failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA"). Because the Defendant's website, www.jinx.com is not
equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals, it
violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures
so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.

Defendant operates a commercial website, www.jinx.com, which
markets and sells clothing, accessories, and toys for men and
women..[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
     SHALOM LAW, PLLC
     124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
     Kew Gardens, NY 11415
     Phone: (718) 971-9474
     Facsimile: (718) 865-0943
     Email: Jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Donald Gustafson Suit Moved to C.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
DONALD GUSTAFSON, Individually, and as Successor-in-Interest on
behalf of the ESTATE OF SHARON KATHLEEN GUSTAFSON, 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.
18CV328629 (Filed May 23, 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 April 29, 2019. The
Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-03568 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: Moore Suit Moved to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
PETER MOORE, an Individual, and as Successor in Interest for DONNA
MOORE, 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,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC698820 (Filed March 22,
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 April 29, 2019. The Central District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03572 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

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Norman Suit Moved to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
MARK NORMAN, individually and as successor-in-interest to CARLA ANN
McCOY, deceased, 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. 17CV314869 (Aug. 21, 2017), 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-03787 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]

Attorney for the Plaintiff:

          Peter J. McNulty, Esq.
          McNULTY LAW FIRM
          827 Moraga Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90049
          Telephone: (310) 471-2707
          Facsimile: (310) 472-7014

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Nunez Suit Moved to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIA NUNEZ, individually, 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. BC656226 (April 3, 2017), 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-03785 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]

Attorney for the Plaintiff:

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

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removed Kanji Suit to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson removed case, KHATUN A. KANJI, individually, 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 / BC671569, 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-03843
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 Daugherty Suit to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson removed the case, JAMES DAUGHERTY and ALISON
DAUGHERTY, the Plaintiffs, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al., the
Defendants, Case No. RG19013937, from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the Alameda County to U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on April 30, 2019. The
Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02354 to the proceeding.

On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two
affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada,
Inc., filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition, commencing a
reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys Talc America, Inc., et
al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the District of Delaware. Since the Chapter 11 Case was
commenced, the Debtors have remained as debtors in possession under
11 U.S.C. section 1101 and have the rights, powers, and duties set
out in U.S.C. sections 1107 and 1108.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
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.:

          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 Luna Suit to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson removed case, HERMELINDA LUNA, 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 / BC701412, 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-03845
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: Roberts Suit Moved to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
WENDI M. ROBERTS, 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, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RIC1802100
(Filed Jan. 30, 2018), was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of Riverside, to U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on April 29, 2019. The Central
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03553
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:

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

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sabella Suit Moved to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
O'LINDA OLGA SABELLA, individually, 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. 18CV331379 (July 11, 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-03831 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:

          Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
          Melanie Meneses Palmer, Esq.
          Cherisse Heidi A. Cleofe, Esq.
          KIESEL LAW LLP
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
          Telephone: 310-854-4444
          Facsimile: 310-854-0812
          E-mail: Iciesel@Idesellaw
                  palrner@kieseLlaW
                  cleofe@kieseLlaw

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sampson Suit Moved to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
BETTY SAMPSON, 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. STK-VC-UNIT-2018-5647 (May 14, 2018), was
removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San
Joaquin, 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-03824 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:

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

               - and -

          Korey A. Nelson, Esq.
          Amanda K Klevorn, Esq.
          BURNS CHAREST LLP
          365 Canal Street, Suite 1170
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: 504.799.2845
          E-mail: knelson@burnscharest.com
                  aklevorn@burnscharest.com

               - and -

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

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sanchez Suit Moved to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR SANCHEZ and ROSA ERVIN-SANCHEZ, Individually and as
Successors-In-Interest for MARTHA SANCHEZ, 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. CIVDS171907 (Sept.
29, 2017), was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of San Bernardino, 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-03834 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.
          Karen L. Karavatos, Esq.
          Cynthia L. Garber, Esq.
          ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC.
          19 Corporate Plaza Drive
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: 949 720-1288
          Facsimile: 949 720-1292
          E-mail: mrobinson@robinsonfirm.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          R. Allen Smith, Jr.
          THE SMITH LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C.
          681 Towne Center Blvd., Suite B
          Ridgel and, MS 9157
          Telephone: (601) 952-1422

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Schadel Suit Moved to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
THERESA SCHADEL, 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. 18CV334390 (Sept. 13, 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-03838 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]

Counsel for the Plaintiff:

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

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Schindler Suit Moved to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
KAROLEE SCHINDLER, Individually, and as Executor of the ESTATE OF
MARY OLIVIA PIPES, Deceased; DAVID TURMAN, Individually, and as
Successor-In-Interest to the ESTATE OF DARLENE DAVIS, Deceased;
RICHARD PICOU, Individually, and as Executor of the ESTATE OF ROSE
MARIE P1COU, Deceased; JERILYN NEEME; PEGGY ANN PELT; GLORIA PRICE,
Individually, and as Successor-In-Interest to the ESTATE OF BOBBY
J. PRICE, Deceased; CONNIE BALLEZ, 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. 16CV296848 (June 24,
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-03832 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:

          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: Schroers Suit Moved to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
SANDRA E. SCHROERS, 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. 18CV323997 (Feb. 28, 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-03829 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:

          Helen Zukin, Esq.
          Melanie Meneses Palmer, Esq.
          Nicole Ramirez, Esq.
          KIESEL LAW LLP
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-29 I 0
          Telephone: 310 854 4444
          Facsimile: 310 854 0812
          E-mail: palmer@kiesel.law
                  zukin@kiesel.law
                  ramirez@kiesel.law

               - and -

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

               - and -

          R. Allen Smith, Jr.
          THE SMITH LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C.
          681 Towne Center Blvd., Suite B
          Ridgel and, MS 9157
          Telephone: (601) 952-1422



JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Schwab Suit Moved to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
DWIN SCHWAB, an Individual, and as Successor in Interest for
DEBORAH SCHWAB, 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. 34-2018-00223874 (March 27, 2018), was removed
from the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, 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-03818 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 -

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

               - and -

          R. Allen Smith, Jr.
          THE SMITH LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C.
          681 Towne Center Blvd., Suite B
          Ridgel and, MS 9157
          Telephone: (601) 952-1422


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Schwarz Suit Moved to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
LISA SCHWARZ, 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. 18CV331857 (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-03821 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

JUGAMAXA LLC: N. Aponte Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Norberto Aponte, and other similarly situated individuals v.
Jugamaxa LLC and Martha Garcia Hurtado, Case No. 6:19-cv-00597
(M.D. Fla., March 29, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant violated FLSA by refusing to provide time and payment
records, as well as overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a landscaper from
approximately November 01, 2018 to March 22, 2019.

The Defendant Jugamaxa is a landscaping company, providing
residential andcommercial landscaping services in Orange County.
The Defendant Hurtado is the owner, manager and operator of
Jugamaxa. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JUUL LABS: Zampa Suit Moved to N.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida granted the Defendant's motion to
transfer the case, SABRINA ZAMPA, individually, and as guardian of
her minor children J.M., a minor, and J.M., a minor on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JUUL LABS,
INC., a Delaware corporation f/k/a PAX LABS, INC. f/k/a PLOOM
PRODUCTS, INC., and PAX LABS, INC., a Delaware corporation f/k/a
PAX LABS (DEUX), INC., Defendants, Case No.
18-25005-Civ-WILLIAMS/TORRES (S.D. Fla.),  to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California pursuant to the
first-filed rule and 28 U.S.C. Section 1404.

The Defendant is a San Francisco-based company that design,
manufactures, and markets nicotine devices as alternatives to
cigarettes.  On April 26, 2018, a class action was filed against
the Defendant in the Northern District of California.  The named
Plaintiffs in the initial pleading includes individuals from seven
states, including California, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey,
New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington.  The Plaintiffs in the
consolidated action seek to represent a nationwide class of all
persons who purchased, in the United States, a JUUL e-cigarette
and/or JUULpods.

The Plaintiffs included eleven causes of action against Defendant,
including: (1) false advertising, (2) violation of the Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, (3) fraud, (4) unfair, unlawful, and deceptive
trade practices, (5) unjust enrichment, (6) strict products
liability for a failure to warn, (7) strict liability for a design
defect, (8) strict liability for a manufacturing defect, (9) breach
of the implied warranty of merchantability, (10) breach of express
warranty, and (11) negligent misrepresentation.

On Aug. 28, 2019, the Court appointed Gutride Safier LLP and
Migliaccio & Rathod LLP as the interim lead counsel for the
proposed nationwide class.  The Court then issued an Order on Sept.
27, 2018 that the Order will apply to any subsequently filed
putative class action alleging the same or substantially similar
allegations.

Approximately seven months after the consolidated action was filed,
the Plaintiffs filed their complaint on Nov. 5, 2018 in the Circuit
Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida.  They seek to represent a
class of all residents of Florida who, at the time of their use of
JUUL products, were under the age of 18, and who procured and used
JUUL products, including a class of "all legal guardians" of the
members of the first class.

The primary allegation is that the Defendant falsely and
deceptively advertise[d] JUUL e-cigarettes and JUULpods to Florida
residents in unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent ways, especially
marketing those products as safe, candy-like products to which
minors are attracted, when they in fact contain more potent doses
of nicotine than cigarettes, which makes them particularly
addictive.  The Plaintiffs' complaint includes seven causes of
action: (1) false advertising, (2) fraud, (3) violation of
Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, (4) unjust
enrichment, (5) strict liability for a failure to warn, (6)
negligence, and (7) negligence per se.

The Plaintiffs served the Defendants on Nov. 19, 2018 and Dthe
efendants filed a notice of removal on Nov. 30, 2018 asserting that
removal was proper under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
("CAFA"), and diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections
1332 and 1441.  The Defendant filed its motion to transfer the case
on Dec. 19, 2018 and the Plaintiff filed a competing motion to
remand on Dec. 28, 2018 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The Defendant argues that the case should be transferred because
(1) it is duplicative of a nationwide class action pending in the
Northern District of California and (2) the three factors that
courts consider in determining whether to apply the first-filed
rule (i.e. chronology, similarity of the parties, and similarity of
the issues) weigh in its favor.  

The Plaintiff's response is that none of the three factors favor
transfer because there are no Florida-based causes of action or
plaintiffs in the consolidated action.  They also claim that their
proposed class is larger than the consolidated action because they
seek to represent minors and parents as opposed to mere purchasers
of Defendant's products.  Therefore, they conclude that the case
cannot be transferred because -- although the consolidated action
includes a proposed nationwide class -- it has no connection to
Florida.

Magistrate Judge Torres finds that the first factor cuts in the
Defendant's favor because the complaint in the consolidated action
was filed in the Northern District of California on April 26, 2018
-- seven months prior to the pleading in the case.  The second
factor favors transfer because the parties are substantially
similar in that JUUL Labs is the same Defendant in the case and the
consolidated action.  The final factor cuts in favor of transfer
because -- while the issues are not identical -- there is
substantial overlap between the case and the consolidated action.

With the first-to-file presumption established, the burden shifts
to the Plaintiffs to offer rebuttal evidence of compelling
circumstances that warrant the case to remain before the Court.
The Plaintiffs' response fails, however, to present any compelling
circumstances.  In fact, they only spend two pages with respect to
the first-filed rule and the remaining pages in opposition to the
Defendant's motion to transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404.
Accordingly, with the presumption established and no argument
presented in favor of any compelling circumstance as an exception
to the first-filed rule, the Defendant's motion to transfer the
action to the Northern District of California will be granted.

For the foregoing reasons, Magistrate Judge Torres granted the
Defendant's motion to transfer.

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

Sabrina Zampa, individually, and as guardian of her minor children
J.M., a minor, and J.M., a minor, on behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by John Allen Yanchunis,
Sr. -- jyanchunis@forthepeople.com -- Morgan & Morgan.

Juul Labs, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by
George S. LeMieux -- glemieux@gunster.com -- Gunster Yoakley &
Stewart, Jonathan H. Kaskel -- jkaskel@gunster.com -- Gunster &
Austin V. Schwing -- aschwing@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher, LLP, pro hac vice.


KPMG: Settles Discovery Metals Shareholders' Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Edmund Tadros, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports
that big four consulting firm KPMG has settled a class action with
Discovery Metals shareholders over allegations the firm's advisory
arm provided an independent expert report that contained misleading
advice to the board of the failed junior miner.

The terms of the settlement, which includes details of the
"strictly confidential" financial sum KPMG has agreed to pay, must
be approved by the NSW Supreme Court at a hearing.

Shareholders who are part of the class action had until Tuesday,
May 7, to lodge an objection to the settlement and may apply to
have their concerns heard in court.

The in-principle settlement of the class action, first reported by
Lawyerly, was funded by Litigation Capital Management and run by
Piper Alderman partner Simon Morris --
smorris@piperalderman.com.au.

'Misleading advice' allegation

The shareholders had alleged that KPMG Advisory provided misleading
advice to the board of Discovery Metals by inflating the value of
the company's principal asset by as much as 40 per cent.

This valuation led KPMG to advise the board that a joint venture's
off-market takeover offer of $1.70 a share was "not fair and
reasonable" because the fair market value for a Discovery Metals
share was between $1.74 and $2.22.

The board advised shareholders to reject the offer, based on the
KPMG advice, and the offer lapsed a month later due to insufficient
shareholder support. Discovery Metals eventually went into
liquidation in June 2015, leaving nothing to the shareholders.

The shareholders also allege that had KPMG not applied the faulty
valuation, it would have advised the board the takeover bid was
fair and reasonable.

'No admission of liability'

KPMG has denied the allegations and agreed to the in-principle
settlement "without any admission of liability", according to the
notice of proposed settlement.

"KPMG Advisory has agreed, without any admission of liability, to
pay the Plaintiff and Settlement Group Members a sum of money (the
amount of which is confidential) in settlement of the claims of all
Group Members (Settlement Sum)," the notice states.

In turn, the shareholders who are part of the class action "have
agreed to release KPMG Advisory from all claims in respect of the
subject matter of the DML [Discovery Metals Limited] Class Action,
and all matters of and incidental to that subject matter."

A KPMG spokeswoman said: "KPMG has agreed to resolve the
proceedings brought against it. The settlement is subject to
Supreme Court approval. The terms of the settlement are
confidential."

Recoup losses
The settlement will allow shareholders to recoup some of their
losses, said Susanna Taylor, senior investment manager at
Litigation Capital Management.

"Assuming court approval is obtained, LCM will have assisted
shareholders to recoup some of their losses suffered as a result of
this failed takeover bid," she said.

Piper Alderman partner Mr Morris declined to comment.

The parties reached a settlement on March 22, a week before the
case was listed to be heard in the NSW Supreme Court.

The total potential value of the claim was $830 million but the
settlement amount would be a fraction of this, given this was the
value lost by all shareholders and typically only a percentage of
shareholders elect to be part of a class action.

Litigation Capital Management will seek to take a fee of 30 per
cent of the settlement amount. Together with other costs, the
settlement notice states "the total amount available for
distribution to Settlement Group Members will be in excess of 50
per cent of the Settlement Sum".[GN]


KUSHCO HOLDING: Pomerantz Files Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on April 30 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against KushCo Holdings, Inc. ("KushCo" or the
"Company") (OTCMKTS:  KSHB) and certain of its officers.   The
class action, filed in United States District Court, for the
Central District of California, and indexed under 19-cv-00798, is
on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired KushCo securities between July 13,
2017 and April 9, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company
and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased KushCo securities during the
class period, you have until July 1, 2019, to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of
shares purchased.

KushCo primarily engages in the wholesale distribution of packaging
supplies in the United States, Canada, Europe, and internationally.
KushCo offers pop-top bottles; child resistant exit, paper exit,
and foil barrier bags; tubes; and polystyrene, silicone-lined
polystyrene or glass containers.  KushCo also provides vaporizer
cartridges, heating technologies, batteries, and disposable units;
and hydrocarbon gases, including isobutene, n-butane, propane,
ethanol, pre-mixes, custom blends, and other solvents.

In the past several years, KushCo has expanded its services through
the acquisition of several companies in the cannabis industry.  For
example, in May 2017, KushCo acquired CMP Wellness LLC ("CMP
Wellness"), a privately-held manufacturer and distributor of
Med-ePen brand vaporizer pens, cartridges, tanks, and accessories.
Then, in May 2018, KushCo acquired Summit Innovations, LLC
("Summit"), a distributor of hydrocarbon products, such as propane
and butane, to the legal cannabis industry.  Finally, in July 2018,
KushCo acquired The Hybrid Creative ("Hybrid"), a self-described
premier creative agency for cannabis ventures, including branding,
marketing, web, and strategy.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that:  (i) KushCo made material
accounting errors in connection with its acquisitions of CMP
Wellness, Summit, and Hybrid; (ii) as a result, KushCo's previously
issued financial statements as of and for the fiscal years ended
August 31, 2018 and August 31, 2017, included in the Company's
Annual Reports on Form 10-K for such periods, and financial
statements as of and for the quarterly periods ended May 31, 2017,
November 30, 2017, February 28, 2018, May 31, 2018 and November 30,
2018, included in the Company's Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for
such periods, could not be relied upon; (iii) KushCo's net loss for
the fiscal year ended August 31, 2018, was more than twice as high
than previously reported; (iv) KushCo and its management's
assurances that its financial statements for those fiscal years and
periods were accurate and fairly reported could not be relied upon;
and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On April 9, 2019, KushCo issued a press release, attached as an
exhibit to the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K (the "April
2019 8-K"), announcing the Company's decision to restate prior
period financial statements for fiscal years 2017 and 2018 for
non-cash items related to acquisitions of CMP Wellness, Summit, and
Hybrid.

Specifically, the April 2019 8-K disclosed that KushCo had
inaccurately accounted for certain shared-settled contingent
consideration relating to its CMP Wellness, Summit, and Hybrid
acquisitions, by recording their respective earnout arrangements as
equity rather than as liabilities.

On this news, KushCo's stock price fell $0.45 per share, or 7.76%,
to close at $5.35 on April 10, 2019.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the
field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later,
the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established,
fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has
recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of
class members. [GN]


LAMPS PLUS: Court Flips Arbitration/Dismissal Order in Varela Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LAMPS PLUS, INC., ET AL., Petitioners, v. FRANK
VARELA, Case No. 17-988 (U.S.), Judge John Roberts of the Supreme
Court of the United States reversed the judgment of the Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granting Lamps Plus' motion to compel
arbitration, and to dismiss the lawsuit.

Petitioner Lamps Plus is a company that sells light fixtures and
related products. In 2016, a hacker impersonating a company
official tricked a Lamps Plus employee into disclosing the tax
information of approximately 1,300 other employees.  Soon after, a
fraudulent federal income tax return was filed in the name of Frank
Varela, a Lamps Plus employee and respondent in the case.

Like most Lamps Plus employees, Varela had signed an arbitration
agreement when he started work at the company.  But after the data
breach, he sued Lamps Plus in Federal District Court in California,
bringing state and federal claims on behalf of a putative class of
employees whose tax information had been compromised.  Lamps Plus
moved to compel arbitration on an individual rather than classwide
basis, and to dismiss the lawsuit.  In a single order, the District
Court granted the motion to compel arbitration and dismissed
Varela's claims without prejudice.  But the court rejected Lamps
Plus' request for individual arbitration, instead authorizing
arbitration on a classwide basis.  Lamps Plus appealed the order,
arguing that the court erred by compelling class arbitration.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed.  It acknowledged that Stolt-Nielsen S.
A. v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp. prohibits forcing a party to submit
to class arbitration unless there is a contractual basis for
concluding that the party agreed to do so and that Varela's
agreement included no express mention of class proceedings.  But
that did not end the inquiry, the court reasoned, because the fact
that the agreement does not expressly refer to class arbitration is
not the 'silence' contemplated in Stolt-Nielsen.  In Stolt-Nielsen,
the parties had stipulated that their agreement was silent about
class arbitration. Because there was no such stipulation in the
instant case, the court concluded that Stolt-Nielsen was not
controlling.

It determined that the agreement was ambiguous on the issue of
class arbitration.  On the one hand, as Lamps Plus argued, certain
phrases in the agreement seemed to contemplate "purely binary
claims."  At the same time, as Varela asserted, other phrases were
capacious enough to include class arbitration, such as one stating
that arbitration will be in lieu of any and all lawsuits or other
civil legal proceedings relating to my employment.  The Ninth
Circuit followed California law to construe the ambiguity against
the drafter, a rule that "applies with peculiar force in the case
of a contract of adhesion" such as this.  Because Lamps Plus had
drafted the agreement, the court adopted Varela's interpretation
authorizing class arbitration.  Judge Fernandez dissented.  In his
view, the agreement was not ambiguous, and the majority's holding
was a "palpable evasion of Stolt-Nielsen.

Lamps Plus petitioned for a writ of certiorari, arguing that the
Ninth Circuit's decision contravened Stolt-Nielsen and created a
conflict among the Courts of Appeals.  In opposition, Varela not
only disputed those contentions but also argued for the first time
that the Ninth Circuit lacked jurisdiction over the appeal, and
that the Court therefore lacked jurisdiction in turn.  The Court
granted certiorari.

Judge Roberts explains that in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, the
Court considered the general contract defense of unconscionability,
which had been interpreted by the state court to bar class action
waivers in consumer contracts, whether in the litigation or
arbitration context.  The general applicability of the rule did not
save it from preemption under the FAA with respect to arbitration
agreements, because it had the consequence of allowing any party to
a consumer arbitration agreement to demand class proceedings
"without the parties' consent."  The same reasoning applies in the
instant case: The general contra proferentem rule cannot be applied
to impose class arbitration in the absence of the parties'
consent.

His opinion is far from the watershed Justice Kagan claims it to
be.  Rather, it is consistent with a long line of cases holding
that the FAA provides the default rule for resolving certain
ambiguities in arbitration agreements.  For example, the Court has
repeatedly held that ambiguities about the scope of an arbitration
agreement must be resolved in favor of arbitration -- Mitsubishi
Motors Corp., 473 U. S., and Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v.
Mercury Constr. Corp.  In those cases, the Court did not seek to
resolve the ambiguity by asking who drafted the agreement.
Instead, it held that the FAA itself provided the rule.  As in
those cases, the FAA provides the default rule for resolving
ambiguity in the instant case.

Judge Roberts concludes that courts may not infer from an ambiguous
agreement that parties have consented to arbitrate on a classwide
basis.  The doctrine of contra proferentem cannot substitute for
the requisite affirmative contractual basis for concluding that the
parties agreed to class arbitration.  He reversed the judgment of
the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case
for further proceedings consistent with his Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 24, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/drXOrR from Leagle.com.

Andrew J. Pincus -- apincus@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP,
Attorney for Petitioner, Lamps Plus, Inc., et al.

Michele M. Vercoski -- mmv@mccunewright.com -- McCune Wright
Arevalo, Attorneys for Respondent, Frank Varela.

Thomas Ryan McCarthy -- tom@consovoymccarthy.com -- Consovoy
McCarthy Park, PLLC, for Chamber of Commerce of the United States
America.

John Richard Annand -- jannand@ntlakis.com -- NT Lakis, LLP, for
Center for Workplace Compliance.

Deepak Gupta -- deepak@guptawessler.com -- Gupta Wessler PLLC, for
American Association for Justice.

Mary Massaron -- mmassaron@plunkettcooney.com -- Plunkett & Cooney,
P.C., for DRI—The Voice of the Defense Bar.

Benjamin G. Robbins, New England Legal Foundation, for New England
Legal Foundation.

Matthew Adam Seligman, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, for
Contract Law Scholars.

Adam G. Unikowsky -- aunikowsky@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP,
for Retail Litigation Center, Inc.


LFT CLUB: Lust Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------
MIRACLE LUST, on behalf of herself, and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs, v. LFT CLUB
OPERATIONS COMPANY, INC., D/B/A LIFETIME FITNESS BURR RIDGE, AN
ILLINOIS CORPORATION AND SHQIPE LEKAJ, INDIVIDUALLY, Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-03344 (N.D. Ill., May 17, 2019) is an action
brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act
("IWPCA").

Plaintiff, on a regular basis worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek without pay at a rate of time and one-half for such hours
pursuant to the requirements of the federal and state statutes.
Beginning in approximately November 2018, Defendants began to pay
Plaintiff less than all of her regular rate wages earned for work
performed up to 40 hours, as well as failing to pay her overtime
pay. Plaintiff, in weeks in which she worked at least 40 hours in a
week was paid less than her full, regular pay for those hours.
Defendants provided no reason as to why Plaintiff was not paid her
entire earned wages, says the complaint.

Plaintiff, MIRACLE LUST is a current employee of Defendants who has
worked for Defendants as an Operations team member since
approximately January 2016.

LFT CLUB OPERATIONS COMPANY, INC., D/B/A LIFETIME FITNESS BURR
RIDGE, owns and operates a fitness center located at 601 Burr Ridge
Pkwy, Burr Ridge, IL 60527.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John William Billhorn, Esq.
     BILLHORN LAW FIRM
     53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 401
     Chicago, IL 60604
     Phone: (312) 853-145


LIVING SPACES: Dennis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Living Spaces
Furniture, LLC. The case is styled as Derrick U Dennis on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Living
Spaces Furniture, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04656 (S.D.
N.Y., May 21, 2019).

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

Living Spaces Furniture, LLC operates as an online furniture mart
portal. The Company offer sale of sofas, chair, mattresses, rug,
decor, pillow, tables, and wall art products.[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


LLR INC: Loses Bid for Attorneys' Fees in Van's Sales Tax Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge H. Russel Holland of the United States District Court for the
District of Alaska denied Defendants' motion for an award of
attorney's fees in the case captioned KATIE VAN, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LLR,
INC., d/b/a LuLaRoe, and LULAROE, LLC, Defendants, No.
3:18-cv-0197-HRH (Ala.).

Plaintiff Katie Van brought this diversity action against
defendants LLR, Inc., d/b/a LuLaRoe, and LuLaRoe, LLC based on
allegations that she had been improperly charged sales tax on
purchases she had made from LuLaRoe retailers in other states.

The Defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint, or in
the alternative, to strike plaintiff's class allegations. On March
1, 2019, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss,
finding that the plaintiff lacked Article III standing, in large
part because the defendants had already refunded the sales tax she
was improperly charged.  Judgment was entered on March 4, 2019.
The judgment read that the court had ordered that "plaintiff
recover nothing, the action be dismissed on the merits."

Pursuant to Rule 54, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rule
54.3, and Alaska Civil Rule 82, the defendants now move for an
award of attorney's fees.

Because the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction of this case
from the outset, it lacks authority to award attorney's fees, the
Court held.  Defendants' motion for attorney's fees is thus
denied.

But even if the court were to consider the Rule 82 arguments raised
by the parties, the court would still conclude that defendants'
motion for attorney's fees should be denied. The Defendants argue
that they are entitled to attorney's fees because they were the
prevailing parties even though this case was dismissed on
jurisdictional grounds.  The Defendants then cite to a number of
cases in support of this argument.

The Court pointed out that in all of these state court cases cited
by defendants, the cases were dismissed based on state law
jurisdictional grounds. But, in this case, the plaintiff's claims
were dismissed because the plaintiff lacked Article III standing.
In other words, the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed based on
federal law, not state law. Because the defendants did not prevail
on any issue of state law, plaintiff argues that defendants cannot
be considered the "prevailing parties" for purposes of Rule 82.

A full-text copy of the Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y2x8qmuh from Leagle.com.

Katie Van, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by James J. Davis, Jr., Northern
Justice Project, Goriune Dudukgian, Northern Justice Project, Kelly
K. Iverson, Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP, pro hac
vice, Kevin W. Tucker, Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter,
LLP, pro hac vice & R. Bruce Carlson, Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela &
Carpenter, LLP, pro hac vice.

LLR, Inc., doing business as LuLaRoe & LuLaRoe, LLC, Defendants,
represented by Brewster H. Jamieson, Lane Powell LLC, Michael Bruce
Baylous, Lane Powell LLC, Randolph T. Moore, Snell & Wilmer,
L.L.P., pro hac vice & Steven T. Graham, Snell & Wilmer, L.L.P.,
pro hac vice.


LVNV FUNDING: Can't Compel Arbitration in Kennedy FDCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARLO KENNEDY, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LVNV FUNDING LLC and ALLIED
INTERSTATE, LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No. 18-10695 (JMV) (CLW)
(D. N.J.), Judge Joseph Michael Vazquez of the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey denied without prejudice the
Defendants' motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the current
action in favor of arbitration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
and Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA").

In the case, Plaintiff Kennedy alleges that Defendants LVNV and
Allied engaged in debt collecting practices that violate the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").  In February 2012, the
Plaintiff entered into personal credit card agreement with Credit
One Bank, N.A.  He then incurred debt on this credit card and
allegedly defaulted on her payments to Credit One.  After this
default, Defendant LVNV allegedly purchased the Debt from Credit
One.  Then, on Feb. 3, 2018, LVNV referred the Debt to Allied for
collection purposes.  Allied then mailed a letter to the Plaintiff
in an effort to collect on the Debt.  The Plaintiff alleges that
the Letter violates the FDCPA, serving as the basis for the action.
The Plaintiff filed her Complaint on June 16, 2018.

On Aug. 23, 2018, the Defendants moved to compel arbitration and
dismiss the current action in favor of arbitration.  The Plaintiff
opposed the motion on Sept. 17, 2018.  The Defendants replied on
Sept. 28, 2018.  The Plaintiff then filed a supplemental notice of
authority on March 29, 2019, notifying the Court of Judge Hayden's
recent decision in Page v. N.A.R. Inc., which dealt with a motion
to compel arbitration under similar circumstances.  

Page recognized the appropriate standard for evaluating a motion to
compel arbitration in circumstances such as this, stating that
although the court may apply the Rule 12(b)(6) standard to a motion
to compel arbitration when the affirmative defense of arbitrability
is apparent on the face of the complaint or the documents relied on
in it, that standard is inappropriate when the complaint either
does not clearly establish the parties' agreement to arbitrate or
the opposing party has come forth with reliable evidence amounting
to more than a naked assertion that it did not intend to be bound
by the arbitration agreement.  In such instances, the motion must
be evaluated under the summary judgment standard in Fed. R. Civ. P.
56, following a restricted inquiry into factual issues to allow
evaluation of whether a meeting of the minds existed on the
arbitration agreement.  The court is thus required to allow the
non-movant to conduct 'limited discovery' on the 'narrow issue' of
the validity of the arbitration agreement when there is no clearly
established agreement to arbitrate on the face of the complaint.

Judge Vazquez finds that arbitrability is ambiguous on the face of
the Complaint and documents relied upon therein; it is unclear
whether an arbitration agreement exists between the parties to the
action.  The Complaint relies upon the Agreement, which the
Defendants attach in pertinent part to their motion to dismiss.
The Plaintiff entered into the Agreement with Credit One, a
non-party in this action.  The Agreement contains an Arbitration
Provision.  This Arbitration Provision, however, only allows the
Defendants to compel arbitration if they are "successors or
assigns" of Credit One.  The Declaration of Jeffrey Meek, attached
to the Defendants' moving brief, states that upon information and
belief, the Debt was eventually assigned to Allied for collection
purposes.  No assignment is attached to the Defendants' moving
brief or reply.  This single assertion in a declaration is
insufficient to compel arbitration at this stage.

The Judge will deny the Defendants' motion to dismiss without
prejudice and orders limited discovery on whether the Defendants
succeeded in or were assigned Credit One's right to collect on the
Plaintiff's Debt under the Agreement.  After limited discovery, the
Defendants may file a renewed motion to compel arbitration, which
the Court will review under a Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 standard.

In sum, Judge Vazquez denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss
Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice.  He ordered limited
discovery on the issue of arbitrability.  After this limited
discovery, the Defendants may file a renewed motion to compel
arbitration.  An appropriate Order accompanies the Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 24, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/SuNZHu from Leagle.com.

MARLO KENNEDY, On behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by RYAN LEYLAND GENTILE --
help@lawgmf.com -- LAW OFFICES OF GUS MICHAEL FARINELLA PC.

ALLIED INTERSTATE, LLC & LVNV FUNDING LLC, Defendants, represented
by NANA BOYER -- nboyer@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH LLP.


M.J. BROTHERS: $525K Settlement in Rodriguez Has Prelim Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California granted preliminary approval of
the class action settlement in the case, VICTOR RODRIGUEZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. M.J. BROTHERS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-00252-SAB (E.D. Cal.).

On Feb. 16, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed the action on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated against the
Defendants, alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
California labor law.  They bring the action alleging failure to
pay overtime in violation of the FLSA; failure to pay meal and rest
periods in violation of California Labor Code section 226.7;
failure to provide itemized wage statements in violation of
California Labor Code section 226(A); failure to pay for reporting
time in violation of Industrial Wage Orders 4, 9, and 14; failure
to pay waiting time penalties in violation of California Labor Code
section 201, 202, and 203; unfair business practices in violation
of California Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.
and are seeking civil penalties under the California Private
Attorney's General Act ("PAGA").

On April 27, 2018, the Defendants filed an answer to the complaint.
On May 8, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation regarding the
production of certain discovery and staying the action so they
could participate in mediation.  On May 11, 2018, the Defendants
filed an amended answer.

A scheduling order issued on Oct. 2, 2018.  On Dec. 4, 2018, the
parties filed a notice of settlement of the class and collective
actions.  On Feb. 4, 2019, a motion for preliminary approval of the
class action settlement and a stipulation to file a first amended
complaint was filed.  The first amended complaint was filed on Feb.
5, 2019.

The Court heard oral argument on the motion for preliminary
approval of the class action settlement on March 6, 2019.  On March
8, 2019, findings and recommendations were filed recommending
granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion for
preliminary approval of the class action settlement.

On March 13, 2019, the Defendants consented to the jurisdiction of
the magistrate judge, and a stipulation was filed concerning
further proceedings on the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary
approval of the class action settlement.  On March 14, 2019, the
parties stipulation was granted, the findings and recommendations
were vacated, and the hearing on the motion for preliminary
approval of the class action settlement was continued to April 24,
2019.

On March 15, 2019, the matter was reassigned to the undersigned for
all purposes as the parties have all consented to the jurisdiction
of the magistrate judge.  The Plaintiff filed a supplement to the
motion for preliminary approval on April 17, 2019.  On April 22,
2019, an order issued finding the matter was suitable for decision
without oral argument and the April 24, 2019 hearing was vacated.

Under the settlement agreement the Class is defined as all persons
who are or were employed in California by the Defendants as
non-exempt (i) shop workers, (ii) farm equipment operators and
pruners, (iii) truck drivers, and (iv) weighers at any point during
the Class Period and who do not properly and timely opt out of the
Settlement Class by having requested exclusion. There are
approximately 185 Settlement Class Members.

The settlement agreement provides for a settlement fund of $525,000
to resolve all claims of the settlement class for the alleged
failure to provide meal and rest breaks and pay wages, penalties,
and attorney fees and costs.  The Defendants will pay the
employer's share of the payroll taxes separately.  Prior to payment
of settlement awards, the common fund will be reduced by service
awards to the named Plaintiffs, an award of attorney fees and costs
to the class counsel, all costs of settlement administration, and a
PAGA payment to the California Labor and Workforce Development
Agency ("LWDA").  The remaining funds constitute the net settlement
fund.  The class period is defined as "any time between Feb. 16,
2014 and May 27, 2018.

The settlement fund will be funded by six separate installments
with the first payment of $87,500 to be made within 180 days from
the date of final approval of the settlement.  The following
payments will be made six months after the previous payment. In the
event that a payment is not made the entire amount will be
immediately due and payable.  Notice of default will be given by
mail and fax and no other action will occur until after 10 days
have lapsed during which time Defendants have the right to cure any
default.

The settlement fund will be distributed in three installments.  The
first installment will be distributed within 30 days of receipt of
the first payment from the Defendants.  This installment will be
distributed to pay the costs of claims administration, the PAGA
payment to the LWDA, and the attorney's costs in the action.  The
second distribution is to be made within 30 days after the claims
administrator receives the third payment from Defendants. (Id.)
This payment will be used to begin paying settlement awards to the
class.  The third distribution will be made within 30 days after
the sixth installment payment is received.  This distribution will
pay the remaining settlement awards to the class in proportionate
shares, the named class member incentive payments, and the class
counsel's attorney fees.  Any undistributed funds from checks that
are not cashed will escheat to the California Division of Labor
Standards Enforcement of Unpaid Wages Fund to be held in the name
of and for the benefit of the class member.

The claims administrator will pay from the common fund attorney
fees in the amount of $131,250; costs of $12,500, and $5,000 to
each of the named Plaintiffs.  The net settlement fund is to be
allocated in the following manner: 20% to unpaid wage claims; 80%
to statutory penalties and interest; and $10,000 to PAGA penalties.
The settlement administrator will pay the LWDA $7,500 in PAGA
penalties.

The net settlement fund will be distributed to the members of the
settlement class and FLSA class.  The funds will be distributed
based upon the number of payroll periods that the class member
worked.  Each class member will be paid the amount after applicable
state and federal taxes are withheld.  The settlement administrator
will issue a W-2 for the payment of unpaid wages and a Form 1099
for the portion that is allocated to statutory penalties and
interest.

The Defendants agree not to oppose the application for attorney
fees or costs by the class counsel.

The claims administrator will mail by U.S. mail the class notice
and FLSA notice and dispute forms in English and Spanish.  The
claims administrator will provide the Plaintiff's counsel all
opt-in forms for the FLSA class so they can be filed with the
Court.

Any objections to the settlement must be submitted in writing.  No
member will be entitled to object at the final hearing unless a
written objection is submitted to class counsel stating the intent
to appear.

All members of the settlement class and those members who opt into
the FLSA class action will receive a settlement award.  The
settlement administrator will determine the amount of the award to
each class or collective action member.

Judge Boone granted the motion for preliminary approval of the
class action settlement; provisional class certification and
appointment of the class counsel; approval of form and method of
class notice; and the scheduling of a final fairness hearing.

He provisionally certified the action as a class and collective
action, for the purposes of settlement only, pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (for the California claims) and 29
U.S.C. Section 201 et seq. (for the FLSA claim).

The settlement class is defined as all persons who are or were
employed in California by the Defendants as non-exempt (i) shop
workers, (ii) farm equipment operators and pruners, (iii) truck
drivers, (iv) weighers, and (v) pruners at any point during the
Class Period and who do not properly and timely opt out of the
Settlement Class by having requested exclusion.

The settlement is preliminarily approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate, entered into in good faith, free of collusion, and within
the range of possible judicial approval.

The following attorneys are appointed as the class counsel: John E.
Hill, State Bar No. 45338 Enrique Martinez, State Bar No. 206884
Law Offices of John E. Hill 333 Hegenberger Road, Ste. 500 Oakland,
CA 94621 Telephone: (510) 588-1000 Facsimile: (510) 632-1445 Email:
enriquemartinez@hill-law-offices.com

Victor Rodriguez, Estreberto Valdez, Miguel Esparza, and Francisco
Banda are appointed as the class representatives; and CPT Group
Class Action Administrators as the settlement administrator.

The method of disseminating notice to the settlement class and
members of the FLSA collective action in Spanish and English, as
set forth in the settlement, is approved.  

Not later than five days from the date of the Order, the
Defendants' counsel will provide to the claims administrator and
the  class counsel a list of all members of the settlement class
and the FLSA collective action, their last known addresses,
telephone numbers, and the last four digits of their social
security or individual taxpayer identification numbers.  The class
counsel will supplement this information with any more recent
contact information available for members of the settlement class
and the FLSA collective action.

No later than 14 days from the date of the Order, the claims
administrator will send a copy of the class notice, the FLSA notice
and consent to join/opt-in form (if applicable), and dispute form
to members of the settlement class and the FLSA collective action
via first class regular U.S. mail, postage prepaid, using the most
current mailing address information available.

A final fairness hearing will be held on Aug. 21, 2019 at 10:00
a.m. in Courtroom 9.

A motion for final approval of the settlement including a motion
for attorney fees will be filed by July 24, 2019.  The parties will
file any responses to any objectors by July 31, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 24, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/6uH5l6 from Leagle.com.

Victor Rodriguez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Estreberto Valdez, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Miguel Esparza, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated & Francisco Banda, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by John Edward Hill, Law Offices Of John E. Hill, A
Professional Corporation & Enrique Martinez, Law Offices of John E.
Hill.

M.J. Brothers, Inc., a California Corporation, Eduardo Martin,
Daniel Martin, Fernando Martin & Ronald Martin, Defendants,
represented by Faith Lisle Driscoll --
fdriscoll@theemployerslawfirm.com -- Barsamian & Moody, Patrick
Moody -- pmoody@theemployerslawfirm.com -- Barsamian and Moody &
Ronald H. Barsamian -- ronbarsamian@aol.com -- Barsamian & Moody.


MADO HEALTH CARE: James Sues Over BIPA Violation
------------------------------------------------
Israel James, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Mado Healthcare, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2019CH06140 (Circuit Ct., Cook Cty., Ill., May 17, 2019) is a class
action under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL") that seeks to
stop Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure
of Plaintiffs and the proposed Class's sensitive, private, and
personal biometric data.

The Defendant, upon information and belief, mandated and required
that employees have their fingerprint scanned by a biometric
timekeeping device. Recognizing the need to protect its citizens
from situations like these, Illinois enacted the Biometric
Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), specifically to regulate
companies that collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics. As
an employee/worker of Defendant, Plaintiff was required to "clock
in" and "clock out" of work shifts by having his fingerprint
scanned by a biometric timeclock which identified each employee,
including Plaintiff. The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act
(hereinafter "BIPA" or the "Act") expressly obligates Defendant to
obtain an executed, written release from an individual, as a
condition of employment, in order to capture, collect, and store an
individual's biometric identifiers or biometric information,
especially a fingerprint or fingerprint geometry scan, and
biometric information derived from it.

The Defendant captured, collected, received through trade, and/ or
otherwise obtained and biometric identifiers or biometric
information of their Illinois employees, like Plaintiff, without
properly obtaining the above-described written executed release,
and without making the required disclosures concerning the
collection, storage, use, or destruction of biometric identifiers
or information. Plaintiff and the putative Class have suffered an
injury in fact based on Defendant's violations of their legal
rights, says the complaint.

Plaintiff worked for Defendant in Illinois from on or about
September 2017 through on or about September 2018.

Mado Healthcare is a Delaware limited liability company and has at
least one place of business in Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
     Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
     PEIFFER WOLF CARR & K.ANE, APLC
     818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
     St. Louis, MO 63104
     Phone: 314-833-4825
     Email: bwise@pwcklegal.com
            plesko@pwcklegal.com


MALLINCKRODT PLC: Still Defends Consolidated Class Suit in D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 29, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a consolidated class action suit in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia.  

On January 23, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and its CEO in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia, captioned Patricia A. Shenk v. Mallinckrodt
plc, et al.

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all persons who
purchased Mallinckrodt's publicly traded securities on a domestic
exchange between November 25, 2014 and January 18, 2017. The
lawsuit generally alleges that the Company made false or misleading
statements related to Acthar Gel and Synacthen to artificially
inflate the price of the Company's stock.

In particular, the complaint alleges a failure by the Company to
provide accurate disclosures concerning the long-term
sustainability of Acthar Gel revenues, and the exposure of Acthar
Gel to Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates.

On January 26, 2017, a second putative class action lawsuit,
captioned Jyotindra Patel v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al. was filed
against the same defendants named in the Shenk lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.

The Patel complaint purports to be brought on behalf of
shareholders during the same period of time as that set forth in
the Shenk lawsuit and asserts claims similar to those set forth in
the Shenk lawsuit.

On March 13, 2017, a third putative class action lawsuit,
captioned Amy T. Schwartz, et al., v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al., was
filed against the same defendants named in the Shenk lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Schwartz
complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased shares of the Company between July 14, 2014 and January
18, 2017 and asserts claims similar to those set forth in the Shenk
lawsuit.

On March 23, 2017, a fourth putative class action lawsuit,
captioned Fulton County Employees' Retirement System v.
Mallinckrodt plc, et al., was filed against the Company, its CEO
and former CFO in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia. The Fulton County complaint purports to be brought on
behalf of shareholders during the same period of time as that set
forth in the Schwartz lawsuit and asserts claims similar to those
set forth in the Shenk lawsuit.

On March 27, 2017, four separate plaintiff groups moved to
consolidate the pending cases and to be appointed as lead
plaintiffs in the consolidated case.

Since that time, two of the plaintiff groups have withdrawn their
motions. Lead plaintiff was designated by the court on March 9,
2018. Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on May 18,
2018, alleging a class period from July 14, 2014 to November 6,
2017, the Company, its CEO, its former CFO, and Executive Vice
President, Hugh O'Neill, as defendants, and containing similar
claims, but further alleging misstatements regarding payer
reimbursement restrictions for Acthar Gel.

On August 30, 2018, the lead plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the
claims against Mr. O'Neill without prejudice.

Mallinckrodt said, "The Company intends to vigorously defend itself
in this matter."

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

Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical
products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle
East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments,
Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company
was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United
Kingdom.


MDL 2624: $8.3MM Settlement in Lenovo Adware Suit Has Final OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE LENOVO ADWARE LITIGATION. This Document Relates
To: ALL ACTIONS, Case No. 15-md-02624-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted the unopposed motions for final
approval of the class action settlements and for attorneys' fees,
expenses, and service awards, filed by Plaintiffs Jessica Bennett,
Richard Krause, Robert Ravencamp, and John Whittle.

The Plaintiffs bring the consumer class action against Defendants
Lenovo (United States), Inc. and Superfish, Inc., asserting claims
under federal, California, and New York law.  They allege that
Superfish's VisualDiscovery software, which Lenovo had preinstalled
on its laptops, created performance, privacy, and security issues.


The Plaintiffs allege several causes of action against Superfish
and Lenovo for violations of: (1) the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act;
(2) California's Unfair Competition Law; (3) California's Consumer
Legal Remedies Act; (4) California's Computer Crime Law; (5)
California's Invasion of Privacy Act; (6) trespass to chattels
under California law; (7) New York's Deceptive Acts and Practices
Statute; and (8) trespass to chattels under New York law.  They
also allege a violation of the Wiretap Act against Superfish.

On July 22, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  The Court granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss
in part on Oct. 27, 2016.  It also granted Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in part, certifying an indirect purchaser class
and California class.  It denied the Plaintiffs' motion to certify
a direct purchaser class.

The "Indirect Purchaser Class" includes all persons who purchased
one or more Lenovo computer models, on which VisualDiscovery was
installed, in the United States from someone other than Lenovo.
And the "California Class" includes all persons who purchased one
or more Lenovo computer models, on which VisualDiscovery was
installed in California.

The Plaintiffs initially reached a settlement with Superfish and
filed a motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement
as to Superfish on Dec. 9, 2016.  The Plaintiffs withdrew their
motion for preliminary approval of the Superfish settlement when
the motion for preliminary approval covering settlements with both
Superfish and Lenovo was filed on July 11, 2018.  The Court granted
the motion for preliminary approval of the settlements on Nov. 21,
2018.

The Plaintiffs and Superfish entered into a settlement agreement in
October 2015.  Superfish has since been dissolved.

The key terms of the Superfish settlement are as follows:

     a. Class Definition: The Settlement Class is defined as all
persons who purchased a Lenovo computer in the United States on
which VisualDiscovery was installed by Lenovo.

     b. Settlement Benefits: Superfish agreed to pay $1 million to
settle the claims against it.

     c. The Settlement Fund will be used to: (i) pay all necessary
expenses associated with the Escrow Account; (ii) pay all necessary
expenses to administer the Settlement, including the cost of a
settlement administrator and notice costs; (iii) pay any award to
Class Counsel of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation
expenses; (iv) pay class members pursuant to a plan of allocation;
(v) pay any cy pres recipients; and (vi) pay any taxes and tax
expenses, which are treated as costs of administration of the
Settlement Fund.  Unless the Settlement does not become final, no
portion of the Settlement Fund will revert to Superfish.

     d. Release: The class members release any and all claims
arising out of the installation and operation of Superfish
VisualDiscovery software on certain laptop computers as alleged in
the litigation.

     e. Class Notice, Opt-Out: The class notice will be provided in
accordance with the Lenovo Settlement Agreement.

     f. Incentive Award, Attorneys' Fees and Costs: The Superfish
Settlement Agreement does not limit the potential amount sought for
an incentive award, or for attorneys' fees.

The Plaintiffs and Lenovo, also after extensive discovery and with
the assistance of Magistrate Judge Jacqueline S. Corley, entered
into a settlement agreement on April 27, 2018.

The key terms of the Lenovo settlement are as follows:

     a. Class Definition: The Settlement Class is defined as all
Persons who purchased one or more of the following computers, not
for resale, within the United States between Sept. 1, 2014 and Feb.
28, 2015: (i) i. G Series: G410, G510, G710, G40-70, G50-70,
G40-30, G50-30, G50-45; (ii) U Series: U430P, U430Touch, U530Touch;
(iii) Y Series: Y40-70, Y50-70; (iv) Z Series: Z50-75, Z40-70,
Z50-70; (v) Flex Series: Flex2 14D, Flex2 15D, Flex2 14, Flex2 15,
Flex2 15(BTM), Flex 10; (vi) MIIX Series: MIIX2-10, MIIX2-11; and
(vii) YOGA Series: YOGA2Pro-13, YOGA2-13, YOGA2-11BTM,
YOGA2-11HSW.

     b. Settlement Benefits: Lenovo will make a $7.3 million
non-reversionary payment that will be added to the $1 million
non-reversionary payment Superfish previously made.  The two
payments will constitute the Settlement Fund from which any class
member may make a claim.  Lenovo has separately entered into a
consent decree with the Federal Trade Commission and 32 state
attorneys general.  The consent decree forbids Lenovo from
misrepresenting any features of software preloaded on laptops to
inject advertising into browsing sessions or to transmit sensitive
consumer information to third parties. If Lenovo preinstalls such
software, it must obtain consumers' affirmative consent before the
software runs on their laptops, and Lenovo also must implement a
comprehensive security program for 20 years for most consumer
software preloaded on its laptops.

     c. Release: All settlement class members will release any and
all claims, rights, causes of action, liabilities, actions, suits,
damages, or demands of any kind whatsoever, known or unknown,
matured or unmatured, at law or in equity, existing under federal
or state law, that relate to the installation of VisualDiscovery on
a Class Computer between Sept. 1, 2014, and Feb. 28, 2015 and that
were or could have been alleged in the Litigation against
Defendant, including Unknown Claims.

     d. Incentive Award: Although the Lenovo Settlement Agreement
does not include a limit on the incentive awards that the Named
Plaintiffs may seek, the exemplar notice forms indicate that each
of them will apply for an incentive award of $5,000.

     e. Attorneys' Fees and Costs: Neither settlement agreement
includes a limit on attorneys' fees and costs.  One exemplar notice
form indicates that the attorneys' fees will not exceed 30% of the
Settlement Fund, and the Plaintiffs' counsel confirmed at the Sept.
20, 2018 preliminary approval hearing that the counsel will not
seek attorneys' fees beyond 30% of the Settlement Fund.

Judge Gilliam granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of
Class Action Settlements, and their Motion for Class Counsel's
Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and Service Awards.  He approved the
settlement amount of $8.3 million, including payments of attorneys'
fees in the amount of $2.49 million; costs in the amount of
$340,798.70; and an incentive fee for the four Named Plaintiffs in
the amount of $5,000 each, for a total of $20,000.

The parties and settlement administrator are directed to implement
the Final Order and the settlement agreement in accordance with the
terms of the settlement agreement.  The parties are further
directed to file a stipulated final judgment within 21 days from
the date of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 24, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/IjT8HH from Leagle.com.

In re Lenovo Adware Litigation, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan
Krasne Levine -- jkl@pritzkerlevine.com -- Pritzker Levine, LLP.

Sterling International Consulting Group, Plaintiff, represented by
Elizabeth Cheryl Pritzker -- ecp@pritzkerlevine.com -- Pritzker
Levine LLP & Jonathan Krasne Levine, Pritzker Levine, LLP.

Lenovo Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel James Stephenson --
dan.stephenson@klgates.com -- K&L Gates, Amanda G. Ray, Womble
Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, Betsy Cook Lanzen --
betsy_lanzen@ncsu.edu -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC,
Hayden J. Silver, III -- jay.silver@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle
Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, Matthew N. Lowe -- matthew.lowe@klgates.com
-- KL Gates LLP, pro hac vice, Raymond M. Bennett --
ray.bennett@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC &
Rebecca Liu -- rebecca.liu@klgates.com -- KL Gates LLP.

Superfish, Inc., defendant STAYED re Order, Defendant, represented
by Rodger R. Cole -- rcole@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West LLP &
Tyler Griffin Newby -- tnewby@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West LLP.


MDL 2672: Court Denies Pro Se Plaintiff's Bid to Litigate Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order denying Pro Se Plaintiff Oleg Yarin's
Motion to Litigate His Case in the case captioned IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN
"CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION This Order Relates To: MDL Dkt. Nos. 4568, 4703, 4944,
4991, 4992, 4995, 5013, 5014, 5030, 5085, 5120, 5167, 5199, 5356,
5448, 5449, 5554, 5555, 5557, 5776, 5777, 5874, 5875, 5876, 5878,
6082, 6156, 6167, 6298 Yarin v. VWGoA, No. 3:16-cv-5756-CRB Dkt.
Nos. 23, 24, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45,
46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62
MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC).  (N.D. Cal.)

Since opting out of the 2.0-liter class settlement, pro se
plaintiff Oleg Yarin has regularly filed motions with this Court.
While the motions have varied in content and request, broadly he
seeks to move forward with litigating his case against Volkswagen,
and he is frustrated that to date he has not been able to obtain
discovery or otherwise pursue his claims.

The Court held a case management conference to address the
remaining opt-out cases. Afterward the Court issued Pretrial Order
No. 24, which instructs opt-out plaintiffs to complete a Plaintiff
Fact Sheet (PFS), and to mail or email the PFS and supporting
documents to Volkswagen's counsel. If Mr. Yarin wishes to continue
to pursue his claims against Volkswagen, he must comply with
Pretrial Order No. 24, which the Court will mail to him along with
this Order.

To the extent that Mr. Yarin's motions are inconsistent with
Pretrial Order No. 24, they are DENIED.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 16, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y6nsw4wc from Leagle.com.

Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey --
rob@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice,
Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com --
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart --
astewart@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G. Shapiro
-- tshapiro@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.
Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro ,
Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.
Nicholas Allen, Daniel Carroll, Giancarlo Ceci, Dominic Troffer,
Paul Linnee, Sarah Hayden, Dario Medina, Shanice Boyette, Isaac
Hoover, John Mazur & Forrest Tinsler, Plaintiffs, represented by
Caleb Marker -- caleb.marker@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed LLP,
pro hac vice & Charles S. Zimmerman --
Charles.Zimmerman@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, pro hac
vice.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague --
avague@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin & White, Casey Erin
Lucier -clucier@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J.
Baker, III -- cbaker@wcsr.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice,
Colin Hampton Tucker , Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Two
West Second Street, 10th Floor, Tulsa, OK 74103, Dana Woodrum Lang
-- dana.lang@wbd−us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice,
David M. Eisenberg -- eisenberg@bscr-law.com -- Baker, Sterchi,
Cowden & Rice, LLC, Henry Buist Smythe, Jr.  -- hsmythe@wcsr.com --
Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller --
hfeller@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, William R. Scherer ,
Conrad and Scherer, LLP, 633 South Federal Highway Fort Lauderdale,
FL 33301, J. Randolph Bibb, Jr. -- rbibb@lewisthomason.com --
Lewis, Thomason, King, Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., James K. Toohey --
tooheyj@jbltd.com -- Johns & Bell LTD, Jeffrey Lance Chase , Chase
Kurshan Herzfeld & Rufin LLC, 354 Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 1100,
Livingston, NJ 07039


MDL 2741: Adams v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
KENDALL M. ADAMS, and SHEILA ADAMS, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00158 (Filed April 5,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco) on May 1, 2019. The Northern
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02315-VC to the proceeding.

The suit 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. Kendall M.
Adams' 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.

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jennifer A. Moore, Esq.
          Ashton Rose Smith, Esq.
          MOORE LAW GROUP, PLLC
          1473 South 4 th Street
          Louisville, KY 40208
          Telephone: (502) 717-4080
          Facsimile: (502) 717-4086
          E-mail: jennifer@moorelawgroup.com
                  ashton@moorelawgroup.com

MDL 2741: Cossentino v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCIS J. COSSENTINO, and DIANA LYNN COSSENTINO, the Plaintiffs,
v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00210 (Filed
March 19, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (San Francisco) on May 1, 2019. The
Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02384-VC to the proceeding.

The suit 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. Francis J.
Cossentino'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.

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Damon B. Willis, Esq.
          EWING & WILLIS
          6009 Brownsboro Park Blvd., Suite B
          Louisville, KY 40207
          Telephone: (502) 585-5800
          Facsimile: (502) 585-5858
          E-mail: damonwillislawyer@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Jennifer A. Moore, Esq.
          Ashton Rose Smith, Esq.
          MOORE LAW GROUP, PLLC
          1473 S. Fourth Street
          Louisville, KY 40208
          Telephone: (502) 717-4080
          Facsimile: (502) 717-4086
          E-mail: jennifer@moorelawgroup.com
                  ashton@moorelawgroup.com

MDL 2741: Lewis v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM E. LEWIS, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00160 (Filed April 8, 2019), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Kentucky, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (San Francisco) on May 1, 2019. The Northern District
of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02365-VC to the
proceeding.

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer A. Moore, Esq.
          Ashton Rose Smith, Esq.
          MOORE LAW GROUP, PLLC
          1473 South 4 th Street
          Louisville, KY 40208
          Telephone: (502) 717-4080
          Facsimile: (502) 717-4086
          E-mail: jennifer@moorelawgroup.com
                  ashton@moorelawgroup.com

MDL 2741: Pippis v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN C. PIPPI and AUGUSTINE PIPPI JR., the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00285 (Filed Feb. 22,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco) on May 1, 2019. The Northern
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02367-VC to the proceeding.

The suit 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. Susan C.
Pippi'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.

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

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

The 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

MDL 2741: Watterses v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
RANDALL E. WATTERS and LISA WATTERS, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00297 (Filed Feb. 22,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco) on May 1, 2019. The Northern
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02376-VC to the proceeding.

The suit 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. Randall E.
Watters' 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.

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

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

The 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

MDL 2741: Wilkening v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
RONALD D. WILKENING and MELVA J. WILKENING, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00298 (Filed Feb.
22, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (San Francisco) on May 1, 2019. The
Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02377-VC to the proceeding.

The suit 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. Ronald D.
Wilkening'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.

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

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

The 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

MERIDIAN FINANCIAL: Hochstrasser Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Meridian Financial
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Matthew Hochstrasser,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Meridian Financial Services, Inc., John Does l-25,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-03034 (E.D. N.Y., May 21, 2019).

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

Meridian Financial Services, Inc. provides third party collection
services. The company offers credit reporting, skip tracing, custom
reporting, statement and remittance preparation, credit and
collection consulting, and loan servicing services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dov Michael Mittelman, Esq.
     Stein Saks, PLLC
     285 Passaic Street
     Hackensack, NJ 07601
     Phone: (201) 282-6500
     Email: mittelmandov@yahoo.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Nagy Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Chrstine A. Nagy
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-02997 (E.D. N.Y., May 21, 2019).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     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


MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Kennemer Sues Over TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
AVA KENNEMER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MOLINA HEALTHCARE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:19-cv-00744 (W.D. Wis., May 17, 2019) is a Class Action
Complaint for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available
legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of
Defendant, in negligently, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff
through telephone calls on Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, ("TCPA"),
thereby invading Plaintiff's  privacy.

TCPA strictly forbids nuisance phone calls exactly like those
alleged in this Complaint--intrusive phone calls to private
cellular phones, placed to numbers obtained without the prior
express consent of the recipients. The Defendant's violations
caused Plaintiff and members of the Class actual harm, including
aggravation, nuisance, and invasion of privacy that necessarily
accompanies the receipt of unsolicited phone calls, as well as the
violation of their statutory rights. Plaintiff and members of the
Class suffered a concrete injury in fact, whether tangible or
intangible, that is directly traceable to Defendant's conduct, and
is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision in this action,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a resident of
the State of Wisconsin.

Defendant Molina is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business located at 200 Oceangate, Suite 100, Long Beach,
California 90802.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     RONALD A. MARRON, ESQ.
     ALEXIS M. WOOD, ESQ.
     KAS L. GALLUCCI, ESQ.
     LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
     651 Arroyo Drive
     San Diego, CA 92103
     Phone: (619) 696-9006
     Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
     Email: ron@consumersadvocates.com
            alexis@consumersadvocates.com
            kas@consumersadvocates.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Clifton Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Clifton, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-01165-JAR (E.D. Mo., May 2, 2019), seeks to
recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

MOUNTAIN VIEW: Dixon Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON DIXON, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff, v. MOUNTAIN VIEW PIZZA COMPANY D/B/A
PAPA JOHN'S PIZZA, RICK MOHLER, AND ALLISON MOHLER, Defendants,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00037-BMM (D. Mont., May 20, 2019) is a collective
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and as a class
action under Montana's Wages and Wage Protection law ("Montana Wage
Law") and common law, to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime
hours owed to Plaintiff and similarly situated persons employed by
Defendants at their Papa John's Pizza stores.

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

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from approximately 2015 to
2017 as a delivery driver at Defendants' Papa John's Pizza stores.

Defendants operate numerous Papa John's Pizza franchise
stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John M. Fitzpatrick, Esq.
     TOWE & FITZPATRICK, PLLC
     619 SW Higgins, Ste O
     Missoula, MT 59806
     Phone: (406) 829-1669
     Fax: (406) 493-0538
     Email: jfitz@towefitzlaw.com

          - and -

     Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Esq.
     BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
     223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200
     Nashville, TN 37203
     Phone: 615/254-8801
     Facsimile: 615/255-5419
     Email: joeyl@bsjfirm.com


MOWI ASA: Cape Florida Sues Over Salmon Price-Fixing
----------------------------------------------------
Cape Florida Seafood, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Mowi ASA (f/k/a Marine Harvest ASA), Mowi
USA, LLC (f/k/a Marine Harvest USA, LLC), Mowi Ducktrap, LLC (f/k/a
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., Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-22002-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 17, 2019) is an action under
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and Section 16 of the Clayton Act, on
behalf of Plaintiff and all other similarly situated persons to
halt Defendants' anticompetitive practices and to obtain
compensation for its payment of artificially inflated prices.

According to the European Commission ("EC"), which has an open and
active investigation into Defendants' conduct, Defendants
facilitated their conspiracy by: (1) coordinating sales prices and
exchanging commercially sensitive information; (2) agreeing to
purchase production from other competitors when these other
competitors offered lower prices; and (3) applying a coordinated
strategy to fix, stabilize, maintain, and/or increase spot prices
of farm-raised Atlantic salmon in order to secure higher price
levels for long-term contracts. This conduct led to recent
unannounced inspections, which the EC carries out as a preliminary
step into suspected anticompetitive practices, at the premises of
several Defendants in February 2019.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations also
took note of the skyrocketing prices in the farm-raised salmon
sector, observing that the "severely elevated prices" and "growth
in export revenue for the Norwegian farmed Atlantic salmon industry
over the last three years has been truly remarkable." Since 2015,
the farm-raised salmon industry saw prices double and surge to
record levels, even as the fish feed cost—which represents more
than half of fish farmers' production costs—has decreased due to
the use of alternative raw materials.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' long-standing
conspiracy reflected a culture of increasing profits at the expense
of Plaintiff and other Class members. Defendants could not have
unilaterally demanded price increases for farm-raised salmon in
recent years; they needed to conspire and agree to do so in a
coordinated fashion. But for Defendants' anticompetitive conduct,
from at least as early as July 1, 2015, Plaintiff and Class members
would have been able to purchase farm-raised salmon at
significantly lower prices than Defendants charged. The injury to
Plaintiff and the Class is significant and ongoing, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Cape Florida Seafood is a Florida corporation that
specializes in the distribution of fresh and frozen seafood to
restaurants and other fine establishments locally, nationally, and
internationally.

Mowi ASA, both directly and/or through its subsidiaries, produces,
processes, and sells farm-raised salmon internationally, with large
operations in countries including Norway, Scotland, and
Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Peter Prieto, Esq.
     John Gravante, Esq.
     Matthew P. Weinshall, Esq.
     Alissa Del Riego, Esq.
     PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
     SunTrust International Center
     One S.E. 3rd Ave, Suite 2300
     Miami, FL 33131
     Phone: (305) 358-2800/Fax: (305) 358-2382
     Email: pprieto@podhurst.com
            jgravante@podhurst.com
            mweinshall@podhurst.com
            adelriego@podhurst.com

          - and -

     Kimberly A. Justice, Esq.
     Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC
     923 Fayette Street
     Conshohocken, PA 19428
     Phone: (610) 234-6487
     Fax: (224) 632-4521
     Email: kjustice@fklmlaw.com

          - and -

     Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
     Douglas A. Millen, Esq.
     Brian M. Hogan, Esq.
     Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC
     2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
     Bannockburn, IL 60015
     Phone: (224) 632-4500
     Fax: (224) 632-4521
     Email: skanner@fklmlaw.com
            dmillen@fklmlaw.com
            bhogan@fklmlaw.com


MY CHOICE: Court Dismisses State Law Claims in Paczkowski FLSA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KATY PACZKOWSKI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MY CHOICE FAMILY CARE,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-759-slc (W.D. Wis.), Magistrate
Judge Stephen L. Crocker of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin granted My Choice's motion for dismissal of
the Plaintiff's state law claim.

Defendant My Choice is a private "managed care organization" that
provides various healthcare and related services to adults and
seniors with disabilities.  It provides this care through its Care
Managers, such as the Plaintiff, who provide ongoing, day-to-day
case management services for its members.  Since its inception in
2016, My Choice has been approved by the IRS as a 501(c)(3)
nonprofit organization.

Plaintiff Paczkowski brings the action on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated employees, as a collective and class
action against her former employer, My Choice, for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, and Wisconsin wage and hour laws.
Paczkowski is a former Care Manager at My Choice, a non-profit
managed care organization.  In the suit, Paczkowski contends that
My Choice violated the FLSA and Wisconsin law by failing to pay
overtime compensation to her and other Care Managers.

Before the Court is My Choice's motion to dismiss Paczkowski's
state law claim on the ground that My Choice is a nonprofit
organization to which Wisconsin's overtime regulation does not
apply.  Paczkowski does not dispute My Choice's nonprofit status
but disagrees with its contention that nonprofits generally are not
covered by Wisconsin's overtime regulation.  

Magistrate Judge Crocker finds that Wisconsin's Department of
Workforce Development ("DWD")'s Wis. Admin. Code Section 274's
definition of "commercial" is ambiguous.  He opines that the rule,
as written, does not appear to apply to My Choice, but at the
dismissal stage, the Plaintiff is entitled to the most charitable
characterization of DWD's definition of "commercial": it is
ambiguous.

In addition, the Magistrate finds that DWD's interpretation of its
own regulation as not applying to nonprofits except in certain
circumstances is consistent with the regulatory language and the
ordinary understanding of the term "commercial."  Given that DWD
was granted wide-ranging authority to develop Wisconsin's overtime
law, and that it drafted the regulation at issue pursuant to that
authority, it is appropriate to defer to that interpretation.
Accordingly, he concludes that My Choice, as a nonprofit managed
care organization, is not subject to Wisconsin's overtime law.

Because Magistrate Judge Crocker agrees that the terms of the
regulation do not apply to My Choice, he granted My Choice's motion
for dismissal of the Plaintiff's state law claim.  The Plaintiff
has 30 days from the date of the Order in which to file an amended
complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 24, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/Evx3mG from Leagle.com.

Katy Paczkowski, Plaintiff, represented by Larry A. Johnson --
ljohnson@hq-law.com -- Hawks Quindel, S.C., Summer Hart Murshid --
smurshid@hq-law.com -- Hawks Quindel Ehlke & Perry, S.C. & Timothy
Peter Maynard -- tmaynard@hq-law.com.

My Choice Family Care, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alexander M.
DeGuire -- amdeguire@michaelbest.com -- Michael Best & Friedrich,
LLP, Mitchell Wayne Quick -- mwquick@michaelbest.com -- Michael
Best & Friedrich LLP & Paul E. Benson -- pebenson@michaelbest.com
-- Michael Best & Friedrich.


NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: Munson Sues Over FDCPA Breach
--------------------------------------------------
James Munson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. National Enterprise Systems, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03003-ILG-RER (E.D. N.Y., May 21, 2019)
seeks to recover for violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA").

The Defendant contacted Plaintiff by letter dated June 3, 2018, to
collect an alleged debt. However, the Letter provides various
settlement options and multiple addresses. The Letter fails to
state whether the payment must be mailed to the first address or
the second or third address, rendering the letter open to more than
one reasonable interpretation, in violation of the FDCPA, says the
complaint.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATIONAL PLAN: Long Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------
ANDERA LONG, JERMARIO GORDON, on behalf of themselves, and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL PLAN ADVISORS,
INC., a/k/a AMERICAN HEALTH REFORM SOLUTIONS, LLC, a/k/a SYNERGY
MARKETING ASSOCIATES, INC., a/k/a FLORIDA PLAN ADVISORS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-61250-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 17, 2019) is
an action brought to recover unpaid compensation, in the form of
overtime compensation, owed to the Plaintiffs and all employees and
former employees of Defendant who are similarly situated, pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

Whether styled or considered employee or independent contractor by
Defendant, Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated insurance
agents were, in reality, employees, and who were never paid any
overtime and/or were not paid overtime at time-and-a-half for all
hours worked in a given work-week in excess of 40 hours;
particularly during enrollment periods when insurance agents would
work well in excess of 50 hours per week, asserts the complaint.
Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees who elect to
participate in this action seek unpaid overtime compensation, an
equal amount of liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs,
pursuant to the FLSA.

Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant in the position of "insurance
agent" at its Fort Lauderdale, Florida locations.

Defendant sells and markets health insurance plans, through its
insurance agents and insurance agents like Plaintiffs, to
insureds/customers and prospective insureds/customers in Florida as
well as all or most of the other U.S. States, including Georgia,
Alabama, Texas, and Oklahoma.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John P. Salas, Esq.
     Michael G. Green II, Esq.
     SALAS LAW FIRM, P.A.
     8551 West Sunrise Boulevard, Suite 300
     Plantation, FL 33322
     Office: (954) 315-1155
     Fax: (954) 452 -3311
     Email: jp@jpsalaslaw.com
            michael@jpsalaw.com


NEVELL GROUP: Cal. App. Affirms Arbitration Denial in Nunez Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the appeals case captioned XAVIER NUNEZ, Plaintiff and
Respondent, v. NEVELL GROUP, INC., Defendant and Appellant, No.
G056585 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California, Fourth
District, Division Three, affirmed the trial court's denial of
Nevell Group, Inc.'s motion to compel arbitration of the claims
filed against it by former employee Xavier Nunez.

Nevell and the union to which Nunez belonged were parties to a
collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that provided for arbitration
of alleged violations of the relevant wage order. The trial court
denied the motion based on Nevell's waiver of its right to compel
arbitration, Nevell's delay in filing its motion, and the prejudice
Nunez would suffer if the motion were to be granted.

Nevell explicitly waived any right to compel arbitration by
advising the trial court in writing that it would not file a motion
to compel.  Nevell also impliedly waived arbitration by permitting
two court-ordered deadlines, by which it was to have filed a motion
to compel, to pass, and by engaging in significant discovery and
other litigation activities inconsistent with the right to
arbitration.  Nevell argues that he could not have filed a motion
to compel arbitration before the Court of Appeal issued its opinion
in Cortez v. Doty Bros. Equipment Co. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 1
(Cortez).  The California Appeals Court rejects that argument
because Cortez does not reflect a change in the law.

Nunez would suffer prejudice if Nevell's motion to compel
arbitration were granted at this point because Nevell's delay in
seeking to compel arbitration unnecessarily extended the time the
case was pending and caused Nunez to expend resources on litigation
activities inconsistent with arbitration, such as class-based
discovery, the preparation of a demand package based on a class
action, and preparing and serving notice to the putative class
members.  Nevell delayed the filing of its motion to compel
arbitration for more than three years after the complaint was
filed, and more than eight months after the Cortez case was filed.

A full-text copy of the Opinion is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yyvekhd9 from Leagle.com.

Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo, Scott K. Dauscher and Amber
S. Healy for Defendant and Appellant.

James Hawkins APLC, James Hawkins, Christina Lucio ; Capstone Law,
Ryan H. Wu, John E. Stobart and Bevin Allen Pike for Plaintiff and
Respondent.


NEW MEXICO: Magistrate Suggests Setting Aside Default Judgment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jerry H. Ritter of the United States District
Court for the District of New Mexico recommends that the
Defendant's Motion to Set Aside entry of default in the case
captioned SANDY TRAINER, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEW MEXICO CORRECTIONS
DEPARTMENT, Defendant, No. CV18-0908 MV/JHR (D.N.M.) be granted.

Sandy Trainer initiated this action against the State of New Mexico
Corrections Department via a Class Action Complaint filed September
26, 2018.  Ms. Trainer alleges that she and other similarly
situated women were discriminated against on the basis of their sex
by being misclassified as independent contractors.  Ms. Trainer
alleges that her male counterparts transitioned from contractor
status to full employee status while she and other similarly
situated women "were kept at contractor status on account of their
sex."  Ms. Trainer also alleges that she was "retaliated against
for her report of a September 2015 assault by Andy Ray. . . . [by]
being blacklisted from moving from contractor status to employee
status."  On the basis of these facts, Ms. Trainer brings claims
under Title VII and the New Mexico Human Rights Act.

The Magistrate held that the Department's allegations concerning
the presence of a meritorious defense leave much to be desired.
However, every other pertinent factor counsels in favor or setting
aside the default in this case.

A full-text copy of the Proposed Findings and and Recommended
Disposition is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxdjj4ms from
Leagle.com.

Sandy Trainer, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Spratley, Genus Law
Group & Andrew Berne Indahl, Altura Law Firm.

New Mexico Department of Corrections, Defendant, represented by
Deborah D. Wells, Kennedy, Moulton & Wells PC & Debra J. Moulton,
Kennedy, Moulton & Wells PC.


NORTH BERGEN, NJ: Faces Class Action Over Proposed Power Plant
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Montemarano, writing for Hudson Reporter, reports that with
the May 14 municipal election just around the corner, North Bergen
mayoral candidate Larry Wainstein has filed a class action lawsuit
seeking to halt to the proposed North Bergen Liberty Generating
(NBLG) power plant.

This suit is the first legal action taken against the project since
it was first announced over a year ago.

In a seven-page complaint which names Gov. Phil Murphy, Mayor
Nicholas Sacco, and North Bergen Township as defendants, Wainstein
charged that the $1.8 billion generating facility, scheduled for
construction in 2022, allegedly violates residents' civil rights,
based on Murphy's Executive Order No. 23.

"It is clear that the people of North Bergen are being
discriminated," Wainstein said. "They want to build this power
plant in a community comprised of 80 percent Hispanics, like
myself. If this plant isn't good enough for Governor Murphy's home
town, it's not good enough for North Bergen."

When asked about why he filed the suit a few weeks before the
election, almost a full year after the project was announced,
Wainstein said electoral politics gave him a stronger voice.

"I don't want this power plant in North Bergen," Wainstein said.
"The people don't want this power plant. We have one of the most
densely populated communities in New Jersey, it's no place for a
power plant."

North Bergen officials have said that any potential for negative
impacts on local air and health quality are a top priority being
considered as agreements are actively met. Phil Swibinski, a
spokesman for Sacco's re-election campaign, accused Wainstein of
being dishonest.

"Larry Wainstein is lying about this project and trying to scare
voters," Swibinski said. "It's the same disgraceful tactic he used
on the immigration issue and he wound up being publicly condemned
by the most prominent organization of Latino pastors in the
state."

Swibinski dubbed the suit a political stunt that "voters aren't
going to buy," and that Wainstein's rhetoric was misleading given
the lengthy approvals process the plant must go through to meet the
state DEP's safety standards.

"This is just more proof that Wainstein can never be trusted and he
will tell any lie in order to trick North Bergen residents into
supporting an out of town, multimillionaire like him who lives in a
$3 million mansion in Franklin Lakes," Swibinski said.

Executive Order 23

In the executive order Wainstein cited, Murphy said that
'environmental justice' includes "ensuring that residents of all
communities receive fair and equitable treatment in decision-making
that affects their environment, communities, homes, and health."

"Historically, New Jersey's low-income communities and communities
of color have been exposed to disproportionately high and
unacceptably dangerous levels of air, water, and soil pollution,
with the accompanying potential for increased public health
impacts," Murphy said in the executive order.

The executive order called on the state Department of Environmental
Protection to establish guidelines for considering environmental
equity for lower-income, non-white communities, in decisions that
could affect air, water, and soil quality.

Murphy hasn't personally opined on the project itself, but
emphasized that NBLG is going through standard approval and safety
procedures, and that he would "call balls and strikes" as he sees
them.

Mario Blanch, Wainstein's attorney, filed the suit in Mercer County
Superior Court on April 15.

"Governor Murphy has already said that minority communities are
subject to discrimination when it comes to environmental concerns,"
Blanch said. "He said that in his own words, in Executive Order 23.
We suffer more contamination and more environmental problems than
other communities, yet we have a power plant being built right here
in North Bergen, a Hispanic community."

Health is utmost concern

The American Lung Association, gave Hudson County an "F" rating, in
its annual evaluation of ground level ozone content.

However, the state DEP determined that most ground-level ozone in
the state is a result of a chemical reaction between nitrogen
compounds from car exhaust, and volatile organic compounds from a
wide array of industrial and electric facilities.

According to the federal Environmental Protection Agency, long-term
exposure to ground level ozone can have negative effects on
respiratory function, and aggravate a number of illnesses including
asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis.

According to Swibinski, speaking for Sacco's incumbent campaign,
the health of North Bergen residents is a top priority to elected
officials. They maintain that the project will only be green-lit if
it is proven safe through rigorous permitting.

"The project will only get approved and ultimately built if it is
declared completely safe and green-lit by the state Department of
Environmental Protection," Swibinski said. "North Bergen has no
regulatory role in the process, but we would never allow residents
to face any kind of dangerous situation and would do everything in
our power to stop the project if it was determined to be unsafe.
Thankfully, state environmental regulations make that possibility
extremely unlikely."

Wainstein lambasted a 30-year PILOT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) plan
that is still being negotiated between the township and NBLG,
dubbing it a "tax abatement."

While it is true that NBLG would not be paying standard property
taxes, the reason township officials are negotiating a PILOT plan
is to have NBLG pay a greater amount than what the town would
accrue through property taxes, according to Swibinski.

"If the plant is approved by all standards put in place, it will be
a major infusion to keep a stable tax base," Swibinski has
previously told The Hudson Reporter. [GN]


NOVA SOUTHEASTERN: Class Action Over Sterilization Breach Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Raychel Lean, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that
Broward Circuit Judge Nicholas Lopane gave the green light to a
class-action lawsuit that alleges Nova Southeastern University's
post-graduate orthodontic clinic risked patients contracting blood
borne diseases, like HIV and hepatitis B and C, by failing to
properly sterilize equipment.

Davie resident TIffany Aguero, the mother of one patient, sued for
negligence in December 2018 after she and about 1,100 others
received a letter from NSU saying that they or their children might
have been affected by a breach in protocol at one clinic.

"We discovered there was an inconsistency in the prescribed
sterilization protocols," the letter said. "Our records indicate
that you were one of the patients who may have been exposed to this
deviation in protocol."

Fort Lauderdale lawyer Jay Cohen of Cohen, Blostein & Ayala
represents Anguero and more than 25 others who got the letter, and
who he says suffered the emotional distress of wondering if they
had contracted a disease.

So far, none of Cohen's clients -- most of whom are children --
have tested positive for a disease. But in his view, the breach is
unacceptable.

"When a parent gets this letter and is advised that their child may
have contracted such a horrible virus, it was devastating to them,"
Cohen said. "Most of them when I met with them were still
exhibiting the anxiety and distress over what this could have meant
to their children."

According to Cohen, many of his clients are worried about future
medical and dental visits.

NSU and its lawyer, Evan Marowitz -- Evan.Marowitz@csklegal.com
-- of Cole, Scott & Kissane in Fort Lauderdale, declined to comment
on the case. But the university had moved to dismiss, arguing that
the negligence case should have instead been brought under the
medical malpractice umbrella.

"The plaintiff notably does not call the claims what they are under
Florida law -- claims for dental malpractice," NSU's motion said.

According to Cohen, if the defense had succeeded, the plaintiffs
would have faced a higher bar and their damages would have been
capped.

Properly sterilizing equipment requires an autoclave -- a strong
heated container used to hold chemical reactions, high pressure and
soaring temperatures -- which can sterilize objects with steam.
Without that process, patients risk being introduced to deadly
viruses lingering on equipment.

Cohen alleges that some of the students and graduate dentists,
hygienists and orthodontists were instead disinfecting equipment
that had potentially contacted saliva, gums and blood -- a
violation of basic procedure.

"When you go into an operation in an operating room, they're not
wiping down the equipment being used on the next patient," Cohen
said. "They have new equipment that completely meets all the
standards for sterilization before use."

Cohen said he suspects the students and graduates might have been
spread too thin, lacking the proper equipment to ensure proper
sterilization procedures while rushing to meet patient demand and
pressure from management.

The lawsuit also displays an internal letter from NSU to students,
saying that "students are having difficulty sterilizing their
handpieces when they run late during the morning clinic session."
The letter goes on to tell students they'll be required to buy a
second handpiece for $650 to use while their first is being
sterilized, and a $100 bur block for storing equipment.

Now that Cohen has the go-ahead, he said he'll investigate how long
NSU waited before sending the letters, how it has dealt with
inspections and recommendations for sterilization and other
procedures, and whether the breach was limited to the orthodontic
clinic -- one of several clinics NSU operates.

Cohen handled a similar class action against Broward General
Medical Center, alleging that a nurse in a cardiac stress lab had
reused single-use equipment. That litigation settled for $14
million, so Cohen aims to seek a similar amount in damages in this
case. [GN]


NVIDIA CORP: Ohman Fonder Named Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Iron Workers Local 580 Joint Funds filed on December 21,
2018, the first of two securities class action lawsuits bringing
claims individually and on behalf of others who acquired common
stock of NVIDIA Corporation during the period between August 10,
2017 and November 15, 2018, and consequently suffered damages.  The
complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) & 78t,
and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.  The complaint names
as Defendants NVIDIA; its President and Chief Executive Officer,
Jensen Huang; and its Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer, Collette Kress.

Seven competing motions for appointment as lead plaintiff and
approval of lead counsel were filed:

   (1) a motion filed by Henry Keller, Dennis Horanic, and Jack
Cravens ("Keller Group"), seeking appointment as lead plaintiffs
and approval of Gainey McKenna & Egleston as lead counsel and
Tostrud Law Group, P.C. as liaison counsel;

   (2) a motion filed by Meitav Dash Provident Funds and Pension
Ltd. ("Meitav"), seeking appointment as lead plaintiff and approval
of Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel;

   (3) a motion filed by Shelly Weiss ("Weiss"), seeking
appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of Labaton Sucharow LLP
as lead counsel and Wagstaffe, Von Loewenfeldt, Busch & Radwick,
LLP as liaison counsel;

   (4) a motion filed by Dr. Julius Myron Rosen ("Rosen"), seeking
appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of Kahn Swick & Foti,
LLC as lead counsel;

   (5) a motion filed by Dineshkumar Patel, Cheyrisse Boone, Robert
Boone, Daniel Morel, and Paul Chun ("NVDA Group"), seeking
appointment as lead plaintiffs and approval of Bragar Eagel &
Squire, P.C. and Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as co-lead counsel;

   (6) a motion filed by the Oakland County Employees' Retirement
System, Oakland County Voluntary Employees' Benefit Association
Trust, and Oakland County Employees' Retirement System Trust
("Oakland County Funds"), seeking appointment as lead plaintiffs
and approval of The Miller Law Firm, P.C. as lead counsel and
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP as liaison counsel; and

   (7) a motion filed by E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB ("Ohman Fonder")
and Stichting Pensioenfonds PGB ("PGB"), seeking appointment as
lead plaintiffs and approval of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
("Kessler Topaz") and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
("Bernstein Litowitz") as lead counsel.

Subsequently, six of the seven movants either withdrew their
motions and/or filed notices of non-opposition to Ohman Fonder and
PGB's motion.  On March 5, 2019, Ohman Fonder and PGB filed a brief
in further support of their initial motion, which represents that
they are unopposed and thus presumptive lead plaintiffs.

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California grants Ohman Fonder and
PGB's motion and denies all unwithdrawn motions.  Here, Ohman
Fonder and PGB timely filed their motion to be appointed lead
plaintiffs on February 19, 2019, thereby satisfying subsection
(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(aa) of the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act ("PSLRA").  Moreover, they suffered alleged losses totaling
$10,941,546, as a result of their transactions in NVIDIA securities
during the Class Period.

The Court finds that "typicality" is satisfied because the claims
and defenses of Ohman Fonder and PGB are "typical of the claims and
defenses of the class."  In addition, Ohman Fonder and PGB's motion
represents that no antagonism exists between Ohman Fonder and PGB's
interests and those of other class members.

The case is In re NVIDIA CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case
No. 18-cv-07669-HSG (N.D. Calif.).

A full-text copy of the Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y67nmhl9 from Leagle.com.

Iron Workers Local 580 Joint Funds, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan
Daniel Uslaner, Esq. -- jonathanu@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz
et al.

Michael Oto, Consol Plaintiff, represented by J. Alexander Hood,
II, Esq. -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Jennifer Pafiti,
Esq. -- jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy A. Lieberman,
Esq. -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice.

NVIDIA Corporation, Jensen Huang & Colette Kress, Defendants,
represented by John C. Dwyer, Esq. -- dwyerjc@cooley.com -- Cooley
LLP, Brett Hom De Jarnette, Esq. -- bdejarnette@cooley.com --
Cooley LLP, Claire Andrea McCormack, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and
Flom LLP, Emily Brooke Harrington, Esq. -- eharrington@cooley.com
-- Cooley LLP & Patrick Edward Gibbs, Esq. -- pgibbs@cooley.com --
Cooley LLP.

Oakland County Employees' Retirement System, Oakland County
Voluntary Employees' Benefit Association Trust & Oakland County
Employees' Retirement System Trust, Defendants, represented by Adam
J. Zapala, Esq. -- azapala@cpmlegal.com -- Cotchett Pitre &
McCarthy LLP.

Henry Keller, Dennis Horanic & Jack Cravens, Movants, represented
by Jon A. Tostrud, Esq. -- jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com -- Tostrud Law
Group, P.C.

Meitav Dash Provident Funds and Pension Ltd., Movant, represented
by Jennifer Pafiti, Pomerantz LLP.

Shelly Weiss, Movant, represented by Christopher J. Keller, Esq. --
ckeller@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, Eric J.
Belfi, Esq. -- ebelfi@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP,
pro hac vice, Francis P. McConville, Esq. --
fmcconville@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice &
James Matthew Wagstaffe, Esq. -- wagstaffe@wvbrlaw.com --
Wagstaffe, von Loewenfeldt, Busch & Radwick LLP.

Julius Myron Rosen, Movant, represented by Ramzi Abadou, Esq. --
ramzi.abadou@ksfcounsel.com -- Kahn Swick Foti LLP.

NVDA Investor Group, Movant, represented by Melissa Ann Fortunato,
Esq. -- fortunato@bespc.com -- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB, Movant, represented by Darren J. Check,
Esq. -- dcheck@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro
hac vice, Jennifer Lauren Joost, Esq. -- jjoost@ktmc.com -- Kessler
Topaz Meltzer and Check LLP, John Christopher Browne, Esq. --
johnb@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger Grossman LLP, pro
hac vice, Michael D. Blatchley, Esq. -- michaelb@blbglaw.com --
Bernstein Litowitz Berger Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Naumon A.
Amjed, Esq. -- namjed@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check, LLP,
pro hac vice & Ryan Thomas Degnan, Esq. -- rdegnan@ktmc.com --
Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check, LLP, pro hac vice.

Stichting Pensioenfonds PGB, Movant, represented by Darren J.
Check, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Jennifer Lauren Joost,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check LLP, John Christopher Browne,
Bernstein Litowitz Berger Grossman LLP, Jonathan Daniel Uslaner,
Bernstein Litowitz et al, Michael D. Blatchley, Bernstein Litowitz
Berger Grossmann LLP, Naumon A. Amjed, Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check,
LLP & Ryan Thomas Degnan, Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check, LLP.


OREGON: Court Narrows Claims in Torres Sexual Assault Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TERESA TORRES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DR. ROBERT W.
SNIDER, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00624-SI (D. Or.),
Judge Michael H. Simon of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Oregon granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment and Motion to Strike.

Plaintiffs Torres, Aracely Hernandez, and Gloria Seleen, have
brought an action against Dr. Snider, Dr. S. Shelton, and D. Brown,
alleging that while the Plaintiffs were incarcerated at Coffee
Creek Corrections Facility they were each sexually assaulted by Dr.
Snider during mandatory gynecological exams and other medical
procedures.  They have filed the putative "class action" complaint
bringing one federal claim and two state common law tort claims
against the Defendants.  Although they titled their Complaint as a
"class action," the Plaintiffs never filed a motion for class
certification, which was due on Feb. 1, 2018.  The Defendants
assert that the case should therefore not be considered a class
action, which the Plaintiffs do not contest in any of their
responsive pleadings.  Accordingly, the Court will not treat the
case as a class action.

In their Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege (1) federal 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 claims for violations of the Eighth Amendment's
prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, (2) state tort
claims for medical negligence, and (3) state tort claims for sexual
battery.  

Plaintiff Seleen alleges that Dr. Snider saw her on Sept. 1, 2016
for an OB/GYN health issue.  She alleges that Dr. Snider exposed
her vagina and touched her leg in an erotic and caressing fashion
near her vagina, instructed her to disrobe in front of him and gave
no privacy as he watched her expose herself and then retrieve a
device from her cervix.

Plaintiff Torres alleges that since February 2016, Dr. Snider saw
her for six to twelve visits for "non-intimate" conditions such as
anemia and asthma.  She alleges that Dr. Snider sexually assaulted
her with intimate contact, including massaging her shoulders, the
area around her breasts, and "down to her buttocks" during these
visits.  She also alleges that she asked for a new provider and was
not permitted to have one.

Plaintiff Hernandez alleges that Dr. Snider visited her on Dec. 8,
2016 following her gallbladder surgery, asked the nurse to leave
the room, exposed her vagina and cesarean section scar, cupped her
breast under her bra, and pinched her nipple.

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Brown and Defendant Shelton
conspired to hinder or obstruct prosecution of Dr. Snider and/or
deprive inmates of safe care.  Plaintiff Torres was released from
prison before the filing of the complaint in the case; Plaintiff
Seleen is currently incarcerated but will be released before the
trial of the matter.  Plaintiff Hernandez is incarcerated and will
likely remain incarcerated beyond the time set for trial.

Before the Court is the Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment and Motion to Strike.  They have moved for partial summary
judgment on the following grounds: (1) Plaintiffs Hernandez and
Seleen failed to fully exhaust all of their available
administrative remedies before the Complaint was filed against the
Defendants; (2) the Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claims for monetary
damages against the named Defendants in their official capacities
are barred by the Eleventh Amendment; (3) the Plaintiffs' Section
1983 claims must be based on an individual's personal involvement
in depriving a constitutional right and cannot succeed under a
respondeat superior theory; (4) the Plaintiffs' failure to plead or
prove economic damages on state law claims; (5) the Plaintiffs'
lack of entitlement to non-economic damages on state law claims;
(6) Plaintiff Torres failed to file a timely tort claim notice for
all of her allegations in support of her state common law tort
claims; (7) the State of Oregon should be substituted in for the
individual-named Defendants on the state common law claims; (8)
after substituting in the State of Oregon, the Plaintiffs' state
common law tort claims should be dismissed pursuant to Eleventh
Amendment immunity; and (9) Defendants Brown and Shelton are
shielded from Section 1983 liability by the doctrine of qualified
immunity.

The Plaintiffs have conceded that suit against the Defendants in
their official capacities is barred under the Eleventh Amendment
and that Plaintiff Torres' tort claim notice was partially late,
and therefore Plaintiff Torres relinquishes state claims not filed
within the 180-day window (i.e., allegations occurring earlier than
July 21, 2016).  The Court therefore proceeds with the remaining
portions of the Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment
that the Plaintiffs do not concede.

Plaintiffs Hernandez and Seleen argue that they did not need to
exhaust their administrative remedies because they are raising
constitutional claims.  They cite to an Order the Court issued in
another case: Dillon, et al. v. Clackamas Co., et al.  That Order,
however, does not address the failure to exhaust administrative
remedies.  Judge Simon finds that Plaintiffs Seleen and Hernandez
have offered no argument for why the local remedies were
ineffective, unobtainable, unduly prolonged, inadequate, or
obviously futile nor any other argument for why the PLRA exhaustion
requirement does not apply.  The federal claims of Plaintiffs
Hernandez and Seleen are therefore dismissed.

The Judge next finds that the only factual assertions made in the
Plaintiffs' complaint regarding the actions of Defendants Brown or
Shelton are that Plaintiff Hernandez asked Brown for a new doctor
in December 2016, which Brown refused unless she had a documented
incident.  The Plaintiffs assert that this denial was months after
the OSP began investigating Snider for sexual abuse, and two years
after a report of abuse by two other inmates.  They also assert
that Shelton promoted Snider to Chief Medical Officer in 2015.  The
Complaint contains no other factual assertions about these two
Defendants.  Because the Plaintiffs have not alleged facts that
provide some basis for why Defendants Brown and Shelton were
personally involved in the alleged deprivation of the Plaintiffs'
constitutional rights, the Judge holds that Section 1983 claims
against Brown and Shelton are dismissed.  He therefore need not
reach the Defendants' alternative argument that Brown and Shelton
are entitled to qualified immunity from the Section 1983 claims.

The Defendants argue that pursuant to Rule 18 of the Oregon Rules
of Civil Procedure, economic damages must be specifically pleaded
in both nature and amount.  Because the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure governs the specificity required in pleading, the
Defendants' argument that Plaintiffs' Complaint does not plead
their economic damages with adequate specificity under the Oregon
Rules is without merit.  Accordingly, the notice pleading standard
under Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applies
to the Plaintiffs' allegations regarding economic damages.  The
Judge denied the Defendants' motion for summary judgment against
the state-law claims on this basis.

Finally, the Defendants argue that the State of Oregon should be
substituted for the individually named Defendants in the
Plaintiffs' state law claims.  They argue this is because pursuant
to the OTCA the sole cause of action for any tort of officers,
employees or agents of a public body acting within the scope of
their employment or duties will be an action against the public
body only.  The Defendants, however, have not met their burden in
establishing, nor have they even argued, the absence of a genuine
dispute of whether the Defendants' actions were within the scope of
their employment or duties.  It is therefore not clear whether the
conduct at issue in the case falls within the scope of Or. Rev.
Stat. Section 30.265(1) and thus whether the Plaintiffs must bring
an action only against the State of Oregon.  The Defendants make no
other arguments for why the state law claims against any of the
Defendants should be dismissed.

In light of the foregoing, Judge granted in part and denied in part
the Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Motion to
Strike consistent with his Order.  The claims remaining in the case
are Plaintiff Torres' Section 1983 claim against Defendant Snider
and all the Plaintiffs' state-law claims against all the Defendants
in their individual capacities.

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

Teresa Torres, Individually and On Behalf of a Class of Others
Similarly Situated Similarly Situated, Aracely Hernandez,
Individually and On Behalf of a Class of Others Similarly Situated
Similarly Situated & Gloria Seleen, Individually and On Behalf of a
Class of Others Similarly Situated Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Leonard Randolph Berman -- easyrabbi@yahoo.com --
Law Office of Leonard R. Berman.

Dr. Robert Snider, Personally, Dr. S. Shelton, Personally & D.
Brown, Personally, Defendants, represented by Jessica B. Spooner,
Department of Justice & Michael R. Washington, Oregon Department of
Justice.


PAPA MURPHYS: Faces Scarantino Suit Over Proposed Merger
--------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD SCARANTINO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PAPA MURPHY'S HOLDINGS, INC.;
ALEXANDER C. MATINA; BENJAMIN HOCHBERG; DAVID MOUNTS; JEAN M.
BIRCH; JOHN SHAFER; KATHERINE L. SCHERPING; NOAH A. ELBOGEN; ROB
WEISBERG; WELDON SPANGLER; YOON JIN KIM; MTY FRANCHISING USA, INC.;
and MTY COLUMBIA MERGER SUB, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00791-UNA (D. Del., April 30, 2019) is an action against
the Defendants regarding a proposed transaction announced on April
11, 2019, pursuant to which Papa Murphy's Holdings, Inc. will be
acquired by affiliates of MTY Food Group Inc., in violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, on April 25, 2019, the Defendants filed
a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed
Transaction. The Solicitation Statement omits material information
regarding the Company's financial projections and the analyses
performed by the Company's financial advisor in connection with the
Proposed Transaction, North Point Advisors LLC.

Papa Murphy's Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, owns,
operates, and franchises Take 'N' Bake pizza stores. he company was
founded in 1981 and is headquartered in Vancouver, Washington. As
of May 23, 2019, Papa Murphy's Holdings, Inc. operates as a
subsidiary of MTY Franchising USA, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas
          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


PROVIDENT TRUST: Ct. Dismisses Murray Investors Suit With Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NOEL C. MURRAY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PROVIDENT TRUST
GROUP, LLC, AND ASCENSUS, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-01382-MMD-GWF (D. Nev.), Judge Miranda M. Du of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada granted the Defendant
Provident's motion to dismiss all of the Plaintiffs' claims against
it under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Plaintiffs Murray and Swarna Perera seek to represent a class of
investors who lost substantial amounts of money they were saving
for retirement when they invested in the Woodbridge real-estate
Ponzi scheme through their self-directed individual retirement
accounts ("SDIRAs"), against Defendant Provident, who provided
custodial and administrative services for the Plaintiffs' SDIRAs.

The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of investors who invested
in the Woodbridge group of companies by moving retirement money
into SDIRAs for which Defendant was the custodian.  While some
other financial services companies declined to allow their
customers to hold Woodbridge Securities in their SDIRA accounts,
the Defendant did, and failed to take any steps to ascertain the
nature, assets underlying, or value of the Woodbridge Securities.
It turned out the Woodbridge Securities were part of a Ponzi scheme
orchestrated by Robert H. Shapiro.

The Defendant continued to accept Woodbridge Securities as
custodian from other customers that Woodbridge steered towards the
Defendant even after federal and state regulatory agencies had
concluded Shapiro was operating Woodbridge in a way that broke
various laws.  Despite the fact these investigations and related
charges were public, the Defendant did not notify any of its
customers who held Woodbridge Securities in their SDIRAs about
them.  At least one company similarly situated to the Defendant
did.  And while the Woodbridge Securities were valueless, the
Defendant continued to list their value at or near the price the
Plaintiffs paid for them in their periodic account statements.

Plaintiff Murray invested $54,148.84 in Woodbridge Securities held
in a SDIRA for which the Defendant was the custodian, and Plaintiff
Perera invested $600,000.  The Plaintiffs' relationship with the
Defendant is governed by a contract the Plaintiffs attached to, and
explicitly referred to in, their Complaint.

The Complaint asserts the following claims: (1) breach of contract
under state and federal law; (2) breach of fiduciary duty under
state and federal law; (3) negligence and gross negligence; and (4)
unjust enrichment.

The Defendant's Motion seeks dismissal of all four claims.  

While the Court sympathizes with the Plaintiffs regarding their
alleged substantial losses of retirement funds, Judge Du finds that
the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim against the Defendant
at this time.  Their breach of contract and breach of fiduciary
duty claims fail for the most part because their allegations are
directly contradicted by the terms of 2017 Contract upon which they
rely to establish them.  Their negligence claim is barred by the
economic loss doctrine.  The Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim
fails because they acknowledge the existence of the valid 2017
Contract.

The Judge further addresses the Defendant's Motion with respect to
each of the Plaintiffs' alleged causes of action.  First, the
Plaintiffs cite the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA") throughout their Complaint.  However, they do not allege
in their Complaint that the SDIRAs at issue were established or
maintained by an employer or employee organization.  Therefore,
ERISA does not apply.  To the extent the Plaintiffs are alleging an
ERISA claim, that claim is therefore dismissed for failure to state
a claim.

Second, the Plaintiffs attached the 2017 Contract to their
Complaint, which they allege governs their relationship with the
Defendant.  The Plaintiffs then attempted to submit and rely on
what they represent is an earlier version of that same contract in
their response to the Defendant's Motion.  However, the Plaintiffs
have not amended their Complaint, nor have they moved to amend
their Complaint.  Thus, the 2012 Contract is outside the scope of
the Plaintiffs' Complaint, which explicitly relies on, and
incorporates by reference, the 2017 Contract.  As such, the Judge
exclusively considers the 2017 Contract in ruling on the
Defendant's Motion.

The Judge notes that the parties made several arguments and cited
to several cases not discussed.  He has reviewed these arguments
and cases and determines they do not warrant discussion as they do
not affect the outcome of the Motion before the Court.

He therefore ordered that the Defendant's motion to dismiss is
granted.  The dismissal is with prejudice except as discussed.  The
Plaintiffs will be given leave to file an amended complaint to
assert a breach of contract claim as provided within 15 days.
Failure to file an amended complaint within this timeframe will
result in dismissal of the breach of contract claim with
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 23, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/U2E17w from Leagle.com.

Noel C. Murray & Swarna Perera, D., Plaintiffs, represented by
Christopher J. Gray, Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C., pro
hac vice, Joshua Kons -- Practic -- Law Offices of Joshua B. Kons,
LLC, pro hac vice, Michael James Giarrusso, Law Office of
Christopher J. Gray, P.C., pro hac vice & Martin L. Welsh, Law
Office of Hayes & Welsh.


SAS INSTITUTE: UIA's Bid to Quash Subpoena in Cahoo Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PATTI JO CAHOO, KRISTEN MENDYK, KHADIJA COLE, HYON
PAK, and MICHELLE DAVISON, Plaintiffs, v. SAS INSTITUTE INC., FAST
ENTERPRISES LLC, CSG GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS, STEPHEN GESKEY, SHEMIN
BLUNDELL, DORIS MITCHELL, DEBRA SINGLETON, JULIE A. McMURTRY, and
SHARON MOFFET-MASSEY, Defendants, Case No. 17-10657 (E.D. Mich.),
Judge David M. Lawosn of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, denied the motion by
non-party Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency ("UIA") to quash
the subpoena.

The Plaintiffs have alleged that the UIA, with the help of outside
contractors SAS Institute Inc., FAST, and CSG Government Solutions,
designed and implemented a flawed automated system that examined
unemployment compensation claims to detect fraud.  The system,
known as the Michigan Integrated Data Automated System ("MiDAS"),
searched for discrepancies in the records of unemployment
compensation recipients after coordinating collection procedures
with employers, other state agencies, and the federal government.


MiDAS's electronic "cross-checking" mechanism alerted the UIA when
income was reported for claimants or when some activity affected a
claimant's eligibility for benefits.  MiDAS, using an
"income-spreading" formula, would calculate a claimant's weekly
income based on an average of total income received over a quarter,
and then "spread" the income over each week in the quarter,
regardless of whether a claimant truthfully reported no income in
one or more weeks.  If the system identified a discrepancy between
an employer record and corresponding information in the claimant's
application, the claimant's file was flagged as a potential case of
misrepresentation.

The Plaintiffs have filed the putative class action against the
contractors who were involved in designing and implementing an
automated fraud detection system brought on line in 2012 by the
UIA.  They also have sued certain functionaries and decisionmakers
of the UIA in their individual capacities.  The Plaintiffs allege
that they were accused wrongfully of making fraudulent claims for
unemployment benefits, and then had their property confiscated by
the State with no notice, all by means of the automated system.

On Dec. 14, 2018, Defendant FAST Enterprises, LLC served on the
State of Michigan a subpoena seeking certain unemployment
compensation records relating to the five named Plaintiffs and six
other individual claimants identified in the Plaintiffs' initial
disclosures, all of whom suffered hardships from false robo-fraud
determinations by the UIA's automated system.  The documents sought
are defined as all Communications and Documents related to" those
individuals, including all Documents and Communications related to
their unemployment claims, adjudications, appeals, and
re-adjudications.  FAST also asked for all Communications and
Documents related to the Project that were transmitted to the
Auditor General.  The request covers the period from Jan. 1, 2012
through the date of response.

The UIA refused to produce the requested files and instead filed a
motion to quash the subpoena.  It contends that Michigan law
prohibits it from disclosing any individual's "confidential"
unemployment records to private third parties and none of the
exceptions to that prohibition apply.   It also argues that a
federal regulation compels the Agency to file a motion to quash to
avoid disclosure.

The parties argued the motion orally on Feb. 6, 2019, at which time
the Plaintiffs' counsel agreed that none of his clients have
asserted or intended to assert a privilege over these records for
purposes of the case and would consent to disclosure.  The Court
allowed the parties and the UIA to file supplemental briefs, which
have been received.

Judge Lawson finds no merit in the UIA's arguments.  The
information sought falls squarely within the permissible scope of
discovery defined by Rule 26(b)(1).  The Plaintiffs and other
claimants contend that they were wrongfully accused of fraud by the
State's MiDAS system, and they suffered significant economic loss
and other hardship as a result.  Information critical to those
claims likely will be found in their respective UC files.  The
impact of the MiDAS system's functioning and operation -- the
triggers, notices, responses, and robo-adjudication -- all have a
direct bearing on the Plaintiffs' claims and FAST's defenses.  The
information is discoverable and ought to be produced.

The cost of production is essentially a taxpayer expense, and the
federal regulations contemplate at least some measure of cost
sharing. So does Rule 45.  But until a firm estimate of the cost of
producing the material in a usable format is presented, the Judge
will not allocate the specific expenses of production.  Those
expenses will be shared by all the parties in the case, including
the State Defendants. And the absence of a firm estimate will not
delay production of the documents that have been subpoenaed.

Judge Lawson concludes that there is no privilege that excused the
UIA from responding to the subpoena.  The costs of compliance will
be allocated among all the parties, once the costs of production
can be reliably determined.  Accordingly, he denied the motion by
non-party UIA to quash the subpoena.

The representatives of the UIA, FAST, and other parties in the case
wishing to furnish input, promptly must meet and confer in person
to resolve outstanding questions about the mode of production.  The
UIA also promptly must identify the costs of producing the
documents in the mode agreed upon.  The production must occur no
later than May 7, 2019, unless relief from the Court is obtained
upon proper motion.

The documents produced will be deemed "Confidential" under the
protective order previously issued, and further dissemination is
restricted as that Order provides.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 23, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/N27jrP from Leagle.com.

Patti Jo Cahoo, an individual, Kristen Mendyk, an Individual &
Khadija Cole, an Individual and on behalf of similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Anthony D. Paris -- tparis@sugarlaw.org
-- Maurice and Jane Sugar Law Center, John C. Philo --
jphilo@sugarlaw.org -- Sugar Law Center, Jonathan R. Marko --
jon@ernstmarkolaw.com -- Ernst & Marko Law, PLC, Tyler M. Joseph,
Marko Law PLC & Kevin S. Ernst .

Hyon Pak & Michelle Davison, Plaintiffs, represented by Donald H.
Slavik, Slavik Law Firm LLC, Jonathan R. Marko, Ernst & Marko Law,
PLC & Kevin S. Ernst .

Fast Enterprises LLC, Fast Enterprises LLC, Defendant, represented
by Claire E. Wells Hanson, Holland & Hart LLP, Craig E. Stewart --
cestewart@jonesday.com -- Holland & Hart LLP, Erik F. Stidham --
efstidham@hollandhart.com -- Holland & Hart LLP & Walter J.
Piszczatowski -- wallyp@hertzschram.com -- Hertz, Schram.

CSG Government Solutions, CSG Government Solutions, Defendant,
represented by Jennifer D. Armstrong, McDonald Hopkins LLC, John D.
Fitzpatrick -- jfitzpatrick@mandellmenkes.com -- Mandell Menkes
LLC, Stephen J. Rosenfeld -- srosenfeld@mandellmenkes.com --
McDonald Hopkins LLC & Timothy J. Lowe, McDonald Hopkins PLC.

Steven Geskey, Shemin BLUDELL, Dorris Mitchell & Debra Singleton,
Defendants, represented by Kimberly Pendrick, State of Michigan
Division of Labor & Zachary A. Risk, Department of Attorney
General.

Julie A. McMurtry, Defendant, represented by Christopher W.
Braverman, State of Michigan, Department of Attorney General, Emily
A. McDonough, Michigan Department of Attorney General & Kimberly
Pendrick, Division of Labor.

Sharon Moffet-Massey, Defendant, represented by Debbie K. Taylor,
Department of Attorney General & Kimberly Pendrick, Division of
Labor.

SAS Institute Inc., Defendant, represented by Stephanie A. Douglas,
Bush Seyferth & Paige & Susan M. McKeever, Bush Seyferth Paige.

Attorney Shannon W Husband, Objector, represented by Shannon W.
Husband, Michigan Department of Attorney General.


SEECO INC: Court Denies Bid to Certify Questions of Law in Smith
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Connie Jean Smith, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SEECO, Inc., Now
known as SWN Production (Arkansas), LLC; Desoto Gathering Company,
LLC; Southwestern Energy Services Company; Southwestern Energy
Company, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 17-3636 (8th Cir.), Judge
Ralph R. Erickson of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit (i) denied Smith's motion to certify questions of law to
the Arkansas Supreme Court, and (ii) affirmed the district court's
judgment.

Smith was the named plaintiff in a class action suit against
Southwestern Energy Co. and three of its subsidiaries alleging
underpayment of gas royalties.  Smith sued on behalf of a class
claiming that SEECO underpaid royalties because it had engaged in
self-dealing when it reduced the royalty payment to reflect the
amounts it paid to DeSoto for gathering.

Specifically, Smith alleged that Southwestern engaged in
self-dealing by instructing DeSoto to charge inflated rates to
SEECO for the costs of DeSoto's services. Smith also contended that
each of Southwestern's three subsidiaries were shells established
and used by Southwestern to secure greater profits at the expense
of landowners.  Smith claimed that the improper cost deductions
allowed Southwestern to gain nearly $100 million in profits between
2006 to the present.  She sued on theories of breach of contract,
fraud and deceit, unjust enrichment, violations of various Arkansas
statutes, and civil conspiracy.

In pretrial motions, the district court was asked to decide whether
the amounts DeSoto charged SEECO qualified as gathering, treatment,
and compression costs incurred in connection with the sale of the
gas under the lease.  During the trial, SEECO sought to establish
the reasonableness of its costs by comparing the rate it paid
DeSoto to the rates other producers in the Fayetteville Shale
region paid for gathering.  SEECO also sought to introduce evidence
of a term sheet from 2005 between SEECO and DeSoto for the purpose
of showing that their agreements were "arms-length."

The Defendants prevailed at trial.  At the conclusion of
deliberations, the jury returned a full defense verdict, finding
that the deducted costs were both incurred and reasonable.  Smith
filed a motion for a new trial, or in the alternative, relief from
the judgment. The district court denied the motions.  Smith now
appeals, arguing that a new trial is warranted because of the
district court's erroneous evidentiary and trial management
rulings.  

Additionally, Smith has moved to certify two questions of law to
the Arkansas Supreme Court: (1) Whether SEECO "incurred" costs as a
matter of Arkansas law under its arrangement with DeSoto and SES;
and (2) whether, under Arkansas law, payment for "costs incurred"
may include rates of payment under which DeSoto (the gathering
company) makes a profit, or whether they must be limited to actual
costs.

Smith claims that the evidence available to the district court was
insufficient to support a grant of partial summary judgment on the
question of whether or not SEECO "incurred" costs in its
relationship with DeSoto where SES actually paid DeSoto. Smith
argues that this error necessitates a new trial.  Judge Erickson
doubts that the district court erred by concluding that SEECO had
"incurred" costs when the evidence before it established the
existence of a legal obligation held by SEECO to ensure that DeSoto
was paid.  He holds he need not definitively resolve that question,
since the instructions provided to the jury did not include the
legal ruling and Smith was allowed to argue for her favored
position.  

The district court's actions following the grant of summary
judgment tended to favor Smith, rather than SEECO, ranging from
granting a motion in limine prohibiting references to the partial
grant of summary judgment to denying SEECO's request for a jury
instruction that "SEECO's incurred costs are the fees DeSoto
charged for its services to SEECO."  Any error in granting the
motion was harmless in light of the district court's management of
the issue during the trial.

As to Smith's move to certify two questions of law, the Judge holds
that absent a close question and lack of state sources enabling a
nonconjectural determination, a federal court should not avoid its
responsibility to determine all issues before it.  He is also
mindful of Arkansas' standards for accepting requests for
certification, which require all facts material to the question of
law to be determined" to be "undisputed" plus the existence of
special and important reasons such as conflicting decisions in the
courts or an unsettled issue of the constitutionality or
construction of a statute of the State.

In light of these principles, the Judge finds that certification of
the proposed questions would be improper.  Whether SEECO incurred
certain costs is an ordinary question of contract interpretation
which federal courts are well-equipped to answer.  Smith chose to
bring her case in a federal forum and, having received an
unfavorable outcome, now seeks a second bite of the apple.  Because
the questions she raises are not the type of "close questions" that
might be aided by certification to the Arkansas Supreme Court, the
Judge declines the invitation to certify them.

Next, Smith argues that BHP's royalty statements should have been
excluded on both relevance and hearsay grounds.  The district court
did not abuse its discretion by admitting the statements. The
statements were relevant because they aided the jurors in
determining whether the costs incurred by SEECO were reasonable.

Smith also contends the district court erred by permitting SEECO to
question witnesses about the existence of a 2005 term sheet even
though it denied admission of the term sheet itself.  The Judge
finds that it appears that Smith may also be arguing that the term
sheet testimony went beyond the district court's sanction for the
untimely disclosure.  To the extent this contention is raised,
Smith forfeited her argument by failing to object when the first
two witnesses discussed their knowledge of the document.  Further,
Smith has not carried the heavy burden of demonstrating plain
error.  By the time Smith objected, during the testimony of Josh
Weber, the evidence was cumulative and any error was harmless.

Smith has not also shown the requisite overwhelming probability.
The district court's instruction was a correct statement of the law
and properly informed the jury that it was not to consider the
provision when evaluating Smith's claims.  The district court's
conclusion that any resulting prejudice caused to plaintiffs by
this testimony was minimal and certainly not a miscarriage of
justice requiring a new trial under Rule 59 was not erroneous.

Finally, Smith argues that she is entitled to a new trial because
comments made by SEECO's counsel insinuated that Smith was
represented by "plaintiff lawyers" whose arguments did not make
"sense for anybody."  The district court sustained Smith's
objections and instructed the jury to disregard the statements.  No
new trial is warranted given the court's curative instruction and
the limited nature of the remarks.  And given the Court's
presumption that a jury will follow an instruction to disregard
inadmissible evidence inadvertently presented to it, unless there
is an `overwhelming probability that the jury will be unable to
follow the court's instructions, the district court appropriately
denied Smith's motion for a new trial.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Erickson denied Smith's motion to
certify questions of law to the Arkansas Supreme Court and affirmed
the district court's judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 23, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/OJ2zwx from Leagle.com.

Thomas A. Daily -- tdaily@dailywoods.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Rex M. Terry -- terry@hardinlaw.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.

Jess Askew, III -- Jess.Askew@KutakRock.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Edward Allen Gordon -- agordon@gcvlaw.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

James Fitzgerald Valley -- james@jamesfvalley.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marc S. Tabolsky -- mtabolsky@sohjlaw.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Joseph H. Meltzer -- jmeltzer@ktmc.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellee.


SEECO INC: Denial of Charter's Bid to Intervene in Smith Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, Connie Jean Smith, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SEECO, Inc., Now
known as SWN Production (Arkansas), LLC; Desoto Gathering Company,
LLC; Southwestern Energy Services Company; Southwestern Energy
Company, Defendants-Appellees, v. Connie Arnett; Cecil Barnes, Jr.;
Cecil Barnes, III; David Brown; Edward Bryant; Roy Bryant; Rob
Cassell; Sally Cassell; Patricia Cates; Isaac Criswell; Jerry
Donahue; James Duncan; Kim Carrell Gifford; John Gottsponer; Myrtle
Gottsponer; Clemens Gottsponer; Thomas Gray; Karrie Gray; Robert
Hall; James Harrison; John Hart; Kevin Holland; Hubert Isom; Joyce
Isom; Floyd Jerrell; Sherry Jerrell; Brenda Sue Kay; Bennie
Latimer; Junior Latimer; Megan Lockard; Dana Love; James Williams;
Lucretia Williams; Dennis Cossey; Sandra Cossey; Michelle Gifford;
Robert Lee; Juanita Boone; James Throneberry; Karen Throneberry;
Wanda Liddell; Norma Bryant; Charles Noakes Movants-Appellants,
Connie Jean Smith, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SEECO, Inc., Now known
as SWN Production (Arkansas), LLC; Desoto Gathering Company, LLC;
Southwestern Energy Services Company; Southwestern Energy Company,
Defendants-Appellees, v. Charter Land Co., LLC, Movant-Appellant,
Connie Jean Smith, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SEECO, Inc., Now known
as SWN Production (Arkansas), LLC; Desoto Gathering Company, LLC;
Southwestern Energy Services Company; Southwestern Energy Company,
Defendants-Appellees, v. Kimberly Wyborny; David Bird; Laurel Bird;
Kenneth Brents Family Trust; Brents Holding Company, LLC; Dunaway
Brothers Properties, LLC; Betty B. Dunaway Rev. Trust; Arthur
Dunaway Rev Trust; Lonnie Wayne Harris; Thomas Hart; Hart of
Arkansas Minerals, LLC; Paula Barton; Paula Barton Revocable Trust;
Dorr B. Moore; Barbara Moore; Dorr B. Moore Jr. Trust; Barbara J.
Smith; Ruth Ann Needels; Ruth Ann Needels Living Trust; Gary Goff;
Verdain Grady; Glyva Jo Grady; Dana Walker; Julia Walker; Brinda
Williams; Steven English; Thane Fleming; Nancy Fleming; Rex
Harrison; Mary Harrison; Carol Howell; Gailon Howell; Marilynn
Moore; Robert Owens; Faye Owens; Joseph Peacock; Eric Rice; William
Rice; Theresa Tubbs; Jeannine Hill Thomas; David Michael Wood,
Individually and as trustee of the Dickson/Wood Land Trust; Warren
Christopher; Georgene Christopher; Warren Christopher, as
representative of Mountain Aire East, Inc.; MWI, LLC; Melissa Ruth
Christopher; Pamela C. Harmon, Movants-Appellants, Connie Jean
Smith, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SEECO, Inc., Now known as SWN Production
(Arkansas), LLC; Desoto Gathering Company, LLC; Southwestern Energy
Services Company; Southwestern Energy Company,
Defendants-Appellees, v. Connie Arnett; Cecil Barnes, Jr.; Cecil
Barnes, III; James Booth; Lori Booth; David Brown; Edward Bryant;
Roy Bryant; Kim Carrell Gifford; Roby Cassell; Sally Cassell;
Patricia Cates; Isaac Criswell; Jerry Donahue; James Duncan; John
Gottsponer; Myrtle Gottsponer; Clemens Gottsponer; Thomas Gray;
Karri Gray; Robert Hall; James Harrison; John Hart; Kevin Holland;
Hubert Isom; Joyce Isom; Floyd Jerrell; Sherry Jerrell; Kathy
Johnston; Brenda Sue Kay; Bennie Latimer; Junior Latimer; Megan
Lockard; Dana Love; James Williams; Lucretia Williams; Dennis
Cossey; Sandra Cossey; Michelle Gifford; Robert Lee; Juanita Boone;
James Throneberry; Karen Throneberry; Wanda Liddell; Norma Bryant;
Charles Noakes, Movants-Appellants, Case Nos. 17-2378, 17-2607,
17-2610 and 17-3443 (8th Cir.), Judge Ralph R. Erickson of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district
court's ruling that Charter Land's motion to intervene was
untimely, and dismissed the remaining appeals for lack of
jurisdiction.

Smith filed a putative class action lawsuit against SEECO, Inc., et
al., alleging underpayment of gas royalties.  The claims related to
the rate of payment that SEECO and its subsidiaries had offered
interest-holders in oil wells in the Fayetteville Shale formation.
When Smith filed her lawsuit, two class actions on related claims
were already pending in state court (referred to as "Snow" and
"Stewmon").  The district court certified a class of all of SEECO's
royalty owners (including owners within and outside of Arkansas)
with leases containing the relevant lease language.  The Smith
class by definition covered all of the related state actions.

The district court formulated a class-notice plan with specific
opt-out procedures.  Two hundred forty-eight royalty owners moved
to intervene to challenge the court's opt-out procedures, including
the Arnett appellants.  The district court declined to rule on the
motions until the class members had an opportunity to comply with
the requirements in full.  Most of the owners who signed the
intervention motion chose to submit opt-out requests.

On Jan. 18, 2017, the district court denied the motions to
intervene and to modify the opt-out procedures.  The key concern
underlying the district court's ruling on the opt-out procedures
was a fear that lawyers, rather than the class members themselves,
may be making decisions, and extra protections must be in place to
ensure the class members made the opt-out decision.  This concern
was bolstered by later experience.

On May 18, 2017, the state court handling the Snow litigation
approved a global settlement class covering all of the members of
the Smith class. The state court preliminarily approved the
settlement.  At the time of the settlement the Smith case was fast
approaching a firm trial date.  The settlement provided that if the
Smith trial began the settlement would be terminable.  SEECO asked
the district court to continue Smith's trial so that the settlement
in Snow could be finalized.  The district court denied the motion.

Before trial began, Snow disclosed to the state court a fee-sharing
agreement between Snow and Smith class counsel.  Under the
agreement Smith class counsel would receive only roughly one-third
of the attorney's fees from any global settlement (with the other
two-thirds going to Snow class counsel), but Smith counsel would
keep all of the attorney's fees awarded after a successful trial.
Snow counsel claimed the agreement was still in effect, creating a
potential counsel-adequacy problem under Rule 23.  Smith counsel
asserted that the agreement was no longer in effect.  As a result
of the dispute, SEECO asked the federal district court to decertify
the Smith class and remove the class counsel.

The district court denied the motion.  It concluded that the class
counsel's performance to that point had been nothing short of
impressive and found that the evidence indicated that the
fee-sharing agreement terminated long before the Smith class was
certified.  SEECO asked the Court for mandamus relief and a stay,
seeking to protect the Snow settlement.  The Court denied their
request.

As relevant to the appeal, the Wyborny appellants filed a similar
motion echoing SEECO's class-adequacy concerns.  The district court
denied the motions.  Similar arguments were made at trial, and
again rejected.  At the close of evidence, the district court noted
that it was a well-tried case and told Smith that her counsel did a
great job.  Nevertheless, SEECO prevailed.

After the jury had returned its verdict and the day before the
district court entered judgment, another royalty owner, Charter
Land Co. moved to intervene for the purpose of challenging the
class counsel's adequacy.  Charter Land's motion raised
substantially the same arguments that SEECO and the Wyborny
appellants had raised before trial.  The district court denied the
motion as untimely, explaining that Charter Land was not permitted
to wait to see how the trial turned out, then seek to undermine
class adequacy.

The attempted-intervenors now appeal, claiming the district court
abused its discretion in denying their motions to intervene and in
fashioning the opt-out procedures.  SEECO asserts we lack
jurisdiction over the Wyborny appeal and both Arnett appeals, as
they filed their notices of appeal well past the 30-day deadline
following the denial of their motions to intervene.  SEECO also
asks the Court to affirm the district court's denial of Charter
Land's motion to intervene as untimely gamesmanship.

Judge Erickson holds that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the
Arnett I appellants because their appeals were not filed within 30
days of the district court's order denying intervention.  It
likewise lacks jurisdiction over the Arnett II appellants.  Their
notice of appeal -- filed on Nov. 6, 2017 -- indicated that they
were appealing the district court's Jan. 18, 2017, order.  Finally,
the Court lacks jurisdiction over the Wyborny appellants.  The
Wyborny appellants' notice of appeal identified orders entered on
"June 2, 2017, Jan. 18, 2017, and March 21, 2017.  They did not
file their notice of appeal until July 21, 2017 -- well after the
date to appeal even the June 2, 2017, order.  The Judge therefore
dismisses the Arnett and Wyborny appeals for having failed to
comply with the jurisdictional requirement that they be filed
within 30 days of a final appealable order.

As to timeliness, the Judge holds that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in concluding that Charter Land filed an
untimely appeal where it merely repeated arguments already advanced
by other attempted intervenors after the class was unsuccessful at
trial. W hile Charter Land insists that it acted diligently upon
learning of the purported fee-sharing agreement, similarly situated
prospective intervenors were able to file motions to intervene
before the conclusion of the trial.  The district court did not
abuse its discretion in concluding that Charter Land offered no
good reason for its delay and denying the motion.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Erickson dismissed each appeal
besides that of Charter Land for lack of jurisdiction.  He affirmed
the district court's denial of Charter Land's motion to intervene
as untimely.

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

Thomas A. Daily -- tdaily@dailywoods.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Rex M. Terry -- terry@hardinlaw.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.

Charles Darwin Davidson, Sr., for Movant-Appellant.

Stephen L. Gershner, for Movant-Appellant.

George A. Barton, for Movant-Appellant.

Jess Askew, III -- Jess.Askew@KutakRock.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Edward Allen Gordon -- agordon@gcvlaw.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

James Fitzgerald Valley -- james@jamesfvalley.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marc S. Tabolsky -- mtabolsky@sohjlaw.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Joseph H. Meltzer -- jmeltzer@ktmc.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellee.


SELECT EXPRESS: Underpays Courier Drivers, Almanza Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
LOIDA ALMANZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SELECT EXPRESS & LOGISTICS, LLC; and
INNOVATIVE DELIVERY & LOGISTICS, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-21763-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 3, 2019) seeks to recover from
the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Almanza was employed by the Defendants as courier
driver.

Select Express & Logistics, LLC provides courier and logistics
services. The company also offers document and parcel, baggage, and
gift delivery. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SMART & FINAL: Franchi Files Class Action Over Sale to Apollo
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY FRANCHI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. SMART & FINAL STORES, INC., DAVID G. HIRZ,
DAVID B. KAPLAN, NORMAN H. AXELROD, ANDREW A. GIANCAMILLI, DENNIS
T. GIES, PAUL N. HOPKINS, ELAINE K. RUBIN, JOSEPH S. TESORIERO,
KENNETH I. TUCHMAN, APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, FIRST STREET
PARENT, INC., and FIRST STREET MERGER SUB, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00940-UNA (D. Del., May 20, 2019) is an action stemming
from a proposed transaction announced on April 16, 2019 (the
"Proposed Transaction"), pursuant to which Smart & Final Stores,
Inc. will be acquired by affiliates of Apollo Global Management,
LLC.

On April 16, 2019, Smart & Final's Board of Directors (the "Board"
or "Individual Defendants") caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with First
Street Parent, Inc. ("Parent") and First Street Merger Sub, Inc.
("Merger Sub," and together with Parent and Apollo Global
Management, LLC, "Apollo"). Pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, Merger Sub commenced a tender offer (the "Tender Offer")
to acquire all of Smart & Final's outstanding common stock for
$6.50 per share in cash. The Tender Offer is set to expire on June
17, 2019. On May 14, 2019, defendants filed a
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement (the "Solicitation
Statement") with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") in connection with the Proposed Transaction.

The complaint asserts that the Solicitation Statement omits
material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction,
which renders the Solicitation Statement false and misleading.
Accordingly, plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act") in connection with
the Solicitation Statement.

Plaintiff is the owner of Smart & Final common stock.

Smart & Final is engaged primarily in the business of selling fresh
perishables and grocery items, together with foodservice,
packaging, and janitorial products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


SOLERA HOLDINGS: $255K Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Foreman Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHELLEY FOREMAN, Plaintiff, v. SOLERA HOLDINGS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-2002-Orl-37DCI (M.D. Fla.), Judge Roy
B. Dalton, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida, Orlando Division, granted the Plaintiff's Motion for
Approval of Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Expenses, for Approval of
Service Award to Class Representative and Supporting Memorandum of
Law.

After final approval of the class action settlement in the case,
the Plaintiff moved for approval of attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses and a service award to the class representative.
Consistent with the settlement agreement, the Plaintiff and her
counsel, as the Class Counsel, seek an award of $255,000 for
attorneys' fees, $16,009.54 for out-of-pocket costs and expenses
advanced by the Class Counsel, and $1,000 as a service award to the
Plaintiff for acting as the class representative.  On referral,
U.S. Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick recommends that the Court
grants the Motion.

The parties did not object to the R&R, and the time for doing so
has now passed.  Absent objections, Judge Dalton has examined the
R&R only for clear error.  Finding none, he concludes that the R&R
is due to be adopted in its entirety.

Accordingly, the Judge adopted, confirmed and made a part of his
Order U.S. Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick's R&R.  He granted the
Plaintiff's Motion for Approval of Attorneys' Fees, Costs and
Expenses, for Approval of Service Award to Class Representative and
Supporting Memorandum of Law.  He approved the award of $255,000 in
attorneys' fees and $16,009.54 in costs and expenses to the Class
Counsel, and $1,000 as a class representative service award to the
Plaintiff.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 26, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/T8C5LI from Leagle.com.

Shelley Foreman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jean Sutton Martin, Morgan &
Morgan, PA, pro hac vice, John Allen Yanchunis, Sr. --
jyanchunis@forthepeople.com -- Morgan & Morgan, Tampa P.A. & Marisa
Kendra Glassman -- mglassman@forthepeople.com -- Morgan & Morgan,
Tampa P.A.

Solera Holdings, Inc., Defendant, represented by Benjamin Kleine --
bkleine@cooley.com -- Cooley, LLP, pro hac vice, Brian Chrisopher
Lawrence -- brian.lawrence@lowndes-law.com -- Lowndes, Drosdick,
Doster, Kantor & Reed, PA, David Navetta -- dnavetta@cooley.com --
Cooley, LLP, pro hac vice & W. Drew Sorrell, II --
drew.sorrell@lowndes-law.com -- Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor &
Reed, PA.


SPECTRUM BRANDS: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP ("BLB&G") on April 30
disclosed that it has filed a securities class action lawsuit on
behalf of West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund against
Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. ("Spectrum" or the "Company") (SPB),
and certain of the Company's current and former senior executives
(collectively, "Defendants") in the federal district court for the
Western District of Wisconsin.  The action, which is captioned West
Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Spectrum Brands Holdings,
Inc., et al., No. 19-CV-347 (W.D. Wis.), asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78t(a), and SEC
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, on
behalf of investors who purchased Spectrum's publicly traded
securities from June 14, 2016 to November 16, 2018, inclusive (the
"Class Period").  A copy of the Complaint filed in the action is
available on BLB&G's website at www.blbglaw.com.

The Complaint expands the class period that was asserted in a
related action against Spectrum -- Wagner v. Spectrum Brands
Legacy, Inc., et al., No. 19-CV-178 (W.D. Wis.) ("Wagner") -- the
first-filed securities class action in this matter, which is
presently pending before the Honorable James D. Peterson.  Per the
notice published on March 7, 2019 in connection with the filing of
the Wagner action pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995, investors wishing to serve as Lead Plaintiff
are required to file a motion for appointment as Lead Plaintiff by
no later than May 6, 2019.  BLB&G's filing of the West Palm Beach
Firefighters' Pension Fund complaint (the "Complaint") does not
alter that deadline.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants
falsely stated that Spectrum was successfully executing on two
major capital projects consolidating the operations of its critical
Global Auto Care ("GAC") and Home & Hardware Improvement ("HHI")
divisions.  The Complaint alleges that Defendants repeatedly told
the market that the GAC and HHI consolidations were progressing
effectively and on schedule, and any issues were merely temporary,
transitory, and being quickly corrected.  In truth, Defendants knew
that the GAC and HHI consolidations were suffering from fundamental
execution problems that were far more serious than disclosed to
investors.

On April 26, 2018, Spectrum disclosed disappointing financial
results for the second quarter of 2018 based on the poorly executed
consolidation projects.  Former CEO Andreas Rouvé resigned.
Spectrum's stock price declined about 22.1%, from $93.14 to $72.56
per share.  Defendants immediately represented that the problems at
the GAC and HHI facilities were being swiftly corrected.

Then, on November 16, 2018, the Company disclosed another
disastrous quarter driven by a $92.5 million goodwill write down
for GAC, again because of the poorly executed consolidations.
Spectrum's stock price declined another 19%, from $59.35 to $48.05
per share.

West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund is represented by BLB&G,
a firm of over 100 attorneys with offices in New York, California,
Louisiana, and Illinois.  If you wish to discuss this Action or
have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please contact Avi Josefson of BLB&G at 212-554-1493, or
via email at avi@blbglaw.com.

Since its founding in 1983, BLB&G -- http://www.blbglaw.com-- has
built an international reputation for excellence and integrity.
Specializing in securities fraud, corporate governance,
shareholders' rights, employment discrimination, and civil rights
litigation, among other practice areas, BLB&G prosecutes class and
private actions on behalf of institutional and individual clients
worldwide. Unique among its peers, BLB&G has obtained several of
the largest and most significant securities recoveries in history,
recovering billions of dollars on behalf of defrauded investors.
[GN]


STAFF PRO INC: Amaya Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------
GEMA AMAYA, individually and on behalf of other individuals
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. STAFF PRO, INC., a California
corporation; U.S. SECURITY ASSOCIATES, INC., a Delaware
corporation; UNIVERSAL PROTECTION DEFENSE SERVICE, LP, a California
limited partnership doing business as ALLIED UNIVERSAL SECURITY
SERVICES and UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICES; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 30-2019-01070401-CU-OE-CXC (Cal.
Super. Ct., Orange Cty., May 17, 2019) is an enforcement action
under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004,
California Labor ("PAGA") to recover civil penalties and any other
available relief on behalf of Plaintiff, the State of California,
and former and current non-exempt employees of Defendants.

As a matter of policy and/or practice, Defendants routinely
suffered or permitted Plaintiff and all other aggrieved employees
to work portions of the day during which they were subject to
Defendants' control, and failed to compensate them. Accordingly,
Defendants failed to properly record the actual hours worked by
Plaintiff and all other aggrieved employees, and thus failed to pay
overtime wages for the actual amount of overtime hours worked, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an "Operations
Administrator" in Huntington Beach, California from February 27,
2018 through August 21, 2018.

STAFF PRO, INC. was and still is a California corporation doing
business in the State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
     Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
     Taylor L. Emerson, Esq.
     BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
     2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130
     Westlake Village, California 91361
     Phone: (805) 270-7100
     Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
     Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
            kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
            temerson@bradleygrombacher.com


STATE FARM: Bilhimer Files Class Action in Kansas
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company. The case is styled as Joe Bilhimer
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company,
Audatex North America, Inc., Explore Information Services, LLC,
Solera Holdings, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02248-JAR-KGG
(D. Kan., May 21, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance.

State Farm is a large group of insurance and financial services
companies throughout the United States with corporate headquarters
in Bloomington, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Sarah S. Ruane, Esq.
     Thomas A. Rottinghaus, Esq.
     Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
     Eric D. Barton, Esq.
     Wagstaff & Cartmell, LLP
     4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300
     Kansas City, MO 64112
     Phone: (816) 701-1123
     Fax: (816) 531-2372
     Email: sruane@wcllp.com
            trottinghaus@wcllp.com
            thudson@wcllp.com
            ebarton@wcllp.com


SUN-MAID GROWERS: Bid to Remand Diaz Suit to State Court Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California denied the Plaintiff's motion to
remand the case, DAVID DIAZ, an individual, on behalf of himself
and all members of the putative class, Plaintiff, v. SUN-MAID
GROWERS OF CALIFORNIA, a California Corporation; and Does 1 through
100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-CV-00149-LJO-SKO (E.D.
Cal.), California state court.

The Defendant removed from California state court a labor law
action brought by the Plaintiff on his own behalf and as
representative of a putative class.  It removed the action on the
basis of federal preemption under Section 301 of the Labor
Management Relations Act ("LMRA"), citing two collective bargaining
agreements ("CBAs").

On Dec. 14, 2018, the Plaintiff filed his putative class action
against the Defendant in a state court, alleging various violations
of California's Labor Code and Business and Professions Code.
While his exact dates of employment with the Defendant are unclear,
the Plaintiff's Complaint suggests a plaintiff class of current or
former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees employed by the
Defendant at any time since Dec. 14, 2014, through final judgment
in the action.

In his First Cause of Action ("Count One"), the Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendant violated California Labor Code Section 1198 by
failing to pay overtime in accordance with Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Order 8-2001.  He does not reference in Count One
either California Labor Code Section 510, which provides for
overtime compensation by statute, or any CBAs that might bear on
his employment.

On Feb. 1, 2019, the Defendant filed its Notice of Removal based on
Count One of the Plaintiff's Complaint.  It argues that its two
CBAs provide explicitly for computation of overtime hours, overtime
rates of pay, and employee wage rates, including those for the
Plaintiff.  The Defendant contends that the provision of these
terms in the CBAs means that the dispute concerns application of
the CBAs only and not state law.  In support of this, it points to
both Section 514 of California Labor Code  and Wage Order 8-2001,
which provide that state law overtime provisions.

On Feb. 12, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand,
contending that Count One of his Complaint is based solely on
California law and does not rely on the CBAs.  He avers that even
if the CBAs address overtime, his state law right to overtime
compensation exists outside and independent of the agreements.  The
Plaintiff contends secondarily that a preemption argument cannot be
supported by the content of his Complaint because he has not pled
anything except state law causes of action.  Therefore, according
to him, his pleadings do not reasonably raise a § 301 preemption
issue at this stage of litigation.  The Plaintiff suggests that the
Defendant, if it chooses, may raise Section 301 preemption as a
defense in state court instead.

The remainder of the Plaintiff's causes of action are not
referenced by either party and do not appear to involve matters
addressed in the CBAs.

The Plaintiff requests remand of the action before the Court,
arguing two primary grounds: (1) he has a state law right to
overtime compensation that exists outside and independent of the
CBAs, and (2) he has pled a state law cause of action in Count One,
which does not contemplate his CBAs.  Therefore, according to the
Plaintiff, Section 301 preemption applies only in a state court
forum and only defensively, if it applies in the matter.

Judge O'Neill disagrees.  He holds that the Plaintiff's Count One
is preempted by LMRA.  He finds that the framework of Curtis v.
Irwin Industries, Inc. mirrors that of the instant case, and like
the overtime claim in Curtis, the Plaintiff's overtime in the case
fails at step one of the preemption analysis.  The Judge has found
that the Plaintiff's CBAs satisfy Section 514 and, as a result, his
overtime claim is governed by his CBAs rather than state law.
Having reviewed the past treatment of Section 301 preemption in
California overtime disputes, as well as recent, relevant decisions
by the Ninth Circuit, the Judge is persuaded that the source of the
Plaintiff's overtime right is found in his CBAs, and that at its
core, the overtime rights of Section 510 are negotiable and
dependent.  Accordingly, he holds that the Plaintiff's overtime
claim is preempted by Section 301.

The Defendant asks the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over the Plaintiff's remaining claims.  Because the Court has
original federal jurisdiction based on Section 301 preemption of
the Plaintiff's Count One, the Court may exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over claims that are brought in conjunction with the
preempted claim.

The Plaintiff's remaining claims relate to the same Defendant and
are grounded in the Plaintiff's wages, hours, and working
conditions during the same period of time.  Therefore, the
Plaintiff's additional claims are so related to his Count One that
supplemental jurisdiction is appropriate.  To the extent that the
Plaintiff's remaining claims fall outside the scope of preemption,
the Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction.

For the reasons stated, Judge O'Neill denied the Plaintiff's motion
to remand.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 23, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/8R5EOx from Leagle.com.

David Diaz, an individual, on behalf of himself and all members of
the putative class, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Daniel Rouen --
rouenlaw@att.net -- Law Office of Eric D. Rouen, John M. Bickford,
Parris Law Firm, Kitty Kit Yee Szeto -- kszeto@parrislawyers.com --
Parris Law Firm & R. Rex Parris, Parris Law Firm.

Sun-Maid Growers of California, a California Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Molly L. Kaban --
mkaban@hansonbridgett.com -- Hanson Bridgett LLP, Jennifer Marie
Martinez -- jmartinez@hansonbridgett.com -- Hanson Bridgett LLP &
Sandra L. Rappaport -- srappaport@hansonbridgett.com -- Hanson
Bridgett LLP.


TCF FINANCIAL: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on April 30 disclosed that it has filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware on behalf of holders of TCF Financial
Corporation ("TCF") (NYSE: TCF) common stock in connection with the
proposed acquisition of TCF by Chemical Financial Corporation
("Chemical") announced on January 28, 2019 (the "Complaint").  The
Complaint, which alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 against TCF and its Board of Directors (the "Board"), is
captioned Parshall v. TCF Financial Corporation, Case No.
1:19-cv-00663 (D. Del.).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's
counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at Rigrodsky & Long,
P.A., 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220, Wilmington, DE 19801, by
telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl-legal.com or at
http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/

On January 27, 2019, TCF entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Chemical.  Pursuant to the
terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of TCF will receive
0.5081 shares of Chemical common stock for each share of TCF common
stock they own (the "Proposed Transaction").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction, defendants
issued materially incomplete disclosures in a registration
statement (the "Registration Statement") filed with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission.  The Complaint alleges
that the Registration Statement omits material information with
respect to, among other things, TCF's and Chemical's financial
projections and the analyses performed by TCF's financial advisor.
The Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages on
behalf of holders of TCF common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than July 1, 2019.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

With offices in Delaware, New York, and California, Rigrodsky &
Long, P.A. -- http://www.rigrodskylong.com-- has recovered
hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of investors and achieved
substantial corporate governance reforms in numerous cases
nationwide, including federal securities fraud actions, shareholder
class actions, and shareholder derivative actions. [GN]


TEVA PHARMA: Appeals Pending over Aggrenox End-Payer Pact
---------------------------------------------------------
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 appeals of the
Orange County District Attorney and of the opt-out end payer
plaintiffs from the court order approving the Company's settlement
with the End Payers in the Aggrenox(R) litigation are still
pending.

Since November 2013, numerous lawsuits have been filed in various
federal courts by purported classes of end payers for, and direct
purchasers of, Aggrenox(R) (dipyridamole/aspirin tablets) against
Boehringer Ingelheim ("BI"), the innovator, and several Teva
subsidiaries.  The lawsuits allege, among other things, that the
settlement agreement between BI and Barr entered into in August
2008 violated the antitrust laws.  A multidistrict litigation has
been established in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut.

On April 11, 2017, the Orange County District Attorney filed a
complaint for violations of California's Unfair Competition Law
based on the Aggrenox(R) patent litigation settlement.

Teva has settled with the putative classes of direct purchasers and
end payers, as well as with the opt-out direct purchaser
plaintiffs, and with two of the opt-out end payer plaintiffs.  A
provision with respect to the settlements was included in the
financial statements.  The district court overruled certain
objections to the end payer settlement, including objections made
by the Orange County District Attorney, and approved the
settlement.

The District Attorney subsequently appealed the court's approval to
the Second Circuit.  Opt-outs from the end payer class have also
appealed certain aspects of the court's approval order to the
Second Circuit.  Those appeals remain pending.

Annual sales of Aggrenox(R) were approximately US$340 million at
the time of the settlement and approximately US$455 million at the
time Teva launched its authorized generic version of Aggrenox(R) in
July 2015.

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 PHARMA: Bid to Nix Actos Direct Buyers' Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
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 in the litigation involving
Actos(R) and Actoplus Met antitrust matters, the direct purchasers'
case had been stayed pending resolution of the appeal in the end
payer complaint.

Since January 2014, numerous lawsuits have been filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York by purported
classes of end payers for, and direct purchasers of, Actos(R) and
Actoplus Met (pioglitazone and pioglitazone plus metformin) against
Takeda, the innovator, and several generic manufacturers, including
Teva, Actavis and Watson.  The lawsuits allege, among other things,
that the settlement agreements between Takeda and the generic
manufacturers violated the antitrust laws.  The court dismissed the
end payer lawsuits against all defendants in September 2015.

On February 8, 2017, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
affirmed the dismissal in part and vacated and remanded the
dismissal in part with respect to the claims against Takeda.

The direct purchasers' case had been stayed pending resolution of
the appeal in the end payer matter and the direct purchasers
amended their complaint for a second time following the Second
Circuit's decision.

Defendants moved to dismiss the direct purchasers' complaint, and
that motion remains pending.

At the time of the settlement, annual sales of Actos(R) and
Actoplus Met were approximately US$3.7 billion and approximately
US$500 million, respectively.  At the time Teva launched its
authorized generic version of Actos(R) and Actoplus Met in August
2012, annual sales of Actos(R) and Actoplus Met were approximately
US$2.8 billion and approximately US$430 million, respectively.

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 PHARMA: Cephalon-FTC Modafinil Consent Decree Amended
----------------------------------------------------------
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 in February 2019, in
connection with the settlement of unrelated FTC antitrust lawsuits,
Teva and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) agreed to amend certain
provisions of the May 2015 Modafinil Consent Decree entered into
between FTC and subsidiary Cephalon, Inc., and to restart its
ten-year term.

In April 2006, certain subsidiaries of Teva were named in a class
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.  The case alleges that the settlement
agreements entered into between Cephalon, Inc., now a Teva
subsidiary ("Cephalon"), and various generic pharmaceutical
companies in late 2005 and early 2006 to resolve patent litigation
involving certain finished modafinil products (marketed as
PROVIGIL(R)) were unlawful because they had the effect of excluding
generic competition.  The case also alleges that Cephalon
improperly asserted its PROVIGIL patent against the generic
pharmaceutical companies.

The first lawsuit was filed by a purported class of direct
purchasers.  Similar complaints were also filed by a purported
class of indirect purchasers, certain chain pharmacies and by
Apotex, Inc. (collectively, these cases are referred to as the
"Philadelphia Modafinil Action").

Separately, Apotex challenged Cephalon's PROVIGIL patent and, in
October 2011, the court found the patent to be invalid and
unenforceable based on inequitable conduct.

Teva has either settled or reached agreements in principle to
settle with all of the plaintiffs in the Philadelphia Modafinil
Action.

Additionally, Cephalon and Teva have reached a settlement with 48
state attorneys general, which was approved by the court on
November 7, 2016.  Certain other claimants, including the State of
California, have given notices of potential claims related to these
settlement agreements.  Teva has produced documents and information
in response to discovery requests issued by the California Attorney
General's office as part of its ongoing investigation of generic
competition to PROVIGIL.

In May 2015, Cephalon entered into a consent decree with the FTC
(the "Modafinil Consent Decree") under which the FTC dismissed its
claims against Cephalon in the FTC Modafinil Action in exchange for
payment of US$1.2 billion (less set-offs for prior settlements) by
Cephalon and Teva into a settlement fund.  The settlement fund does
not cover any judgments or settlements outside the United States.
Under the Modafinil Consent Decree, Teva also agreed to certain
injunctive relief with respect to the types of settlement
agreements Teva may enter into to resolve patent litigation in the
United States for a period of ten years.  In February 2019, in
connection with the settlement of other unrelated FTC antitrust
lawsuits, Teva and the FTC agreed to amend certain provisions of
the Modafinil Consent Decree and to restart its ten-year term.

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 PHARMA: Lamictal Class Suit Stayed Pending Appeal in 3rd Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
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 case involving
lamotrigine (generic Lamictal(R)) has been stayed while awaiting
the outcome of an appeal pending in the Third Circuit over the
approved direct-purchaser class certification.

In February 2012, two purported classes of direct-purchaser
plaintiffs sued GSK and Teva in New Jersey federal court for
alleged violations of the antitrust laws in connection with their
settlement of patent litigation involving lamotrigine (generic
Lamictal(R)) entered into in February 2005.  The plaintiffs claim
that the settlement agreement unlawfully delayed generic entry and
seek unspecified damages.

In December 2012, the court dismissed the case, but in June 2015,
the Third Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

In December 2018, the court granted the direct-purchaser
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

On March 18, 2019, the Third Circuit granted the defendants'
petition for immediate appellate review and the district court has
stayed the litigation pending the outcome of the Third Circuit
appeal.

Annual sales of Lamictal(R) were approximately US$950 million at
the time of the settlement and approximately US$2.3 billion at the
time Teva launched its generic version of Lamictal(R) in July
2008.

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 PHARMA: Settles With Most of AndroGel Retailer Plaintiffs
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 in lawsuits related to
antitrust matters over AndroGel(R) 1% (testosterone gel), the
Company has settled with most of the retailer plaintiffs in April
2019.

In January 2009, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the State
of California filed a complaint for injunctive relief in California
federal court alleging that a September 2006 patent lawsuit
settlement between Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Watson"), now a
Teva subsidiary, and Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Solvay")
relating to AndroGel(R) 1% (testosterone gel) violated the
antitrust laws.  Additional lawsuits alleging similar claims were
later filed by private plaintiffs (including plaintiffs purporting
to represent classes of similarly situated claimants as well as
retailer plaintiffs filing separately) and the various actions were
consolidated in a multidistrict litigation in Georgia federal
court.

On July 16, 2018, the direct purchaser plaintiffs' motion for class
certification was denied.  As a result, the three direct purchasers
that had sought class certification can proceed as individual
plaintiffs, but any other member of the proposed direct purchaser
class will need to file a separate, individual lawsuit if it wishes
to participate in the litigation.

On February 22, 2019, the FTC stipulated to the dismissal of its
claims against Watson, in exchange for Teva's agreement to amend
the May 2015 Modafinil Consent Decree entered into between FTC and
subsidiary Cephalon, Inc.

Teva settled with most of the retailer plaintiffs in April 2019.
Trial on the remaining private plaintiffs' claims has been
scheduled to begin in February 2020.

Annual sales of AndroGel(R) 1% were approximately US$350 million at
the time of the settlement and approximately US$140 million at the
time Actavis launched its generic version of AndroGel(R) 1% in
November 2015.  A provision for this case was included in the
financial statements.

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 PHARMA: Still Defends Antitrust Suits over Niaspan(R)
----------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited continues to face legal
proceedings related to Niaspan(R) antitrust 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.

In April 2013, purported classes of direct purchasers of, and end
payers for, Niaspan(R) (extended release niacin) sued Teva and
Abbott for violating the antitrust laws by entering into a
settlement agreement in April 2005 to resolve patent litigation
over the product.  A multidistrict litigation has been established
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

Throughout 2015 and in January 2016, several individual direct
purchaser opt-out plaintiffs filed complaints with allegations
nearly identical to those of the direct purchaser class and, in
December 2018, both the direct-purchaser class plaintiffs and
indirect-purchaser class plaintiffs filed motions for class
certification, which remain pending.

In October 2016, the District Attorney for Orange County,
California, filed a similar complaint, which has since been
amended, in California state court, alleging violations of state
law.  Defendants moved to strike the District Attorney's claims for
restitution and civil penalties to the extent not limited to
alleged activity occurring in Orange County.  The Superior Court
denied that motion.

The Court of Appeal subsequently reversed the decision and review
of the Appellate Court decision is now pending before the
California Supreme Court.

Annual sales of Niaspan(R) were approximately US$416 million at the
time of the settlement and approximately US$1.1 billion at the time
Teva launched its generic version of Niaspan(R) in September 2013.

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 PHARMA: Still Defends Class Suits over Intuniv Drug
--------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited continues to defend itself
in several putative indirect purchaser and direct purchaser class
actions related to the ADHD drug Intuniv, 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.

Since November 2016, several putative indirect purchaser and direct
purchaser class actions were filed in federal courts in Wisconsin,
Massachusetts and Florida against Shire U.S., Inc. and Shire LLC
(collectively, "Shire"), Actavis and Teva, alleging that Shire's
2013 patent litigation settlement with Actavis related to the ADHD
drug Intuniv(R) (guanfacine) violated various state consumer
protection and antitrust laws.  All cases are now in Massachusetts
federal court.

Annual sales of Intuniv(R) were approximately US$335 million at the
time of the settlement and approximately US$327 million at the time
Actavis launched its generic version of Intuniv(R) in 2014.

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

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 PHARMA: Still Defends Suits over Effexor XR Antitrust Matters
------------------------------------------------------------------
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 continues to face
complaints related to venlafaxine (generic Effexor XR(R)).

In December 2011, three groups of plaintiffs sued Wyeth and Teva
for alleged violations of the antitrust laws in connection with
their settlement of patent litigation involving extended release
venlafaxine (generic Effexor XR(R)) entered into in November 2005.
The cases were filed by a purported class of direct purchasers, by
a purported class of indirect purchasers and by certain chain
pharmacies in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey.  The plaintiffs claim that the settlement agreement
between Wyeth and Teva unlawfully delayed generic entry.

In October 2014, the court granted Teva's motion to dismiss in the
direct purchaser cases, after which the parties agreed that the
court's reasoning applied equally to the indirect purchaser cases.

Plaintiffs appealed and, in August 2017, the Third Circuit reversed
the district court's decision and remanded for further
proceedings.

Annual sales of Effexor XR(R) were approximately US$2.6 billion at
the time of settlement and at the time Teva launched its generic
version of Effexor XR(R) in July 2010.

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 PHARMA: Still Faces Namenda IR End Payer Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited continues to face a lawsuit
by a purported class of end payers for Namenda IR, 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
court has previously denied the defendants' motions to dismiss and
has referred the parties to mediation.

In May 2015, a purported class of end payers for Namenda IR(R)
(memantine hydrochloride) filed a lawsuit against Forest
Laboratories, LLC ("Forest"), the innovator, and several generic
manufacturers, including Teva.  The lawsuit alleges, among other
things, that settlement agreements between Forest and the generic
manufacturers to resolve patent litigation over Namenda IR(R)
violated the antitrust laws.  The court has denied defendants'
motions to dismiss and in September 2018 referred the parties to
mediation.

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

Annual sales of Namenda IR(R) at the time of the settlement were
approximately US$1.1 billion and approximately US$550 million at
the time other manufacturers first launched generic versions of
Namenda IR(R) in July 2015.

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.


THINK FINANCE: Dismissal/Arbitration Bids Denial in Gingras Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JESSICA GINGRAS, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, ANGELA C. GIVEN, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. THINK FINANCE,
INC., TC LOAN SERVICE, LLC, KENNETH E. REES, FORMER PRESIDENT AND
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF THINK FINANCE,
TC DECISION SCIENCES, LLC, TAILWIND MARKETING, LLC, SEQUOIA CAPITAL
OPERATIONS, LLC, TECHNOLOGY CROSSOVER VENTURES, JOEL ROSETTE,
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF PLAIN GREEN, TED
WHITFORD, OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS A MEMBER OF PLAIN GREEN'S BOARD OF
DIRECTORS, TIM MCINERNEY, Defendants-Appellants, Docket Nos.
16-2019-cv (L); 16-2132-cv; 16-2135-cv; 16-2138-cv; 16-2140-cv
(Con) (2d Cir.), Judge Peter W. Hall of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court
denying (i) the Tribal Defendants' motion to dismiss, and (ii) all
the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration.

The suit involves payday loans made by Plain Green, LLC, an online
lending operation, which holds itself out as a "tribal lending
entity wholly owned by the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's
Indian Reservation, Montana.  The borrowers are
Plaintiffs-Appellees Jessica Gingras and Angela Given, who are
Vermont residents.  In July 2011, Gingras borrowed $1,050 at an
interest rate of 198.17% per annum. She repaid that loan and
borrowed an additional $2,900 a year later, this time with an
interest rate of 371.82%. She has not repaid the second loan.  Also
in July 2011, Given borrowed $1,250 at a rate of 198.45%.  Given
paid off that loan in July 2012 and, within a few days of
repayment, took out another loan for $2,000 at a rate of 159.46%.
She also borrowed $250 in May 2013 at a rate of 376.13%, which she
repaid quickly, and in July 2013 borrowed $3,000 at a rate of
59.83%.  Given has not repaid the most recent loan.

To receive their loans, Gingras and Given were required to sign
loan agreements.  Those loan agreements provide for arbitration in
the event of a dispute between the borrower and Plain Green.  They
also provide that Chippewa Cree tribal law governs the loan
agreement and any dispute arising under it.  The agreements'
command to apply tribal law also includes provisions stating
neither the Agreement nor the Lender is subject to the laws of any
state of the United States, and the agreements are subject solely
to the exclusive laws and jurisdiction of the Chippewa Cree Tribe
of the Rocky Boy Indian Reservation such that no other state or
federal law or regulation will apply.  To the extent that AAA or
JAMS policies and procedures conflict with tribal law, tribal law
prevails.  The loan agreements allow borrowers to opt out of
arbitration, but only if they exercise that option within 60 days
of receiving the loan.  If a borrower opts out, the agreements
provide that their only recourse is to sue under tribal law in
tribal courts.  Neither Gingras nor Given opted out.

Gingras and Given allege that the loan agreements violate Vermont
and federal law.  The loans originated from Plain Green, LLC.
Plain Green's CEO is Defendant Joel Rosette; two members of Plain
Green's Board of Directors, Ted Whitford and Tim McInerney, are
also Defendants.  Gingras and Given sued all three ("Tribal
Defendants"), in their official capacities for prospective
declaratory and injunctive relief.

The suit also names as Defendants Think Finance, Inc. and its
former President, CEO, and Chairman of the Board, Kenneth Rees.
Plain Green employs Think Finance and its subsidiaries, Defendants
TC Decision Sciences, LLC, Tailwind Marketing, LLC, and TC Loan
Service, LLC, to service Plain Green loans.  Defendants Sequoia
Capital Operations, LLC and Technology Crossover Ventures provide
funding for the lending operation.

The Plaintiffs allege that Think Finance and the Tribe agreed on
various terms for the loans, including charging annual interest
rates between 60% and 360% and establishing a maximum loan amount
of $2,500.  They allege that this arrangement was created to
"circumvent" the stringent laws that have been enacted to prescribe
how loans can be made and to prevent lenders from preying on
indigent people, and to take advantage of legal doctrines, such as
tribal immunity, to avoid liability for their actions in violating
various federal and state lending laws.

Gingras and Given brought the class action in the District of
Vermont, seeking, among other relief, an order barring the
Defendants from continuing their current lending practices.
Relevant to the appeal, the Tribal Defendants moved to dismiss,
arguing that they are entitled to tribal sovereign immunity.  The
district court disagreed and denied their motion.  It concluded
that tribal sovereign immunity does not bar suit against the Tribal
Defendants in their official capacities for prospective, injunctive
relief under a theory analogous to Ex parte Young.  Specifically,
the district court read the Supreme Court's decision in Michigan v.
Bay Mills Indian Community, to condone that form of action to
vindicate violations of state law.

All the Defendants also moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the
loan agreements.  The district court denied those motions.  It
concluded that the arbitration agreements are unconscionable and
unenforceable because they insulate Defendants from claims that
they have violated state and federal laws.  In particular, it held
that because the agreements apply tribal law exclusively and
restrict all arbitral awards review solely by a tribal court, the
neutral arbitral forum is illusory.  All the Defendants timely
appealed.

The Tribal Defendants argue that because Plain Green is an "arm of
the Tribe," they are entitled to immunity from all state law claims
as well as the Plaintiffs' federal RICO claim.  Judge Hall
disagrees and holds that under a theory analogous to Ex parte
Young, tribal sovereign immunity does not bar state and substantive
federal law claims for prospective, injunctive relief against
tribal officials in their official capacities for conduct occurring
off of the reservation.

Among other things, the Judge finds that becuase the Plaintiffs
have not sued Plain Green, rather several of Plain Green's officers
in their official capacities on a theory analogous to Ex parte
Young, it is sufficient for him, therefore, to assume that Plain
Green and its officers would ordinarily be immune save for some
common law exception, waiver, or congressional abrogation.  As the
district court did, he proceeds on that understanding.

His holding also balances the competing interests of tribes and
states as separate sovereigns.  Absent this mechanism for a state
to enforce its laws against out-of-state tribal officials, the
state and its citizens would seemingly be without recourse.  The
Constitution vests original jurisdiction in the Supreme Court for
states to sue other states, but it provides no parallel avenue for
disputes between states and tribes.  An Ex parte Young-type suit
protects a state's important interest in enforcing its own laws and
the federal government's strong interest in providing a neutral
forum for the peaceful resolution of disputes between domestic
sovereigns, and it fairly holds Indian tribes acting
off-reservation to their obligation to comply with generally
applicable state law.

He also finds that concern for the inappropriateness of saddling
the taxpayers with the financial burden of punitive damages imposed
on a government entity is plainly not implicated where, as in the
case, the relief sought is an injunction and not money damages.
Accordingly, the Judge holds that the Plaintiffs' RICO claim
applies substantively to the Tribal Defendants in the case.

Turning next to the motions of all the Defendants to compel
arbitration, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs' substantive
challenges to the loan agreements are based on federal and state
consumer protection laws.  The challenge to the arbitration
provisions is based on unconscionability.  He finds no basis
therefore to sever any particular provision of the arbitration
agreement because, given the pervasive, unconscionable effects of
the arbitration agreement interwoven within it, nothing meaningful
would be left to enforce.

Judge Hall concludes that Plain Green is a payday lending entity
cleverly designed to enabled Defendants to skirt federal and state
consumer protection laws under the cloak of tribal sovereign
immunity.  That immunity is a shield, however, not a sword.  It
poses no barrier to the plaintiffs seeking prospective equitable
relief for violations of federal or state law.  Tribes and their
officers are not free to operate outside of Indian lands without
conforming their conduct in these areas to federal and state law.
Attempts to disclaim application of federal and state law in an
arbitral forum subject to exclusive tribal court review fare no
better.  The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 24, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/37mstm from Leagle.com.

COLLEEN SINZDAK -- colleen.sinzdak@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Washington, DC (Morgan L. Goodspeed, Neal Kumar
Katyal -- neal.katyal@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP,
Washington, DC; Richard J. Zack -- zackr@pepperlaw.com -- Matthew
B. Homberger , Pepper Hamilton LLP, Philadelphia, PA, on the
brief), for Defendants-Appellants Joel Rosette, Ted Whitford, and
Tim McInerney.

LEWIS S. WIENER, Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP, Washington, DC
(Kymberly Kochis, Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP, New York, NY;
Ritchie E. Berger, Dinse Knapp McAndrew, Burlington, VT; Stephen D.
Hibbard , Jones Day, San Francisco, CA; Todd R. Geremia, Jones Day,
New York, NY; Stephen D. Ellis, Ellis Boxer & Blake PLLC,
Springfield, VT; Richard L. Scheff, David F. Herman, Montgomery
McCracken Walker & Rhoads LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Thomas Hefferon,
Sabrina Rose-Smith, Matthew Sheldon, Goodwin Procter LLP,
Washington, DC, on the brief), for Defendants-Appellants Think
Finance, Inc., TC Decision Sciences, LLC, Tailwind Marketing, LLC,
TC Loan Service, LLC, Technology Crossover Ventures, Kenneth E.
Rees, and Sequoia Capital Operations, LLC.

MATTHEW B. BYRNE -- mbyrne@gravelshea.com -- Gravel & Shea PC,
Burlington, VT (Kathleen M. Donovan-Maher --
kdonovanmaher@bermantabacco.com -- Steven J. Buttacavoli --
sbuttacavoli@bermantabacco.com -- Anne F. O'Berry, Steven L.
Groopman, Berman DeValerio, Boston, MA, on the brief), for
Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Jeffrey R. White -- jwhite@rc.com -- Julie Braman Kane, American
Association for Justice, Washington, DC, as amicus curiae in
support of Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Scott L. Nelson -- litigation@citizen.org -- Allison M. Zieve,
Public Citizen Litigation Group, Public Citizen, Inc., Washington,
DC, as amicus curiae in support of Plaintiffs-Appellees.


TRADER JOE'S: Barrere Files Slack-Fill Class Action in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
GABRIEL BARRERE, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. TRADER JOE'S COMPANY; and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 19STCV12693 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., May 17, 2019) is a class action lawsuit brought on
behalf of all purchasers of Trader Joe's Dried Fruit brand products
(the "Product") sold at retail outlets throughout California and
the United States.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant intentionally misleads and
shortchanges consumers by falsely and deceptively misrepresenting
the amount of dried fruit actually contained in each box of
Product. Defendant uniformly and substantially under-fills the
opaque packages by 69%. Every package is filled only 31% full with
of fruit product. During Plaintiff's investigation into the reason
for Defendant's under-filling of the boxes, which included
consultation with an expert in packaging design, Plaintiff
discovered that nearly all of the 69% balance of empty space, or
"slack-fill," serves no legitimate or lawful function, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff made a one-time purchase of a Trader Joe's 1.2 oz. box of
dried fruit at the Granada Hills, CA location of its nationwide
chain in 2018.

Defendant is the owner, manufacturer, and distributor of the
Product.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
     Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.
     21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Phone: (323) 306-4234
     Fax: (866) 633-0228
     Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
            abacon@toddflaw.com

          - and -

     G. Thomas Martin, III, Esq.
     Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq.
     MARTIN & BONTRAGER, APC
     6464 W. Sunset Blvd., Ste. 960
     Los Angeles, CA 90028
     Phone: (323) 940-1700
     Fax: (323) 238-8095
     Email: Tom@mblawapc.com
            Nick@mblawapc.com


UNITED STATES: Immigrant Children's Class Action Certified
----------------------------------------------------------
Southern Poverty Law Center reports that the lawsuit, J.E.C.M. v.
Hayes, was certified a class action by the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia. Congress enacted laws
specifically to protect unaccompanied immigrant children,
establishing a preference for release over lengthy detention and
requiring that ORR promptly reunite children with loved ones in the
United States while their immigration cases are adjudicated.

"The court's granting class certification ensures we will be able
to continue to fight for the children who languish in detention
centers across the country," said Mary Bauer, deputy legal director
of the Southern Poverty Law Center. "As we move to the merits of
this lawsuit, we look forward to exposing the perverse government
policies that keep children locked up and separate them from their
families."

In February, the SPLC, Legal Aid Justice Center and Sterne,
Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC filed this lawsuit on behalf of
immigrant children in Virginia in government custody, and their
families. It seeks the prompt release of children to family members
available to care for them, and for ORR to reverse its current
policy of sharing the identities of family members with ICE for
immigration enforcement purposes. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Veterans' Dental Care Class Action Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------
Ben Krimmel, writing for Connectingvets.com, reports that a federal
judge has denied class-action status for a lawsuit filed on behalf
of 592 veterans from Wisconsin.

U.S. District Judge William Conley ruled on April 25, the case
filed against the U.S government by a group of vets who received
dental care at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Tomah,
Wisconsin failed to satisfy all the criteria to merit class-action
status, the Wisconsin State Journal reported.

The Journal reports: In 2017, six veterans filed a lawsuit after
nearly 600 vets were informed of possible exposure to blood-borne
diseases, including HIV and hepatitis, due to improperly sterilized
medical equipment by a VA dentist. Testing revealed none of the
veterans contracted any disease, but the suit alleges the vets
suffered emotional distress after being informed of the possible
exposure.

While acknowledging the "general failure" of the VA and Dr. Thomas
Schiller to meet their duty of care was not in question, Conley
wrote the vet's claims of negligent infliction of emotional
distress and negligent training, supervision, and retention of Dr.
Schiller are questions not best served by a class-action status,
The Journal reported.

Conley, who had previously dismissed the government's motion to
dismiss the lawsuit, wrote that since the cause of damages must be
determined on an individual basis, "a class action is not a
superior method for resolving this dispute." And if the case were
to proceed as a class action, individual inquiries would cause
"serious manageability problems."

The case is scheduled for a trial before in October, The Journal
reported. [GN]


VERMONT: West Files Prisoner Civil Rights Suit
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gobeille. The case is
styled as Richard West, Bruyette individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Al Gobeille
Vermont Secretary of Human Services, in his official capacity,
Martha Maksym Vermont Deputy Secretary of Human Services, in her
official capacity, Michael Touchette Vermont Department of
Corrections Commissioner, in his official capacity, Benjamin Watts
Vermont Department of Corrections Health Services Director, in his
official capacity, Centurion of Vermont, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00081-wks (D. Vt., May 21, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Petitions for Prisoner
Civil Rights.

Al Gobeille is a Secretary of Human Services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James M. Diaz , Esq.
     Lia N. Ernst , Esq.
     ACLU Foundation of Vermont
     P.O. Box 277
     Montpelier, VT 05601-0277
     Phone: (802) 223-6304
     Email: jdiaz@acluvt.org
            lernst@acluvt.org

          - and -

     James A. Valente , Esq.
     Costello, Valente & Gentry, P.C.
     51 Putney Road
     P.O. Box 483
     Brattleboro, VT 05302-0483
     Phone: (802) 257-5533
     Fax: (802) 257-4289
     Email: valente@cvglawoffice.com



VESTA PROPERTY: Cioci Says Background Checks Violate FCRA
---------------------------------------------------------
REBECCA CIOCI, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VESTA PROPERTY SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 89747674 filed in the 13th Judicial Circuit
Court of Hillsborough County, Florida on May 17, 2019, is an action
against Defendant for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA").

The FCRA imposes several important requirements on employers that
use background checks as part of their hiring processes, which are
designed to protect consumers like Plaintiff. As part of its hiring
processes, Defendant uses consumer reports (commonly known as
background checks) to make employment decisions. While the use of
consumer report information for employment purposes is not per se
unlawful, it is subject to strict disclosure and authorization
requirements under the FCRA.

The complaint asserts that Defendant willfully violated this
requirement by failing to provide Plaintiff and other Putative
Class members with a separate document consisting solely of
Defendant's disclosure, stating that Defendant may obtain a
consumer report on any person for employment purposes. Defendant
also violated this requirement by failing to provide this
disclosure to Plaintiff and other Putative Class members prior to
obtaining a copy of the person's consumer report. This practice
violates long-standing regulatory guidance from the Federal Trade
Commission ("FTC"). Furthermore, Defendant violated the FCRA by
obtaining consumer reports for Plaintiff and other Putative Class
members without proper authorization, due to the fact that its
disclosure forms fail to comply with the requirements of the FCRA,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a resident of Sarasota County, Florida. Plaintiff is a
former employee of Defendant.

Defendant is a Florida corporation and provides community
association management services throughout Florida, including in
Ruskin, Hillsborough County, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Patrick K. Elliott, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICE OF PATRICK K. ELLIOTT, PLLC
     100 S. Ashley Drive, Suite 600
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Direct Dial: (813) 379-3090
     Facsimile: (813) 261-3542
     Email: elliottp@employmentandconsumerlaw.com
            murrayd@employmentandconsumerlaw.com


WALGREEN CO: Johnson Files Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Walgreen Co. d/b/a
Walgreens. The case is styled as Carlos Johnson, individual on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Walgreen Co. d/b/a Walgreens and Does 1 to 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. CGC19575411 (Cal. Super. San Francisco, April
19, 2019).

The case type is stated as other non exempt complaints.

Walgreen Company or simply Walgreens is an American company that
operates as the second-largest pharmacy store chain in the United
States behind CVS Health.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Walter Lewis Haines, Esq.
   United Employees Law Group
   5500 Bolsa Ave, Ste 201
   Huntington Beach, CA 92649
   Tel: (562) 256-1047
   Fax: (562) 256-1006
   Email: whaines@uelglaw.com


WAYFAIR INC: 2 Securities Class Suits Underway in Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wayfair Inc. continues to defend itself against two putative
securities class lawsuits in Massachusetts, 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 10, 2019 and January 16, 2019, putative securities class
action complaints were filed against the Company and three of its
officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.  The two complaints allege violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
relating to certain prior disclosures of the Company.  Each
plaintiff seeks to represent a class of shareholders who purchased
or acquired stock of the Company between August 2, 2018 and October
31, 2018 and seeks damages and other relief based on allegations
that the defendants' conduct affected the value of such stock.

Wayfair said, "The Company intends to defend these lawsuits
vigorously.  At this time, based on available information regarding
this litigation, the Company is unable to reasonably assess the
ultimate outcome of these cases or determine an estimate, or a
range of estimates, of potential losses."


WELLS FARGO: Bankruptcy Court Orders in Weidenbenner Suit Reversed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re: RODNEY WAYNE WEIDENBENNER and MICHELE ANN
WEIDENBENNER, Debtors. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Appellant, v. RODNEY
WAYNE WEIDENBENNER and MICHELE ANN WEIDENBENNER, Appellees, Case
No. 15-CV-244 (KMK) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Kenneth M. Karas of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York reversed the
two Dec. 30, 2014 orders of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York: the Order Finding Stay Violation and
Awarding Damages, and the Order for Violation of the Automatic Stay
Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 362.

Wells Fargo maintains an internal policy known as the
Administrative Pledge Policy.  Pursuant to the Policy, if an
individual debtor files for bankruptcy and the debtor's balances on
deposit are less than $5,000 in the aggregate, Wells Fargo does not
limit the debtor's access to prepetition account funds; however, if
the aggregate amount exceeds $5,000, Wells Fargo places an
administrative pledge on the accounts, effectively freezing all
prepetition funds, and looks solely to the chapter 7 trustee to
control payment of account balances that are property of the
bankruptcy estate.

Debtors Rodney Wayne Weidenbenner and Michele Ann Weidenbenner
filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy on March 7, 2014.  At the time of
filing for bankruptcy, the Debtors maintained four bank accounts
with Wells Fargo.  Wells Fargo learned of the bankruptcy proceeding
on March 12, 2014, at which time there was more than $5,000 in the
combined balances of the Accounts.  Pursuant to its Policy, Wells
Fargo immediately placed the Accounts on "bankruptcy status," which
recognizes them as property of the bankruptcy estate under the
control of the bankruptcy trustee, and results in an
'administrative pledge' to the accounts that permits the payment of
these Estate Balances only upon the Trustee's direction.  The same
day, Wells Fargo wrote to the Debtors' counsel and to the Trustee
informing them of the action.

On March 13, 2014, a scheduled payment to Kohl's Stores in the
amount of $75 was presented to Wells Fargo; however, because of the
administrative pledge, the checking account on which the payment
was drawn had insufficient funds to cover that amount, and Wells
Fargo declined the transaction.  As a result, the Debtors incurred
a $25 fee.  On March 17, 2014, Wells Fargo received a letter from
the Trustee instructing it to release the entire amount in the
Accounts to the Debtors, and Wells Fargo complied the same day.

On April 23, 2014, the Debtors moved for an order from the
Bankruptcy Court holding Wells Fargo in violation of the automatic
stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Snct§ 362(a) and awarding damages,
attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursement to the debtor pursuant to
11 U.S.C. Section 362(k) ("Motion").  In their Motion, they argued
that Wells Fargo's application of the administrative pledge
improperly seized funds that were claimed as exempt assets under 11
U.S.C. Section 522.  On July 22, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court held a
hearing on the Motion, and subsequently held an evidentiary hearing
on Oct. 6, 2014.

On Dec. 12, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court determined that Wells
Fargo's conduct violated the automatic stay by exercising control
over property of the estate, and that the Debtors had standing to
prosecute an action for damages under Section 362(k).  It concluded
that Wells Fargo clearly exercised control over property of the
estate in violation of the automatic stay, because Wells Fargo, by
itself, made the determination to only place a freeze on accounts
of $5,000 or more, even though this was not mandated by the
Bankruptcy Code, ordered by the Court, or requested by the chapter
7 trustee.  

The Bankruptcy Court rejected Wells Fargo's argument that 11 U.S.C.
Section 542(b), which provides that an entity that owes a debt that
is property of the estate will pay such debt to, or on the order
of, the trustee, mandated its actions; specifically, the Bankruptcy
Court found that because Wells Fargo distinguishes between assets
above and below $5,000, the Policy does not itself comply with
Section 542(b) with respect to all accounts, even assuming that the
administrative pledge constituted compliance with Senct 542's
mandate.  The Bankruptcy Court also found that because the
Administrative Pledge led to a $25 penalty charge by Kohl's, the
Debtors had demonstrated an injury and thus had standing and were
entitled to actual damages, as well as legal fees and costs.

On Dec. 30, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court issued the Orders finding
Wells Fargo in violation of the stay and awarding damages of $25,
attorneys' fees of $14,839.50, and costs of $13.68.  On Jan. 12,
2015, Wells Fargo filed its notice of appeal and moved for a stay
pending appeal, which the Bankruptcy Court granted on Feb. 23,
2015.

Wells Fargo filed its opening brief on May 2, 2015. On April 15,
2015, the Debtors' counsel filed a letter indicating that he was
not representing the Debtors in the pending appeal, and that the
Debtors are unable to afford other counsel to oppose the appeal.
On May 18, 2015, Wells Fargo filed a letter requesting that the
Court deem the appeal fully submitted after the Debtors failed to
file an opposition. The Court directed Debtors to respond to the
letter.  The Debtors never filed a response.

On May 26, 2015, the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy
Attorneys ("NACBA") filed a Motion for Leave to File an amicus
brief in support of the Debtors.  Wells Fargo filed an opposition
to the Motion on May 27, 2015.  The Court granted the Motion on May
27, 2015.   NACBA filed its amicus brief on June 15, 2015, and
Wells Fargo filed a reply on July 6, 2015.

Judge Karas explains that the Bankruptcy Code specifically includes
the exemption process under 11 U.S.C. Section 522 to facilitate the
debtor's 'fresh start' and to protect the debtor's dependents.
Nevertheless, the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure require
interested parties to object to a debtor's claimed exemptions
within 30 days.  It is well-settled that estate property does not
become exempt until the expiration of that 30-day period.  Thus,
the law has already contemplated the precise concerns outlined by
the Bankruptcy Court and NACBA, and provided a solution that
balances the interests of all parties involved.  It is not the role
of the Court to carve out additional protections when Congress has
already expressly included such a scheme in the Bankruptcy Code.
For these reasons, the Judge reversed the Orders of the Bankruptcy
Court finding Wells Fargo violated the automatic stay.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 24, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/PKrbwg from Leagle.com.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Appellant, represented by Andrew Mark Troop
-- andrew.troop@pillsburylaw.com -- Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
LLP.

Rodney Wayne Weidenbenner & Michele Ann Weidenbenner, Appellees,
represented by Dario DiLello, William F. Scofield, Esq.

National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys, Amicus,
represented by Linda Marie Tirelli -- westchesterlegal@aol.com --
Tirelli Law Group, LLC.


WESTERN EXPRESS: Class of Truck Drivers in Elmy FLSA Suit Certified
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN ELMY, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. WESTERN EXPRESS, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01199 (M.D. Tenn.), Judge William
L. Campbell, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee, Nashville Division, (i) granted the Plaintiff's
Motion to Conditionally Certify a Fair Labor Standards Act
Collective Action, and (ii) took under advisement the Plaintiff's
Motion for Approval of the Notice and Consent Form, pending a
meeting of the parties to attempt to agree upon such Notice and
Consent Form.

The Plaintiff filed the action as a purported collective action
pursuant to the FLSA.  Defendant Western is a carrier engaged in
the interstate shipment of freight.  Defendant New Horizons is a
company that leases trucks to truckers.

The Plaintiff contends that he worked for the Defendants as a
long-haul truck driver in Tennessee and other states.  He alleges
the Defendants misclassified him and other long-haul truck drivers
as independent contractors rather than employees and used this
misclassification to shift expenses onto the drivers, which
resulted in the Defendants paying the Plaintiff and other drivers
less than the federal minimum wage for each hour worked per week.

The Plaintiff asks the Court to conditionally certify the action as
a collective action under the FLSA, comprised of all truckers who
lease a truck from Defendant Horizons to drive for Defendant
Western during the three years preceding the filing of the initial
complaint and up through the date of final judgment herein and
subject to any equitable tolling for any applicable portion of the
limited time period.  He also asks the Court to approve his
proposed Notice and proposed Consent Form.

Judge Campbell holds that at this stage, a court simply determines
whether the plaintiff has made a modest factual showing that he and
his potential class members "suffer from a single, FLSA-violating
policy," and it grants conditional certification "when proof of
that policy or of conduct in conformity with that policy proves a
violation as to all the plaintiffs."  He finds that the Plaintiff
has met his burden.  Accordingly, he will conditionally certify the
matter on behalf of all individuals who leased a truck from
Defendant Horizons to drive for Defendant Western, during the three
years preceding August 2017 and through the date of final judgment
in the matter.

In light of this ruling, the Judge orders the parties to meet and
confer regarding a notice to the potential class members.  The
parties will attempt to reach an agreement as to content and method
of sending the proposed notice and will file an agreed upon notice
for approval with the Court by May 30, 2019.  If the parties cannot
agree to a notice and method of sending the notice to prospective
party plaintiffs, they will file competing notice proposals by May
30, 2019.  In the meantime, the Plaintiff's request to approve the
notice and consent forms will be taken under advisement.

For the reasons he discussed, Judge Campbell (i) granted the
Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification, and (ii) took
under advisement the Plaintiff's Motion for Approval of the Notice
and Consent Form, pending a meeting of the parties to attempt to
agree upon such Notice and Consent Form.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 24, 2019 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/axuCx5 from Leagle.com.

John Elmy, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff, represented by Charles P. Yezbak, III
-- yezbak@yezbaklaw.com -- Yezbak Law Offices, Joshua S. Boyette ,
Swartz Swidler LLC, Justin L. Swidler -- jswidler@swartz-legal.com
-- Swartz Swidler LLC, Lesley Tse -- ltse@getmansweeney.com --
Getman, Sweeney & Dunn, PLLC, Michael J.D. Sweeney --
msweeney@getmansweeney.com -- Getman, Sweeney & Dunn, PLLC & N.
Chase Teeples, Yezbak Law Offices.

Western Express, Inc. & New Horizons Leasing, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Benjamin P. Lemly -- blemly@kingballow.com -- King &
Ballow, Mark Everett Hunt, King & Ballow, R. Eddie Wayland, King &
Ballow & Rachel Speller, Western Express, Inc.

John Does 1-5, Defendant, represented by Mark Everett Hunt, King &
Ballow & Rachel Speller, Western Express, Inc..


WISCONSIN: Enjoined from Enforcing Challenged Exclusion vs. Flack
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CODY FLACK, et al., Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH SERVICES and LINDA SEEMEYER, in her official capacity,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-309-wmc (W.D. Wis.), Judge William M.
Conley of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin granted both the Plaintiffs' (i) motion to amend the
preliminary injunction enjoining the Defendants from enforcing Wis.
Admin. Code Section DHS 107.03(23)-(24) ("Challenged Exclusion")
against Plaintiffs Cody Flack or Sara Ann Makenzie; and (2)
unopposed motion to certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23.

In July 2018, the Court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining
the Defendants from enforcing the Challenged Exclusion against
plaintiffs Flack or Makenzie.  Since then, the Plaintiffs have
filed an amended complaint to name additional, individual
Plaintiffs Marie Kelly and Courtney Sherwin, as well as assert a
class action.

Marie Kelly is a 38-year-old transgender woman with gender
dysphoria, who lives in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.  Since approximately
2014, Kelly has relied on Wisconsin Medicaid to cover her
healthcare needs.  Although identifying as female for most of her
life, she was assigned the sex of male at birth.  Kelly has lived
as a woman since 2010.  Since 2011, Kelly has taken feminizing
hormone treatments to address her gender dysphoria.

Several times over the years, including in August 2018, Kelly has
inquired about Wisconsin Medicaid's coverage for gender-confirming
procedures, but has been told by her managed care organizations
that there is no such coverage available.  Kelly's primary care
provider, Linda Wesp, is a Family Nurse Practitioner/Advanced
Practice Nurse Prescriber.  She opines that Kelly meets the
criteria set forth in the WPATH SOC for receiving gender-confirming
surgeries as medically necessary treatment for persistent gender
dysphoria, including genital reconstruction and female chest
reconstruction.  The Defendants contend that there is no
evidentiary support for the assertion that Kelly's treatment
provider determined that facial hair removal through electrolysis
is medically necessary.

Courtney Sherwin is a 35-year-old transgender woman with gender
dysphoria.  At birth, she was assigned the male sex, but has
recognized herself as female since she was approximately 10 years
old.  Sherwin lives in Janesville, Wisconsin, and has been
dependent on Wisconsin Medicaid for her healthcare needs for the
past two years.  She expects that Wisconsin Medicaid will not cover
her proposed chest and genital reconstructive surgeries, because of
the Challenged Exclusion, and she cannot afford these treatments on
her own.  While the Defendants do not dispute that the Challenged
Exclusion is enforced, they contend that it was not responsible for
denials of voice therapy and a prescription promoting hair growth.
The Defendants contend that the voice therapy request was denied
because her treatment provider did not provide sufficient
documentation for DHS to determine if the service was medically
necessary.

At the outset, the Plaintiffs seek to certify a class under Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) to pursue declaratory
and injunctive relief.  Specifically, they propose and seek to
represent the following class of all transgender individuals who
are or will be enrolled in Wisconsin Medicaid, have or will have a
diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and who are seeking or will seek
surgical or medical treatments or services to treat gender
dysphoria.

Judge Conley finds that the Plaintiffs have met the Rule 23(a)
prerequisites.  Having met the Rule 23(a) prerequisites, the
Plaintiffs must establish that final injunctive relief or
corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the
class as a whole because the opposing party's actions are based on
grounds that apply generally to the class.  As the Plaintiffs
argue, certification of the Proposed Class is warranted under Rule
23(b)(2) because the categorical coverage ban on gender-confirming
care under the Challenged Exclusion is generally applicable to the
class, making a final injunction and corresponding declaratory
judgment appropriate to the full class.  Accordingly, the
Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(2) is
granted.

Also before the Court is the Plaintiffs' request to extend the
preliminary injunction to enjoin the Defendants' enforcement of the
Challenged Exclusion during the pendency of the case.  In essence,
they argue that expanding the preliminary injunction is appropriate
for substantially the same reasons warranting the current
injunction as: (1) the entire class of the Plaintiffs face
irreparable harm with no adequate remedy at law; (2) the Court
already determined they have a sufficient likelihood of success on
their Section 1557 and Equal Protection Clause claims; and (3)
expanding the injunction would have a negligible financial cost and
is in the public interest.  Likewise, they argue that they are
sufficiently likely to succeed on their Medicaid Act claims, which
were not previously considered by the Court, and expanding the
injunction would likely lead to public health benefits and
potentially long-term cost savings.  The Defendants disagree on all
points and oppose the expansion of the preliminary injunction.

The Judge finds that (i) as delayed/denied medical care cannot be
prevented or fully rectified by the final judgment after trial, it
is an irreparable harm that lacks an adequate remedy at law; (ii)
the Court's conclusion that the Plaintiffs had shown at least a
reasonable likelihood of success on the merits is enough for this
factor to weigh in favor of extending the preliminary injunction to
other class members, without considering the Medicaid Act claims;
(iii) the Plaintiffs have sufficiently established that the balance
of harms and public interest weigh in favor of expanding the
preliminary injunction to a general prohibition on the enforcement
of the Challenged Exclusion; (iv) in granting the Plaintiffs'
request to amend the preliminary injunction, the Judge will enjoin
the Defendants from enforcing the Challenged Exclusion alone; and
(v) even if a potentially larger number of the Plaintiffs may be
entitled to relief in the next few months, their indigency is still
a reason for the Court not to require a bond as a condition for the
preliminary injunction.

For these reasons, Judge Conley granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed
motion to certify a class.  The individual Plaintiffs are named the
class representatives and the Plaintiffs' counsel are named the
class counsel.  He also granted the Plaintiffs' motion to amend the
preliminary injunction.  The Defendants are enjoined from enforcing
the Challenged Exclusion during the pendency of the lawsuit.

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

Cody Flack & Sara Ann Makenzie, Plaintiffs, represented by Joseph
J. Wardenski -- jwardenski@relmanlaw.com -- Relman, Dane & Colfax
PLLC, Orly May -- omay@relmanlaw.com -- Relman, Dane & Colfax PLLC,
Robert Theine Pledl, Davis & Pledl, SC, Abigail Koelzer Coursolle,
National Health Law Program, Alexa Milton -- amilton@relmanlaw.com
-- Relman, Dane & Colfax PLLC, Catherine Anne McKee, National
Health Law Program & Jennifer Klar -- jklar@relmanlaw.com --
Relman, Dane & Colfax PLLC.

Marie Kelly & Courtney Sherwin, Plaintiffs, represented by Joseph
J. Wardenski, Relman, Dane & Colfax PLLC.

Wisconsin Department of Health Services & Linda Seemeyer, In her
official capacity, Defendants, represented by Steven Carl
Kilpatrick, Wisconsin Department of Justice, Colin Thomas Roth,
State of Wisconsin Department of Justice & Jody J. Schmelzer, State
of Wisconsin.

MercyCare Insurance Company, Objector, represented by Lindsay
Renier, Legal/Risk Department.


WOOD-MODE INC: Clapper Seeks to Recover Damages Under WARN Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
TINA CLAPPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. WOOD-MODE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-00854-MWB (M.D. Pa., May 17, 2019) is a case arising out of
the Defendant's failure to provide its workers with the 60-day
advance notification required under the federal Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification Act (the "WARN Act").

On May 13, 2019, Defendant terminated the employment of
approximately 900 employees at its plant in Kreamer, Pennsylvania.
In violation of the WARN Act, Defendant provided Plaintiff and the
putative Class less than 24 hours' notice that their employment was
being terminated. Through this action, Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees of Defendant seek recovery of damages
in the amount of  60 days' pay and benefits under the WARN Act, as
well as civil penalties, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Clapper began working for Defendant on approximately
August 24, 2015 and was terminated, along with approximately 900
other employees on May 13, 2019.

Wood-Mode, Inc. is a Pennsylvania limited liability company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
     Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
     Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
     SAUDER SCEHLKOPF LLC
     555 Lancaster Avenue
     Berwyn, PA 19312
     Phone: (610) 200-0580
     Email: jgs@sstriallawyers.com
            mds@sstriallawyers.com
            jbk@sstriallawyers.com


WORLDPAY INC: Faces Sabatini Suit over Proposed Merger
------------------------------------------------------
ERIC SABATINI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WORLDPAY, INC.; CHARLES DRUCKER; LEE ADREAN;
KEVIN COSTELLO; MARK HEIMBOUCH; LISA A. HOOK; RON KALIFA; GARY L.
LAUER; KAREN RICHARDSON; BOON SIM; JEFFERY STIEFLER; FIDELITY
NATIONAL INFORMATION SERVICES, INC.; and WRANGLER MERGER SUB, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00794-UNA (D. Del., April 30, 2019) is
an action against the Defendants tp challenge a proposed
transaction announced on March 18, 2019, pursuant to which
Worldpay, Inc. will be acquired by Fidelity National Information
Services, Inc., and Wrangler Merger Sub, Inc.  The deal violates
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, according to the complaint.

On April 15, 2019, the Defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration
Statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in
connection with the Proposed Transaction.  The Registration
Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Registration Statement false and
misleading.

The Registration Statement omits material information regarding the
Company's and FIS's financial projections, as well as the analyses
performed by the Company's financial advisor in connection with the
Proposed Transaction, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC.

Worldpay, Inc., through its subsidiary, Worldpay Holding, LLC,
provides electronic payment processing services in the United
States, Europe, Asia, and Australasia. The company was formerly
known as Vantiv, Inc. and changed its name to Worldpay, Inc. in
January 2018. Worldpay, Inc. was incorporated in 2009 and is
headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas
          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


ZF FRIEDRICHSHAFEN: Sued Over Defective Airbag Control Units
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled as, THOMAS PAYNE; ANDREA ACOSTA; KRYSTINA
BONILLA; ALEXIA BOUCLIER; YONI BREVE; DANNY BUSTAMANTE; BRIAN
CHAIKEN; SAMUEL CHOC; EDUARDO CONSUEGRA; RYAN CRESPO; GRISSELL
DENIZARD; MARLENE MARTINEZ; ARMANDO PAZ, JR.; GILBERTO PEREZ;
ALEXANDER PEREZ; JOSEPORTILLO ALEJANDRO RAMIREZ; NOE RIVERON; JUAN
ZAMORA; MICHAEL HINES; and BERNADETTE POLANSKY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ZF
FRIEDRICHSHAFEN AG; ZF TRW AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS CORP.; TRW
AUTOMOTIVE INC.; TRW AUTOMOTIVE U.S. LLC; TRW VEHICLE SAFETY
SYSTEMS INC.; HONDA MOTOR CO., LTD.; AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO.,
INC.; HONDA OF AMERICA MFG. INC.; HONDA R&D CO., LTD.; HYUNDAI
MOTOR GROUP; HYUNDAI MOTOR CO.; HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA; KIA MOTORS
CORP.; KIA MOTORS AMERICA; TOYOTA MOTOR CORP.; TOYOTA MOTOR SALES,
U.S.A., INC.; and TOYOTA MOTOR ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING NORTH
AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-21681-XXXX (S.D., Fla.,
April 30, 2019), the plaintiffs contend that the Defendants sold
and marketed defective airbag control units.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that because of the
defective design of the airbag control units, it is susceptible to
damage or electrical overstress conditions, which prevent the
vehicles' airbags from deploying and the seatbelt pretensioners
from engaging during a collision, thereby failing to protect
vehicle occupants in a crash. The Defendants automakers
manufactured, sold, and leased vehicles containing defective airbag
control units, concealing the defect and knowingly misrepresenting
their vehicles as safe to consumers and the public.

Instead of deploying safety devices such as airbags and seatbelt
pretensioners that protect vehicle occupants from bodily injury
during accidents, the defective airbag control units often fail to
send a signal to deploy airbags and engage seatbelt pretensioners,
causing occupants to suffer serious bodily injury and death.

ZF Friedrichshafen AG provides systems for passenger cars,
commercial vehicles, and industrial technology worldwide. ZF
Friedrichshafen AG was founded in 1915 and is headquartered in
Friedrichshafen, Germany. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Prieto, Esq.
          John Gravante, Esq.
          Matthew P. Weinshall, Esq.
          Alissa Del Riego, Esq.
          PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
          SunTrust International Center
          One Southeast 3 rd Ave, Suite 2300
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 358-2800
          Facsimile: (305) 358-2382
          E-mail: pprieto@podhurst.com
                  jgravante@podhurst.com
                  mweinshall@podhurst.com
                  adelriego@podhurst.com


ZF TRW AUTOMOTIVE: Heilman-Ryan Sues Over Defective Airbags
-----------------------------------------------------------
Regina Heilman-Ryan, Steve Keister, and Desiree Meyer, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ZF TRW
Automotive Holdings Corp. and FCA US LLC, Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-11464-MFL-EAS (E.D. Mich., May 17, 2019) is a case arising
out of a longstanding and knowing failure by automakers and a major
parts supplier to disclose a potentially deadly defect in an
essential safety system: the control unit that determines whether
and when airbags are deployed.

The defect involves an Airbag Control Unit ("ACU") designed and
manufactured by Defendant ZF TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. and
supplied to numerous vehicle manufacturers, including Defendant
Fiat Chrysler. The ACU defect is especially pernicious because it
manifests itself only when an accident occurs and the safety
features it controls are most needed: in a crash, an integrated
circuit integral to the ACU system can be overstressed by the
electrical signals from the sensors connected to it and fail as a
result, preventing deployment of the airbags and seatbelt
pretensioners. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
has announced that approximately 12.3 million vehicles may contain
a defective ACU. Much like the recent Takata airbag scandal—which
has involved tens of millions of vehicles and has resulted in a
massive recall and $1.5 billion in class action settlements so
far—these Defendants concealed and failed to disclose a dangerous
and potentially deadly defect in essential automotive safety
systems from their customers. Each Defendant knew about the defect
for years before they took any action to inform consumers or repair
defective vehicles.

ZF-TRW apparently conspired with FCA to conceal a dangerous and
potentially defect that already existed in millions of vehicles in
order to continue selling defective parts for installation in new
vehicles. As a result of this conduct, Plaintiffs and members of
the putative classes alleged herein suffered actual damages,
because they did not receive the benefit of their bargain in
purchasing or leasing affected vehicles. The vehicles purchased or
leased by Plaintiffs and members of the putative classes are and
were at the time of purchase of a lesser standard and quality than
represented and were fit for the ordinary purpose of providing safe
transportation for which they were purchased. Each purchaser or
lessee of an affected vehicle paid more than they would have if the
truth about the ACU defect had been disclosed to them.

Meanwhile, each Defendant profited from the continued installation
of defective parts in new vehicles and the delay in recalling their
dangerously defective products. The Defendants' concealment of the
true nature of the affected vehicles induced and caused the
Plaintiffs and members of the classes to purchase and/or lease, and
to continue to own, lease, and/or operate, Jeep, Ram, and Dodge
vehicles of diminished value. Plaintiffs and Class members have
also suffered damages in the form of out-of-pocket costs related to
the loss of use of affected vehicles, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs purchased the Class Vehicles which include the 2010-2011
Model Year ("MY") Dodge Nitro, 2009 MY Dodge Ram 1500, 2010 MY
Dodge Ram 3500, 2012-2019 MY Fiat 500, 2015-2017 MY Jeep Compass,
2010-2012 Jeep Liberty, 2015-2017 MY Jeep Patriot, 2010-2018 MY
Jeep Wrangler, 2009-2012 MY Ram 1500, 2010-2012 MY Ram 2500,
2010-2012 Ram 3500, 2011-2012 MY Ram 4500, and 2011-2012 MY Ram
5500.

ZF TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. is a major automotive parts
supplier.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
     Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
     Tana Lin, Esq.
     Ryan McDevitt, Esq.
     Erika Keech , Esq.
     KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
     1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Phone: (206) 623-1900
     Fax: (206) 623-3384
     Email: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
            gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
            tlin@kellerrohrback.com
            rmcdevitt@kellerrorhback.com
            ekeech@kellerrohrback.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 ***