CAR_Public/190606.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, June 6, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 113

                            Headlines

AA RUBASHKIN: Denied Rivera Overtime Pay, Minimum Wages
AAC HOLDINGS: Pomerantz Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
AAC HOLDINGS: Rosen Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
ALFREDO'S PIZZA: Gonzalez Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
ALLERGAN INC: Meijer Sues Over Monopoly of Cyclosporine Emulsion

ALLERGAN PLC: Denial of Class Cert. in Celexa/Lexapro Suit Affirmed
ALLERGAN PLC: Discovery in Restasis(R) Class Litigation Underway
ALLERGAN PLC: Loestrin(R) 24 Litigation Ongoing
ALLERGAN PLC: Trial Date in Namenda(R) Litigation in Oct. 2019
AMAZON.COM INC: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in Rittmann Suit

AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Removes Barnes Suit to E.D. California
AMERICAN EAGLE: Seeks Writ of Certiorari in Bedoya Class Suit
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Maryland Court Dismisses Jaley Class Suit
AMERICAN TRAFFIC: Illinois Court Dismisses D. Jarman's ICFA Suit
AMERICAN WATER: $15MM Accrued Liabilities in Chemical Spill Suit

AMERICAN WATER: Bid to Dismiss Water Main Break Suit Pending
AMSHER COLLECTION: Certification of Class Sought in Menear Suit
APPLE INC: Reddy Hits Stock Drop Over Market Decline
ARBITRATION FORUMS: Appeals E.D. Mo. Ruling in White Knight Suit
AREAS USA LAX: Underpays Busboys, Cazares Suit Alleges

AT&T: Faces Class Action Over Customers' Privacy Violation
ATRIA MANAGEMENT: Quinones Case Removed to C.D. California
BAUSCH HEALTH: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss Timber Hill Suit
BAUSCH HEALTH: Continues to Defend Class Suits in Canada
BAUSCH HEALTH: Parties Agree to Stay New Jersey Securities Suit

BAUSCH HEALTH: Senzar Healthcare Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
BAXTER INT'L: Bid to Dismiss IV Solutions Sales Suit Still Pending
BEAUTYSMART M.D.: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Bittlingmeyer Says
BEIERSDORF INC: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Figueroa Says
BLOOMFIELD, MI: Seeks Review of Decision in Youmans Class Suit

BRAMAN HYUNDAI: Schaevitz's Bid to Certify TCPA Class Denied
BRIGADOON FITNESS: Class Certification Bid in TCPA Suit Denied
BUSINESS LISTING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Ashtiani Claims
CAPITAL ONE: Settlement of Langers Suit Wins Approval
CARE.COM INC: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action

CAWLEY & BERGMANN: Untershine Class Certification Bid Shelved
CELADON GROUP: Blakley Appeals S.D. Indiana Ruling to 7th Circuit
CENIKOR FOUNDATION: Williams et al Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
CENTO FINE: Snarr Hits Product Mislabeling Over Tomato Product
CENVEO WORLDWIDE: Murga Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Missed Breaks

CHEMOURS COMPANY: Defends Class Suit over Indiana Superfund Site
CHEMOURS COMPANY: N.Y. Suits over PFAS Contamination Still Pending
CITIBANK, N.A.: Revitch Seeks to Certify Class
CITYWIDE PARKING: Fitwi Files Suit Over Unpaid Wages
CODEFIED INC: Armstrong Suit Alleges TCPA Violation

COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Landau Disputes Collection Letter
COMSCORE INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
COOK COUNTY, IL: Certification of Class Sought in Alicea Suit
COVERALL NORTH: Gonzalez Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Circuit
CRANE CARTAGE: Vasquez Hits Missed Breaks, Claims Final Pay

CULVER CITY, CA: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Biberovic Suit
DANONE US: Andrade-Heymsfield Suit Alleges False Advertising
DEUTSCHE BANK: Accused of Bond Price Inflation
DUKE UNIVERSITY: Pays $54.5MM to Settle UNC Collusion Suit
EMAN CORPORATION: Abdelaal Suit Alleges FLSA Violations

EMERSON ELECTRIC: Creech Appeals S.D. Ohio Decision to 6th Cir.
EQHEALTH SOLUTIONS: Russell Moves to Certify Class Under FLSA
EVENTBRITE INC: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
EXPEDIA GROUP: Still Defends Fee Disclosure Class Actions
EXXON MOBIL: Goldstein et al. Seek to Renew Class Cert. Bid

FCA US: Razen Sues Over Defective Vehicle Transmissions
FIAT CHRYSLER: Sept. 5 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
FIAT CHRYSLER: To Compensate EcoDiesel Jeep, Ram Owners
FINISAR CORP: Court Strikes Renewed Bid for Class Certification
FITBIT INC: July 11 Hearing Set for Sleep Tracker Lawsuit Accord

FLEX LTD: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL: Suoto Suit Seeks Unpaid Min., Overtime Wages
FRANKLIN COLLECTION: Lemke Moves for Certification of Class
FRONTLINE ASSET: Seeks Approval of Settlement in Williams Suit
GEICO GENERAL: Appeals Ruling in Roth Suit to Eleventh Circuit

GILEAD GROUP: Accused of HIV Meds Price Rigging
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Opt-Out Plaintiffs Suit Underway
GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend FX Class Suits in Israel
GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend NY Securities Lending Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces VRDO-Related Antitrust Class Action

GOLDMAN SACHS: GSE Bonds Antitrust Litigation v. GS&Co. Underway
GOLDMAN SACHS: New York Class Suit over 1MDB Scandal Ongoing
GOLDMAN SACHS: New York Suit over FX Transactions Ongoing
GOLDMAN SACHS: NY Securities Class Suit Stayed Pending Appeal
GREYSTONE PARK: State-Run Hospital Still "A Disaster," Suit Claims

HASS INTERESTS: Polk Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
HD AND ASSOCIATES: Taylor Seeks Overtime Wages for Technicians
HEALTH INSURANCE INNOVATIONS: Izor et al Sue over Unsolicited Calls
HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Rosen Files Securities Class Action Suit
HERC HOLDINGS: Ramirez Plaintiff Seeks to File 5th Amended Suit

ILG TECH: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in Murray Class Suit
ILLINOIS: Ford's Bid to Certify Denied; Must Amend Suit by June 3
INTERCONTINENTAL TERMINALS: Starts Paying Chemical Fire Claims
INTUIT INC: Dohrmann Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices
IRONCLAD ENERGY: Hines Moves to Certify Class of Pumpdown Workers

J & J INC: Garcia et al. Seek to Certify Class of Painters
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: DeJesus Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Diaz Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Duran Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Duran Suit Moved to C.D. California

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Erpelding Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Feldan Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Frausto Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Friend Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Gorzegno Suit Moved to C.D. California

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Gustafson et al. Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Kelly Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Rodriguez Suit to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Rose Suit Moved to C.D. California
JUMIA TECH: Strugala Sues Over Share Drop from Faulty Reporting

JUMIA TECHNOLOGIES: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
JUUL LABS: Sued over Deceptive e-cigarette Marketing Practices
JUUL LABS: Zampa Suit Moved From S.D. Florida to N.D. California
KOHN LAW: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
LABORATORY CORP: Bid to Dismiss North Carolina Suit Still Pending

LABORATORY CORP: Settlement Agreement Reached in Gonzalez Suit
LABORATORY CORP: Still Defends Sealock Suit over Labor Practices
LAND'S END: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Delta Uniforms
LAWRY'S RESTAURANTS: Faces Gaspic Wage and Hour Suit in Calif.
LEFTOM FOODS: Cabrera Seeks Minimum Wage & Overtime Premiums

LINCOLN NATIONAL: Bid for Leave to Amend Glover Complaint Ongoing
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Unit Still Defends Hanks Class Suit in NY
LIVE NATION: 11 Class Suits over Overpriced Tickets Still Pending
LIVE NATION: Gaetano Agrees to Drop Class Suit with Prejudice
LOANCARE LLC: Sanders Moves for Certification of Borrowers Class

LYFT INC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
LYFT INC: Bottini & Bottini Files Securities Class Action Over IPO
LYFT INC: Class Suit for Disabled Passengers Filed
LYFT INC: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Fraud Class Lawsuit
MARK JAWAHIR: Sandoe Pushes for Subpoena Compliance Over Docs

MARK OBENSTINE: Estakhrian Appeals C.D. Cal. Decision to 9th Cir.
MARRIOTT INT'L: Lindsey Suit Included in Security Breach MDL
MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP: Lennen Asks to Certify MVC Trust Owners Class
MASTERCARD INC: Facing GBP14-Bil. Suit in Britain Over Card Fees
MCDERMOTT INT'L: Bennett Seeks Certification of Class of Workers

MDL 2741: Brewster v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Griffin v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Seibert v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Todd v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Tubbesing v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated

MEDICAL CASE: Seeks 5th Cir. Review of Ruling in Turner FLSA Suit
MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Kent Suit over Proposed Merger
METLIFE INC: Westland Police & Fire Retirement Suit Still Ongoing
MOBILE TELESYSTEMS: Rosen Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
MONSANTO COMPANY: Merchant Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MRS BPO: Certification of Classes Sought in Banaszynski Suit
NABRIVA THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action Suit
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Class Certification Sought in Ellis Suit
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Steil Disputes Misleading Collection Letter
NEW ORLEANS, LA: Caluda Moves to Certify Class of Property Owners

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Maanen Claims Overtime for Off-the-Clock Work
NEW YORK: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed in Gulino Discrimination Suit
NEW YORK: Appeals March 20 Judgment in Gulino Discrimination Suit
NEW YORK: Appeals March 20 Judgment in Gulino Suit to 2nd Circuit
NEW YORK: Appeals Order in Gulino Discrimination Suit to 2nd Cir.

NEW YORK: Appeals S.D.N.Y. Judgment in Gulino Suit to 2nd Circuit
NEW YORK: Second Circuit Appeal Initiated in Gulino Class Suit
NEW YORK: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Judgment in Gulino Bias Suit
NEW YORK: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of N.Y. Judgment in Gulino Suit
NEW YORK: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of S.D.N.Y. Ruling in Gulino Suit

NOKIA CORP: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
NORRED & ASSOCIATES: Underpays Post Commanders, Walker Claims
NORTH SHORE AGENCY: McKinney Wins Bid to Stay Class Certification
NUTANIX, INC: Securities Statements Misleading, Zapf Says
NXCESS MOTORCARS: Mayberry Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages

O2 KOREAN BBQ: Lacked Timekeeping, Denied Cui Overtime Pay
OH MY GREEN: Removes Kastler Suit to N.D. California
ORION GROUP: Rosen Files Securities Fraud Suit
ORLANDO HEALTH: Morgan Seeks to Certify TCPA Classes
PARAMOUNT COUNTRY: Court Awarded $17K Attorney's Fees in Martinez

PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Customers' Class Action in Israel
PLANET FITNESS: Appeals Court Shuts Down Class Action
PLAYTIKA LTD: Appeals Decision in Wilson Suit to Ninth Circuit
PRICESMART INC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Suit
PRICESMART INC: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Fraud Suit

PRICESMART INC: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Action Suit
PUFF CORP: Anderson Suit Alleges Consumer Fraud
QUALCOMM INC: July 11 Hearing in 3226701 Canada Case Appeal
QUALCOMM INC: Quebec Superior Court Certifies Class
RANIERI LAW: Rowe Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls

REALOGY HOLDINGS: Fenley Suit vs. Subsidiaries, et al. Underway
REALOGY HOLDINGS: Sitzer and Winger Class Suit Underway
REALOGY HOLDINGS: Subsidiary Still Defends Whitlach Class Action
REYNOLDS METALS: Cothern Suit Moved From Pennsylvania to Illinois
RHAPSODY INTERNATIONAL: Settles Music Royalties Class Action

RICHMOND COUNTY, GA: Property Owners Mull Class Action Suit
RINGCENTRAL INC: Supply Pro Files Petition for Writ of Certiorari
ROCKLER COMPANIES: Figueroa Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
ROYAL ADMINISTRATION: Anderson Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: Settlement in Ontiveros Suit Has Prelim. OK

SAINTE-MARTHE-SUR-LE-LAC: Residents Prepare to File Class Action
SB SOUTHERN: Franklin FLSA Suit Moved From W.D. to N.D. Texas
SEIDBERG LAW: Akins Settlement Has Final Court Approval
SOUTHERN CO: Securities Class Suit by Monroe County ERS Ongoing
SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Canterbury Earthquake Claimants File Suit

STATE COLLECTION: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
STATE FARM: Class of Insureds in Florida Certified in Sos Suit
STEVEN ADLER: Schalamar HOA Seeks to Certify Class of Homeowners
STUPAR SCHUSTER: Certification of Class Sought in Goedde Suit
SUNTRUST BANK: Asks High Court to Review Bickerstaff Class Cert.

SUNTRUST BANKS: Wants Remaining Claims in ERISA Case Tossed
SUPERIOR TALENT: Zamarripa Sues Wage & Hour Law Violations
TAISHAN GYPSUM: Court Authorizes Limited Discovery in Amorin
TATE & KIRLIN: Echeverria Sues over Debt Collection Practices
TCM FINANCIAL: Aparicio Suit Alleges TCPA and FDCPA Violations

TELLURIAN BOARD: Hogan Seeks to Halt Share Issuance to Total
TELUS COMMUNICATIONS: Siskinds Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
TICKETMASTER: 2,000+ People Express Interest to Join Class Action
TIME TO EAT: Thomas Seeks Class Certification
TREEHOUSE FOODS: Consolidated Labor Suits Underway

TREEHOUSE FOODS: Document Production in PERS Suit Due by Aug. 2
TVJ SEMINOLE: Stevens Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
TYSON FOODS: Wright et al. Sue over Fed Cattle Price-Fixing
U.S. XPRESS: Discovery Ongoing in Calif. Wage & Hour Class Suit
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: 6,000+ Drivers Join Class Action in Australia

VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Gordon Securities Class Action Underway
VBI VACCINES: Decision on Class Certification Motion Suspended
VIDEO LOTTERY: Class Suit Awaits Canada Supreme Court Decision
VIEGA LLC: Ryan Plumbing Sues Over Fittings Price-rigging
WASTE PRO USA: Tweedie Sues Over Illegal Background Check

WEINSTEIN CO: Harvey Dismissed From Sexual-Misconduct Suit
WELSPUN USA: Court Narrows Claims in Egyptian Cotton Suit
WEST MEMPHIS FENCE: Bid for Conditional Class Certification Denied
WESTERN DIGITAL: Chen Sues Over Sexual Discrimination
WESTERN UNION: Price Appeals Ruling in Douglas Suit to 7th Cir.

WESTROCK CP: Virginia Court Certifies Class in Bell Suit
WRIGHT-PATT: Qualls Sues Over Illegal Fees and Charges
ZIMMER BIOMET: Karl Moves to Certify FLSA Class of Salespersons
ZION FARM LLC: Rios Sues Over Illegal Tip Pool, Unpaid Overtime
ZOGENIX INC: Pomerantz Files Securities Fraud Class Suit

ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Certification of Class Sought in Kaur Suit
[*] India Gov't Readying IEPF Scheme for Minority Investors

                            *********

AA RUBASHKIN: Denied Rivera Overtime Pay, Minimum Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Italo R. Rivera, on behalf of herself and similarly situated
individuals, Petitioner, v. A. A. Rubashkin and Sons, Inc.,
Respondents Case No. 19-cv-02838, (E.D. N.Y., May 14, 2019), seeks
to recover minimum and overtime wages as mandated by New York labor
law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Rivera worked for A. A. Rubashkin as a butcher. He claims to be
denied overtime pay and paid below the mandatory minimum wage rate.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lawrence Spasojevich, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF JAMES F. SULLIVAN PC
     52 Duane St., 7th Floor
     New York, NY 11702
     Tel. (212) 374-0009
     Fax: (212) 374-9931
     Email: ls@jfslaw.net


AAC HOLDINGS: Pomerantz Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against AAC Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: AAC) and certain of its officers.
The class action, filed in U.S. District Court, for the Middle
District of Tennessee, is on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired AAC
securities between March 8, 2017 and April 15, 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 AAC securities during the
class period, you have until July 15, 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.

AAC was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Brentwood,
Tennessee.  The Company provides inpatient and outpatient substance
use treatment services for individuals with drug addiction, alcohol
addiction, and co-occurring mental/behavioral health issues in the
United States.

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

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

On this news, AAC's stock price fell $0.40 per share, or 18.69%, to
close at $1.74 per share on April 16, 2019.

         Contact:
         Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
         Pomerantz LLP
         Phone: 888-476-6529 ext. 9980
         Website: www.pomerantzlaw.com
         Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]


AAC HOLDINGS: Rosen Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of AAC Holdings, Inc. (AAC) from March 8, 2017 through
April 15, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").  The lawsuit seeks
to recover damages for AAC investors under the federal securities
laws.

To join the AAC class action, go
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1577.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) AAC's internal controls over financial reporting and
disclosure controls and procedures were inadequate to accurately
reflect adjustments related to estimates for accounts receivable,
provision for doubtful accounts, and revenue; (2) AAC consequently
misstated financial and operating results in its annual reports for
fiscal years 2016 and 2017, as well as all quarterly reports
throughout 2017 and 2018; (3) accordingly, those reports could not
be relied upon, requiring AAC to restate the financial and
operating results reflected therein; and (4) as a result, AAC's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July
15, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1577.html

Contact:

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                cases@rosenlegal.com [GN]


ALFREDO'S PIZZA: Gonzalez Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Jorge Cruz Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Alfredo's Pizza Cafe, Inc., Alfredo's Green Spring,
LLC, Billy Khamaiseh, and Sam Khamaiseh, Case No. 2:19-cv-00502
(N.D. Ala., March 28, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant refuse to pay earned
wages, overtime pays and has wrongfully discharged him after
complaining about his unpaid overtime and regular wages.

The Plaintiff is an adult residing in Birmingham, Alabama. He was
working for about fourteen months for the Defendants until January
1, 2019 when he was terminated.

The Defendants own and operate a pizza place in Alabama. The
Defendant Billy is the owner and general manager of Alfredo's Pizza
and the Defendant Sam is the store manager. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Vicenta Bonet Smith, Esq.
      BONET & SMITH, PC
      3499 Independence Drive
      Birmingham, AL 35209
      Tel: (205) 870-2222
      Fax: (205) 870-3331


ALLERGAN INC: Meijer Sues Over Monopoly of Cyclosporine Emulsion
----------------------------------------------------------------
MEIJER, INC. and MEIJER DISTRIBUTION, INC., on behalf of themselves
and all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ALLERGAN, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02563 (E.D. N.Y., May 1, 2019) is an
action arising from Allergan, Inc.'s scheme to unlawfully prolong
its monopoly over the sale of cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion,
0.05% in the United States.

The lawsuit seeks damages on behalf of the plaintiffs, Meijer Inc.
and Meijer Distribution, Inc. ("Meijer"), which are collectively
referred to as "Plaintiffs," and a proposed class of purchasers
that bought Restasis (Allergan's brand of cyclosporine ophthalmic
emulsion, 0.05%) directly from Allergan from May 2014 to the
present.

The Complaint states that Allergan violated sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Act, through a scheme to monopolize that involved a series
of unlawful acts. Although it had legitimate patent coverage for
Restasis through May 2014, Allergan obtained a second wave of
patents for Restasis by defrauding the United States Patent and
Trademark Office ("PTO"). This fraud unlawfully extended the term
of patent coverage for Restasis by many more years. Allergan
misrepresented to the PTO that clinical trials of a lower strength
Restasis formulation showed unexpected effectiveness and surprising
results. But these clinical representations were false. In reality,
Allergan derived these representations by cherry-picking unreliable
test results while ignoring the vast majority of results that did
not support its claims.

Allergan listed the second wave patents in the Food and Drug
Administration's ("FDA") Orange Book despite knowing that those
patents did not fall under the FDA's listing requirements and
should not have been asserted against potential generic
competitors. Those patents had been procured by fraud, and Allergan
knew it, the Complaint asserts. As a result, Allergan knew it was
not entitled to the protections the Orange Book affords patent
holders. Allergan filed baseless petitions with the FDA seeking to
have the FDA impose over a dozen unnecessary, time-consuming, and
unsupported requirements upon would-be generic competitors. The
petitions, along with numerous supplements, diverted substantial
resources of the FDA to answering Allergan's demands and delayed
the entry of generic competitors. Eventually the FDA, in emphatic
language, denied every substantive Allergan demand.

Using the listed, second wave patents, Allergan filed and pursued
at least seven infringement actions against would-be makers of
generic Restasis. Allergan knew no reasonable litigant would have a
realistic expectation of prevailing on the ultimate merits of those
cases. But Allergan's purpose in filing and pursuing the suits was
not to achieve ultimate patent victories; it was to frustrate the
FDA's review of pending applications for generic cyclosporine
ophthalmic emulsion, 0.05% and to delay the ability of generics to
enter that market. After the PTO ruled that the second wave patents
were likely to be declared invalid during an inter partes review,
Allergan purported to transfer ownership of the second wave patents
to the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe ("Mohawk"). The sole purpose of
this transfer was to hide under Mohawk's cloak of sovereign
immunity and defeat the PTO's jurisdiction over the patents,
nullifying the PTO's ability to invalidate them. The
Allergan-Mohawk agreement was undertaken to restrain competition
unreasonably.

Allergan's anticompetitive scheme had its intended consequence: it
delayed generic competition in the market for cyclosporine
ophthalmic emulsion, 0.05%. But for Allergan's unlawful scheme,
generic manufacturers of cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion, 0.05%
would have entered the market as early as May 2014, providing
Plaintiffs and other members of the class with access to far less
expensive, generic versions of Restasis. Given Restasis's
approximate annual sales of $1 billion, the proposed direct
purchaser class was likely overcharged by many hundreds of millions
of dollars as a result of Allergan's anticompetitive scheme, says
the Complaint.

Plaintiffs Meijer, Inc. and Meijer Distribution, Inc., are
corporations organized under the laws of the state of Michigan.

Headquartered in Irvine, California, Allergan, Inc. was an American
global pharmaceutical company focused on eye care, neurosciences,
medical dermatology, medical aesthetics, breast enhancement,
obesity intervention and urologics.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David S. Nalven, Esq.
     Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
     Kristen A. Johnson, Esq.
     Jessica R. MacAuley, Esq.
     Hannah W. Brennan, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
     Cambridge, MA 02142
     Phone: (617) 482-3700
     Fax: (617) 482-3003
     Email: davidn@hbbslaw.com
            tom@hbsslaw.com
            kristenj@hbsslaw.com
            jessicam@hbsslaw.com
            hannahb@hbsslaw.com

          - and -

     Paul E. Slater, Esq.
     Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
     David P. Germaine, Esq.
     John P. Bjork, Esq.
     SPERLING & SLATER, P.C.
     55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3200
     Chicago, IK 60603
     Phone: (312) 641-3200
     Fax: (312) 641-6492
     Email: pes@sperling-law.com
            jvanek@sperling-law.com
            dgermaine@sperling-law.com
            jbjork@sperling-law.com


ALLERGAN PLC: Denial of Class Cert. in Celexa/Lexapro Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan 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 31, 2019, that the United States Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit has affirmed the denial of the class
certification motions but reversed the lower court's decision
granting the defendants' summary judgment motions in
Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) related suit.

Certain subsidiaries of the Company were named in federal court
actions relating to the promotion of Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R)
all of which were consolidated in an MDL proceeding in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Most of these claims were resolved through a settlement in
September 2014. However, two lawsuits remain which assert claims
under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
("RICO") Act.

The court has entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants
in both actions and denied plaintiffs' class certification motions.


Plaintiffs in both cases appealed the dismissal of their claims and
denial of class certification to the United States Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit and the appeals court issued a decision in
January 2019 affirming the denial of the class certification
motions but reversing the lower court's decision granting the
defendants' summary judgment motions.

Allergan plc, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, and
commercializes branded pharmaceutical, device, biologic, surgical,
and regenerative medicine products worldwide. The company operates
in three segments: US Specialized Therapeutics, US General
Medicine, and International. The company was formerly known as
Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June 2015.
Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Dublin,
Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Discovery in Restasis(R) Class Litigation Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan 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 31, 2019, that discovery is ongoing in the Restasis(R)
Class Action Litigation.

Several class actions were filed on behalf of putative classes of
direct and indirect purchasers of Restasis(R) alleging that
subsidiaries of the company harmed competition by engaging in
conduct to delay the market entry of generic versions of
Restasis(R) in violation of the federal antitrust laws as well as
state antitrust and consumer-protection laws and unjust enrichment.


The cases have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey. All plaintiffs seek damages, declaratory
relief, and injunctive relief.

The parties are currently engaged in discovery.

Allergan plc, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, and
commercializes branded pharmaceutical, device, biologic, surgical,
and regenerative medicine products worldwide. The company operates
in three segments: US Specialized Therapeutics, US General
Medicine, and International. The company was formerly known as
Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June 2015.
Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Dublin,
Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Loestrin(R) 24 Litigation Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------
Allergan 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 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a
consolidated class action suit related to Loestrin(R) 24
Litigation.

Putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers as well as
opt-out direct purchasers have filed complaints that have been
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode
Island.

The lawsuits allege that subsidiaries of the Company engaged in
anticompetitive conduct, including when settling patent lawsuits
related to Loestrin(R) 24 Fe, in violation of federal and state
antitrust and consumer protection laws. The complaints each seek
declaratory and injunctive relief and damages. The court recently
conducted hearings on the class plaintiffs' class certification
motions and on the parties' motions for summary judgement on the
issue of market power.

Allergan plc, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, and
commercializes branded pharmaceutical, device, biologic, surgical,
and regenerative medicine products worldwide. The company operates
in three segments: US Specialized Therapeutics, US General
Medicine, and International. The company was formerly known as
Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June 2015.
Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Dublin,
Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Trial Date in Namenda(R) Litigation in Oct. 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan 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 31, 2019, that the court in Namenda(R) Litigation has
set a trial date for October 2019.

In 2014, the State of New York filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that Forest
was acting to prevent or delay generic competition to Namenda(R) in
violation of federal and New York antitrust laws and committed
other fraudulent acts in connection with its commercial plans for
Namenda(R) XR.

The district court granted the state's motion for a preliminary
injunction which was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.

The parties in that case then reached a settlement to resolve the
dispute.

Following the conclusion of the New York Attorney General Matter,
putative class actions were filed on behalf of direct and indirect
purchasers in the same federal court.

The class action complaints make claims similar to those asserted
by the New York Attorney General and also include claims that
Namenda(R) patent litigation settlements between a Company
subsidiary and generic companies also violated the antitrust laws.


Plaintiffs seek unspecified injunctive relief, treble damages and
attorneys' fees. The court has denied defendants' motion for
summary judgement in the direct purchaser action, certified the
direct purchaser class of plaintiffs and set a trial date for
October 2019.

Allergan plc, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, and
commercializes branded pharmaceutical, device, biologic, surgical,
and regenerative medicine products worldwide. The company operates
in three segments: US Specialized Therapeutics, US General
Medicine, and International. The company was formerly known as
Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June 2015.
Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Dublin,
Ireland.


AMAZON.COM INC: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in Rittmann Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Amazon Logistics, Inc. and Amazon.com, Inc., filed an
appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Bernadean
Rittmann, et al. v. Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Logistics, Inc.,
Case No. 2:16-cv-01554-JCC, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle.

The Plaintiffs accuse the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was initiated on October 4, 2016, alleging that the Defendants
failed to assure that delivery drivers receive minimum wage, after
accounting for necessary business expenses that they must pay, such
as gas and car maintenance, as well as failure to pay overtime for
hours worked in excess of 40 per week.

The appellate case is captioned as Bernadean Rittmann, et al. v.
Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Logistics, Inc., Case No. 19-35381, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Appellants Amazon Logistics, Inc. and Amazon.com, Inc.'s
      opening brief is due on July 1, 2019;

   -- Appellees Freddie Carroll, Raef Lawson, Iain Mack,
      Bernadean Rittmann and Julia Wehmeyer's answering brief is
      due on July 31, 2019; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees BERNADEAN RITTMANN, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated; FREDDIE CARROLL, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated; IAIN MACK, in his
capacity as Private Attorney General Representative; and JULIA
WEHMEYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Michael Craig Subit, Esq.
          FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS LLP
          705 Second Avenue, Suite 1200
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 682-6711
          Facsimile: (206) 682-0401
          E-mail: msubit@frankfreed.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees RAEF LAWSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated; in his capacity as Private Attorney
General Representative, and IAIN MACK, in his capacity as Private
Attorney General Representative, are represented by:

          Matthew David Carlson, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          466 Geary Street, Suite 201
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: mcarlson@llrlaw.com

Plaintiff-Appellee RAEF LAWSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated; in his capacity as Private Attorney
General Representative, is represented by:

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

Plaintiff-Appellee IAIN MACK, in his capacity as Private Attorney
General Representative, is represented by:

          Marc Cote, Esq.
          FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS LLP
          705 Second Avenue, Suite 1200
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 682-6711
          Facsimile: (206) 682-0401
          E-mail: mcote@frankfreed.com

Defendants-Appellants AMAZON.COM, INC., and AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC.,
are represented by:

          Suzanne J. Thomas, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP
          925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 623-7580
          E-mail: suzanne.thomas@klgates.com


AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Removes Barnes Suit to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of GINA BARNES, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM
SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, filed
a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Solano (Case No. FCS052499) to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California on May 1,
2019. The clerk of court for the Eastern District of California
assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-00748-MCE-CKD. The case is assigned to
Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., and referred to Magistrate Carolyn
K. Delaney.

Amazon.com, Inc. engages in the retail sale of consumer products
and subscriptions in North America and internationally. The company
was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Seattle, Washington.
[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

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


AMERICAN EAGLE: Seeks Writ of Certiorari in Bedoya Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant American Eagle Express Inc. filed with the Supreme Court
of United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter
entitled AMERICAN EAGLE EXPRESS INC., d/b/a AEX Group v. EVER
BEDOYA, DIEGO GONZALES, MANUEL DECASTRO, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Case No. 18-1382.

Response is due on June 3, 2019.

The questions presented are:

   (1) Whether the Third Circuit erred by holding that New
       Jersey's statutory test for determining employment
       classification is not preempted under the Federal Aviation
       Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA), applying
       a novel preemption test that conflicts with the decisions
       of this Court and deepens the already-existing circuit
       split; and

   (2) Whether the presumption against preemption applies in the
       context of a statutory express preemption clause where the
       claims at issue involve areas historically regulated by
       the States.

The Lower Court Case is styled EVER BEDOYA; DIEGO GONZALES; MANUEL
DECASTRO, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED
v. AMERICAN EAGLE EXPRESS INC., D/B/A ALEX GROUP, Case No. 18-1641,
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  The
opinion of the Court of Appeals was issued on January 29, 2019.

The District Court case is titled EVER BEDOYA; DIEGO GONZALES;
MANUEL DECASTRO, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. AMERICAN EAGLE EXPRESS INC., D/B/A ALEX GROUP, Case No.
2-14-cv-02811, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Third Circuit
Judge Patty Shwartz affirmed on January 29 the District Court order
denying AEX's motion for judgment on the pleadings, and certifying
the order for interlocutory appeal.

The Plaintiff delivery drivers Bedoya, Gonzalez, and Decastro filed
a putative class action against the Defendant, alleging that AEX
misclassified them as independent contractors when they are
actually employees under the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law
("NJWHL"), and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law ("NJWPL").[BN]

Defendant-Petitioner American Eagle Express Inc. is represented
by:

          Joseph C. DeBlasio, Esq.
          Collin O'Connor Udell, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          766 Shrewsbury Ave., Suite 101
          Tinton Falls, NJ 07724
          Telephone: (732) 532-6148
          E-mail: Joseph.DeBlasio@jacksonlewis.com
                  Collin.Udell@jacksonlewis.com


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Maryland Court Dismisses Jaley Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re: Mohan K. Jaley, Chapter 13, Debtor. Mohan K.
Jaley, Plaintiff, v. American Express National Bank, Defendant,
Case No. 18-21131-LSS, Adv. No. 19-00005 (D. Md.), Judge Lori S.
Simpson of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland,
Greenbelt, (i) granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, and (ii)
denied the Defendant's Motion for Sanctions.

The Plaintiff filed her Chapter 13 Voluntary Petition on Aug. 21,
2018.  The following month, the Defendant filed two proofs of
claim, Claim No. 4 and Claim No. 5, in the Plaintiff's bankruptcy
case.  In Claim No. 4, the Defendant asserted an unsecured credit
card debt totaling $62,400.  The Plaintiff objected to Claim No. 4
on the ground that it was time-barred and unenforceable.  The
Defendant did not file a timely response.  The Court entered an
order sustaining the Plaintiff's claim objection and disallowing
Claim No. 4.

In Claim No. 5, the Defendant asserted an unsecured credit card
debt totaling $12,072.20.  In response to Claim No. 5, the
Plaintiff initiated the adversary proceeding on Jan. 3, 2019.  She
asserted seven causes of action, six of which are class action
causes of action.  Count I, an objection to Claim No. 5 as
unenforceable and time-barred, is the only individual cause of
action.  At the time she filed and served her initial complaint,
the Plaintiff filed and served a Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment, seeking summary judgment as to Count I only.  The
Defendant filed a response stating that it did not contest
disallowance of Claim No. 5.  Accordingly, the Court entered an
Order Granting Summary Judgment as to Court I, which disallowed
Claim No. 5.

On Feb. 13, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.  The
relevant facts alleged in the Amended Complaint are: (1) the
Defendant extended a credit card to the Plaintiff; (2) the
Plaintiff incurred debt to Defendant on that account; (3) the Debt
has been in default since June 30, 2015; and (4) the Defendant
filed Claim No. 5 based on the Debt.  

In the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff seeks certification of two
classes.  Class I being "All current and former debtors in any
bankruptcy action pending, at any time, before the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Maryland in whose proceeding a proof of
claim was submitted by the Defendant on or after Oct. 1, 2016, on a
time barred consumer debt.  Class II being a subset of Class I
including only debtors in cases "in which any monies were paid out
unto and/or received by [Defendant]." On behalf of those alleged
classes, Plaintiff asserts five causes of action. Plaintiff seeks
declaratory judgment that Defendant's practice of filing proofs of
claims for time-barred debt is a violation of Maryland law.
Plaintiff seeks an injunction enjoining Defendant from continuing
such practice. Plaintiff asserts two causes of action for monetary
damages asserting that such practice violates the Maryland Consumer
Debt Collection Act ("MCDCA") and the Maryland Consumer Protection
Act ("MCPA").  Finally, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant
was unjustly enriched through such practice.

The Defendant moves the Court to dismiss all of the Plaintiff's
remaining causes of action set forth in the Amended Complaint for
failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.  It argues
that binding precedent upholds a creditor's right to file a proof
of claim on stale debt.  It asserts that expiration of the
limitations period terminates the remedy for nonpayment of a debt
but does not extinguish the right to payment thereon.  The
Plaintiff responds that, as of Oct. 1, 2016, Maryland law provides
for the termination of the right and remedy upon expiration of the
applicable limitations period.  The Defendant also moves the Court
to impose sanctions on the Plaintiff, arguing that her class action
causes of action are frivolous and harassing.

The instant motions present two distinct, yet related, issues to
the Court.  First, with respect to the Motion to Dismiss, the Court
must determine whether Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Code Ann. Section
5-1201 et seq. effectively extinguishes the right to payment on a
debt following the expiration of the applicable statute of
limitations.  If not, it must determine, with respect to the Motion
for Sanctions, whether the Plaintiff's argument in the affirmative
is nonfrivolous.

Judge Simpson finds and concludes that the Defendant holds an
unenforceable right to payment on the Debt even after the
expiration of the three-year limitations period.  As such, he
further finds and concludes that the Defendant was within its
rights under bankruptcy law to file Claim No. 5.  Accordingly, to
the extent the Defendant ran afoul of the MCDCA, MCPA, or other
Maryland law in doing so, which he concludes is not at all, federal
bankruptcy law preempts the MCDCA, MCPA, and other Maryland law.

As to the Motion for Sanction, the Judge finds taht the Plaintiff's
counsel must have known that she was unlikely to prevail on her
class action causes of action.  Recent precedent from the Supreme
Court, Fourth Circuit, and the Court reject similar arguments.
Nonetheless, the Judge is not aware of any court addressing the
effect of Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Code Ann. Section 5-1201 et seq. on
the common law rule that expiration of the limitations period
extinguishes the remedy for nonpayment, but not the right to
payment.  Indeed, Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Code Ann. Section 5-1202(b)
abrogates a related common law rule that partially paying or
promising to pay a time-barred debt revives the limitations period.
Further, both the Maryland Court of Appeals, in Potterton, and the
Fourth Circuit, in Dubois, referred to this possible resurrection
of the limitations period as indicative of the right to payment's
continuing existence.  Accordingly, the Judge concludes that the
Plaintiff's argument that Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Code Ann. Section
5-1201 et seq. abrogated the common law rule, while unlikely to
succeed, is nonfrivolous. For this reason, the Plaintiff's counsel
has not violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9011(b) and
sanctions are inappropriate.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Simpson finds and concludes that he
should grant the Motion to Dismiss and deny the Motion for
Sanctions.  He will enter an order consistent with his Memorandum
Opinion.

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

Mohan K. Jaley, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas N. Gottron --
dgottron@morrispalerm.com -- Morris Palerm, LLC.

American Express National Bank, Defendant, represented by Bradley
T. Canter -- rcanter@roncanterllc.com -- The Law Offices of Ronald
S. Canter, LLC.


AMERICAN TRAFFIC: Illinois Court Dismisses D. Jarman's ICFA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois issued a Memorandum and Order granting Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss in the case captioned DEBORAH JARMAN, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN
TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS, INC., and CITY OF GRANITE CITY, Defendants. Case
No. 19-CV-204-NJR-RJD. (S.D. Ill.).

This matter is before the Court on the motion to dismiss filed by
Defendants City of Granite City (Granite City) and American Traffic
Solutions, Inc. (ATS).

Deborah Jarman is a citizen and resident of Granite City, who
received a notice through first class mail in November 2018,
stating she violated the Ordinance. She alleges the Ordinance and
its method of service run contrary to Illinois law because the
notices are not personally served or sent through certified mail.
The Complaint alleges two counts: money had and received against
Granite City and ATS (Count I) and violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA) against
ATS.

The purpose of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is to decide the adequacy of
the complaint, not to determine the merits of the case or decide
whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail. Claims filed within
the federal courts are governed by the Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8(a)(2) which requires only a short and plaint statement
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. For a
claim to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the claim must
sufficiently state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.

Jarman brings claims for money had and received against Granite
City and ATS. In Illinois, a plaintiff bringing a claim for money
had and received must allege that (1) he was compelled to pay money
to the defendant, (2) the defendant had no legal right to demand
the money and (3) payment was necessary in order to avoid an injury
to his business, person or property.

Granite City and ATS argue Jarman's claim for money had and
received fails as a matter of law because the Illinois Vehicle Code
authorizes municipalities to enact ordinances governing the use of
red-light cameras. According to Defendants, the Illinois Vehicle
Code expressly approves the mailing of notices of violation through
U.S. mail and adjudicating alleged violations through an
administrative process.   

Thus, the notices of violations are valid, and Jarman has not
alleged Defendants acted without any legal right to demand payment
of the fines under the Ordinance. But Jarman maintains that the
Illinois Municipal Code requires notices be sent by certified mail,
and that municipalities must comply with both statutes by providing
either personal service or service by certified mail.  

Jarman's argument hinges on Section 1-2-9.1 of the Illinois
Municipal Code (Section 1-2-9.1), which was enacted in 1980 and
provides, in all actions for violation of any municipal ordinance
where the fine would not be in excess of $750 and no jail term
could be imposed, service of summons may be made by the city clerk
by certified mail.

When two statutes deal with the same subject matter, they are to be
read in pari materia and harmonized when possible.

Here, the different statutes can certainly be read in harmony.
Section 1-2-9.1 states that notices of violations may be sent via
certified mail. The best indicator of legislative intent is the
plain meaning of the language and may is ordinarily used to state a
permissive rule, Shall, on the other hand, generally imposes a
mandatory duty. This is especially true when a statute
distinguishes between may and shall, as is the case here.  

In sum, the plain language of Section 1-2-9.1 does not require
Illinois municipalities to serve notices of violations of red-light
camera ordinances by certified mail. Also, Illinois's Red-Light
Camera Statute broadly provides for service by mail. Even if the
statutes conflicted, the Red-Light Camera Statute, and its broader
service requirements, would control. Unfortunately, Count I of the
Complaint rests on the notion that red-light camera tickets are
invalid because they are not served by certified mail.

Accordingly, Jarman has not alleged Defendants demanded money
without a legal justification for doing so, which is a necessary
element of a claim for money had and received. Count I must be
dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. Granite City
is dismissed with prejudice from this case.

ATS argues that Jarman's remaining ICFA claim also must be
dismissed for failure to state a claim. Under the ICFA, a plaintiff
must allege (1) a deceptive or unfair act or practice by the
defendant (2) the defendant's intent that the plaintiff rely on the
deceptive or unfair practice and (3) the unfair or deceptive
practice occurred during a course of conduct involving trade or
commerce.

Here, Jarman alleges ATS's practice of sending notices of
violations by U.S. mail is deceptive or unfair. But, as explained
above, Illinois law expressly authorizes this method of service.
This is not to say that conduct cannot be deceptive or unfair just
because it is accomplished by otherwise legal means. But here,
Jarman does not identify any other deceptive or unfair conduct to
support her ICFA claim. Accordingly, Count II is dismissed with
prejudice for failure to state a claim, and ATS is dismissed with
prejudice from this case.

The motions to dismiss are grants.  This action is dismissed with
prejudice for failure to state a claim.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 20, 2019 Memorandum
and Order is available at  https://tinyurl.com/y5oojzon from
Leagle.com.

Deborah Jarman, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Maag, Maag Law Firm,
LLC, 22 West Lorena AvenueWood River, IL 62095 & Shari L. Murphy,
Law Offices Of Shari L. Murphy, LLC, P.O. Box 136 Wood River, IL
62095-0136

American Traffic Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joy C.
Syrcle -- joy.syrcle@stinson.com -- Stinson Leonard Street, LLP &
Jon A. Santangelo -- jon.santangelo@stinson.com -- Stinson Leonard
Street, LLP.

City of Granite City, Defendant, represented by Erin M. Phillips,
Unsell Schattnik & Phillips PC & Bradley C. Young, Unsell Schattnik
& Phillips PC, 3 S 6th St, Wood River, IL 62095


AMERICAN WATER: $15MM Accrued Liabilities in Chemical Spill Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Water Works Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that as of March 31,
2019, $15 million of the aggregate Settlement amount of $126
million has been reflected in accrued liabilities related to the
West Virginia Elk River Freedom Industries Chemical Spill.

On June 8, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of West Virginia granted final approval of a settlement class and
global class action settlement (the "Settlement") for all claims
and potential claims by all putative class members (collectively,
the "Plaintiffs") arising out of the January 2014 Freedom
Industries, Inc. chemical spill in West Virginia. The effective
date of the Settlement was July 16, 2018.

Under the terms and conditions of the Settlement, West
Virginia-American Water Company ("WVAWC") and certain other Company
affiliated entities (collectively, the "American Water Defendants")
did not admit, and will not admit, any fault or liability for any
of the allegations made by the Plaintiffs in any of the actions
that were resolved.

Under federal class action rules, claimants had the right, until
December 8, 2017, to elect to opt out of the final Settlement. Less
than 100 of the estimated 225,000 putative class members elected to
opt out from the Settlement, and these claimants will not receive
any benefit from or be bound by the terms of the Settlement.


In June 2018, the Company and its remaining non-participating
general liability insurance carrier settled for a payment to the
Company of $20 million, out of a maximum of $25 million in
potential coverage under the terms of the relevant policy, in
exchange for a full release by the American Water Defendants of all
claims against the insurance carrier related to the Freedom
Industries chemical spill.

The aggregate pre-tax amount contributed by WVAWC of the $126
million Settlement with respect to the Company, net of insurance
recoveries, is $19 million. As of March 31, 2019, $15 million of
the aggregate Settlement amount of $126 million has been reflected
in accrued liabilities, and $15 million in offsetting insurance
receivables has been reflected in other current assets, each on the
Consolidated Balance Sheets.

The amount reflected in accrued liabilities as of March 31, 2019
reflects: (i) payments of $15 million made by WVAWC during the
first quarter of 2019 under the terms of the Settlement; and (ii)
an additional $10 million reduction in the liability, $6 million of
which was also reflected as a reduction to the offsetting insurance
receivable reflected in other current assets.

The Company has funded WVAWC's contributions to the Settlement
through existing sources of liquidity.

American Water Works Company, Inc., through its subsidiaries,
provides water and wastewater services in the United States and
Canada. The company was founded in 1886 and is headquartered in
Camden, New Jersey.


AMERICAN WATER: Bid to Dismiss Water Main Break Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
American Water Works Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the motion to
dismiss the class action suit related to the Dunbar, West Virginia
Water Main Break Class Action Litigation remains pending.

On the evening of June 23, 2015, a 36-inch pre-stressed concrete
transmission water main, installed in the early 1970s, failed. The
water main is part of West Virginia-American Water Company's
(WVAWC's) West Relay pumping station located in the City of Dunbar.


The failure of the main caused water outages and low pressure for
up to approximately 25,000 WVAWC customers.

In the early morning hours of June 25, 2015, crews completed a
repair, but that same day, the repair developed a leak. On June 26,
2015, a second repair was completed and service was restored that
day to approximately 80% of the impacted customers, and to the
remaining approximately 20% by the next morning.

The second repair showed signs of leaking but the water main was
usable until June 29, 2015 to allow tanks to refill.

The system was reconfigured to maintain service to all but
approximately 3,000 customers while a final repair was completed
safely on June 30, 2015. Water service was fully restored by July
1, 2015 to all customers affected by this event.

On June 2, 2017, a class action complaint was filed in West
Virginia Circuit Court in Kanawha County against WVAWC on behalf of
a purported class of residents and business owners who lost water
service or pressure as a result of the Dunbar main break. The
complaint alleges breach of contract by WVAWC for failure to supply
water, violation of West Virginia law regarding the sufficiency of
WVAWC's facilities and negligence by WVAWC in the design,
maintenance and operation of the water system.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified alleged damages on behalf of the
class for lost profits, annoyance and inconvenience, and loss of
use, as well as punitive damages for willful, reckless and wanton
behavior in not addressing the risk of pipe failure and a large
outage.

In October 2017, WVAWC filed with the court a motion seeking to
dismiss all of the plaintiffs' counts alleging statutory and common
law tort claims. Furthermore, WVAWC asserted that the Public
Service Commission of West Virginia, and not the court, has primary
jurisdiction over allegations involving violations of the
applicable tariff, the public utility code and related rules.

On May 30, 2018, the court, at a hearing, denied WVAWC's motion to
apply the primary jurisdiction doctrine, and on October 11, 2018,
the court issued a written order to that effect.

On February 21, 2019, the court issued an order denying WVAWC's
motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' tort claims. The court has
requested the parties submit a scheduling order with a trial date
of August 26, 2019, and WVAWC has sought to prevent further
discovery while its motion to dismiss is pending.

American Water Works Company, Inc., through its subsidiaries,
provides water and wastewater services in the United States and
Canada. The company was founded in 1886 and is headquartered in
Camden, New Jersey.


AMSHER COLLECTION: Certification of Class Sought in Menear Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Menear moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit entitled JAMES MENEAR, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. AMSHER COLLECTION
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-00662 (E.D. Wisc.), and further
asks that the Court both stay the motion for class certification
and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the
Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring
briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement
of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that
other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class,
the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco,
Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June
20, 2017).  The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has attempted
a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class
representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D.
Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut,
Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis.
Feb. 24, 2016).

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
contends.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


APPLE INC: Reddy Hits Stock Drop Over Market Decline
----------------------------------------------------
Priyam Reddy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Apple Inc., Timothy D. Cook and Luca
Maestri, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-02615, (N.D. Cal., May 14,
2019) seeks to recover compensatory damages, reasonable costs and
expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert
fees and such other and further relief under the Exchange Act.

Apple is a multinational technology company that designs, develops,
and sells consumer electronics, computer software and online
services. The complaint asserts that the Company failed to disclose
to their investors that the U.S.-China trade war had negatively
impacted demand for iPhones and Apple's pricing power in greater
China, one of Apple's most important growth markets, that the rate
at which Apple customers were replacing their batteries in older
iPhones rather than purchasing new iPhones was negatively impacting
Apple's iPhone sales growth, and that they had slashed production
orders from suppliers for the new 2018 iPhone models and cut prices
to reduce inventory.

Apple lacked a reasonable basis in fact when issuing their revenue
outlook for 1Q19 and/or making the related statements concerning
demand for its products. Despite these issues, Apple continued to
trade at artificially inflated prices but then on January 2, 2019,
after the close of trading, Apple missed its public revenue
projections by $9 billion. The market price of Apple common stock
to plunge, closing down more than $15 per share, or more than 9%,
from its close of $157.92 per share on January 2, 2019 to close at
$142.19 per share on January 3, 2019, on unusually high volume of
more than 90 million shares traded, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90024
      Telephone: (818) 532-6499
      E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com


ARBITRATION FORUMS: Appeals E.D. Mo. Ruling in White Knight Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Arbitration Forums, Inc., filed an appeal from a Court
ruling in the lawsuit styled White Knight Diner, LLC, et al. v.
Arbitration Forums, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-02406-JAR, in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St.
Louis.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the putative
class action is brought on behalf of various Missouri insureds, for
damages incurred as a result of the alleged misconduct of their
respective insurance companies, and the insurance companies for
unnamed third-party tortfeasors, in connection with an arbitration
services company.  The Plaintiffs seek relief in the form of
declaratory judgment, permanent injunctive relief, and unjust
enrichment, as well as compensatory and punitive damages.

The action was originally filed on July 27, 2017, in the Circuit
Court of St. Louis County, Missouri.  The Plaintiffs named as
Defendants Arbitration Forums, State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Co. and State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. ("State Farm"),
Owners Insurance Co., Safeco Insurance Co., Zurich Insurance Co.,
Acuity Insurance Co., and AAA Insurance Co.  On Sept. 5, 2017, the
Plaintiffs amended their petition by interlineation to change the
name Safeco Insurance Co. to Safeco Insurance Co. of Illinois, and
the name AAA Insurance Co. to Automobile Club Inter-Insurance
Exchange.

State Farm timely removed the action to the Court on Sept. 14,
2017, under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").  On Sept. 15,
2017, Acuity and Owners removed the identical state court case on
the basis of complete diversity and CAFA, resulting in a separate
case being opened, Case No. 4:17-CV-02416 RLW.  The Court
subsequently consolidated the cases and directed that all future
filings be made in Case No. 4:17-CV-02406 JAR.

The appellate case is captioned as White Knight Diner, LLC, et al.
v. Arbitration Forums, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-1934, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees White Knight Diner, LLC, Interventional Pain
Institute, LLC, Larry Lee Hinds, Karen Freiner, William Wendling,
Robert Thomure, DDS, Kathleen Thomure, Jay Kiewewetter, Barbara
Myers and Victoria Martin, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Benjamin R. Askew, Esq.
          Anthony R. Friedman, Esq.
          Anthony G. Simon, Esq.
          John G. Simon, Esq.
          SIMON LAW FIRM
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: baskew@simonlawpc.com
                  afriedman@simonlawpc.com
                  asimon@simonlawpc.com
                  jsimon@simonlawpc.com

               - and -

          Gonzalo Fernandez, Esq.
          MULLEN & FERNANDEZ
          1215 Pine
          Saint Louis, MO 63103-0000
          Telephone: (314) 621-3743
          E-mail: Gonz@stltriallawyers.com

               - and -

          James P. Leonard, Esq.
          Michael D. Stokes, Esq.
          DEVEREAUX, STOKES, FERNANDEZ & LEONARD, P.C.
          133 S. 11th Street, Suite 350
          Saint Louis, MO 63101-0000
          Telephone: (314) 621-3743
          E-mail: jim@stltriallawyers.com

Defendant-Appellant Arbitration Forums, Inc., is represented by:

          Don Clayton Waterman, Esq.
          Daniel W. Gerber, Esq.
          GERBER AND CIANO LLP
          228 Park Avenue, S., Suite 97572
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (716) 256-3426
          E-mail: cwaterman@gerberciano.com
                  dgerber@gerberciano.com

               - and -

          Clark H. Cole, Esq.
          Wilbur L. Tomlinson, Esq.
          ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
          7700 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1800
          Saint Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 621-5070
          E-mail: ccole@armstrongteasdale.com
                  wtomlinson@armstrongteasdale.com

               - and -

          Paul L. Knobbe, Esq.
          GOLDBERG SEGALLA
          8000 Maryland Avenue, Suite 640
          Saint Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 446-3350
          E-mail: pknobbe@goldbergsegalla.com


AREAS USA LAX: Underpays Busboys, Cazares Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
JUAN RAMOS CAZARES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AREAS USA LAX, LLC; AREAS SKYVIEW
LAX JV, LLC; and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 19STCV15373 (Cal. Super., May 2, 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 Walker was employed by the Defendants as busboy.

Areas USA Lax, LLC provides food and beverage services, and travel
retail. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
          Diego Aviles, Esq.
          BIBIYAN LAW GROUP
          1801 Century Park East, Suite 2600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 438-5555;
          Facsimile: (310) 300-1705
          E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com
                  diego@tomorrowlaw.com


AT&T: Faces Class Action Over Customers' Privacy Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
James Miller, writing for Techspot, reports that in January a
report was released that showed the extent to which the four main
wireless carriers in the U.S. shared and sold customers' data,
including live location information. Now the big four are facing a
class action suit seeking damages in a landmark case for privacy
rights.

At the start of the year we reported on a Motherboard investigation
into the data selling practices of the big four U.S. wireless
carriers: Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint and AT&T. The investigation
revealed that each company sold to third parties confidential
information including real-time location data. This data was
purchased by middle-men before being bought and used by law
enforcement to track phones without a warrant, and even bounty
hunters.

In one test case, Motherboard paid $300 to successfully discover
and track the location of a subscriber.

Each company 'vowed' that they were either ending such practices
imminently or that they would do so in the coming months. But as
far as their customers are concerned, such promises don't go far
enough, and the damage has already been done.

So now come the lawsuits. Each case is being put forward in the
name of at least one subscriber but is being made on behalf of
millions of customers. An estimated subscriber count for the period
April 30, 2015 to February 15, 2019 means that in total 300 million
subscribers are being represented; 100 million each for Verizon and
AT&T, and 50 million each for T-Mobile and Sprint.

The suits will ultimately come down to whether or not the firms
violated section 222 of the Federal Communications Act (FCA), which
obliges companies to protect confidential information from
unauthorized third parties.

No doubt each carrier will hide behind generic privacy statements
to say they were allowed to engage in data selling, so it will be
interesting to see just how far the courts are willing to take
things, in particular the definition of 'unauthorized'. [GN]


ATRIA MANAGEMENT: Quinones Case Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned MAYRA QUINONES, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated employees of Defendants in the State
of California, Plaintiff, v. ATRIA MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, ATRIA
SENIOR LIVING, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 19STCV11267 was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on May 1, 2019, and
assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03704.

The Complaint purports to allege eight claims for relief: (1)
"Failure to Provide Meal Periods;" (2) "Failure to Provide Rest
Periods;" (3) "Failure to Pay Minimum and Regular Wages;" (4)
"Failure to Pay All Overtime Wages;" (5) "Failure to Indemnify All
Necessary Expenditures;" (6) "Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized
Wage Statements and Written Notice of Sick Leave;" (7) "Failure to
Timely Pay All Wages Due Upon Separation of Employment;" and (8)
"Violation of Business and Professions Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     Christopher A. Crosman, Esq.
     Elizabeth M. Levy, Esq.
     SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
     2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
     Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
     Phone: (310) 277-7200
     Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
     Email: ccrosman@seyfarth.com
            elevy@seyfarth.com


BAUSCH HEALTH: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss Timber Hill Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the defendants' motion
to dismiss a class action lawsuit by Timber Hill LLC remains
pending.

On June 6, 2018, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company
and certain current or former officers and directors.

This action, captioned Timber Hill LLC, v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc., et al., (Case No. 2:18-cv-10246) ("Timber
Hill"), asserts securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act on behalf of a putative class of persons
who purchased call options or sold put options on the Company's
common stock during the period January 4, 2013 through August 11,
2016.

On June 11, 2018, this action was consolidated with In re Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Securities Litigation, (Case
No. 3:15-cv-07658). On January 14, 2019, the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Timber Hill complaint. Briefing on that
motion was completed on February 13, 2019.

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

Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.


BAUSCH HEALTH: Continues to Defend Class Suits in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend itself against several class action lawsuits inCanada.

In 2015, six putative class actions were filed and served against
the Company and certain current or former officers and directors in
Canada in the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, as
previously reported in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2018, filed on February 20, 2019.

The actions generally allege violations of Canadian provincial
securities legislation on behalf of putative classes of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired securities of the Company for
periods commencing as early as January 1, 2013 and ending as late
as November 16, 2015. The alleged violations relate to the same
matters described in the U.S. Securities Litigation.

The Rosseau-Godbout action was stayed by the Quebec Superior Court
by consent order. The Kowalyshyn action has been consolidated with
the O'Brien action and that consolidated action is stayed in favor
of the Catucci action.

In the Catucci action, on August 29, 2017, the judge granted the
plaintiffs leave to proceed with their claims under the Quebec
Securities Act and authorized the class proceeding. On October 26,
2017, the plaintiffs issued their Judicial Application Originating
Class Proceedings.

A timetable for certain pre-trial procedural matters in the action
has been set and the notice of certification has been disseminated
to class members. Among other things, the timetable established a
deadline of June 19, 2018 for class members to exercise their right
to opt-out of the class.

The Company is aware of two additional putative class actions that
have been filed with the applicable court but which have not yet
been served on the Company, as previously reported in the Company's
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018,
filed on February 20, 2019, and the factual allegations made in
these actions are substantially similar to those outlined above.

The Company has been advised that the plaintiffs in these actions
do not intend to pursue the actions.

In addition to the class proceedings, on April 12, 2018, the
Company was served with an application for leave filed in the
Quebec Superior Court of Justice to pursue an action under the
Quebec Securities Act against the Company and certain current or
former officers and directors. This proceeding is captioned
BlackRock Asset Management Canada Limited et al. v. Valeant, et al.
(Court File No. 500-11-054155-185).

The allegations in the proceeding are similar to those made by
plaintiffs in the Catucci class action. That application has been
scheduled to be heard on May 14, 2019. On June 18, 2018, the same
BlackRock entities filed an originating application (Court File No.
500-17-103749-183) against the same defendants asserting claims
under the Quebec Civil Code in respect of the same alleged
misrepresentations.

The Company is aware that certain other members of the Catucci
class exercised their opt-out rights prior to the June 19, 2018
deadline. On February 15, 2019, one of the entities which exercised
its opt-out rights served the Company with an application in the
Quebec Superior Court of Justice for leave to pursue an action
under the Quebec Securities Act against the Company, certain
current or former officers and directors of the Company and its
auditor. That proceeding is captioned California State Teachers’
Retirement System v. Bausch Health Companies Inc. et al. (Court
File No. 500-11-055722-181).

The allegations in the proceeding are similar to those made by the
plaintiffs in the Catucci class action and in the BlackRock opt-out
proceedings. On that same date, California State Teachers'
Retirement System also served the Company with proceedings (Court
File No. 500-17-106044-186) against the same defendants asserting
claims under the Quebec Civil Code in respect of the same alleged
misrepresentations.

The Company believes that it has viable defenses in each of these
actions. In each case, the Company intends to defend itself
vigorously.

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

Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.


BAUSCH HEALTH: Parties Agree to Stay New Jersey Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the parties in the case
entitled, In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.
Securities Litigation, have agreed to stay the lawsuit.

In October 2015, four putative securities class actions were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against
the Company and certain current or former officers and directors.

The allegations related to, among other things, allegedly false and
misleading statements and/or failures to disclose information about
the Company's business and prospects, including relating to drug
pricing, the Company's use of specialty pharmacies, and the
Company's relationship with Philidor.

On May 31, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating the four
actions under the caption In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:15-cv-07658.


On June 24, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint
asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
against the Company, and certain current or former officers and
directors, as well as claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") against the
Company, certain current or former officers and directors, and
certain other parties.

The lead plaintiff seeks to bring these claims on behalf of a
putative class of persons who purchased the Company's equity
securities and senior notes in the United States between January 4,
2013 and March 15, 2016, including all those who purchased the
Company's securities in the United States in the Company's debt and
stock offerings between July 2013 to March 2015.

On September 13, 2016, the Company and the other defendants moved
to dismiss the consolidated complaint.

On April 28, 2017, the Court dismissed certain claims arising out
of the Company's private placement offerings and otherwise denied
the motions to dismiss.

On September 20, 2018, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
adding claims against ValueAct Capital Management L.P. and
affiliated entities.

On October 31, 2018, ValueAct filed a motion to dismiss and the
parties then agreed that the action was stayed pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

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

Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.


BAUSCH HEALTH: Senzar Healthcare Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the Court entered a
stipulation of voluntary dismissal in the Senzar Healthcare Master
Fund LP v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No.
18-cv-02286) opt-out action, closing the case.

Thirty-one groups of individual investors in the Company's stock
and debt securities have chosen to opt out of the consolidated
putative class action and filed securities actions pending in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the
Company and certain current or former officers and directors.

These individual shareholder actions assert claims under Sections
10(b), 18, and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, Sections 11, 12(a)(2),
and 15 of the Securities Act, common law fraud, and negligent
misrepresentation under state law, based on alleged purchases of
Company stock, options, and/or debt at various times between
January 3, 2013 and August 10, 2016.

Some plaintiffs additionally assert claims under the New Jersey
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The allegations
in the complaints are similar to those made by plaintiffs in the
putative class action.

Motions to dismiss have been filed in many of these individual
actions.

To date, the Court has dismissed state law claims including New
Jersey Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, common
law fraud, and negligent misrepresentation claims in certain cases.


On January 7, 2019, the Court entered a stipulation of voluntary
dismissal in the Senzar Healthcare Master Fund LP v. Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 18-cv-02286) opt-out
action, closing the case.

Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.


BAXTER INT'L: Bid to Dismiss IV Solutions Sales Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the motion to dismiss
the consolidated class action suit related to IV solutions sales is
still pending.

In November 2016, a purported antitrust class action complaint
seeking monetary and injunctive relief was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The complaint alleges a conspiracy among manufacturers of IV
solutions to restrict output and affect pricing in connection with
a shortage of such solutions. Similar parallel actions subsequently
were filed.

In January 2017, a single consolidated complaint covering these
matters was filed in the Northern District of Illinois.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in
February 2017. The court granted the company's motion to dismiss
the consolidated complaint without prejudice in July 2018. The
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September 6, 2018.  

The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
November 9, 2018.

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

Baxter International Inc., through its subsidiaries, develops and
provides a portfolio of healthcare products. The company operates
through North and South America; Europe, Middle East and Africa;
and Asia-Pacific segments. Baxter International Inc. was founded in
1931 and is headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois.


BEAUTYSMART M.D.: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Bittlingmeyer Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLY BITTLINGMEYER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BEAUTYSMART M.D., INC., Defendant,
Case No. 0:19-cv-61111 (S.D. Fla., May 1, 2019) seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls. The case is
assigned to Judge William P. Dimitrouleas and referred to
Magistrate Lurana S. Snow.

Beautysmart M.D., Inc. provides hairdressing and beauty salon
services and supplies for hair and beauty industry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
          110 SE 6th Street
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 907-1136
          Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com


BEIERSDORF INC: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Figueroa Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE FIGUEROA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. BEIERSDORF, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-03916 (S.D.N.Y., May 1, 2019) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's
website, www.eucerinus.com is not equally accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. The Defendant failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal
access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods and
services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Beiersdorf Inc manufactures skin care products under NIVEA,
Eucerin, NIVEA MEN, and Aquaphor brands for consumers worldwide.
The company was founded in 1960 and is based in Wilton,
Connecticut, with presence in Europe, North America, Latin America,
Africa, and Asia-Australia. Beiersdorf Inc. operates as a
subsidiary of Beiersdorf Aktiengesellschaft. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (917) 299-6612
          Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
          E-mail: joseph@cml.legal

               - and -

          Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (917) 796-7437
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: danalgottlieb@aol.com


BLOOMFIELD, MI: Seeks Review of Decision in Youmans Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Bloomfield Township filed an appeal from a Court ruling
in the lawsuit titled JAMILA YOUMANS v. CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF
BLOOMFIELD, Case No. 2016-152613-CZ, in the Oakland Circuit Court.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, both sides of
the class action lawsuit, which arises from water and sewer bills
in Bloomfield Township, are declaring victory after an Oakland
County Circuit Court judge issued an opinion earlier in July.

Bill Hampton, Esq., township attorney, says Judge Daniel O'Brien
sided with the Plaintiffs in four of seven issues raised in  the
case.  But, he says, the judge did not order the township to give
water and sewer customers a refund for bills that the Plaintiffs
claim were inflated over a period of several years.  And, Mr.
Hampton says, the judge did not order the township to substantially
change the way it calculates water and sewer charges.

The appellate case is captioned as JAMILA YOUMANS v. CHARTER
TOWNSHIP OF BLOOMFIELD, Case No. 348613, in the Michigan Court of
Appeals.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee YOUMANS JAMILA/ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED is
represented by:

          Gregory D. Hanley, Esq.
          KICKHAM HANLEY PLLC
          300 Balmoral Centre
          32121 Woodward Avenue
          Royal Oak, MI 48073- 0943
          Telephone: (248) 544-1500
          Facsimile: (248) 544-1501
          E-mail: ghanley@kickhamhanley.com

Defendant-Appellant CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF BLOOMFIELD is represented
by:

          Rodger D. Young, Esq.
          YOUNG & ASSOCIATES
          Orchards Corporate Center
          27725 Stansbury Boulevard, Suite 125
          Farmington Hills, MI 48334
          Telephone: (248) 353-8620
          Facsimile: (248)479-7828
          E-mail: young@youngpc.com


BRAMAN HYUNDAI: Schaevitz's Bid to Certify TCPA Class Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. K. Michael Moore denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification in the lawsuit titled MARC SCHAEVITZ, individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. BRAMAN HYUNDAI,
INC., a Florida Corporation, Case No. 1:17-cv-23890-KMM (S.D.
Fla.).

The Plaintiff filed the instant suit against the Defendant alleging
a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.
Specifically, the Plaintiff claims that, on October 20, 2017, Major
Advertising, LLC, on behalf of the Defendant, transmitted an
unsolicited prerecorded ringless voicemail message ("RVM") to his
cellular telephone number ending in 3867.  The Plaintiff contends
that he did not provide Defendant with his express consent to be
contacted.

Mr. Schaevitz seeks to bring the action on behalf of a class
pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.  The Plaintiff defines the class as:

     All persons in the United States (including its territories
     and the District of Columbia) who were sent an RVM on his or
     her cellular telephone by or on behalf of Braman using the
     Stratics platform from January 16, 2017, through October 24,
     2017.

In his Order, Judge Moore opines that the Plaintiff has not met his
burden under Rule 23(b)(3) (predominance), and class certification
must be denied.

"Because Plaintiff has not provided the content of all of the RVMs
sent by Defendant, Plaintiff has not met his burden to show the
issue of consent for the challenged ringless voicemails can be
resolved by common, classwide evidence, Judge Moore explains,
citing Hicks v. Client Servs., Inc., No. 07-61822-CIV, 2008 WL
5479111, at *8 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 11, 2008).[CC]


BRIGADOON FITNESS: Class Certification Bid in TCPA Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, issued an Opinion and Order denying
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned
GORSS MOTELS, INC., a Connecticut corporation, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons,
Plaintiffs, v. BRIGADOON FITNESS INC., an Indiana corporation,
BRIGADOON FINANCIAL, INC., an Indiana corporation, and John Does
1-5, Defendants. Case No. 1:16-CV-330-HAB. (N.D. Ind.).

The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of members to whom an
advertisement was successfully faxed on April 17, 2013.

The Plaintiff, Gorss Motels, Inc., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, alleges that the Defendants violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) of 1991, as amended by
the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005.  

The Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of itself and all other
similarly situated as members of the following proposed class:

     All persons or entities who were successfully sent a Fax on
April 17, 2013, stating, ANY 2 CARDIO = FREE SANITATION STATION,
listing Hotel Fitness A Brigadoon Fitness Company as the vendor,
and containing the phrase Let Us Help You Design Your Fitness Room!
800.291.0403 Call today to talk to one [of] our trained experts.

The Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and an injunction on behalf of
himself and the class.

The Plaintiff contends that the April 17 facsimiles were an
unsolicited advertisement in violation of the TCPA. Although the
Plaintiff originally argued that even solicited faxes would violate
the TCPA for failure to include opt-out language, the Seventh
Circuit has since decided that it is necessary to distinguish
between faxes sent with the permission of the recipient and those
that are truly unsolicited because the TCPA does not require
opt-out notices on solicited faxes.  

An unsolicited advertisement is defined as any material advertising
the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or
services which is transmitted to any person without that person's
prior express invitation or permission, in writing or otherwise.

To certify the class, the Plaintiff must first satisfy the four
familiar Rule 23(a) requirements: numerosity, commonality,
typicality, and adequacy.  

The Defendants assert that the Plaintiff cannot meet the
commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements of Rule 23(a),
but does not challenge the numerosity requirement. As to Rule
23(b)(3), the Defendants argue that due to the necessity of
individual determinations, a class action is not a superior method
for litigating this action.

Individual inquiries regarding whether each putative class member
solicited advertisements or granted permission is based on the
individual relationships between the recipients of the fax and the
Defendants and therefore predominates over any other issues that
may be common to the class.

Similarly, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiff's claim is not
typical of the class because the Plaintiff is subject to the
Defendants' solicitation defense, and determining whether other
class members are subject to that defense requires an
individualized inquiry. The Defendants' argument regarding the
superiority of class litigation to the instant dispute is likewise
dependent on the individualized inquiry issue. Finally, as to the
adequacy requirement, the Defendants argue that significant
credibility issues with regard to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff's
counsel's conduct indicates that neither the Plaintiff nor its
counsel will be able to effectively represent the class.

Commonality requires that there are questions of law or fact common
to the class. A common nucleus of operative fact is usually enough
to satisfy the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2).

Commonality also requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the
class members have suffered the same injury and that their claims
depend upon a common contention capable of class-wide
resolution—which means that determination of its truth or falsity
will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one
of the claims in one stroke.

Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement is related to commonality
but is far more demanding. The predominance inquiry tests whether
proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication
by representation. If one or more of the central issues in the
action are common to the class and can be said to predominate, the
action may be considered proper under Rule 23(b)(3) even though
other important matters will have to be tried separately, such as
damages or some affirmative defenses peculiar to some individual
class members.

Whether a fax was sent without express permission is a necessary
element to recovery under the TCPA. It is a question common to the
class only if similar evidence and methodology will suffice to
answer the question for each member or the issue is susceptible to
generalized, class-wide proof. It is an individual question if
members of the proposed class will need to present evidence that
varies from member to member.

The proposed class is not sufficientlycohesive to warrant
adjudication by representation, but rather, presents the specter of
unlimited mini-trials to determine the precise nature of the
varying relationships and whether express permission had been
granted. Because common issues of fact do not predominate, the
Court finds that the Plaintiff has not satisfied its burden of
demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that class
certification is superior to other available methods for the fair
and efficient adjudication of the controversy.

The Court denies the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 20, 2019 Opinion and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4tyh37c from
Leagle.com.

Gorss Motels Inc, a Connecticut corporation, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons,
Plaintiff, represented by Ross M. Good -- rgood@andersonwanca.com
-- Anderson + Wanca, Ryan M. Kelly -- rkelly@andersonwanca.com --
Anderson + Wanca & Brian J. Wanca -- bwanca@andersonwanca.com --
Anderson + Wanca.

Brigadoon Fitness Inc, an Indiana corporation & Brigadoon
Financial, Inc., an Indiana corporation, Defendants, represented by
D. Randall Brown, Barnes & Thornburg LLP & Jason T. Clagg, Barnes &
Thornburg LLP, 888 S. Harrison Street, Suite 600, Fort Wayne, IN
46802

John Does 1-5, Defendant, represented by D. Randall Brown , Barnes
& Thornburg LLP.


BUSINESS LISTING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Ashtiani Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
FAZELEH ASHTIANI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BUSINESS LISTING SOLUTION, LLC;
and GARY KUSTRA, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-02390 (N.D. Cal., May
1, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making
unsolicited calls.

Business Listing Solution, LLC is engaged as a debt collection
agency. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark L. Javitch, Esq.
          JAVITCH LAW OFFICE
          480 S. Ellsworth Ave
          San Mateo, CA 94401
          Telephone: (650) 781-8000
          Facsimile: (650) 648-0705
          E-mail: mark@javitchlawoffice.com


CAPITAL ONE: Settlement of Langers Suit Wins Approval
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RANDY LANGER and JAMES LANGER, the
Plaintiffs, vs. CAPITAL ONE AUTO FINANCE, a division of CAPITAL
ONE, N.A., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-06130-HB (E.D. Pa.), the
Court has granted Plaintiffs' uncontested motion for preliminary
settlement approval, conditional certification of settlement
classes, and approval of class settlement notice on May 24, 2019.

The Proposed Settlement provides that:

   Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, in exchange for a release
   of the claims of Plaintiffs and the Class Members, except those

   claims and defenses expressly preserved by the Settlement
   Agreement, COAF, without admitting any liability, agrees to: (i)

   make a gross settlement payment to the Class Members in the
   aggregate sum of $6,500,000.00; (ii) compromise and
   extinguishment of the Disputed Deficiency Balances on
   Plaintiffs' and the Class Members' Auto Loans by way of an
   accord and satisfaction; (iii) vacate or mark satisfied any
   unsatisfied deficiency judgments against the Class members; (iv)

   request that the Credit Reporting Agencies delete the trade
   lines associated with Plaintiffs' and the Class Members' Auto
   Loans; and (v) return to the Class Members the Post-Stay
   Payments they made toward their Disputed Deficiency Balances on

   or after April 24, 2017, the date of the Parties' first
   mediation session.

   Preliminary Settlement Approval

   The Court preliminarily finds that the Settlement between the
   Parties, as memorialized in the Settlement Agreement, is fair,
   adequate, in the best interests of the Class Members, and within

   the range ofreasonableness for preliminary settlement approval.

   The Court finds that: (a) the Settlement resulted from arm's
   length negotiations; and (b) the Settlement is sufficiently
   reasonable to warrant notice of the Settlement to the Class
   Members and a full hearing on the approval of the Settlement.

The Court conditionally certifies, for settlement purposes only,
these Classes:

   Class 1 (Post-Repossession Notice Class)

   "all Borrowers: (i) who entered into an Auto Loan for personal,

   family, or household purposes; (ii) whose motor vehicle was
   repossessed by COAF; (iii) whose mailing address at the time of

   the repossession, according to COAF's business records, was in
   Pennsylvania; and (iv) to whom COAF sent a Post-Repossession
   \Notice during the Class 1 Period 2 that stated a minimum
   redemption period of fewer than 15 days from the date of the
   Post-Repossession Notice"; and

   Class 2 (Post-Sale Notice Class)

   "all Borrowers: (i) who entered into an Auto Loan for personal,

   family, or household purposes; (ii) whose motor vehicle was
   repossessed by COAF; (iii) whose motor vehicle was sold by COAF

   during the Class 2 Period; 3 (iv) whose mailing address and/or
   whose co-obligor's mailing address at the time of the sale of
   the vehicle, according to COAF's business records, was/were in
   Pennsylvania; and (v) to whom COAF did not mail a separately
   addressed Post-Sale Notice after the sale of the motor vehicle
   or to whose co-obligor on the Auto Loan COAF did not mail a
   separately addressed Post-Sale Notice after the sale of the
   motor vehicle.[CC]

CARE.COM INC: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP (www.blockesq.com), a Boston based securities
litigation firm representing investors nationwide, has filed a
securities fraud class action against Care.com, Inc. (NYSE: CRCM)
and certain of its officers alleging violations of the federal
securities laws.

The Complaint, filed in the United States District Court, District
of Massachusetts (Boston), located at 1 Courthouse Way, Boston,
Massachusetts, 02210, and captioned Toussaint v. Care.com, Inc., et
al., No. 19-cv-10628, alleges that between March 27, 2015 and April
1, 2019 (the "Class Period"), Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts, with respect to the manner in which the Company vets
the caregivers and day-care providers listed on its website. A
judge has not yet been assigned.

If you purchased Care.com shares during the Class Period and wish
to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
June 3, 2019. As a member of the class, you may seek to file a
motion to serve as a lead plaintiff or take no action and remain an
absent class member. If you wish to become involved in the
litigation or have questions about your legal rights, you are
encouraged to:

Contact:

         Dan DeMaria, Esq.
         BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
         260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
         Boston, MA 02110
         Telephone: (617) 398-5660
                    (888) 868-2385
         Website: http://shareholder.law/care
                  https://blockesq.com
         Email: info@blockesq.com
                dan@blockesq.com [GN]


CAWLEY & BERGMANN: Untershine Class Certification Bid Shelved
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit WENDY UNTERSHINE, the Plaintiff, v.
CAWLEY & BERGMANN, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00654-WED
(E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin granted Plaintiff's
motion to stay further proceedings on the motion for class
certification.

The Court said, "The parties are relieved from the automatic
briefing schedule set forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c).
Moreover, for administrative purposes, it is necessary that the
Clerk terminate the plaintiff's motion for class certification.
However, this motion will be regarded as pending to serve its
protective purpose under Damasco."

On May 3, 2019, the plaintiff filed a class action complaint. At
the same time, the plaintiff filed what the court commonly refers
to as a "protective" motion for class certification. In this motion
the plaintiff moved to certify the class described in the complaint
but also moved the court to stay further proceedings on that
motion.

In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011),
the court suggested that class action plaintiffs "move to certify
the class at the same time that they file their complaint." "The
pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts to
buy off the named plaintiffs."

However, because parties are generally unprepared to proceed with a
motion for class certification at the beginning of a case, the
Damasco court suggested that the parties "ask the district court to
delay its ruling to provide time for additional discovery or
investigation."[CC]

CELADON GROUP: Blakley Appeals S.D. Indiana Ruling to 7th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Helen Blakley, William Blakley and Kimberly Smith filed
an appeal from a Court ruling in their lawsuit entitled William
Blakley, et al. v. Celadon Group, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:16-cv-00351-SEB-TAB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.

The appellate case is captioned as William Blakley, et al. v.
Celadon Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-1877, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
appealed a ruling issued in their lawsuit.  That appellate case is
styled William Blakley, et al. v. Celadon Group, Inc., et al., Case
No. 17-8022.

The Plaintiffs asserted in their First Amended Complaint that the
advances made by Celadon constituted loans in violation of the
Indiana Small Loans Act and Indiana Consumer Loan Act.  The
Plaintiffs further asserted that Celadon's deductions for items,
such as "lease payments, fuel purchases, insurance purchases, and
payroll advances," constituted wage assignments in violation the
Indiana Wage Assignment Act, by including transaction fees in
excess of the permissible 8% rate and by securing agreements for
assignments exceeding 30 days.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the
Appellant's brief is due on or before June 17, 2019, for Helen
Blakley, William Blakley and Kimberly Smith.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants WILLIAM BLAKLEY, on behalf of himself and
those similarly situated; HELEN BLAKLEY, on behalf of herself and
those similarly situated; and KIMBERLY SMITH, on behalf of herself
and those similarly situated, are represented by:

          Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER LLC
          1101 N. Kings Highway
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 685-7420
          E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com

Defendants-Appellees CELADON GROUP, INC.; CELADON TRUCKING
SERVICES, INCORPORATED; QUALITY COMPANIES, LLC; QUALITY EQUIPMENT
LEASING, LLC; and ELEMENT FINANCIAL CORP. are represented by:

          Christopher James Eckhart, Esq.
          SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C.
          Ten W. Market Street
          Indianapolis, IN 46204-2971
          Telephone: (317) 637-1777
          E-mail: ceckhart@scopelitis.com


CENIKOR FOUNDATION: Williams et al Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, SHELBY LEE WILLIAMS and RANDY EDWARD POUNCY, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
CENIKOR FOUNDATION and WILLIAM BAILEY, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00229 (E.D. Tex., May 22, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

According to the complaint, Cenikor violated the FLSA by employing
Williams, Pouncy and other similarly situated nonexempt employees
at a rate below the statutory minimum wage and for a workweek
longer than 40 hours but refusing to compensate them, and by
failing to maintain accurate time and pay records for Plaintiffs
and other similarly situated nonexempt employees.

The Cenikor Foundation is a nonprofit drug rehabilitation and
mental health organization based in Houston, Texas, operating
residential treatment centers and outpatient services for adults
and adolescents in Texas and Louisiana. Cenikor provides treatment
based on the therapeutic community approach.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          Curt Hesse, Esq.
          Bridget Davidson, Esq.
          MOORE & ASOCIATES
          Lyric Center
          440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 222-6775
          Facsimile: (713) 222-6739

CENTO FINE: Snarr Hits Product Mislabeling Over Tomato Product
--------------------------------------------------------------
Derek Snarr, J. Michael Duca and Candace Goulette, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Cento
Fine Foods Inc. and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant, Case
No. 19-cv-02627, (N.D. Cal., May 14, 2019), seeks redress for
violations of California's Unfair Competition Laws, Business and
Professions Code, False Advertising Laws and Consumer Legal
Remedies Act.

Defendant distributes tomato products generically labeled as
"Certified San Marzano," implying that they are made of San Marzano
tomatoes grown in the Agro Sarnese-Nocerino in Italy. Plaintiffs
claims that only Cosorzio di Tutela del Pomodoro San Marzano DOP is
the only entity which can certify and approve such a claim and its
current label is a mere farce. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
      1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 762-1910
      Fax: (619) 756-6991
      Email: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com

             - and -

      Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
      PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
      15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
      Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
      Telephone: (818) 788-8300
      Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
      Email: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com

             - and -

      Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
      1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Tel: (412) 322-9243
      Fax: (412) 231-0246
      Email: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com

             - and -

      Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
      Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
      PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
      800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 389-0600
      Facsimile: (612) 389-0610
      Email: mweiner@pswlaw.com
             jbourne@pswlaw.com


CENVEO WORLDWIDE: Murga Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Missed Breaks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ramon Murga, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Cenveo Worldwide Limited and Does 1 through
100, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV16714 (Cal. Super., May 14, 2019),
seeks unpaid overtime and minimum wages, redress for failure to
authorize or permit required meal periods, statutory penalties for
failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties
in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay
employees all wages due upon separation of employment, failure to
maintain time-keeping records, injunctive relief and other
equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest
under California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Wage Orders.

Cenveo Worldwide Limited -- http://www.cenveo.com/-- is into
commercial printing, custom packaging, envelopes, labels,
warehousing and fulfillment and related services where Murga worked
as a non-exempt employee in their California location. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHEMOURS COMPANY: Defends Class Suit over Indiana Superfund Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company continues to defend itself against a putative
class lawsuit filed by area residents concerning the U.S. Smelter
and Lead Refinery Inc. multi-party Superfund site in East Chicago,
Indiana, according to the the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019.

Six lawsuits, including one putative class action, are pending
against DuPont by area residents concerning the U.S. Smelter and
Lead Refinery multi-party Superfund site in East Chicago, Indiana.

Several of the lawsuits allege that Chemours is now responsible for
DuPont environmental liabilities.  The lawsuits include allegations
for personal injury damages, property diminution, and damages under
the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability
Act ("CERCLA," often referred to as "Superfund").

At separation, DuPont assigned Chemours its former plant site,
which is located south of the residential portion of the Superfund
area, and its responsibility for the environmental remediation at
the Superfund site.

The Company said, "Management believes a loss is reasonably
possible, but not estimable at this time due to various reasons
including, among others, that such matters are in their early
stages and have significant factual issues to be resolved."

The Chemours Company provides performance chemicals in North
America, the Asia Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and
Latin America. It operates through three segments: Titanium
Technologies, Fluoroproducts, and Chemical Solutions.  The Chemours
Company was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Wilmington,
Delaware.


CHEMOURS COMPANY: N.Y. Suits over PFAS Contamination Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019, that E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
("DuPont") continues to face lawsuits in New York related to
alleged exposure to and/or contamination from perfluorinated and
polyfluorinated compounds (PFAS).

The Company said, "DuPont has been named in approximately 51
lawsuits pending in New York courts, which are not part of the
Leach class, brought by individual plaintiffs alleging negligence
and other claims in the release of PFAS, including PFOA, into
drinking water, and seeking medical monitoring, compensatory, and
punitive damages against current and former owners and suppliers of
a manufacturing facility in Hoosick Falls, New York.  Two other
lawsuits in New York have been filed by a business seeking to
recover its losses and by nearby property owners and residents in a
putative class action seeking medical monitoring, compensatory and
punitive damages, and injunctive relief."

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

The Chemours Company provides performance chemicals in North
America, the Asia Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and
Latin America. It operates through three segments: Titanium
Technologies, Fluoroproducts, and Chemical Solutions.  The Chemours
Company was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Wilmington,
Delaware.


CITIBANK, N.A.: Revitch Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit JEREMIAH REVITCH, on Behalf of Himself
and all Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CITIBANK,
N.A., the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-06907-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff move the Court for an order granting his motion to:

   1. certify a class:

      "all persons in the United States who (1) between March 17,
      2014, through August 21, 2018; (2) were called on their
      cellular telephone by Defendant or its agent/s using its
      Aspect Unified dialer; and (3) where such person was not
      listed in Defendant’s records as the intended recipient of

      the calls";

   2. appoint Mr. Revitch as class representative; and

   3. appoint Bursor & Fisher, P.A. as class counsel.

Citibank employs thousands of call operators for its
debt-collection operations, driving them to meet collection goals
while using an automated dialing system to maintain the pace of
calls. Many people receive wrong-number debt collection calls from
Citibank -- even after asking Citibank to stop calling them.

Citibank's records show this is a common problem, and that its
operators can be unresponsive or hostile when call recipients tell
them they reached a wrong number. Citibank made a misstatement to
this Court that highlights its inability to get a handle on the
problem. On July 16, 2018 -- more than half a year into this case
-- Citibank told this Court that it "spoke to Plaintiff only once"
and stopped calling as soon as he told Citibank it was calling the
wrong number. That statement was false. Citibank later produced
several recordings of Plaintiff telling Citibank debt collectors
they had reached a wrong number, and the calls only stopped after
he threatened a lawsuit.

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act, prohibits callers from using
an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS" or "autodialer") to
contact cellular customers without their prior express
consent.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff

          Joel D. Smith, Esq.
          Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Joel D. Smith, Esq.
          Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
          Thomas A. Reyda, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  jsmith@bursor. com
                  ykrivoshey@bursor.com
                  treyda@bursor.com

CITYWIDE PARKING: Fitwi Files Suit Over Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Ahmed Fitwi, as an individual, and on behalf of all aggrieved
employees v. Citywide Parking Management, Inc., Hawaiian Gardens
Casino, and Does 1 through 50, Case No. 19STCV10890 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 28, 2019), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the Private Attorneys' General Act of
2004.

Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have violated PAGA by failing
to pay all wages due, including minimum, regular, and overtime
wages as a result of the Defendants' policy of improperly paying
its non-exempt hourly employees, requiring them to perform work
off-the-clock, and automatically deducting meal periods that were
not taken.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from about February 2014
to July 2018. Defendants employed Plaintiff in a non-exempt hourly
position as a valet driver in Los Angeles County, California.

The Defendant Citywide is a California corporation which provides
valet parking services. The Defendant Gardens Casino is a
California company which operates a casino in Hawaiian Gardens and
provides valet parking services to its customers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CODEFIED INC: Armstrong Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Clifford Armstrong, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Codefied, Inc. dba Housecall Pro, Case No.
2:19-at-00239 (E.D. Calif., March 28, 2019), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant violated TCPA by making
unsolicited, autodialed calls to consumers without written express
consent.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Citrus Heights, California.

Housecall provides a full-service tool that gives service
professionals the ability to run their business on a smartphone app
and/or through a web portal. The Defendant is a Delaware
corporation headquartered in San Diego, California. The Defendant
uses automatic telephone dialing system for the purpose of
soliciting purchase or use of Defendant's tool for service
professionals. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amanda Benedict, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF AMANDA BENEDICT
      7710 Hazard Center Drive, Ste E104
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Tel: (760) 822-1911
      Fax: (760) 452-7560
      E-mail: amanda@amandabenedict.com


COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Landau Disputes Collection Letter
---------------------------------------------------------
Serl Landau, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Commonwealth Financial System, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-04332 (S.D. N.Y., May 13, 2019), seeks
damages, and declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the Fair
Debt Collections Practices Act.

Commonwealth is a collection agency with its principal office
located in New Castle, Delaware. It was attempted to collect a debt
incurred by Landau to Cascade Capital LLC via collection letter in
the amount of $391.00. Landau claims that he did not owe $391.00 at
the time said debt was assigned or otherwise transferred to
Commonwealth for collection. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COMSCORE INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of comScore, Inc. (NASDAQ:SCOR) from
November 8, 2018 through March 29, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period") of the important June 10, 2019 lead plaintiff deadline in
class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for comScore
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the comScore class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1543.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) comScore was experiencing difficulties implementing its
business strategy; (2) comScore's financial results would be
materially impacted; and (3) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' positive statements about comScore's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 10,
2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1543.html

         Contact:
         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Zachary Halper, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34thFloor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                zhalper@rosenlegal.com
                cases@rosenlegal.com [GN]


COOK COUNTY, IL: Certification of Class Sought in Alicea Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled ELIZABETH ALICEA, MICHELLE
URRUTIA, KATINA RAMOS, and JACK ARTINIAN, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. COUNTY OF COOK, and
THOMAS J. DART, individually, and in his official capacity as
Sheriff of Cook County, Case No. 1:18-cv-05381 (N.D. Ill.), seek
certification of a Class defined as:

     All persons who used the toilet in a holding cell in a
     courthouse in Cook County, Illinois since August 8, 2016,
     wherein any part of the toilet is visible in the camera feed
     monitoring the cell.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as Class
Representatives, and to appoint Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.,
Sharon A. Harris, Esq., Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq., and Matthew C. De
Re, Esq., as Class Counsel.

The lawsuit is brought against Cook County and Thomas J. Dart, in
his official capacity as Sheriff of Cook County, alleging that the
Defendants' policy of monitoring and recording Pretrial Detainees
using the toilets in pretrial holding cells in Cook County
courthouses constitutes an unreasonable search, in violation of the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution,
and an intrusion upon seclusion.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
          Sharon A. Harris, Esq.
          Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
          Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 440-0020
          Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
          E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
                  sharon@attorneyzim.com
                  matt@attorneyzim.com
                  nick@attorneyzim.com


COVERALL NORTH: Gonzalez Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Sergio Gonzalez filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
his lawsuit titled Sergio Gonzalez v. Coverall North America, Inc.,
Case No. 5:16-cv-02287-JGB-KK, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Riverside.

The appellate case is captioned as Sergio Gonzalez v. Coverall
North America, Inc., Case No. 19-55511, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, in the case,
SERGIO GONZALEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COVERALL NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 17-55787 (9th Cir.), the Ninth Circuit
dismissed Mr. Gonzalez's appeal from the District Court's order
granting Coverall's motion to compel arbitration.

Coverall is a franchisor of commercial cleaning businesses.  Mr.
Gonzalez is one of Coverall's franchisees.  In November 2016, Mr.
Gonzalez filed a class action against Coverall, alleging that he
and other similarly situated individuals are misclassified as
independent contractors, rather than employees of the Appellee, in
violation of California law.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Appellant Sergio Gonzalez's opening brief is due on July 5,
      2019;

   -- Appellee Coverall North America, Inc.'s answering brief is
      due on August 5, 2019; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant SERGIO GONZALEZ, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

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

Defendant-Appellee COVERALL NORTH AMERICA, INC., is represented
by:

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

               - and -

          Nancy Nguyen Sims, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          2000 Avenue of the Stars
          Suite 400 North Tower
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-4704
          Telephone: (310) 595-3000
          E-mail: nancy.sims@dlapiper.com


CRANE CARTAGE: Vasquez Hits Missed Breaks, Claims Final Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Vasquez, individually, and on behalf of other members
of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Crane
Cartage, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-AT-00355, (E.D. Cal., May 14,
2019), seeks redress for meal and rest break violations, failure to
compensate for all hours worked, failure to provide proper wage
statements, reimbursement of business-related expenses and failure
to pay earned wages upon discharge including waiting time penalties
under Unfair Business Practices statures of the California Business
and Professions Code, the California Labor Code and Welfare
Commission Orders.

Crane Cartage provides nationwide ground and logistics services
where Vasquez worked as an hourly-paid, non-exempt driver out of
its facility in Tracy, California. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Drexler, Esq.
      Molly A. DeSario, Esq.
      Jonathan Lee, Esq.
      CAPSTONE LAW APC
      1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
      Los Angeles, California 90067
      Telephone: (310) 556-4811
      Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
      Email: Robert.Drexler@CapstoneLawyers.com
             Molly.DeSario@CapstoneLawyers.com
             Jonathan.Lee@CapstoneLawyers.com


CULVER CITY, CA: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Biberovic Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Kenan Biberovic filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Kenan Biberovic v. Culver City, et al., Case No.
2:18-cv-08632-DDP-PLA, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.

The nature of suit is stated as other civil rights.

The appellate case is captioned as Kenan Biberovic v. Culver City,
et al., Case No. 19-55512, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Appellant Kenan Biberovic's opening brief is due on July 5,
      2019;

   -- Appellees Culver City, Does and Thomas Aujero Small's
      answering brief is due on August 5, 2019; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant KENAN BIBEROVIC, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Rami M. Kayyali, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RAMI KAYYALI
          12400 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 571-3009
          Facsimile: (310) 820-1740
          E-mail: ramilaw@sbcglobal.net

Defendants-Appellees CULVER CITY, an incorporated public
municipality, and THOMAS AUJERO SMALL are represented by:

          William Litvak, Esq.
          DAPEER, ROSENBLIT & LITVAK, LLP
          11500 W. Olympic Blvd.
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 477-5575
          Facsimile: (310) 477-7090
          E-mail: wlitvak@drllaw.com


DANONE US: Andrade-Heymsfield Suit Alleges False Advertising
------------------------------------------------------------
Evlyn Andrade-Heymsfield on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public v. Danone US, Inc., Case No.
3:19-cv-00589 (S.D. Calif., March 29, 2019), is brought against the
Defendant for violations of the Unfair Competition Law, False
Advertising Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and Breach of Express
Warranties.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant sells and markets a product to
health conscious consumers using deceptive health and wellness
claims, with goals of increasing price and sales.

The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of San Diego County,
California. The Plaintiff purchased the Defendant's product due to
alleged Defendant's deceptive labeling practices.

The Defendant is a leading consumer packaged food and beverage
company, that manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells branded
plant-based foods and beverages, coffee creamers and beverages,
premium dairy products and organic produce throughout North
America. Its principal place of business is in White Plains, New
York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul K. Joseph, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF PAUL K. JOSEPH, PC
      4125 W. Pt. Loma Blvd. No. 309
      San Diego, CA 92110
      Tel: (619) 767-0356
      Fax: (619) 331-2943
      E-mail: paul@pauljosephlaw.com


DEUTSCHE BANK: Accused of Bond Price Inflation
----------------------------------------------
Marc Levy, writing for Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reports that
Pennsylvania's treasury department is accusing about a dozen large
financial firms of working together to illegally inflate the price
of bonds issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over seven years.

A federal court filing by Pennsylvania Treasurer Joe Torsella cites
what his office says is evidence from a "cooperating
co-conspirator" in a U.S. Department of Justice investigation into
price-fixing in the secondary market for bonds issued by
government-controlled companies.

Evidence cited in the filing includes brief transcripts of what it
says are online chats by traders from various financial
institutions that are the largest dealers of the bonds.

In the discussions, the traders allegedly agree to fix bond prices
at artificially inflated prices, cheating Pennsylvania and other
buyers of the bonds. The price-fixing began in 2009 and lasted
through 2015, and violates federal anti-trust law, Mr. Torsella's
filing said.

An analysis shows that pricing patterns are consistent with such a
price-fixing agreement, the filing said. The "economic
fingerprints" of the conspiracy diminished after January 2016, when
the cooperating co-conspirator discovered it, it said.

Mr. Torsella's office said it is bound by a confidentiality
agreement and could not reveal how it came to receive information
from the cooperating co-conspirator. It would not say who the
confidentiality agreement is with.

The bonds are a cornerstone for the investment portfolios of
government and institutional investors. May 23's filing is part of
an ongoing case in federal court in New York's southern district
being led by Mr. Torsella's office.

Pennsylvania's Treasury Department is seeking class action in the
case, which has consolidated lawsuits by various government
entities, labor unions and public pension systems, including the
city of Baltimore.

It said Pennsylvania's various agencies bought or sold $63 billion
in so-called GSE bonds during the seven-year period. Mr. Torsella's
office is in the process of determining how much money state
agencies lost because of the alleged price-fixing scheme, officials
there said.

The Department of Justice hasn't filed any criminal charges and the
cooperating co-conspirator is not directly identified in Mr.
Torsella's court filing. Mr. Torsella's filing identifies Deutsche
Bank Securities Inc. as a co-conspirator and among various entities
that participated in the violations, but are not named as
defendants. A Deutsche Bank spokesman declined comment. [GN]


DUKE UNIVERSITY: Pays $54.5MM to Settle UNC Collusion Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Jake Satisky, writing for Duke Chronicle, reports that Duke and the
Duke Health System have agreed to pay $54.5 million to settle a
case in which they and the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill were accused of antitrust collusion.

The court granted the settlement preliminary approval May 20 for
the case, which was filed four years ago. In the class action
lawsuit Seaman v. Duke University, Danielle Seaman -- an assistant
professor of radiology at Duke when she filed the case -- alleged
that Duke and UNC agreed not to hire each other's employees, which
would violate federal antitrust laws protecting competition and
wages.

The settlement works out to about $10,000 per person involved in
the class action suit.

In addition to the eight-figure payout, Duke also agreed to appoint
an antitrust compliance officer, train personnel on antitrust rules
and permit the Department of Justice to inspect documents or
interview employees, as well as enforce the terms of the
settlement.

In an email to The Chronicle, Michael Schoenfeld, vice president
for public affairs and government relations, wrote that Duke
"denies all the allegations of wrongdoing and claims of liability
in this case."

"We are settling this case to avoid the wasteful cost and
inconvenience of prolonged litigation, which will divert Duke's
resources and attention away from our core missions of educating
students, treating patients and creating new knowledge that will
improve health and wellness," his statement read. "We will continue
to vigorously compete for the best faculty who will help fulfill
these missions. The University is and has been committed to
complying with all relevant laws in recruiting the most talented
physicians, scientists and scholars. Our agreement with plaintiffs
and the Department of Justice to implement certain compliance
measures affirms that commitment."

In May 2015, Seaman filed a lawsuit saying that she had lost an
employment opportunity because of an alleged no-hire pact between
Duke University School of Medicine and the UNC School of Medicine.
Because this applies only to faculty, non-faculty members of the
Duke University Health System were not affected.

Such an agreement would prevent employees from leveraging a job
opportunity at the other university to better their salaries or
receive a promotion.

Because it is an actor of the state government, UNC settled the
lawsuit in January 2018 without paying any money or admitting
wrongdoing. However, it agreed to never enter a no-hire agreement
and provide information to Seaman's attorneys.

The case became a class action lawsuit in February 2018, and thus
covered around 5,500 faculty physicians at both medical schools.

This settlement is not Duke's first of the year. Duke settled
another lawsuit in March involving allegations of research fraud.
The University will be paying $112.5 million to the federal
government for its alleged handling of falsified data that was
involved with federal rGNsearch grants allegedly amounting to $200
million. [GN]


EMAN CORPORATION: Abdelaal Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
Atef Abdelaal, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Eman Corporation dba Big Arc Chicken and Mohamed El
Hattab, Case No. 1:19-cv-02836 (S.D. N.Y., March 29, 2019), is
brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants have violated the NYLL and the FLSA by failing to
pay appropriate minimum wage, overtime and spread of hours
compensation. Additionally, the Defendants have failed to maintain
accurate record keeping of the hours worked.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cook at Big Arc
Chicken from November 16, 2018 until March 13, 2019.

The Defendant Big Arc is a Middle Eastern restaurant, located at
233 1st Avenue A, New York, NY 10003.

The Defendant Hattab serve or served as owner, manager, principal,
or agent of Big Arc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EMERSON ELECTRIC: Creech Appeals S.D. Ohio Decision to 6th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Ernest McCown Creech filed an appeal from a Court ruling
in his lawsuit styled ERNEST McCOWN CREECH, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EMERSON ELECTRIC
CO., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00014, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio at Dayton.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
moved the Court for an order certifying four classes: Nationwide
Consumer Protection Law Class or Alternative Multi-State Consumer
Protection Law Class, Express Warranty Class, Consumer Protection
Law Class and Unjust Enrichment Class.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: Ernest Creech, Case No.
19-304, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner ERNEST MCCOWN CREECH, on behalf of Himself and
All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Rachel Soffin, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          E-mail: rachel@gregcolemanlaw.com

Defendants-Respondents EMERSON ELECTRIC CO. and WHITE-RODGERS are
represented by:

          Timothy G. Pepper, Esq.
          TAFT, STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
          40 N. Main Street, Suite 1700
          Dayton, OH 45423
          Telephone: (937) 641-1740
          E-mail: pepper@taftlaw.com


EQHEALTH SOLUTIONS: Russell Moves to Certify Class Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned MELISSA RUSSELL, AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. EQHEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No.
3:19-cv-00005-SDD-EWD (M.D. La.), moves the Court to conditionally
certify a Putative Class of plaintiffs in this collective action
and facilitate notice of the action to the Putative Class.

Defendant eQHealth Solutions, Inc., has consented to the Motion.

To preserve resources and in the interest of judicial economy, the
Parties agree that this case should be conditionally certified as a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b) and that court-supervised notice should be provided
to the putative class members to provide them an opportunity to
join the lawsuit.

The Parties identify and define the Putative Class as:

     Current and former non-managerial employees of eQHealth paid
     on a salary basis who may have worked more than 40 hours in
     at least one workweek between March 19, 2016 and the present
     without receiving overtime pay and whose job titles were
     "Care Coordinator," "Pediatric Care Coordinator,"
     "Utilization Review Nurse," "Utilization Review
     Coordinator," "Utilization Reviewer," "Clinical Reviewer,"
     "First Level Reviewer," or other non-managerial positions
     within eQHealth's "Care Coordination" or "Utilization
     Management" job families containing the terms "coordinator,"
     "utilization" or "reviewer" in the job title, and whose job
     duties included a combination of asking standardized
     questions to collect member data, inputting member data into
     eQHealth's computer system, using established guidelines to
     maximize utilization of plan resources through application
     of predetermined criteria, providing information regarding
     plan benefits, working with members and providers to set up
     medical care, or other similar work ("the Putative Class
     Members").  This definition specifically excludes eQHealth's
     employees, if any, whose job duties involved providing
     direct medical care to members or traditional nursing care
     to patients in a clinical setting.

Within 14 days after the entry of an Order granting this Motion,
the Defendant will produce to the Plaintiff's counsel the names,
last known home addresses, last known personal email addresses, and
last known home and cell phone numbers of the Putative Class
Members.  The Plaintiff's counsel will have 14 days from the date
of receipt of the Employee information to distribute a Notice of
Collective Action and Consent to Become a Party Plaintiff form to
the Putative Class Members in accordance with the proposed
procedure.

The Putative Class Members shall be provided 60 days after the date
the Notice and Consent are initially mailed to file a Consent form
opting-in to this litigation (the "Opt-In Period").  The
Plaintiff's counsel must maintain the Employee Information as
confidential records and must not share the Employee Information
with any third-party.

The Plaintiff notes that nothing in this Motion or in the Notice or
Consent shall be interpreted as limiting, waiving, or modifying any
of the Parties' claims or defenses.  The Defendant continues to
deny that it violated the FLSA in any respect.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Travis M. Hedgpeth, Esq.
          THE HEDGPETH LAW FIRM, PC
          3050 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 510
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (281) 572-0727
          Facsimile: (281) 572-0728
          E-mail: travis@hedgpethlaw.com

               - and -

          Jack Siegel, Esq.
          SIEGEL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          2820 McKinnon, Suite 5009
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 790-4454
          E-mail: jack@siegellawgroup.biz

               - and -

          Michael A. Mahone, Jr., Esq.
          THE MAHONE FIRM LLC
          5190 Canal Blvd., Suite 102
          New Orleans, LA 70124
          Telephone: (504) 564-7342
          Facsimile: (504) 617-6474
          E-mail: mike@mahonefirm.com

               - and -

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
          Sarah J. Arendt, Esq.
          Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          77 West Washington, Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 419-1008
          E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
                  msalas@flsalaw.com
                  sarendt@flsalaw.com
                  zflowerree@flsalaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kellen J. Mathews, Esq.
          Justin A. Jack, Esq.
          ADAMS AND REESE LLP
          450 Laurel Street, Suite 1900
          Baton Rouge, LA 70801
          Telephone: (225) 336-5200
          Facsimile: (225) 336-5220
          E-mail: kellen.mathews@arlaw.com
                  justin.jack@arlaw.com

               - and -

          R. Scott Hetrick, Esq.
          ADAMS AND REESE LLP
          11 North Water St., Suite 23200
          Mobile, AL 36602
          Telephone (251) 433-3234
          Facsimile (251) 438-7733
          E-mail scott.hetrick@arlaw.com


EVENTBRITE INC: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Eventbrite,
Inc. ("Eventbrite" or "the Company") (NYSE: EB) for violations of
§§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares pursuant and/or
traceable to the false and/or misleading registration statement and
prospectus (the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with
the Company's September 2018 initial public offering ("IPO") and/or
purchased shares between September 20, 2018 and March 7, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm
before June 15, 2019.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall, or Sherin Mahdavian,
of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los
Angeles, CA 90067, at 424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of
charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at
www.schallfirm.com or by email at brian@schallfirm.com

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Eventbrite's migration of customers from
Ticketfly, which it acquired in September 2017, occurred at a
slower pace than anticipated, which resulted in a longer timeline
to reach completion. This negatively impacted the Company's revenue
growth. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were
false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When
the market learned the truth about Eventbrite, investors suffered
damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

Contact:

         Brian Schall, Esq.
         Sherin Mahdavian, Esq.
         The Schall Law Firm
         1880 Century Park East, Suite 404
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone:  
           Office: 310-301-3335
           Cell:   424-303-1964
         Website: www.schallfirm.com
         Email: info@schallfirm.com
                brian@schallfirm.com.
                sherin@schallfirm.com [GN]


EXPEDIA GROUP: Still Defends Fee Disclosure Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------
Expedia Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019, that the Fee Disclosure Class Actions are still
ongoing.

On February 25, 2019, defendants filed a motion to compel
arbitration in the Church case.  On March 18, 2019, defendants
filed a motion to dismiss in the Woodell case.  Both motions remain
pending.

Expedia Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as
an
online travel company in the United States and internationally. It
operates through Core OTA, Trivago, HomeAway, and Egencia
segments.
Expedia Group, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in
Bellevue, Washington.


EXXON MOBIL: Goldstein et al. Seek to Renew Class Cert. Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit GOLDSTEIN, et al., the Plaintiffs, vs.
EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-02477-DSF-SK (C.D. Cal.), Arnold Goldstein and Hany Youssef
will move the Court on June 24, 2019, for leave to file a renewed
motion for class certification.

The case is a putative class action seeks to remedy harms arising
out of contamination caused by an oil refinery in Torrance,
California formerly operated by ExxonMobil Corporation currently
operated by Torrance Refining Company LLC. Due to Defendants'
negligence, the Refinery has emitted, and continues to emit,
harmful contaminants into the groundwater, soil vapor, and air,
presenting substantial health impacts to the surrounding
community.

The Plaintiffs seeks certification of two subclasses: (1) the Soil
and Groundwater Subclass (the "Ground Subclass"), which encompasses
persons who own and occupy properties within the areas delineated
by Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. W. Richard Laton, as presenting
elevated health risks due to toxic soil vapor contamination, and
(2) the Operational Emissions Subclass (the "Air Subclass"), which
encompasses persons who occupy properties within the area
delineated by Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. James Clark, where
cumulative exposure to toxic air emissions presents elevated health
risks.

The definitions of the proposed subclasses have been narrowed to
address concerns raised by the Court when it denied Plaintiffs'
first motion for class certification. Specifically, to address
typicality and predominance issues, the Ground Subclass includes
only those persons who have a possessory interest in their
property, and excludes claims for relief that the Court previously
found were unavailable.

As to the Air Subclass, the instant motion addresses the Court's
concerns regarding numerosity by including additional evidence
concerning the number of persons affected by Defendants' toxic air
emissions. It also addresses the Court's concern that the class was
defined too broadly for the purposes of seeking injunctive relief
by including only those persons who currently occupy their
properties and thus have standing to seek such relief.[CC]

The Court's order denying certification identified that these
subclasses could be refined, and Plaintiffs submit additional
evidence showing that class treatment is appropriate, the lawsuit
says.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Joshua d. Boxer, Esq.
          Tagore O. Subramaniam, Esq.
          Daniel J. Bass, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
          E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
                  jboxer@maternlawgroup.com
                  tagore@maternlawgroup.com
                  dbass@maternlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Matthew K. Edling, Esq.
          Adam M. Shapiro, Esq.
          Meredith S. Wilensky, Esq.
          SHER EDLING LLP
          100 Montgomery St., Suite 1410
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (628) 231-2500
          Facsimile: (628) 231-2929
          E-mail: matt@sheredling.com
                  adam@sheredling.com
                  meredith@sheredling.com

FCA US: Razen Sues Over Defective Vehicle Transmissions
-------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN RAZEN and, individually, and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. FCA US LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No.
6:19-cv-00831-PGB-LRH (E.D. N.Y., May 1, 2019) is an action brought
on behalf of all persons in the United States and its territories
who purchased or leased any Model Year 2016 or later FCA US LLC
vehicle equipped with FCA's 9-speed automatic transmission ("ZF 9HP
Automatic Transmission") (collectively, "Class Vehicles").

The ZF 9HP Automatic Transmission was supposed to serve as a
significant technological advancement from previously employed six
speed automatic transmission, due to its unique 9.8 ratio spread
and computer-controlled shifting, which were designed together to
allow for better performance and fuel economy, while maintaining
the ease of use of a traditional automatic transmission.  However,
prior to releasing the ZF 9HP Automatic Transmission in its
vehicles, FCA confirmed that the transmission was plagued with
problems. 20135, The Cherokee's release, originally set for "no
later than September" was plagued with delays due to glitches in
"the software that controls how the SUV's nine-speed" transmission
interacts with its innovative disconnecting drivetrain. Chrysler
claimed that "the company will not ship vehicles until we are fully
satisfied the Cherokee meets customer expectations for performance,
refinement and quality.' "Insiders say the new transmission - which
is a ZF design but being built by Chrysler – isn't shifting as
smoothly as intended." Sergio Marchionne, CEO of Fiat Chrysler
Automobiles, later admitted that the transmission lacked "mature"
software at the time of release.

After multiple delays, attempted fixes and recalibrations, FCA
nevertheless sold the Class Vehicles with the ZF 9H Automatic
Transmission. Unfortunately for consumers, FCA knowingly rushed a
product to market that was defective and has been unable to repair
the Class Vehicles. Ultimately, FCA failed to deliver any vehicles
with the ZF 9HP Automatic Transmission that lived up to the promise
of a transmission that "shifts through the gears so" smoothly that
drivers don't even notice most of the gear changes.

As a result of the Transmission Defect, with the first 6 months of
production, FCA issued several Technical Service Bulletins
("TSBs"), as well as three transmission software updates, to its
dealers in the United States, acknowledging defects in the 9HP
Automatic Transmission. However, consumer complaints persisted and
FCA continued to issue numerous additional TSBs and transmission
software updates through 2017. However, FCA's promises again fell
short. FCA knew about Transmission Defect present in every Class
Vehicle, along with the attendant dangerous safety problems, and
concealed this information from Plaintiff and Class Members at the
time of sale, lease, repair, and thereafter. In fact, instead of
repairing the defects in the ZF 9HP Automatic Transmission, FCA
either refused to acknowledge the defects' existence or performed
repairs that simply masked the defects.

If Plaintiff and Class Members had known about these defects at the
time of sale or lease, they would not have purchased or leased the
Class Vehicles or would have paid less for them. As a result of
their reliance on Defendant's omissions, owners and/or lessees of
the Class Vehicles suffered an ascertainable loss of money,
property, and/or value of their Class Vehicles. Additionally, as a
result of the Transmission Defect, Plaintiff and Class Members were
harmed and suffered actual damages in that the Class Vehicles'
transmission components are substantially certain to fail before
their expected useful life has run, says the Complaint.

Plaintiff Razen purchased a new 2017 Jeep Renegade (VIN:
ZACCJABB7HPG11115) from Greenway Dodge/Chrysler, an authorized FCA
dealer in Orlando, Florida. Razen's vehicle was equipped with a ZF
9HP Automatic Transmission.

FCA US LLC designs, manufactures, markets, distributes, services,
repairs, sells, and leases passenger vehicles, including the Class
Vehicles, nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Stephen J. Bagge, Esq.
     STEPHEN J. BAGGE, P.A.
     3902 Henderson Blvd., Suite 208-30
     Tampa, FL 33629
     Phone: 813-250-0511
     Email: sbagge@baggelaw.com

          - and -

     Russell D. Paul, Esq.
     Jeffrey L. Osterwise, Esq.
     BERGER MONTAGUE PC
     1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: (215) 875-3000
     Fax: (215) 875-4604
     Email: rpaul@bm.net
            josterwise@bm.net


FIAT CHRYSLER: Sept. 5 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

GARY KOOPMANN, TIMOTHY KIDD and
VICTOR PIRNIK, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FIAT CHRYSLER AUTOMOBILES N.V.,
FCA US LLC, RONALD ISELI AND
ALESSANDRO BALDI, AS CO-EXECUTORS
FOR THE ESTATE OF SERGIO MARCHIONNE, SCOTT KUNSELMAN,
MICHAEL DAHL, STEVE MAZURE and ROBERT E. LEE,

Defendants.     

Hon. Jesse M. Furman
Case No: 15-cv-07199-JMF

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT; (II) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND
REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES; AND
(III) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING

TO:     All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired, on a U.S. exchange or in a transaction in the United
States, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. common stock between October
13, 2014 and May 23, 2017, both dates inclusive (the "Class").

Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Class as set
forth in detail in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement
dated April 5, 2019 ("Stipulation") and the Notice described
below.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY; YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT IS AVAILABLE ON THE
SETTLEMENT WEBSITE, WWW.FIATCHRYSLERSECURITIESLITIGATION.COM.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York ("Court"), that the
above-captioned action ("Action") has been certified as a class
action and that the parties to the Action have reached a proposed
settlement for $110 million in cash ("Settlement"), that, if
approved, will resolve all claims in the Action. A hearing will be
held on September 5, 2019 at 3:00 p.m., before the Honorable Jesse
M. Furman at the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse,
40 Foley Square, Courtroom 1105, New York, NY 10007, to determine:
(i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be
dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the releases
specified and described in the Stipulation (and in the Notice
described below) should be entered; (iii) whether the proposed Plan
of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv)
whether Class Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees
and reimbursement of expenses should be approved.

If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by
the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to
share in the Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the
detailed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and Proposed
Settlement; (II) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and
Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses; and (III) Settlement Fairness
Hearing ("Notice") and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at Fiat Chrysler
Automobiles Securities Litigation Settlement, c/o Epiq Class Action
& Claims Solutions, Inc., P.O. Box 5270, Portland, OR 97208-5270;
1-877-568-3518; info@FiatChryslerSecuritiesLitigation.com. Copies
of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the
website maintained by the Claims Administrator,
www.FiatChryslerSecuritiesLitigation.com.

If you are a member of the Class, in order to be eligible to
receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a
Claim Form postmarked (if mailed), or online, no later than August
28, 2019, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Claim Form. If you are a Class Member and do not submit a proper
Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution
of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be
bound by any releases, judgments or orders entered by the Court in
the Action.

If you are a member of the Class and wish to exclude yourself from
the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is
received no later than August 15, 2019, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude
yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any releases,
judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will
not be eligible to share in the net proceeds of the Settlement.
Excluding yourself is the only option that allows you to be part of
any other current or future lawsuit against Defendants or any of
the other released parties concerning the claims being resolved by
the Settlement. Please note, however, if you decide to exclude
yourself from the Class, you may be time-barred from asserting the
claims covered by the Action by a statute of repose.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and
delivered to Class Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they
are received no later than August 15, 2019, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, DEFENDANTS OR
THEIR COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. All questions about this
notice, the Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlement should be directed to Class Counsel or the Claims
Administrator.

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:

Claims Administrator
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles Securities Litigation Settlement
c/o Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc.
P.O. Box 5270
Portland, OR 97208-5270
Tel.:  1-877-568-3518
info@FiatChryslerSecuritiesLitigation.com  
www.FiatChryslerSecuritiesLitigation.com

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, may
be made to Class Counsel:

Class Counsel
Jeremy A. Lieberman
Pomerantz LLP
600 Third Avenue, Floor 20
New York, New York 10016
1-212-661-1100
jalieberman@pomlaw.com

Laurence Rosen
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10016
1-212-686-1060
lrosen@rosenlegal.com

DATED:  April 30, 2019 [GN]


FIAT CHRYSLER: To Compensate EcoDiesel Jeep, Ram Owners
-------------------------------------------------------
Scott Collie, writing for CarAdvice, reports that Fiat Chrysler
Automobiles (FCA) will compensate American owners of Jeep and Ram
cars fitted with emissions-cheating EcoDiesel engines.

Owners of 2014-16 Ram 1500 EcoDiesel and Jeep Grand Cherokee
EcoDiesel models will have updated emissions control software
fitted, be given an extended warranty for their cars, and offered
US$3075 ($4400) in compensation.

Second-hand owners will be eligible for a US$2460 ($3500) payment,
while lessees, former lessees and former owners will get US$990
($1410).

To get the money, ex-owners will need to submit a claim by August
1, 2019. Current owners have a bit more time -- until February 3rd,
2021 -- to file their claims, but their vehicle software has to be
updated May 3, 2021 to be eligible.

Fiat Chrysler says the fix takes less than three hours, but will
offer a loan car if the repair is likely to take longer.

The payout is part of US$800 million ($1.1 billion) in fines, fixes
and compensation the company has devoted to settling claims its
EcoDiesel engines cheated emissions regulations.

It's been accused of using a defeat device, the likes of which were
behind the Volkswagen Dieselgate saga, to alter its operation when
undergoing bench testing.

At the time of the settlement, FCA maintained it "did not engage in
any deliberate scheme to install defeat devices to cheat emissions
tests", and said its settlements "contain no finding or admission
with regard to any alleged violations of vehicle emissions rules".

The software being installed to bring cars back into line with
emissions regulations will not affect "average fuel economy,
drivability, durability or refinement", according to the company.

The automaker will also help California pay for pollution
mitigation programs, and finance the "upgrade of 200,000
high-efficiency catalytic converters through the aftermarket".
[GN]


FINISAR CORP: Court Strikes Renewed Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: FINISAR CORPORATION SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 5:11-cv-01252-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Edward J. Davila entered an order:

   1. striking Plaintiff's improperly renewed motion for class
      certification; and

   2. granting Defendants' motion for judgment on the
pleadings.[CC]

FITBIT INC: July 11 Hearing Set for Sleep Tracker Lawsuit Accord
----------------------------------------------------------------
A July 11, 2019 final approval hearing has been scheduled for the
settlement of a class-action lawsuit which claims that Fitbit,
Inc.'s sleep tracker devices do not work as advertised, according
to Fitbit's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 30, 2019.

On May 8, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, alleging that the sleep tracking function available in
certain trackers does not perform as advertised.  Plaintiffs seek
class certification, restitution, unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages, reasonable costs and expenses including
attorneys' fees, and other further relief as the court may deem
just and proper.

On January 31, 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was
granted on November 20, 2017.  On April 20, 2017, the Company filed
a motion for summary judgment.  The Company's motion for summary
judgment was denied on December 8, 2017.

During the three months ended June 30, 2018, the parties agreed to
a settlement and on August 1, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion
for preliminary approval of the class action settlement.  At the
hearing on September 13, 2018, the court denied preliminary
settlement approval without prejudice and ordered revised
settlement papers be filed by October 26, 2018.  On November 29,
2018, the court granted preliminary settlement approval.  The final
approval hearing is scheduled for July 11, 2019.


FLEX LTD: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. announces that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Flex Ltd. (NASDAQ: FLEX) securities between
January 26, 2017, and October 25, 2018 (the "Class Period").
Investors have until June 4, 2019 to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Flex's internal controls over financial
reporting were materially weak and deficient; (2) Flex had
improperly accounted for obligations in a customer contract and
certain related reserves; (3) Flex had experienced operational
issues with its co-manufacturing project with Nike which resulted
in the winding down of this project because Flex was "unable to
reach a commercially viable solution" for the project; and (4) as a
result of the foregoing, Flex's financial statements and
defendants' statements about Flex's business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

If you purchased Flex securities during the Class Period or
continue to hold shares purchased before the Class Period, have
information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon
Walker or Melissa Fortunato by email at investigations@bespc.com or
telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form.
There is no cost or obligation to you.

Contact:

         Brandon Walker, Esq.
         Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
         Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
         Telephone: (212) 355-4648
         Website: www.bespc.com
                  https://bespc.com/flex/
         Email: investigations@bespc.com
                fortunato@bespc.com
                walker@bespc.com [GN]


FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL: Suoto Suit Seeks Unpaid Min., Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Herena Souto, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Florida International University, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-21935,
(S.D. Fla., May 14, 2019) seeks to recover unpaid overtime and
minimum wage compensation, as well as an additional amount as
liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Florida International University is an institution providing higher
education in Miami-Dade County where Suoto worked as a Coordinator
of Foundation Board Relations from approximately March 16, 2016,
through May 21, 2018. She was required to work overtime related to
board meetings, incurring uncompensated overtime. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Monica Espino, Esq.
      ESPINO LAW
      2655 S. LeJeune Road, Suite 802
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Tel: (305) 704-3172
      Fax: (305) 722-7378
      Email: me@espino-law.com
             legal@espino-law.com


FRANKLIN COLLECTION: Lemke Moves for Certification of Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
Debbie Lemke moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit styled DEBBIE LEMKE, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. FRANKLIN COLLECTION
SERVICE INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-00663 (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks
that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to
grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules
setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and
supporting material to be filed with the Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff avers, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement
of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that
other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class,
the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco,
Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June
20, 2017).  The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has attempted
a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class
representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D.
Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut,
Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis.
Feb. 24, 2016).

The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to move for
class certification to protect the interests of the putative
class.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


FRONTLINE ASSET: Seeks Approval of Settlement in Williams Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit styled SAMUEL WILLIAMS, pleading on his
own behalf and on behalf of all other similarly situated consumers
v. FRONTLINE ASSET STRATEGIES; VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC, Case No.
2:17-cv-03119-JD (E.D. Pa.), jointly move the Court for an order
certifying the case to proceed as a class action and granting
preliminary approval of their class settlement agreement.

Specifically, the Parties jointly move the Court to certify this
class:

     All consumers with a Pennsylvania address that have received
     collection letters sent by FAS on behalf of Velocity
     concerning debts incurred for primarily personal, household,
     or family purposes during a period beginning one year prior
     to the filing of this complaint that a) fails to provide a
     partial payment disclosure, b) fails to disclose that the
     consumer cannot be sued on the debt, and c) falsely
     threatens the accrual of interest.

The Plaintiff filed this class action lawsuit pursuant to the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act alleging that the Defendants violated
the FDCPA by sending consumers written collection communications
which offered settlements of debts without disclosing the debt was
beyond the statute of limitations and, thereby, implying that the
debt was legally enforceable.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Zemel, Esq.
          Elizabeth Apostola, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW LLC
          1373 Broad Street, Suite 203-C
          Clifton, NJ 07013
          Telephone: (862) 227-3106
          E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com
                  ea@zemellawllc.com

Defendants Frontline Asset Strategies and Velocity Investments LLC
are represented by:

          Peter G. Siachos, Esq.
          GORDON & REES
          18 Columbia Turnpike, Suite 200
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Telephone: (973) 549-2500
          E-mail: psiachos@grsm.com


GEICO GENERAL: Appeals Ruling in Roth Suit to Eleventh Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant GEICO General Insurance Company filed an appeal from a
Court ruling in the lawsuit titled Kerry Roth v. GEICO General
Insurance Company, Case No. 0:16-cv-62942-WPD, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The appellate case is captioned as Kerry Roth v. GEICO General
Insurance Company, Case No. 19-11652, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, GEICO previously filed an
appeal from a court decision in the lawsuit.  That appellate case
is entitled GEICO General Insurance Company v. Kerry Roth, Case No.
18-90016.

The lawsuit (Case No. 113C-9330870) was filed in the 17th Judicial
Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, and was later removed
to the District Court.  The Defendants own and operate an auto
insurance company in Florida.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee KERRY ROTH, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Christopher J. Lynch, Esq.
          HUNTER WILLIAMS & LYNCH, PA
          2977 McFarlane Road, Suite 301
          Miami, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 443-6200
          Facsimile: (305) 443-6204
          E-mail: clynch@hunterwilliamslaw.com

               - and -

          Tracy Lynne Markham, Esq.
          SOUTHERN ATLANTIC LAW GROUP, PLLC
          2800 N 5th St., Suite 302
          Saint Augustine, FL 32033
          Telephone: (904) 794-7005

               - and -

          Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
          Jacob Lawrence Phillips, Esq.
          NORMAND PLLC
          62 W Colonial Drive, Suite 209
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 603-6031
          E-mail: Ed@ednormand.com
                  jacob@ednormand.com

               - and -

          Bradley Wilkes Pratt, Esq.
          PRATT CLAY, LLC
          4401 Northside Pkwy., Suite 520
          Atlanta, GA 30327
          Telephone: (404) 949-8118
          E-mail: bpratt@kslaw.com

Defendant-Appellant GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY is represented
by:

          Kymberly Kochis, Esq.
          EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
          1114 Avenue of the Americas, Floor 40
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 389-5000
          E-mail: mikenelson@eversheds-sutherland.com

               - and -

          Amelia Toy Rudolph, Esq.
          EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
          999 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 2300
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 853-8000
          E-mail: amyrudolph@eversheds-sutherland.com


GILEAD GROUP: Accused of HIV Meds Price Rigging
-----------------------------------------------
Peter Staley, Steve Fuller, Gregg S. Gonsalves, Ph.D., Brenda Emily
Goodrow, Andrew R. Spieldenner, Ph.D., Robert J. Vazquez, Jason
Walker, Michael Warner, Jacob Zydonis, Fraternal Order of Police,
Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund and Service
Employees International Union, Local No. 1 Health Fund, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated. Plaintiffs, v.
Gilead Sciences, Inc., Gilead Holdings, LLC, Gilead Sciences, LLC,
Gilead Sciences Ireland UC, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, E. R.
Squibb & Sons, LLC, Japan Tobacco, Inc., Japan Tobacco
International USA, Inc., Akros Pharma Inc., Janssen R&D Ireland and
Johnson & Johnson, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-02573 (N.D.
Cal., May 14, 2019), seeks permanent injunctive relief pursuant to
the Clayton and Sherman Acts.

Defendant are international pharmaceutical companies whom
Plaintiffs claim develop and market HIV suppressing drugs. They
allegedly acquired and maintained a monopoly in the market for
drugs that comprise the modern HIV treatment regimen where Gilead
dominates the market for such and entered into a series of
collusive and illegal horizontal agreements that ensured that each
co-conspirator would not compete against Gilead's HIV medications
and would effectively block other companies from competing against
them even after their patents expired.

Plaintiffs are users/prescription issuers who claims that they have
purchased these HIV medications as supra-competitive prices. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daralyn J. Durie, Esq.
      Mark A. Lemley, Esq.
      David McGowan, Esq.
      Laura E. Miller, Esq.
      W. Henry Huttinger, Esq.
      DURIE TANGRI LLP
      217 Leidesdorff Street
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 362-6666
      Facsimile: (415) 236-6300
      Email: ddurie@durietangri.com
             mlemley@durietangri.com
             dmcgowan@durietangri.com
             lmiller@durietangri.com
             hhuttinger@durietangri.com

             - and -

      Steve D. Shadowen, Esq.
      Robert C. Hilliard, Esq.
      Richard Brunell, Esq.
      Matthew C. Weiner, Esq.
      Frazar W. Thomas, Esq.
      Nicholas W. Shadowen, Esq.
      HILLIARD & SHADOWEN LLP
      1135 W. 6th Street, Suite 125
      Austin, TX 78703
      Telephone: (855) 344-3298
      Facsimile: (361) 882-3015
      Email: steve@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
             bob@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
             rbrunell@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
             matt@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
             fraz@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
             nick@hilliardshadowenlaw.com

             - and -

      Steve W. Berman, Esq.
      Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
      Kristen A. Johnson, Esq.
      Gregory T. Arnold, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
      Cambridge, MA 02142
      Telephone: (617) 482-3700
      Facsimile: (617) 482-3003
      Email: steve@hbsslaw.com
             tom@hbsslaw.com
             kristenj@hbsslaw.com
             grega@hbsslaw.com

             - and -

      John Radice, Esq.
      Dan Rubenstein, Esq.
      RADICE LAW FIRM, P.C.
      475 Wall Street
      Princeton, NJ 08540
      Telephone: (646) 245-8502
      Facsimile: (609) 385-0745
      Email: jradice@radicelawfirm.com
             drubenstein@radicelawfirm.com

             - and -

      Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
      SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
      1625 North Commerce Parkway, Suite 320
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326
      Telephone: (954) 515-0123
      Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
      Email: jgoldstein@sfmslaw.com

             - and -

      Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
      Michael Ols, Esq.
      SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
      35 E. State Street
      Media, PA 19063
      Telephone: (610) 891-9880
      Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
      Email: nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com
             mols@sfmslaw.com

             - and -

      Paul E. Slater, Esq.
      Eamon P. Kelly, Esq.
      Alberto Rodriguez, Esq.
      SPERLING & SLATER, P.C.
      55 West Monroe, Suite 3200
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 641-3200
      Facsimile: (312) 641-6492
      Email: pes@sperling-law.com
             ekelly@sperling-law.com
             arodriguez@sperling-law.com


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Opt-Out Plaintiffs Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the motion to dismiss
the suit initiated certain direct purchasers of foreign exchange
instruments that opted out of a class settlement reached with,
among others, GS&Co. and Group Inc.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) and the company (Group Inc.) are
among the defendants named in an action filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on November 7, 2018 by
certain direct purchasers of foreign exchange instruments that
opted out of a class settlement reached with, among others, GS&Co.
and Group Inc.

The amended complaint, filed on March 1, 2019, generally alleges
that the defendants violated federal antitrust laws in connection
with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the foreign currency
exchange markets and seeks injunctive relief, as well as treble
damages in an unspecified amount.

Defendants moved to dismiss on April 1, 2019.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend FX Class Suits in Israel
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend in two putative class action suit in the district court
of the Central District in Israel.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") and the Company (Group Inc.) are
among the defendants named in two putative class actions filed in
the district court of the Central District in Israel on behalf of
direct purchasers of foreign exchange instruments.

The complaints, filed on September 11, 2018 and September 29, 2018,
respectively, generally allege a conspiracy to manipulate prices of
foreign exchange instruments.

The second putative class action also asserts claims based on
misuse of the "last look" features of foreign exchange trading
systems.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend NY Securities Lending Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company (Group
Inc.) and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.), continues to defend
itself from an antitrust suit involving securities lending
practices.

Group Inc. and GS&Co. are among the defendants named in a putative
antitrust class action and two individual actions relating to
securities lending practices filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York beginning in August 2017.

The complaints generally assert claims under federal antitrust law
and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among
the defendants to preclude the development of electronic platforms
for securities lending transactions.

The individual complaints also assert claims for tortious
interference with business relations and under state trade
practices law and, in the second individual action, unjust
enrichment under state common law.

The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
treble damages and restitution in unspecified amounts. Group Inc.
was voluntarily dismissed from the putative class action on January
26, 2018.

Defendants moved to dismiss the first individual action on June 1,
2018 and moved to dismiss the second individual action on December
21, 2018. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the class action
complaint was denied on September 27, 2018.

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

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces VRDO-Related Antitrust Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company and Goldman
Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) are defending themselves against a class
action suit related to variable rate demand obligations (VRDOs).

Group Inc. and GS&Co. are among the defendants named in putative
class actions relating to variable rate demand obligations (VRDOs),
filed beginning in February 2019 and consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaints generally assert claims under federal antitrust law
and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among
the defendants to manipulate the market for VRDOs.

The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
unspecified amounts of compensatory, treble and other damages.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: GSE Bonds Antitrust Litigation v. GS&Co. Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC
(GS&Co.) is defending itself against a putative antitrust class
action suit related to debt securities issued by Federal National
Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation,
Federal Farm Credit Banks Funding Corporation and Federal Home Loan
Banks (collectively, the GSEs).

GS&Co. is among the dealers named as defendants in numerous
putative antitrust class actions relating to debt securities issued
by Federal National Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corporation, Federal Farm Credit Banks Funding Corporation
and Federal Home Loan Banks (collectively, the GSEs), filed
beginning in February 2019 and consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaints generally assert claims under federal antitrust law
and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among
the defendants to manipulate the secondary market for debt
securities issued by the GSEs.

The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
treble damages in unspecified amounts.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: New York Class Suit over 1MDB Scandal Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a putative securities class action lawsuit related to is
disclosures concerning 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB).

On December 20, 2018, a putative securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against Group Inc. and certain current and former officers
of the firm alleging violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the
Exchange Act with respect to Group Inc.'s disclosures concerning
1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) and seeking unspecified
damages.

The firm is cooperating with the Department of Justice and all
other governmental and regulatory investigations relating to 1MDB.
Proceedings by the DOJ or other governmental or regulatory
authorities could result in the imposition of significant fines,
penalties and other sanctions against the firm, including
restrictions on the firm's activities.

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

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: New York Suit over FX Transactions Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a consolidated class action suit related to foreign
currency exchange markets.  

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) and Group Inc. are among the
defendants named in putative class actions filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York beginning in
September 2016 on behalf of putative indirect purchasers of foreign
exchange instruments.

The consolidated amended complaint, filed on June 30, 2017,
generally alleged a conspiracy to manipulate the foreign currency
exchange markets and asserted claims under federal and state
antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws.

On March 15, 2018, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss,
and on October 25, 2018, plaintiffs' motion for leave to replead
was denied as to the claim under federal antitrust law and granted
as to the claims under state antitrust and consumer protection
laws.

On November 28, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated
amended complaint asserting claims under various state antitrust
laws and state consumer protection laws and seeking treble damages
in an unspecified amount.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: NY Securities Class Suit Stayed Pending Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York has stayed the proceedings in
a securities class
action pending an appellate court's decision.  

Beginning in April 2010, a number of purported securities law class
actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York challenging the adequacy of Group Inc.'s
public disclosure of, among other things, the firm's activities in
the collateralized debt obligation market, and the firm's conflict
of interest management.

The consolidated amended complaint filed on July 25, 2011, which
names as defendants Group Inc. and certain current and former
officers and employees of Group Inc. and its affiliates, generally
alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and seeks unspecified damages.

The defendants have moved for summary judgment. On December 11,
2018, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals granted the defendants'
petition for interlocutory review of the district court's August
14, 2018 grant of class certification.

On January 23, 2019, the district court stayed proceedings in the
district court pending the appellate court's decision.

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

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GREYSTONE PARK: State-Run Hospital Still "A Disaster," Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
William Westhoven, writing for Morristown Daily Record, reports
that despite a new report indicating improved conditions at
Greystone Park and other state-run psychiatric hospitals, the
principals behind a recent class-action lawsuit say Greystone for
several years has been, and still is, "a disaster."

Ann Portas, assistant division director of the New Jersey Office of
the Public Defender's Division of Mental Health, updated family
members and legal guardians of patients committed to Greystone
about the lawsuit during a "Concerned Families Forum," on May 22
hosted by the Mental Health Association of Essex and Morris in
Parsippany.

The report by the state Health Department, issued earlier this
week, cited statistics showing a 29% decline in patient assaults
for the first few months of 2019. It also showed an increase in
staffing, $4.8 million allotted to safety improvements and other
steps enacted to prevent assaults on both patients and staff.

Greystone, in Parsippany, is part of the four-hospital state system
along with Ancora Psychiatric Hospital in Hammonton, Trenton
Psychiatric Hospital and the Ann Klein Forensic Center in West
Trenton, which treats people with mental illness involved in the
criminal court system.

The report, Portas says, is suspect, based on her knowledge and
anecdotal testimony from staff and visitors.

"That's not something we can say we believe in," Portas said. "We
know there are issues at Greystone, Trenton, Ann Klein. We know all
this. We don't believe all these things the DOH reports to be doing
are things that are really happening."

The Department of Health, Portas alleges, has manipulated
statistics and other benchmarks in the report to paint a rosier
picture of conditions in the hospital system than what actually
exists in the facilities.

Greystone, for example, was designed for no more than 510 patients,
she said.

"But somehow, magically, the Department of Health decided the
capacity is now 560," Portas said. "I don't know how they did that.
That number is a fallacy, and those of us who go there are well
aware of it."

Now, she says, Greystone administrators report the census at the
once-overcrowded facility is "Actually way down, in the 360-to-380
range, depending on who you ask, and what day."

"They are saying they are 200 people below capacity," Portas said.
"That a big problem, too, because some of the feeder hospitals like
Essex County or Trinitas, aren't able to send people to Greystone,
which, if it was functioning properly, that might be a good place
to send them."

Understaffing, Portas alleges, is still a problem, and the
Department of Health is beefing up staff through the hiring of
part-time or outside-group psychiatrists who may not be there long
enough to forge close bonds with the patients.

"We also have noticed there are some huge problems with the
low-level staff at Greystone," Portas said. "Perhaps they do not
get the training they need. We've seen that as a problem,
[patients] have complained that is a problem. They… don't think
they can talk to the staff."

Overcrowding, Portas said, combined with inappropriate care and a
lack of properly trained staff, have built up the kinds of
conditions that forced her division to file the class-action
lawsuit.

"When those things happen, it's a recipe for disaster, and for the
last several years, Greystone has been a disaster," she said.
"There have been numerous assaults. Many of the assaults have been
serious in nature. There are patient-to-patient fights,
patient-on-staff, staff-on-patient. It's hard to get well in that
kind of setting."

Nora Locke, Esq. managing attorney for the Division of Mental
Health Advocacy, said the state Attorney General's Office would ask
the court to dismiss the current class-action suit, but that
dismissal, if granted, would be moot when they amend the current
suit.

"This [lawsuit] was not done lightly, and we are not seeking
monetary damages," Portas said. "We recognize that Greystone is
supposed to be a jewel of a hospital. It is not."

Family witnesses

Several family members of current and former Greystone patients who
came to the forum, and even some former patients, agreed with
Portas.

So did principals of the MHA, prompting them to host the forum,
which drew about 50 people.

"We have been hearing from you and other for many years about the
alarming conditions at Greystone, the overcrowding, the
understanding, the violence," said MHA trustee Barbara Small. "So
when we heard about  this lawsuit in December, we were very
interested. We are hoping, as this goes through the legal process,
it will result in Greystone finally having a safe and therapeutic
environment for all patients."

Some of the forum attendees said many staff members were good at
their jobs, but too many seem under-trained or ill-equipped to
handle a difficult population.

Some patients, several said, are terrified of other patients who
commit or threaten acts of violence; they also smuggle drugs, steal
personal items and contraband including cigarettes, which "go for
$3 apiece" on the black market of the no-smoking facility.

"They'll take anything," one former patient said of patients she
encountered there.

Another woman said her daughter had been traumatized by an incident
during one of multiple stays at Greystone, in which she witnessed
her roommate overdose on heroin.

"The boyfriend snuck in a syringe," the mother said. "He had it in
his shoe. She injected it and overdosed, the needle still in her
arm. My daughter has a history of substance abuse, so it was hard
for her. And it shows you how easy it is to get stuff in there."

Other reported incidents included one patient who lit a bed on fire
and another woman who was able to make repeated attempts at hanging
herself in a manner that could have been corrected with proper
facility repairs, but was not.

Still more parents complained about having to make visits in a
common room that did not promote privacy and therapeutic
interaction, a standard at Greystone some said did not exist at
other New Jersey facilities.

The state, in its report, measured improvements since the
department issued an 18-month action plan last August.

"Across the hospital system, we've made significant progress in
improving the culture of safety and standardizing training and
evidence-based clinical treatment practices," state Health
Commissioner Shereef Elnahal said in a statement. "There is still
much work to do, but every day we are moving closer to ensuring the
best possible quality of care for those who are among the most
vulnerable patients in the state."

The MHA event also featured representatives of other mental-health
caregivers and advocates, including the Saint Clare's Behavioral
health and family support divisions, Intensive Family Support
Services in Bergen County, the Sussex County Department of Health
and Human Services and the National Alliance of Mental Illness
offices in Bergen and Sussex counties. [GN]


HASS INTERESTS: Polk Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------
Aubrey Polk, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Hass Interests, LLC dba Texas Executive Couriers and Amazon.com
Services, Inc., Case No. 4:19-cv-01149 (S.D. Tex., March 28, 2019),
is brought against the Defendants for violations of Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants have failed to pay the Plaintiff and other delivery
drivers the appropriate overtime wages after working forty hours in
a workweek which violates the FLSA.

The Plaintiff was hired to work as a delivery driver for Defendants
from on or about May 1, 2018 to February 28, 2019.

The Defendant Amazon.com provides an e-commerce marketplace for the
purchase of products online and delivers products directly to the
customer’s home via delivery drivers it jointly employs with
local entities, such as Hass Interests.
The Defendant Hass Interests may be served through its registered
agent April Wiggins, 3506 Travis St., Houston, TX 77002. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Robert R. Debes, Jr., Esq.
       Ricardo Prieto, Esq.
       SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
       11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
       Houston, TX 77046
       Tel: (713) 621-2277
       Fax: (713) 621-0993
       E-mail: bdebes@eeoc.net
               rprieto@eeoc.net


HD AND ASSOCIATES: Taylor Seeks Overtime Wages for Technicians
--------------------------------------------------------------
BYRON TAYLOR, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HD AND ASSOCIATES, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-10635 (E.D. La., May 22, 2019), alleges
that Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and its other
Technicians for all hours worked and also failed to pay appropriate
overtime wages when they work more than 40 hours in a workweek as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the similarly
situated employees he seeks to represent, are current and former
employees of HD, who worked as Technicians within the last three
years. HD's pay practices and policies applied not only to
Plaintiff, but also to all Class Members. Therefore, Plaintiff
brings this suit on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated Technicians.

HD provides telecommunication and installation service,
specifically installing cable and internet equipment for COX
Communications, for residential and commercial clients.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff:

          George B. Recile, Esq.
          Preston L. Hayes, Esq.
          Ryan P. Monsour, Esq.
          Zachar R. Smith, Esq.
          CHEHARDY, SHERMAN, WILLIAMS, MURRAY,
          RECILE, STAKELUM & HAYES, L.L.P.
          One Galleria Boulevard, Suite 1100
          Metairie, LA 70001
          Telephone: (504) 833-5600
          Facsimile: (504) 613-4528

HEALTH INSURANCE INNOVATIONS: Izor et al Sue over Unsolicited Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL IZOR; and APRIL HALE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HEALTH INSURANCE INNOVATIONS,
INC.; FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY; NATIONAL CONGRESS OF EMPLOYERS,
INC.; TELADOC HEALTH, INC.; and BRIDGEVINE, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 8:19-cv-01065 (M.D. Fla., May 2, 2019) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. (HIIQ) provides software and
insurance solutions. The Company specializes in cloud-based
technology platform and distributes innovative health insurance
products, as well as assists in the development of insurance
products through our relationships with best-in-class insurance
companies. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
          400 NW 26th Street
          Miami, FL 33127
          Telephone: (305) 469-5881
          E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
                  rachel@kaufmanpa.com

               - and -

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
          201 S. Biscayne Blvd, 28 th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (877) 333-9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
          E-mail: Law@StefanColeman.com


HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Rosen Files Securities Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Healthcare Services Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: HCSG) from
April 11, 2017 through March 4, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Healthcare
Services investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Healthcare Services Group, Inc. class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1526.html or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Healthcare Services' CEO either knew or was reckless in
not knowing that Healthcare Services had been accused of
strategically rounding quarterly earnings per share, and therefore
investors could not rely upon the company's track record without a
thorough investigation into the allegations; (2) defendants
concealed that the SEC had written to Healthcare Services in
November 2017 to inquire into the company's earnings per share
rounding practices; and (3) Healthcare Services concealed that the
SEC delivered a subpoena to the company in March 2018 demanding the
production of documents in connection with how Healthcare Services
calculated earnings per share. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 21,
2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1526.html or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Contact:

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Zachary Halper, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                zhalper@rosenlegal.com
                cases@rosenlegal.com [GN]


HERC HOLDINGS: Ramirez Plaintiff Seeks to File 5th Amended Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled, in Pedro Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings,
Inc., et al., on March 8, 2019, the plaintiff filed a reply in
support of his motion to set aside the judgment against it, and for
leave to file a fifth amended complaint, according to Herc Holdings
Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.  The U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit previously affirmed the
dismissal of the action with prejudice in September 2018.

In November 2013, a putative shareholder class action, Pedro
Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al., was commenced
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey naming
Hertz Holdings and certain of its officers as defendants and
alleging violations of the federal securities laws.

The complaint alleged that Hertz Holdings made material
misrepresentations and/or omission of material fact in its public
disclosures during the period from February 25, 2013 through
November 4, 2013, in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"),
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The complaint sought
unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the purported class and
an award of costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert
fees.

In June 2014, Hertz Holdings moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.  In October 2014, the court granted Hertz Holdings'
motion to dismiss without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff to
amend the complaint a second time.  In November 2014, plaintiff
filed a second amended complaint which shortened the putative class
period and made allegations that were not substantively very
different than the allegations in the prior complaint.

In early 2015, Hertz Holdings moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint.  In July 2015, the court granted Hertz Holdings' motion
to dismiss without prejudice, allowing plaintiff to file a third
amended complaint.  In August 2015, plaintiff filed a third amended
complaint which included additional allegations, named additional
then-current and former officers as defendants and expanded the
putative class period to extend from February 14, 2013 to July 16,
2015.  In November 2015, Hertz Holdings moved to dismiss the third
amended complaint.  The plaintiff then sought leave to add a new
plaintiff because of challenges to the standing of the first
plaintiff.

The court granted plaintiff leave to file a fourth amended
complaint to add the new plaintiff, and the new complaint was filed
on March 1, 2016.  Hertz Holdings and the individual defendants
moved to dismiss the fourth amended complaint with prejudice on
March 24, 2016.  In April 2017, the court granted Hertz Holdings'
and the individual defendants' motions to dismiss and dismissed the
action with prejudice.  In May 2017, plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal and, in June 2018, oral argument was conducted before the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  In September 2018,
the court affirmed the dismissal of the action with prejudice.

On February 5, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the
judgment against it, and for leave to file a fifth amended
complaint.  The proposed amended complaint would add allegations
related to New Hertz's December 31, 2018 settlement with the SEC
that, among other things, ordered New Hertz to cease and desist
from violating certain of the federal securities laws and imposed a
civil penalty of US$16.0 million.

On February 26, 2019, New Hertz filed an opposition to plaintiff's
motion for relief from judgment and leave to file a fifth amended
complaint.  On March 8, 2019, plaintiff filed a reply in support of
that motion.

Herc Holdings Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
equipment rental supplier. It rents aerial, earthmoving, material
handling, trucks and trailers, air compressors, compaction, and
lighting equipment, as well as generators, and safety supplies and
expendables; and provides ProSolutions, an industry specific
solution based services, such as pumping solutions, power
generation, climate control, remediation and restoration, and
studio and production equipment. Herc Holdings Inc. is based in
Bonita Springs, Florida.


ILG TECH: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in Murray Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Jennifer McGhan and Lloyd Dan Murray, Jr., filed an
appeal from a Court ruling in their lawsuit styled Lloyd Murray,
Jr., et al. v. ILG Technologies, LLC, et al., Case No.
4:18-cv-00110-RSB-BKE, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Georgia.

The nature of suit is stated as other personal injury.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge R. Stan
Baker denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration.

The proposed class-action lawsuit comes before the District Court
on the Plaintiffs' request that the District Court reconsiders its
June 8, 2018 Order denying their Motion to Remand the case to the
Superior Court of Bryan County.

The Plaintiffs originally filed the lawsuit in the Superior Court
of Bryan County and claimed damages below the District Court's
jurisdictional amount.  Specifically, the Complaint states that the
matter in controversy does not exceed $5 million in the aggregate,
no individual claim exceeds $75,000, and there are less than 100
class members.  As set forth in the District Court's prior Order,
the Plaintiffs have actually had three chances to state their
claimed damages in court filings, and at all three turns they
confirm that they seek less than $75,000 per person.

The appellate case is captioned as Lloyd Murray, Jr., et al. v. ILG
Technologies, LLC, et al., Case No. 19-11607, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants LLOYD DAN MURRAY, JR., Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, and JENNIFER MCGHAN,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          James D. Durham, Esq.
          Samuel LeCraw Mikell, Esq.
          Kathryn Hughes Pinckney, Esq.
          Brent J. Savage, Esq.
          SAVAGE & TURNER, PC
          102 E Liberty St., 8th Floor
          Po Box 10600
          Savannah, GA 31412
          Telephone: (912) 231-1140

Defendants-Appellees ILG TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, d.b.a. ILG Information
Technologies, and BARIS MISMAN, Individually and a Sole Proprietor
of ILG Information Technologies, are represented by:

          Edward Henry Wasmuth, Jr., Esq.
          SMITH GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP
          1230 Peachtree St., Suite 3100
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 815-3503
          E-mail: ewasmuth@sgrlaw.com


ILLINOIS: Ford's Bid to Certify Denied; Must Amend Suit by June 3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Matthew F. Kennelly issued an order in the lawsuit
captioned Melvin Ford (M487792) v. John Baldwin, et al., Case No.
3:19-cv-50074 (N.D. Ill.):

   -- granting the Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma
      pauperis;

   -- directing the trust fund officer at the Plaintiff's place
      of incarceration to deduct $26.10 from his account for
      payment to the Clerk of Court as an initial partial payment
      of the filing fee, and to continue making monthly
      deductions in accordance with the Order;

   -- directing the Clerk to send a copy of the Order to the
      trust fund officer of the facility having custody of the
      Plaintiff, who is instructed to ensure that the records
      reflect all of the cases listed in the Order and to make
      proper deductions;

   -- dismissing the Plaintiff's complaint;

   -- ruling that if the Plaintiff wants to proceed with this
      lawsuit, he must submit an amended complaint that complies
      with the Order;

   -- ruling that failure to submit an amended complaint by
      June 3, 2019, will result in summary dismissal of this
      lawsuit;

   -- ruling that the Plaintiff also must promptly submit a
      change-of-address notification if he is transferred to
      another facility or released, or this action will be
      subject to dismissal for failure to comply with a Court
      order and for failure to prosecute;

   -- denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification;

   -- ruling that the Plaintiff's motion for attorney
      representation denied without prejudice to renewal should
      he submit a viable amended complaint, after the Defendants
      respond to the amended complaint;

   -- directing the Clerk to send the Plaintiff an amended
      complaint form and instructions along with a copy of the
      Order.

John Baldwin is the acting director of the Illinois Department of
Corrections.

Plaintiff Melvin Ford, an Illinois prisoner, has filed a pro se
lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 regarding his previous
detentions at the Northern Reception and Classification Center at
Stateville Correctional Center.[CC]


INTERCONTINENTAL TERMINALS: Starts Paying Chemical Fire Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marissa Luck, writing for Chron.com, reports that Intercontinental
Terminals Company is starting to evaluate and pay out claims by
people and businesses affected by the three-day chemical fire two
months ago, the company said on May 24, 2019.

Paying the claims could protect ITC from some legal actions, but
the company is still facing nearly 20 civil suits from individuals
and businesses over the incident, including some of of its
competitors, Harris County court records show.  ITC is owned by the
Japanese conglomerate Mitsui.

Shortly after the March 17 fire, ITC opened a claims hotline and
website for people who lived and worked Deer Park to file for
out-of-pocket medical expenses related to the incident or lost
wages for missed work because of the shelter-in-place order after
the fire. The company said on May 24, people still have until June
25 to file a claim.

Individuals with health claims may receive up to $750 and hourly
workers who lost wages during the shelter-in-place order may
receive up to $500, if they provide the right paperwork to prove
they were affected.

An ITC spokesperson said the company does not know how many
eligible claims have been filed. The company said it would evaluate
claims "quickly and on a rolling basis" and would pay out eligible
claims within 30 days of when claimants turn in the necessary
documentation.

Mounting lawsuits

People and businesses seeking payouts must sign a release agreeing
not to take further legal action against ITC in connection with the
fire. ITC, however, stills faces a federal lawsuit from a Harris
County woman seeking class action status in addition to 22 civil
lawsuits in state court in Harris County. Those include several
suits from residents who live near the site and at least two nearby
businesses.

The Harris County District Attorney's office also has filed a
criminal case, charging ITC with five misdemeanor counts of water
pollution arising from the accident.

In early May, the Dutch company Vopak, which owns a neighboring
terminal, sued ITC in Harris County District Court, alleging the
fire caused significant business disruptions and profit losses.
Vopak operates an adjacent tank farm with 243 tanks and 7.8 million
barrels of storage capacity and shares a fenceline and rail service
with ITC's Deer Park terminal.

Vopak said in court papers that it incurred additional costs
cleaning runoff and pollutants that washed ashore on its property
and damaged its docks. For nearly a month after the fire, Vopak
said its Houston facility and neighboring business were shut off or
significantly limited; and the company continued to experience
periodic closures and inconsistent rail, truck and marine access
for several weeks as result of clean up efforts and safety
concerns.

A transportation company, First Coast Logistics of Jacksonville,
Fla., also is suing ITC in Harris County District Court, alleging
it lost profits and incurred property damage at its La Porte
terminal as a result of the ITC fire.

ITC decline to comment on pending litigation.

Nearly normal rail and truck service resumed at ITC this week, a
few weeks after the terminal's docks reopened in early May. Clean
up of the impacted tank farms is ongoing. [GN]


INTUIT INC: Dohrmann Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Dohrmann, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. INTUIT INC., Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-02566, (N.D. Cal., May 13, 2019), seeks damages over
misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of contract and
redress for violation of California's False Advertising Law, Unfair
Competition Law and the Consumer's Legal Remedies Act.

Intuit Inc. is a business and financial software company that
develops and sells financial, accounting and tax preparation
software and related services for small businesses, accountants and
individuals under the Turbo Tax software. It advertised its online
tax services as free using TurboTax's online software. However,
Intuit allegedly manipulates its users into paying for product
upgrades and upsells--marketing tactics that are specifically
prohibited with respect to qualifying free filers under the IRS
agreement for low-income tax-payers, deliberately steering
low-income taxpayers away from IRS' Free File Agreement-affiliated
tax services into its own paid software.

Andrew Dohrmann is a college student whose income was under
$20,000. Intuit charged him $77 in 2017 and $105 in 2018. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
      Jordan Elias, Esq.
      Adam E. Polk, Esq.
      GIRARD SHARP LLP
      601 California Street, Suite 1400
      San Francisco, CA 94108
      Phone: (415) 981-4800
      Fax: (415) 981-4846
      Email: dgirard@girardsharp.com
             jelias@girardsharp.com
             apolk@girardsharp.com


IRONCLAD ENERGY: Hines Moves to Certify Class of Pumpdown Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled DEXTER HINES, NICK NOLES,
JEREMY MARTIN, JOSEPH SMITH and REGINALD VANZANDT, Each
Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
IRONCLAD ENERGY, LLC, JAMES C. DONNAN and STEVEN CLOY GANTT, Case
No. 5:19-cv-00155-OLG (W.D. Tex.), move for conditional
certification of collective action.

The class consists of all Pumpdown Supervisors and Operators
employed by the Defendants since February 19, 2016.

The Plaintiffs also move for approval and distribution of notice
and for disclosure of contact information.[CC]


J & J INC: Garcia et al. Seek to Certify Class of Painters
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, JOSE GARCIA, LEDVIN ALARCON and all
others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), the
Plaintiffs, vs. J & J, INC. d/b/a EAGLE PAINTING, a Florida
corporation, JANET S. FIELD, individually, and JOHN H. FIELD,
individually, the Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-60728-BB (S.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. granting conditional class certification of:

      "all individuals that: 1) performed work for Eagle Painting
      as painters, 2) worked more than forty hours in one or more
      workweeks from March 20, 2016 through March 20, 2019
      (Relevant Period), and 3) were not paid at time-and-a-half
      their regular rate of pay for all hours worked above 40 in
      any workweek during the Relevant Period";

   2. requiring Defendants to identify all individuals falling
      within the Proposed Class by providing their last known
      address, telephone number, and e-mail within days of an order

      granting certification;

   3. approving sending of notice of the collective action and a
      consent to join form by email and U.S. Mail to each Putative

      Class Member;

   4. requiring Defendants to post notice of the collective action

      and a consent to join form in a conspicuous place at EAGLE
      PAINTING’s office;

   5. requiring Defendants to include notice of the collective
      action and a consent to join form in the next
      paycheck/paystub provided to Putative Class Members; and

   6. appointing J. Freddy Perera, Esq. of Perera Barnhart, P.A.
      as counsel for the Putative Class.

Counsel for the Plaintiffs:

          J. Freddy Perera, Esq.
          Valerie Barnhart, Esq.
          Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
          PERERA BARNHART
          12555 Orange Drive, Suite 268
          Davie, FL 33330
          Telephone: 786-485-5232
          E-mail: Waynice Green-Musgrove, Esq.
                  freddy@pererabarnhart.com
                  valerie@pererabarnhart.com
                  brody@pererabarnhart.com
                  waynice@pererabarnhart.com

Counsel for the Defendants:

          Daniel R. Levine, Esq.
          PADULA BENNARDO LEVINE, LLP
          3837 NW Boca Raton Blvd., Suite 200
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 544-8900
          Facsimile: (561) 544-8999
          E-mail: DRL@PBL-Law.com
                  vperez@sgarcialaw.com
                  senen@sgarcialaw.com
                  office@sgarcialaw.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: DeJesus Suit Moved to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
EVELYN DEJESUS, 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. 17CV318636
(Filed Nov. 16, 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 April 30, 2019. The Central
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03637
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: Diaz Suit Moved to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
ELSA DIAZ, 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. BC689568 (Filed March 9, 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 30, 2019. The Central District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03614 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: Duran Suit Moved to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
FRANK A. DURAN, Individually, and as Successor-in-Interest on
behalf of the ESTATE OF HELEN DURAN, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON &
JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC. P/N/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; and IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. F/K/A
LUZENAC AMERICA, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 17CV321180 (Dec.
28, 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 1, 2019. The Central District of
California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03746 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: Duran Suit Moved to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
JOSE DURAN JR., individually and as Successor in Interest of LILIA
JASSO DE DURAN, 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,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 16CV299610 (Sept. 9, 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 1, 2019. The Central District of California Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03764 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:

          Karen Barth Menzies, Esq.
          Geoffrey A. Munroe, Esq.
          Amy M. Zeman, Esq.
          Steve Lopez, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          505 14th Street, Suite 1110
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 350-9700
          Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
          E-mail: kbm@classlawgroup.com
                  gam@classlawgroup.com
                  amz@classlawgroup.com
                  sal@classlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Corrie Yackulic, Esq.
          CORRIE YACKULIC LAW FIRM PLLC
          315 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 1000
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 787-1915
          Facsimile: (206) 299-9725
          E-mail: corrie@cjylaw.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Erpelding Suit Moved to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
LYNNE PHILLIPS ERPELDING, 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.
34-2018-00231685 (Filed April 23, 2018), was removed from the
Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, 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. 2:19-cv-03644 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, AL 36104
          Telephone: (800) 898 2034

               - and -

          R. Allen Smith, Jr., Esq.
          THE SMITH LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C.
          681 Towne Center Boulevard, Suite B
          Ridgeland, MS 39157
          Telephone: (601) 952-1422

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Feldan Suit Moved to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD H. FELDAN, Individually and as executor of the estate of
KAREEN R. FELDAN, DECEDENT, 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. BC720945 (Sept. 10, 2018), was
removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, to U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on May 1, 2019. The Central District of California Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03757 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:

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

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Frausto Suit Moved to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
BEATRTZ FRAUSTO, 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. BC-681549 (Oct. 31, 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 April 30, 2019. The Central District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03633 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:

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

               - and -

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

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Friend Suit Moved to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN FRIEND, Individually and as a next of kin to  DARLENE FRIEND,
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. CU-17-000162 (Dec. 1, 2017), was removed from
the Superior Court of California, County of San Benito, 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. 2:19-cv-03620 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:

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

               - and -

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

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Gorzegno Suit Moved to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
ARTHUR GORZEGNO, Individually, and as Successor-in-Interest on
behalf of the ESTATE OF CAROLYN GORZEGNO, 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. 17CV321182
(Filed Dec. 12, 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 April 29, 2019. The Central
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03577
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: Gustafson et al. Suit Moved to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson et al. 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
30, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:19-cv-03680 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.

The case is captioned as SHARON KATHLEEN GUSTAFSON, STEVE HAGOPINA,
Individually, and Successor-in-Interest to the Estate of JULIA
HAGOPIAN, Deceased; BRIAN WHITNEY, Individually, and
Successor-in-Interest to the Estate of JENNIFER WHITNEY, Deceased;
RODNEY BODE, Individually, and Successor-in-Interest to the Estate
of PETRINA GAY BODE, Deceased; MAURICE COOK, Individually, and
Successor-in-Interest to the Estate of MARY COOK, Deceased; JAMES
EBERSOLDT, Individually, and Successor-in-Interest to the Estate of
PRISCILA EBERSOLDT, Deceased; LORA THACKER, Individually, and
Successor-in-Interest to the Estate of GLADYS HENSLEY Deceased;
KATHRYN TURNBULL, Individually, and Successor-in-Interest to the
Estate of ROBERTA LOGAN, Deceased; SHAWN LEONE FERGUSON,
Individually, and Successor-in-Interest to the Estate of MAMIE
VICTORIA CAMPANY, Deceased; ANDREA DAVASHER, Individually, and
Successor-in-Interest to the Estate of MARY J. SELLS, Deceased;
THOMAS ZETTERSTROM, Individually, and Successor-in-Interest to the
Estate of ROBIN ZETTERSTROM, Deceased; CYNTHIA NEWMAN,
Individually, and Successor-in-Interest to the Estate of LOIS J.
STEPHENSON, Deceased; KAREN PRICE, Individually, and
Successor-in-Interest to the Estate of GRAYCE L. NADEAU, Deceased;
FRANCES YOUNG, Individually, and Successor-in-Interest to the
Estate of ADELL R. YOUNG, Deceased;  DIANNE OLIVER, Individually,
and Successor-in-Interest to the Estate of CORA CROSS, Deceased;
EDWARD DONALDSON, Individually, and Successor-in-Interest to the
Estate of JUDITH LEE DONALDSON, Deceased; JEANNE C. FRENCH, RAMONA
B. PRESCOTT, Individually, and Successor-in-Interest to the Estate
of RAMONA BERNABLE DIAZ, Deceased; JOHN SIGET, JR, Individually,
and Successor-in-Interest to the Estate of DEBORAH SIGET, Deceased;
CEOLA TURNER, Individually, and Successor-in-Interest to the Estate
of CEOLA M. WILLINGHAM, Deceased; PRIMROSE BAILEY, as Power of
Attorney for HERBERT DICKS, Individually, and Successor-in-Interest
to the Estate of GLADYS HICKS, Deceased; MARIE MASTRIANNI,
Individually, and Successor-in-Interest to the Estate of JEAN
MASTRIANNI, Deceased, the Plaintiffs, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON,
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER
COMPANIES, INC., IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. F/K/A LUZENAC AMERICA,
inc., the Defendants, Case No. 16CV292902 (Filed May 24,
2016).[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: Kelly Suit Moved to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN LEWOTSKY KELLY, an individual, 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. 16CECG03244 (Oct. 7, 2016),
was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of
Fresno, 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-03790 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, Cali fornia 90211-29 I 0
          Telephone: 310 854 4444
          Facsimile: 310 854 0812
          E-mail: palmer@kiesel.law
                  zukin@kiesel.law
                  ramirez@kiesel.law

               - and -

          Raymond P. Boucher, Esq.
          Shehnaz Bhujwala, Esq.
          BOUCHER LLP
          21600 Oxnard Street. Suite 600
          Woodland I tills, CA 91367
          Telephone: 818 340 5400
          Facsimile: 818-340-541
          E-mail: ray@boucher.la
                  bhuray@boucher.la

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Rodriguez Suit to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson removed the case, Carolina Rodriguez, 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 / BC671567, 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 1, 2019. The Central
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03773
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: Rose Suit Moved to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
SUSAN WHITE ROSE, 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. 18CV00909
(March 27, 2018), was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of Santa Cruz, 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. 2:19-cv-03604
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, AL 36104
          Telephone: (800) 898 2034

               - and -

          R. Allen Smith, Jr., Esq.
          THE SMITH LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C.
          681 Towne Center Boulevard, Suite B
          Ridgeland, MS 39157
          Telephone: (601) 952-1422


JUMIA TECH: Strugala Sues Over Share Drop from Faulty Reporting
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Strugala, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Jumia Technologies AG, Jeremy
Hodara, Sacha Poignonnec and Antoine Maillet-Mezeray, Defendant,
Case No. 19-cv-04397, (S.D. N.Y., May 14, 2019), seeks to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Jumia is a German company that operates a pan-African e-commerce
platform with its principal executive offices in Berlin, Germany.
Its American Depositary Shares (ADS) are listed and trade on the
NYSE under the ticker symbol "JMIA" which went public in April 15,
2019.

However, Defendants failed to disclose that Jumia had materially
overstated its active customers and active merchants, its orders,
order cancellations, undelivered orders and returned orders lacked
a sufficient factual basis and materially overstated company sales.
The price of Jumia ADSs declined approximately 28% on heavy trading
volume over a two-day period, from $33.11 per ADS on May 8, 2019 to
$24.50 per ADS on May 10, 2019. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 367-7100
      Fax: (631) 367-1173
      Email: SRudman@rgrdlaw.com
             DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com


             - and -

      Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
      HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
      1200 Ashford Parkway, Suite 410
      Atlanta, GA 30338
      Tel: (770) 392-0090
      Fax: (770) 392-0029
      Email: cholzer@holzerlaw.com


JUMIA TECHNOLOGIES: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Jumia
Technologies AG ("Jumia" or "the Company") (NYSE: JMIA) for
violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares between April 12, 2019
and May 9, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to
contact the firm before July 15, 2019.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall, or Sherin Mahdavian,
of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los
Angeles, CA 90067, at 424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of
charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at
www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Jumia overstated both its current active
merchants and active customers. The Company's statements about
orders, cancellations, undelivered orders, and returned orders were
not factual and overstated sales. The Company failed to disclose
transactions with related parties. Based on these facts, the
Company's public statements were false and materially misleading.
When the market learned the truth about Jumia, investors suffered
damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

Contact:

         Brian Schall, Esq.
         Sherin Mahdavian, Esq.
         The Schall Law Firm
         1880 Century Park East
         Suite 404, Los Angeles
         CA 90067
         Phone:
            Office: 310-301-3335
            Cell: 424-303-1964
         Website: www.schallfirm.com
         Email: info@schallfirm.com
                brian@schallfirm.com [GN]


JUUL LABS: Sued over Deceptive e-cigarette Marketing Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH ANN SWEARINGEN and JOHN THOMAS VIA PEAVY, the Plaintiffs,
vs. JUUL LABS, INC., ALTRIA GROUP, INC., and PHILIP MORRIS USA,
INC., the Defendants, Case No. 7:19-cv-00779-LSC (D. Ala., May 22,
2019), alleges that exposure to significant toxic substances in the
Defendants' products may cause or contribute to causing disease;
nicotine addiction; and economic harm in that the Plaintiffs would
not have purchased JUUL products had they known the true facts.

According to the complaint, Elizabeth Ann Swearingen became
addicted to JUUL, an e-cigarette, at 18 years of age. John Thomas
Via Peavy became addicted to JUUL, an e-cigarette, at 17 years of
age. Both Plaintiffs suffer from complications related to nicotine
ingestion from their JUUL products. Health authorities consider
youth e-cigarette use an epidemic. Defendants are to blame.
Mimicking Big Tobacco's past marketing practices, Defendants prey
on youth to recruit replacement smokers for financial gain. Tobacco
giant Altria recently acquired a 35% stake in JUUL, the country's
lead e-cigarette seller. Altria also owns Philip Morris, which
sells Marlboro, the country's most popular cigarette. Now that JUUL
has Altria's infrastructure, progress in nicotine cessation stands
to erode.

The Defendants use the very same fraudulent and deceptive youth
marketing business practices adjudged to violate federal
racketeering laws. They exploit themes that resonate with teenagers
while falsely denying doing so, thelawsuit says.

Juul Labs, Inc. is an electronic cigarette company which spun off
from Pax Labs in 2017. It makes the Juul e-cigarette, which
packages nicotine salts from leaf tobacco into one-time use
cartridges.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert G. Methvin, Jr., Esq.
          James M. Terrell, Esq.
          Patrick C. Marshall, Esq.
          Courtney C. Gipson, Esq.
          METHVIN , TERRELL , YANCEY,
             STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C.
          2201 Arlington Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 939-0199
          Facsimile: (205) 939-0399
          E-mail: rgm@mtattorneys.com
                  jterrell@mtattorneys.com
                  pmarshall@mtattorneys.com
                  cgipson@mtattorneys.com

JUUL LABS: Zampa Suit Moved From S.D. Florida to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled 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 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., Case No. 1:18-cv-25005, was transferred on
May 8, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (San Francisco).

The California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02466-JSC to the proceeding.

The lawsuit was originally filed on November 5, 2018, in the
Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in and for
Miami-Dade County, Florida, Case Number 2018-037507-CA-01, and was
later removed to the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division.

In their Complaint, the Plaintiffs assert seven counts against JUUL
Labs: (1) False Advertising; (2) Fraud; (3) Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices; (4) Unjust Enrichment; (5) Strict Product
Liability – Failure to Warn; (6) Negligence; and (7) Negligence
per se.  Among other things, the Plaintiffs allege that putative
class members are entitled to general, special, and statutory
damages, penalties, restitution and disgorgement of profits, a
monetary award for the cost of medical programs for the diagnosis
and early detection of certain health issues, for the cessation of
nicotine use, and for a public information campaign to warn
underage users of the alleged health effects of using JUUL Labs
products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Ryan J. McGee, Esq.
          Jean S. Martin, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
          E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
                  rmcgee@ForThePeople.com
                  jeanmartin@ForThePeople.com

               - and -

          Kevin S. Hannon, Esq.
          THE HANNON LAW FIRM, LLC
          1641 Downing Street
          Denver, CO 80218
          Telephone: (303) 861-8800
          E-mail: khannon@hannonlaw.com

Defendant JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as: PAX Labs, Inc.
formerly known as: Ploom Products, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is
represented by:

          George S. LeMieux, Esq.
          GUNSTER YOAKLEY & STEWART
          450 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 468-1339
          Facsimile: (954) 523-1722
          E-mail: glemieux@gunster.com

               - and -

          Jonathan H. Kaskel, Esq.
          GUNSTER
          600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3500
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 376-6023
          Facsimile: (305) 376-6010
          E-mail: jkaskel@gunster.com

               - and -

          Austin V. Schwing, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
          San Francisco, CA 94105-0921
          Telephone: (415) 393-8200
          Facsimile: (415) 393-8306
          E-mail: aschwing@gibsondunn.com


KOHN LAW: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned BARBARA MOLLBERG,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, v. KOHN LAW FIRM, S.C., the Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-00670 (E.D Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order certifying a class, appointing the Plaintiff as class
representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief
from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement
that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of
this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896
(7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh
Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in
Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class
representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other
methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class. Fulton
Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545-46 (7th Cir.
2017).[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com

LABORATORY CORP: Bid to Dismiss North Carolina Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The request of Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings to
dismiss the consolidated Bouffard and Anderson class action suit is
still pending, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019.

On March 10, 2017, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Victoria Bouffard, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation
of America Holdings, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina.  The complaint alleges that the
Company's patient list prices unlawfully exceed the rates
negotiated for the same services with private and public health
insurers in violation of various state consumer protection laws.
The lawsuit also alleges breach of implied contract or
quasi-contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud.  The lawsuit seeks
statutory, exemplary, and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and
recovery of attorney's fees and costs.  In May 2017, the Company
filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint and Strike Class
Allegations; the Motion to Dismiss was granted in March 2018
without prejudice.

On October 10, 2017, a second putative class action lawsuit, Sheryl
Anderson, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina.  The complaint contained similar allegations and sought
similar relief to the Bouffard complaint, and added additional
counts regarding state consumer protection laws.  On August 10,
2018, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, which consolidated
the Bouffard and Anderson actions.

On September 10, 2018, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and Strike Class Allegations, which
remains pending.

The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.


LABORATORY CORP: Settlement Agreement Reached in Gonzalez Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings 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 U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California has approved the
settlement of the parties in the case entitled, Maria T. Gonzalez,
et al. v. Examination Management Services, Inc. and Laboratory
Corporation of America Holdings.

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

On August 1, 2017, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Maria T. Gonzalez, et al. v. Examination Management
Services, Inc. and Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings,
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California.

The complaint alleges that the Company misclassified phlebotomists
as independent contractors through an arrangement with the
co-Defendant temporary staffing agency.  The complaint further
alleges that the Company violated the California Labor Code and
California Business and Professions Code by failing to pay minimum
wage, failing to pay for all hours worked, failing to pay for all
wages owed upon termination, and failing to provide accurate
itemized wage statements.  The lawsuit seeks monetary damages,
civil penalties, injunctive relief, and recovery of attorney's fees
and costs.

The parties reached a settlement, which was approved by the Court.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.


LABORATORY CORP: Still Defends Sealock Suit over Labor Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings continues to face a
putative class action lawsuit, John Sealock, et al. v. Covance
Market Access Services, Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

On September 7, 2017, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, John Sealock, et al. v. Covance Market Access
Services, Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The complaint alleges that Covance Market Access Services, Inc.
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York labor laws by
failing to provide overtime wages, failing to pay for all hours
worked, and failing to provide accurate wage statements.  The
lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil penalties, injunctive relief,
and recovery of attorney's fees and costs.

In November 2017, the Company filed a Motion to Strike Class
Allegations, which was denied.  In December 2017, the Plaintiff
filed a Motion for Conditional Certification of a Collective
Action, which was granted in May 2018.

In December 2018, Plaintiff filed, and the Court granted, a second
motion to conditionally certify an expanded class to a nationwide
class action.

The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.


LAND'S END: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Delta Uniforms
----------------------------------------------------------
Mike Elk, writing for Payday Report, reports that a group of flight
attendants are filing a class action lawsuit against Land's End.

Land's End was the maker of the uniforms Delta's new uniforms
containing formaldehyde were making flight attendants sick. [GN]


LAWRY'S RESTAURANTS: Faces Gaspic Wage and Hour Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
LISA GASPIC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LAWRY'S RESTAURANTS, INC., a corporation; and DOES
1-20, inclusive, Case No. 19STCV15924 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., May 7, 2019), is brought to remedy alleged wage-and-hour
violations by the Defendants.

For at least one year prior to the filing of the action and through
the present, the Defendants have engaged in a uniform policy and
systematic scheme of wage abuse against the Plaintiff and other
non-exempt employees, in violation of applicable California laws,
including failing to provide meal and rest breaks, failing to pay
minimum and overtime wages, failing to furnish with accurate,
itemized wage statements, and failing to reimburse for all
necessary business-related expenses, the Plaintiff alleges.

Lowry's Restaurants, Inc., owns and operates restaurants throughout
the Los Angeles area, including Lawry's The Prime Rib in Beverly
Hills, California.  The Company is headquartered in Pasadena,
California.  The Plaintiff is unaware and ignorant of the true
names and capacities of the Doe Defendants.[BN]

Plaintiff Lisa Gaspic, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Vache A. Thomassian, Esq.
          Caspar Jivalagian, Esq.
          KJT LAW GROUP, LLP
          230 North Maryland Avenue, Suite 306
          Glendale, CA 91206
          Telephone: (818) 507-8525
          E-mail: vache@kjtlawgroup.com
                  caspar@kjtlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Christopher A. Adams, Esq.
          ADAMS EMPLOYMENT COUNSEL
          4740 Calle Carga
          Camarillo, CA 93012
          Telephone: (818) 425-1437
          E-mail: ca@AdamsEmploymentCounsel.com


LEFTOM FOODS: Cabrera Seeks Minimum Wage & Overtime Premiums
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, WILLIAM DISLA CABRERA, HONORIO DELGADILLO, SERGIO MORALES
ARREDONDO, JOSE LUIS PACHECO, DANIEL MACHUCA BONOLA, JUAN
HERNANDEZ, DAVID TLAPANCO VERA, LEONEL MORALES TUY, LUIS MANUEL
HERNANDEZ CARVANTE, DAWN MORSETTE, TIFFANY MORSETTE, JOHAN TAFURTH,
JUAN MERLIN, JANETH RODRIGUEZ and GENESIS ALICEA, Individually and
on Behalf of All Putative Class Members, the Plaintiffs, vs. LEFTOM
FOODS LTD. d/b/a KANES DINER, KOUMBAR REALTY LTD., GEORGE KANES,
PATRICIA KANES and THEONE KANES, Jointly and Severally, the
Defendants, Case No. 708958/2019 (N.Y. Sup., May 22, 2019), seeks
to recover unpaid minimum wage and unpaid overtime premiums
pursuant to the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own and operate a diner doing business under the
trade name "Kanes Deli Diner" located in Flushing, New York. The
Plaintiffs are former bussers, delivery employees, cleaners, line
cooks, general kitchen employees and servers who worked at Kanes
Deli Diner. For their work, Plaintiffs were paid on a purported
"salary" or "day rate" basis for all hours for which they received
compensation, which did not compensate them at minimum wage for all
hours that they worked or provide overtime premium pay for hours
worked over 40 in a given workweek.

In addition, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs
spread-of-hours premiums when they worked shifts lasting 10 or more
hours and/or split shifts, failed to provide Plaintiffs with all of
the tips to which they were entitled, and failed to provide
Plaintiffs with proper and accurate wage statements and wage
notices, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the putative Class:

          Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
          Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
          Kristen E. Boysen, Esq.
          PELTON GRAHAM LLC
          www.PeltonGraham.com
          111 Broadway, Suite 1503
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 385-9700


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Bid for Leave to Amend Glover Complaint Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6,
2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the
company has filed its opposition on plaintiff's motion for leave to
amend the complaint in Glover class action suit.

Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and The
Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut, No. 3:16-cv-00827, is a
putative class action that was served on LNL on June 8, 2016.  

Plaintiff is the owner of a universal life insurance policy who
alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance
than permitted by the policy.  

Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life and variable
universal life policyholders who owned policies containing
non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to
those of Plaintiff's policy and seeks damages on behalf of all such
policyholders.  

On January 11, 2019, the court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint in
its entirety. In response, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to
amend the complaint, which the company has opposed.

The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides life insurance
products and services. It offers life insurance policies,
annuities, and financial planning instruments, such as retirement
savings accounts and mutual funds. The company was incorporated in
1905 and is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana. The Lincoln National Life
Insurance Company operates as a subsidiary of Lincoln National
Corporation.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Unit Still Defends Hanks Class Suit in NY
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6,
2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that The
Lincoln Life and Annuity Company of New York continues to defend a
class action suit in New York.

Hanks v. The Lincoln Life and Annuity Company of New York ("LLANY")
and Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company ("Voya"),  filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
No. 1:16-cv-6399, is a putative class action that was served on
LLANY on August 12, 2016.  

Plaintiff owns a universal life policy originally issued by Aetna
(now Voya) and alleges that (i) Voya breached the terms of the
policy when it increased non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates on
Plaintiff's policy; and (ii) LLANY, as reinsurer and administrator
of Plaintiff's policy, engaged in wrongful conduct related to the
cost of insurance increase and was unjustly enriched as a result.


Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of Aetna life insurance
policies that were subject to non-guaranteed cost of insurance rate
increases in 2016 and seeks damages on their behalf.  

The Lincoln said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."

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

The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides life insurance
products and services. It offers life insurance policies,
annuities, and financial planning instruments, such as retirement
savings accounts and mutual funds. The company was incorporated in
1905 and is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana. The Lincoln National Life
Insurance Company operates as a subsidiary of Lincoln National
Corporation.


LIVE NATION: 11 Class Suits over Overpriced Tickets Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. is defending itself against 11
pending class action lawsuits in the United States and Canada
related to inflated ticket prices, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May
2, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

The consumer class actions, which were filed against Live Nation
and/or Ticketmaster LLC, are the following:

   * Vaccaro v. Ticketmaster LLC (Northern District of Illinois,
filed September 2018);
   * Ameri v. Ticketmaster LLC (Northern District of California,
filed September 2018);
   * Lee v. Ticketmaster LLC, et al. (Northern District of
California, filed September 2018);
   * Thompson-Marcial v. Ticketmaster Canada Holdings ULC (Ontario
Superior Court of Justice, filed September 2018);
   * McPhee v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al. (Superior
Court of Quebec, District of Montreal, filed September 2018);
   * Crystal Watch v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al.
(Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan, by amendments filed
September 2018);
   * Dickey v. Ticketmaster LLC, et al. (Central District of
California, filed October 2018);
   * Gomel v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al. (Supreme
Court of British Columbia, Vancouver Registry, filed October
2018);
   * Smith v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al. (Ontario
Superior Court of Justice, filed October 2018);
   * Messing v. Ticketmaster LLC, et al. (Central District of
California, filed November 2018); and
   * Niedbalski v. Ticketmaster LLC, et al. (Central District of
California, filed December 2018).

These lawsuits make similar factual allegations that Live Nation
and/or Ticketmaster LLC engage in conduct that is intended to
encourage the resale of tickets on secondary ticket exchanges at
elevated prices.  Based on these allegations, each plaintiff
asserts violations of different state/provincial and federal laws.
Each plaintiff also seeks to represent a class of individuals who
purchased tickets on a secondary ticket exchange, as defined in
each plaintiff's complaint.  The complaints seek a variety of
remedies, including unspecified compensatory damages, punitive
damages, restitution, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees and
costs.

The Company states, "Based on information presently known to
management, we do not believe that a loss is probable of occurring
at this time, and believe that the potential liability, if any,
will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
cash flows or results of operations.  Further, we do not currently
believe that the claims asserted in these lawsuits have merit, and
considerable uncertainty exists regarding any monetary damages that
will be asserted against us.  We intend to vigorously defend these
actions."

Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. operates as a live entertainment
company.  It operates through Concerts, Sponsorship & Advertising,
and Ticketing segments.  The Company was incorporated in 2005 and
is headquartered in Beverly Hills, California.  


LIVE NATION: Gaetano Agrees to Drop Class Suit with Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the case styled, Gaetano v. Live Nation
Entertainment, Inc., et al. (Northern District of New York, filed
October 2018), has voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice in
April 2019, Live Nation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

The plaintiff previously alleged that Live Nation and/or
Ticketmaster LLC engage in conduct that is intended to encourage
the resale of tickets on secondary ticket exchanges at elevated
prices.

Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. operates as a live entertainment
company.  It operates through Concerts, Sponsorship & Advertising,
and Ticketing segments.  The Company was incorporated in 2005 and
is headquartered in Beverly Hills, California.  



LOANCARE LLC: Sanders Moves for Certification of Borrowers Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned ANDREA S. SANDERS, an
individual, MARSHALL C. SANDERS, an individual v. LOANCARE, LLC, a
Virginia limited liability company; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case
No. 2:18-cv-09376-SJO-RAO (C.D. Cal.), move for an order certifying
their proposed classes, or other classes as the Court determines
are just and appropriate, for purposes of pursuing their claims in
their First Amended Complaint against LoanCare.

With respect to the Plaintiffs' claims arising from the Defendant's
alleged violations of California's Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act and the Unfair Competition Law, the Plaintiffs
propose certification of this class:

     All borrowers of California residential mortgage loans who,
     during the Class Period, were charged an Online Payment Fee
     by LoanCare and whose loans were past-due at the time the
     Online Payment Fee was assessed.

With respect to the Defendant's alleged violation of the RFDCPA,
the Plaintiffs also propose certification of this sub-class (the
Elder Abuse Sub-Class):

     The Elder Abuse Sub-Class: All borrowers of California
     residential mortgage loans who, during the Class Period,
     were charged an Online Payment Fee by LoanCare and whose
     loans were past-due at the time the Online Payment Fee was
     assessed and who were at least 65 years of age at the time
     the Online Payment Fee was assessed.

The Class Period starts on the earliest date of the statute of
limitations for each claim -- October 3, 2014 for the UCL, and
October 3, 2017 for the RFDCPA.

Specifically excluded from the proposed classes are: (a) any
Defendant, person, firm, trust, corporation, officer, director, or
other individual or entity in which any Defendant has a controlling
interest or which is related to or affiliated with any Defendant,
and any current employee of any Defendant; (b) all persons who make
a timely election to be excluded from the proposed classes; (c) the
judge(s) to whom this case is assigned and any immediate family
members thereof; and (d) the legal representatives, heirs,
successors-in-interest or assigns of any excluded party.

The Plaintiffs also move for them to be named class representatives
under Rule 23(g)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
for their counsel to be appointed class counsel under Rule
23(g)(1).

To the extent the Court disagrees with any of the proposed class
definitions for the proposed classes or any Class Period, the
Plaintiffs move the Court to redefine or modify those definitions,
as such determinations are within the Court's discretion.

The Court will commence a hearing on June 19, 2019, at 10:00 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher P. Ridout, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          2381 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 328
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90245
          Telephone: (877) 500-8780
          Facsimile: (877) 500-8781
          E-mail: christopher.ridout@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Benjamin Gubernick, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF BEN GUBERNICK
          24 36th Street, Unit B
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (734) 678-5169
          E-mail: ben@gubernicklaw.com


LYFT INC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announced that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities
of Lyft Inc. (NASDAQ: LYFT) pursuant to or traceable to Lyft's
initial public offering ("IPO") on or around March 29, 2019.  

The complaint, which is pending in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, alleges that Defendants
violated the Securities Act of 1933. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff in the Lyft Class Action Lawsuit, you must move the Court
no later than July 16, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery does not require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

According to the lawsuit, Lyft's Offering materials issued in
connection with its IPO failed to disclose that: (1) Lyft's claimed
ridesharing position was overstated; (2) more than 1,000 of the
bicycles in Lyft's rideshare program suffered from safety issues
that would lead to their recall; (3) Lyft's drivers were becoming
disincentivized from driving for Lyft; (4) Lyft failed to warn
investors that a labor disruption could affect its operations; and
(5) as a result, Lyft's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

As the true facts emerged in the wake of the IPO, the Company's
shares fell from $72 per share to $57 per share on April 15, 2019.

If you purchased Lyft securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options, please visit
https://tinyurl.com/y5rqyhtx

Contact:

         Michael S. Bigin, Esq.
         Matthew Guarnero, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         10 East 40th Street, New York,
         New York 1001
         Phone: (877) 779-1414
         Website: https://www.bernlieb.com
         Email: seidman@bernlieb.com
                MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
                Bigin@bernlieb.com [GN]


LYFT INC: Bottini & Bottini Files Securities Class Action Over IPO
------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Bottini & Bottini, Inc. on May 6 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of Lyft stockholders in
the Superior Court for the State of California, County of San
Francisco (Case No. 19-575475).  If you purchased Lyft common stock
pursuant to the company's recent initial public offering, your
rights may be affected by this action.  Lyft went public on March
29, 2019 at $72 per share, and its stock price declined by
approximately 22% within two weeks.  If you bought Lyft stock at
any time between March 29, 2019 and the present and have suffered
significant losses, contact us to discuss your legal rights.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement was
materially inaccurate, misleading, and/or incomplete because it
failed to disclose that: (1) Lyft's claimed ridesharing market
position was overstated; and (2) more than 1,000 of the bicycles in
Lyft's rideshare program suffered from safety issues that would
lead to their recall. Accordingly, the price of Lyft' s shares was
artificially and materially inflated at the time of the IPO.  In
addition, financial commentators such as Jim Cramer have suggested
Lyft failed to ensure that its early investors would not flip their
Lyft stock immediately after the IPO, thus causing the stock to
tank after the IPO.

If you suffered a loss in Lyft stock and would like additional
information, contact Frank A. Bottini, Esq. either via email
fab@bottinilaw.com or by telephone at (858) 914-2001, or visit
www.bottinilaw.com to discuss your rights or interests with respect
to these matters without any cost to you.  

BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC. -- http://www.bottinilaw.com-- is a
California-based plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities,
antitrust, and whistleblower litigation. [GN]


LYFT INC: Class Suit for Disabled Passengers Filed
--------------------------------------------------
Michael Finney and Renee Koury, writing for ABC 7 News, reports
that Uber and Lyft are subject to class-action lawsuits seeking
equal access for those with disabilities.

Melissa Riess, Esq.-- mriess@dralegal.org-- is an attorney with
Disability Rights Advocates of Berkeley.  The nonprofit filed class
action lawsuits in federal court in San Francisco against both Uber
and Lyft, both known as Transportation Network Companies, or TNCs.
The lawsuits claim Uber and Lyft don't offer the same on-demand
rides for people with disabilities as they do for everyone else in
the Bay Area -- in violation of the ADA -- Americans With
Disabilities Act.

"Our advocacy is focusing on making sure that those companies as
they're revolutionizing transportation for lots of people...
they're not leaving behind these people who don't have a lot of
wheelchair options," said Riess.

Uber did not provide an official statement for this report, but
notes it does offer wheelchair accessible vehicles on demand
through a third party, MV Transportation.

However, the lawsuit says the wait times are far longer than for
regular Uber cars, and the vehicles may not be available at all.

"They might get a ride for their outbound journey, but then not be
able to get a ride home so they're stranded for hours," stated
Riess.

The suit against Lyft says the company has done almost nothing to
serve people with handicaps. Using its "access feature" only
provides links and phone numbers for wheelchair services. Lyft
tells 7 on Your Side the company isn't required to comply with the
Americans with Disabilities Act, since it doesn't own the cars, and
part time drivers can't be expected to drive specialized vehicles.

In a similar class action against Lyft in New York, the company
claims that "Lyft is a technology company" and "is not in the
transportation business,'' so that lawsuit should be dismissed. The
court rejected the argument. The case is ongoing.

Hinzee says as it is, she must schedule her every trip days or
weeks ahead of time with a paratransit service. She longs to join
the rest of the world -- hailing rides in minutes. "A lot of people
in chairs haven't downloaded the app because they knew they can't
use the service," she said. "I would hope that you can tell the
world that people in chairs deserve to be active and spontaneous as
much as people who can use TNCs."

Disability rights advocates say they don't expect rideshare
companies or their drivers to suddenly invest in a fleet of
specialized vehicles. They say their vast network could include
drivers who can accommodate wheelchairs, or they could partner with
paratransit services.

We'll see what happens in court.[GN]



LYFT INC: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Fraud Class Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP informs all persons or entities who purchased
common stock of Lyft, Inc. (NASDAQGS: LYFT) pursuant or traceable
to the Company's Offering and Registration Statement issued in
relation to the March 28, 2019 IPO.

You are hereby notified that a securities action has been commenced
in the Superior Court of the State of California. If you purchased
Lyft common stock pursuant to the initial public offering, your
rights may be affected by this action.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement's
representations were materially inaccurate, misleading, and/or
incomplete because they failed to disclose that: (1) more than
1,000 of the bicycles in Lyft's rideshare program suffered from
safety issues that would lead to their recall; and (2) Lyft's
claimed ridesharing market position was overstated. Accordingly,
the price of the Company' s shares was artificially and materially
inflated at the time of the Offering.

If you suffered a loss in Lyft and would like additional
information, contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500,
toll-free: (877) 363-5972, or visit
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/lyft-inc-loss-form

Contact:

         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         55 Broadway, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10006
         Telephone: (212) 363-7500
         Toll Free: (877) 363-5972
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         Website: www.zlk.com
         Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN]


MARK JAWAHIR: Sandoe Pushes for Subpoena Compliance Over Docs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Sandoe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Mark E. Jawahir, P.A., Non-party Subpoena
Recipient, Case No. 19-cv-14169 (S.D. Fla., May 14, 2019), requests
for an order to compel Jawahir to produce documents in response to
a non-party subpoena issued in connection with Steven Sandoe v.
Boston Scientific Corporation, Case No. 18-cv-11826, pending in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and
to hold Jawahir in contempt for failure to comply with the
subpoena.

Sandoe alleges Boston Scientific Corporation of violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act based on unsolicited prerecorded
voice calls, including to people registered on the National Do Not
Call list, made by or on behalf of Boston Scientific. Sandoe served
a notice of subpoena to Jawahir, P.A. on Boston Scientific in March
30, 2019. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
      Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
      KAUFMAN P.A.
      400 NW 26th Street
      Miami, Florida 33127
      Tel: (305) 469-5881
      Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
             rachel@kaufmanpa.com


MARK OBENSTINE: Estakhrian Appeals C.D. Cal. Decision to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs James Estakhrian and Abdi Naziri filed an appeal from a
Court ruling in their lawsuit styled James Estakhrian, et al. v.
Mark Obenstine, et al., Case No. 2:11-cv-03480-FMO-CW, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.

The appellate case is captioned as James Estakhrian, et al. v.
Terry Coffing, et al., Case No. 19-55494, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 15,
2019, Defendant Mark Richard Obenstine filed an appeal from a Court
ruling in the lawsuit.  That appellate case is titled James
Estakhrian, et al. v. Mark Obenstine, et al., Case No. 19-55459.
Mr. Obenstine also previously filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit.  The appellate case is entitled James Estakhrian,
et al. v. Mark Obenstine, Case No. 17-80026.

The Hon. Fernando M. Olguin previously certified a class with
respect to the Plaintiffs' claims for professional malpractice and
breach of fiduciary duty consisting of "all individuals who were
class members in, i.e. did not opt out of, Daniel Watt, et al. v.
Nevada Property 1, LLC, et al., Nevada District Court, Case No.
A582541, excluding Sanjay Varma."

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by May 30, 2019;

   -- Transcript is due on June 28, 2019;

   -- Appellants James Estakhrian and Abdi Naziri's opening brief
      is due on August 8, 2019;

   -- Appellees Terry Allen Coffing and Marquis & Aurbach, PC's
      answering brief is due on September 9, 2019; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants JAMES ESTAKHRIAN and ABDI NAZIRI, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented
by:

          Nance F. Becker, Esq.
          Mark A. Chavez, Esq.
          CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP
          42 Miller Avenue
          Mill Valley, CA 94941
          Telephone: (415) 381-5599
          Facsimile: (415) 381-5572
          E-mail: Nance@chavezgertler.com
                  mark@chavezgertler.com

               - and -

          Raymond Charles Fay, Esq.
          FAY LAW GROUP PLLC
          1250 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 700
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 263-4604
          E-mail: rfay@faylawdc.com

               - and -

          Steven A. Skalet, Esq.
          MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC
          1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 855-5100
          E-mail: sskalet@findjustice.com

Defendants-Appellees TERRY ALLEN COFFING, Esquire, and MARQUIS &
AURBACH, PC, are represented by:

          Kenneth C. Feldman, Esq.
          Larissa G. Nefulda, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          633 W. 5th Street, Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 250-1800
          E-mail: Ken.Feldman@lewisbrisbois.com
                  Larissa.Nefulda@lewisbrisbois.com


MARRIOTT INT'L: Lindsey Suit Included in Security Breach MDL
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Charles Lindsey, individually,
and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v.
Marriott International, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00278, was
transferred on May 7, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Alabama to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland (Greenbelt).

The Maryland District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:19-cv-01308-PWG to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled
In Re: Marriott International, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach
Litigation, MDL No. 8:19-md-02879-PWG.

The action arises from a four-year long data breach experienced by
the Defendants wherein the data of over 500 million customers of
Marriott's Starwood division was compromised (the "Marriott Data
Breach").  Due to the extraordinary quantity of data leaked over
this four-year time span, the Marriott Data Breach is being
heralded as not only the largest data breach of 2018, but also as
the second largest data breach of all time.

On November 30, 2018, Marriott -- the world's largest hotel chain
-- announced that on September 8, 2018, it learned of an
unauthorized access to its Starwood guest reservation database.
Upon investigation thereof, Marriott learned that the breach had
allowed hackers to access its customer data starting as early as
2014 and extending through September 10, 2018.[BN]

Defendants Marriott International Inc. and Starwood Hotels &
Resorts Worldwide LLC are represented by:

          Daniel R. Warren, Esq.
          Lisa M. Ghannoum, Esq.
          BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP
          Key Tower 127 Public Square, Suite 2000
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 861-7145
          Facsimile: (216) 696-0740
          E-mail: dwarren@bakerlaw.com
                  lghannoum@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Gilbert S. Keteltas, Esq.
          BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP
          1050 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 1100
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 861-1530
          Facsimile: (202) 861-1783
          E-mail: gketeltas@bakerlaw.com


MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP: Lennen Asks to Certify MVC Trust Owners Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled ANTHONY LENNEN, et al. v.
MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS, INC., et al., Case No.
6:16-cv-00855-CEM-TBS (M.D. Fla.), file with the Court their
renewed motion for class certification and memorandum of law in
support.

The proposed class consists of:

     all current and former owners of the MVC Trust product
     (i.e., MVC Trust Owners) from its inception in June 15,
     2010, through and including the present.

     Excluded from the proposed Class are Defendants, as well as
     any entity in which a Defendant has a controlling interest,
     along with Defendants' legal representatives, officers,
     directors, assignees and successors.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as Class
Representatives, and to appoint their counsel, Newman Ferrara LLP
and Morgan & Morgan, as Class Counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher S. Polaszek, Esq.
          THE POLASZEK LAW FIRM, PLLC
          3407 W. Kennedy Blvd.
          Tampa, FL 33609
          Telephone: (813) 574-7678
          E-mail: chris@polaszeklaw.com

               - and -

          Soomi Kim, Esq.
          2400 South College Drive
          High Point, NC 27260
          Telephone: (336) 471-8769
          E-mail: soomiwork@gmail.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Norton, Esq.
          NEWMAN FERRARA LLP
          1250 Broadway, 27th Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 619-5400
          E-mail: jnorton@nfllp.com

               - and -

          Keith Mitnik, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          201 N. Orange Ave. Suite 1600
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 849-2383
          E-mail: kmitnik@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          201 N. Franklin St., 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com


MASTERCARD INC: Facing GBP14-Bil. Suit in Britain Over Card Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barney Thompson, writing for Financial Times, reports that the man
spearheading the GBP14 billionn legal claim against Mastercard has
defended the advent of US-style class actions in Britain, saying
they give wronged consumers the chance to hold businesses to
account.

Walter Merricks -- whose career has taken in roles at the law
reform and human rights organisation Justice, the Law Society, the
Gambling Commission, and the press monitor Impress -- is the public
face of a consumer claim testing new ground in the English legal
system.

He is leading a class action on behalf of more than 46 million
British consumers for losses suffered from alleged illegal credit
card fees, in the first mass consumer claim brought under the new
regime introduced by the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

The Mastercard action is the most significant test to date of
English courts' appetite for US-style consumer class actions -- and
of the role of litigation finance businesses, which support legal
claims in return for a share of any settlements or damages.

"A lot of the criticism of the US class action system is not
justified," said Mr Merricks, adding that the Canadian system
worked "extremely well" and had more safeguards.

"Nobody in Canada thinks that's an unfair system or one that
imposes undue burdens on business."

This week, the Court of Appeal in London breathed new life into the
Mastercard claim, two years after the Competition Appeal Tribunal
seemingly blocked the lawsuit.

Mr Merricks, 73, said that law firm Quinn Emanuel had contacted him
after the 2015 act was passed, as collective consumer actions
typically need leadership from an individual.

"It was important to have someone with credibility and experience,
with both litigation and financial services," he said. "Naturally I
was very interested."

Mr Merricks was the first head of the UK's Financial Ombudsman
Service from 1999 to 2009, giving him a ringside seat for Britain's
biggest financial scandals -- from the mis-selling of payment
protection insurance to the collapse of the insurer Equitable Life.


"I knew we just didn't have a proper system for providing consumer
redress where there had been large-scale damage but sometimes for
relatively small amounts of money," he said.

He also defended litigation funders, arguing that they "run a
substantial risk" of either losing the case or there being no money
left over after consumer claims.

Innsworth, a litigation funder, supported Mr Merricks taking the
case to the Court of Appeal. The firm, which is also funding a
shareholder claim against the carmaker Volkswagen, can call upon
backing from US hedge fund Elliott Management. It is nearing a deal
for further financing, believed to be about GBP40m.

Ian Garrard, managing director of Innsworth, said the Mastercard
consumer claim was attractive because it was a "novel" case and he
called the arrangement "equitable". He added that Elliott gave
Innsworth the financial firepower to take on groundbreaking and
substantial claims.

While Innsworth would be left out of pocket if all 46m eligible
claimants recovered money from Mastercard, even in well publicised
claims such as the PPI scandal most consumers usually fail to act.
[GN]


MCDERMOTT INT'L: Bennett Seeks Certification of Class of Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled KENDRICK BENNETT and
COURTLANDE COLLINS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., CHICAGO BRIDGE
& IRON, CO., CHIYODA INTERNATIONAL, CORPORATION, and CAMERON LNG,
LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-00158-UDJ-KK (W.D. La.), seeks certification
of a class defined as:

    "all individuals who, through a contract with Defendant(s) or
     otherwise, performed work, or were associated with such, for
     Defendant(s) at the Cameron LNG Liquefaction Plant, and who
     have not received full compensation of the minimum wage and
     overtime premiums (collectively "Covered Personnel") at the
     conclusion of their employment with Defendant within the
     three (3) years preceding the commencement of the applicable
     prescriptive period under the Louisiana Wage Payment Act
     through the close of the Court-determined opt-out period."

Kendrick Bennett and Courtlande Collins also seek to have their
counsel appointed as Class counsel.

The Plaintiffs have filed the Class and Collective Action Complaint
as a result of the Defendants' alleged failure to pay the
Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated for compensable time
as employees.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James E. Sudduth, III, Esq.
          Erin N. Abrams, Esq.
          Kourtney L. Kech, Esq.
          SUDDUTH AND ASSOCIATES, LLC
          1109 Pithon St.
          Lake Charles, LA 70601
          Telephone: (337) 480-0101
          Facsimile: (337) 419-0507
          E-mail: james@saa.legal
                  erin@saa.legal
                  kourtney@saa.legal


MDL 2741: Brewster v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN H. BREWSTER and JUDITH M. BREWSTER, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00376 (Filed Mar.
1, 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 2, 2019. The
Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02382-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. John H.
Brewster's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

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

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

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

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

The 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: Griffin v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
NORA GRIFFIN, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00982 (Filed April 24, 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 22, 2019. The Northern District of
California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02816-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.[BN]

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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: Seibert v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
WILSON K. SEIBERT and DIANE SEIBERT, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00376 (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 2, 2019. The Northern
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02372-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. Wilson K.
Seibert's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

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

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

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

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

The 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: Todd v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL H. TODD and JANICE C. TODD, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00317 (Filed Feb. 26,
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 2, 2019. The Northern
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02380-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. Edgar W.
Snyder's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

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

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

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

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

The 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: Tubbesing v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN TUBBESING AND SARA TUBBESING, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00965 (Filed April 23,
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 22, 2019. The
Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02804-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. Brian
Tubbesing's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

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

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

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

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

The 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

MEDICAL CASE: Seeks 5th Cir. Review of Ruling in Turner FLSA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Community Care Medical Clinics, Incorporated, Portia
Jones, Medical Case Management & Social Services, Incorporated,
Bonnie Ramsey and Donald Ramsey filed an appeal from a Court ruling
in the lawsuit entitled Rachel Turner, et al. v. Medical Case
Management & Social Services, Incorporated, et al., Case No.
4:17-CV-836, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Texas, Fort Worth.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages and overtime compensation
under Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants knowingly, willfully, or
with reckless disregard carried out their illegal pattern or
practice of failing to pay overtime compensation with respect to
Plaintiff and the Class Members.  The Defendants were aware that
overtime pay was required for hourly employees but ignored the
FLSA.

The appellate case is captioned as Rachel Turner, et al. v. Medical
Case Management & Social Services, Incorporated, et al., Case No.
19-10519, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees RACHEL TURNER, individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated, CALVIN GREEN, VERONICA SWEENEY-ALI,
TINA WILSON, ROSE AYUKU, NATASHA VEAL, ZAHRA MOHAMED, ERIC
HONG-HANH BYNUM, JANET AVENT RANSOM, MEGAN WEAVER, PAULETTE
WHITESIDE, GEORGE NYAKUNDI, JAMES INYIAMA, SHANELL WIDEMAN, ANNETTE
JONES-WRIGHT, PHYLLIS BARRIERE, DONNA WILLIAMS, JANET ELELU,
TIFFANY LATRICE JONES, TREVONDA WILSON, JOHNNIE FREDA GREEN and
BELINDA WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Chris Richard Miltenberger, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC
          1360 N. White Chapel
          Southlake, TX 76092
          Telephone: (817) 416-5060
          E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com

Defendants-Appellants MEDICAL CASE MANAGEMENT & SOCIAL SERVICES,
INCORPORATED, BONNIE RAMSEY, DONALD RAMSEY, PORTIA JONES and
COMMUNITY CARE MEDICAL CLINICS, INCORPORATED, are represented by:

          Marrick Armstrong, Esq.
          SMITH REED & ARMSTRONG, P.L.L.C.
          1920 Country Place Parkway
          Pearland, TX 77584
          Telephone: (281) 489-3934
          E-mail: marrick@srapllc.com


MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Kent Suit over Proposed Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL KENT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES, LTD.; IRWIN FEDERMAN;
JON A. OLSON; GLENDA DORCHAK; AMAL M. JOHNSON; JACK R. LAZAR; UMESH
PADVAL; DAVID PERLMUTTER; STEVE SANGHI; EYAL WALDMAN; and GREGORY
L. WATERS, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03961 (S.D.N.Y., May 2,
2019) is an action regarding a proposed transaction announced on
March 11, 2019, pursuant to which Mellanox Technologies, Ltd. will
be acquired by NVIDIA Corporation, NVIDIA International Holdings,
Inc., and Teal Barvaz Ltd., in violation of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, on March 10, 2019, Mellanox's Board of
Directors  caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan
of merger  with NVIDIA, Parent, and Merger Sub. Pursuant to the
terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Mellanox will
receive $125 in cash for each share of Mellanox common stock.

On April 22, 2019, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 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. The Proxy Statement omits material information
regarding the Company's financial projections and the analyses
performed by the Company's financial advisors in connection with
the Proposed Transaction, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and Credit Suisse
Group.

Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., a fabless semiconductor company,
designs, manufactures, markets, and sells interconnect products and
solutions. Its products facilitate data transmission between
servers, storage systems, communications infrastructure equipment,
and other embedded systems. Mellanox Technologies, Ltd. was founded
in 1999 and is headquartered in Sunnyvale, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 683-3516
          E-mail: tjm@rl-legal.com

               - and -

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


METLIFE INC: Westland Police & Fire Retirement Suit Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, City of Westland Police and
Fire Retirement System v. MetLife, Inc., et. al. (S.D.N.Y., filed
January 12, 2012).

Plaintiff filed this class action on behalf of a class of persons
who either purchased MetLife, Inc. common shares between February
9, 2011, and October 6, 2011, or purchased or acquired MetLife,
Inc. common stock in the Company's August 3, 2010 offering or the
Company's March 4, 2011 offering.

Plaintiff alleges that MetLife, Inc. and several current and former
directors and executive officers of MetLife, Inc. violated the
Securities Act of 1933, as well as the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to
issue, materially false and misleading statements concerning
MetLife, Inc.'s potential liability for millions of dollars in
insurance benefits that should have purportedly been paid to
beneficiaries or escheated to the states.

Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.


The defendants intend to defend this action vigorously.

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

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. MetLife, Inc. was founded in 1863 and
is headquartered in New York, New York.


MOBILE TELESYSTEMS: Rosen Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Mobile TeleSystems PJSC (NYSE: MBT) from March 19,
2014 through March 7, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Mobile TeleSystems investors
under the federal securities laws.

To join the Mobile TeleSystems class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1531.html or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Mobile TeleSystems
and its subsidiary were involved in a scheme to pay $420 million in
bribes in Uzbekistan; (2) consequently, Mobile TeleSystems knew or
should have known it would be forced to pay substantial fines to
the U.S. government after disclosing in 2014 that the U.S.
Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission were
investigating its Uzbekistan operations; (3) Mobile TeleSystems'
level of cooperation with the U.S. government and remediation was
lacking; (4) due to the aforementioned misconduct, Mobile
TeleSystems would be forced to pay approximately $850 million in
criminal penalties to the U.S. government; and (5) as a result,
defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to join
the litigation, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1531.html or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or
via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com.

Contact:

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Zachary Halper, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34thFloor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                zhalper@rosenlegal.com
                cases@rosenlegal.com [GN]


MONSANTO COMPANY: Merchant Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
RANDOLPH J. MERCHANT, an individual, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-05447 (W.D. Wash., May
22, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Corrie J. Yackulic, Esq.
          CORRIE YACKULIC LAW FIRM, PLLC
          705 Second Avenue, #1300
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: 206 787 1915
          Facsimile: 206 299 9725
          E-mail: Corrie@cjylaw.com

MRS BPO: Certification of Classes Sought in Banaszynski Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Banaszynski and Elizabeth Wood move the Court to certify
the classes described in the complaint of their lawsuit titled
MICHAEL BANASZYNSKI and ELIZABETH WOOD, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. MRS BPO, LLC and CHASE BANK
USA, N.A., Case No. 2:19-cv-00641-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), and further ask
that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to
grant them (and the Defendants) relief from the Local Rules setting
automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting
material to be filed with the Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement
of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that
other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class,
the Plaintiffs tell the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco,
Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June
20, 2017).  The Plaintiffs assert that one defendant has attempted
a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class
representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D.
Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut,
Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis.
Feb. 24, 2016).

The Plaintiffs are obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, they contend.

As the Motion to certify classes is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiffs assert.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives, and to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


NABRIVA THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Nabriva Therapeutics plc (NBRV) and certain of its
officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court,
for the Southern District of New York, and indexed under
19-cv-04713, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Nabriva securities
between November 1, 2018 and April 30, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Nabriva securities during
the class period, you have until July 8, 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 atrswilloughby@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.

Nabriva is a biopharmaceutical company that purports to develop
novel anti-infective agents to treat serious infections. One of the
Company's product candidates is CONTEPO, an epoxide antibiotic
developed by Zavante Therapeutics ("Zavante"), which the Company
acquired in July 2018.

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) the Company's manufacturers
failed to meet good manufacturing practices; (ii) these
manufacturers would be subject to inspections by the FDA in
connection with the Company's NDA; (iii) as a result of the
manufacturing deficiencies, the Company's NDA for CONTEPO was
unlikely to be approved by the FDA; and (iv) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On April 30, 2019, the Company revealed that the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") would not approve its New Drug Application
("NDA") for CONTEPO due to "issues related to facility inspections
and manufacturing deficiencies at one of Nabriva's contract
manufacturers."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.82 per share, or
over 27%, to close at $2.17 per share on May 1, 2019, on unusually
high trading volume.
        
Contact:

         Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
         Pomerantz LLP
         Phone: 888-476-6529 ext. 9980
         Website: www.pomerantzlaw.com
         Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Class Certification Sought in Ellis Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs move the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of their lawsuit captioned JAMES ELLIS and DARRYL ELLIS,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC d/b/a MR COOPER, Case No. 2:19-cv-00661-NJ
(E.D. Wisc.), and further ask that the Court both stay the motion
for class certification and to grant them (and the Defendant)
relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules
and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiffs assert, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement
of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that
other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class,
the Plaintiffs tell the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco,
Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June
20, 2017).  The Plaintiffs assert that one defendant has attempted
a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class
representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D.
Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut,
Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis.
Feb. 24, 2016).

The Plaintiffs are obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, they contend.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiffs argue.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives, and to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Steil Disputes Misleading Collection Letter
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeannie L. Steil, individually, and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. Nationwide Credit, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-02841, (E.D. N.Y., May 14, 2019), seeks
actual and statutory damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Nationwide Credit is in the business of the collection of debts
allegedly owed by consumers. It attempted to collect from Steil an
allegedly defaulted financial obligation with a past-due balance
with an offer of settlement. Said letter contains the phrase "...
we are not obligated to renew this offer" which adequately conveys
that there is a renewal possibility, but also that it is not
assured. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEW ORLEANS, LA: Caluda Moves to Certify Class of Property Owners
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled ROBERT J. CALUDA, APLC AND
NEW ORLEANS PRIVATE PATROL SERVICE, INC. v. THE CITY OF NEW
ORLEANS, LINEBARGER, GOGGAN, BLAIR & SAMPSON, L.L.P. AND UNITED
GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES OF LOUISIANA, INC., Case No.
2:19-cv-02497-SM-JCW (E.D. La.), move for class certification and
appointment of their counsel as class counsel.

The Plaintiffs contend they are members of the proposed class and
represent those persons and entities similarly situated, who reside
in and/or owned movable property in the City of New Orleans, Parish
of Orleans, State of Louisiana, ("City") who paid a 30% or other
collection penalty and 3% late payment penalty to the Defendant,
City of New Orleans.

The 30% penalty was paid to a private debt collector, United
Governmental Services of Louisiana, Inc., and Heard, Linebarger,
Graham, Goggan, Blair, Pena & Sampson, L.L.P., pursuant to
Ordinance No. 18637 of the City of New Orleans, which was adopted
on March 6, 1998.

The Plaintiffs-Petitioners maintain that Ordinance No. 18637 is in
violation of the Constitution and Statutes of the State of
Louisiana and that any penalty sums collected on personal business
property taxes by the City of New Orleans on behalf of the City and
debt collector is illegal and that any contract entered into
between the Defendants, City of New Orleans and debt collector for
the collection of illegal penalties is null and was void ab initio.
They pray for return of all sums illegally collected from any and
all persons or entities from whom or which said sums were collected
and should be returned forthwith.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Allain F. Hardin, Esq.
          ALLAIN F. HARDIN, APLC
          807 Howard Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Telephone: (504) 522-1188
          Facsimile: (504) 524-8317
          E-mail: afhardin@aol.com


NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Maanen Claims Overtime for Off-the-Clock Work
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Van Maanen, for himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. New York University, Defendant,
Case No. 154902/2019 (N.D. N.Y., February 5, 2019), seeks overtime
compensation, plus interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

New York University is an education corporation with a principal
place of business at 70 Washington Square South, New York. Van
Maanen worked for NYU as a "watch engineer" at its Langone
Hospital. They were required to report to the designated locker
room, change into uniform and then travel to their assigned post,
constituting compensable work time of which he was not compensated
pursuant to the New York Labor Law. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
      James Emmet Murphy, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel: (212) 943-9080
      Fax: (212) 943-9082


NEW YORK: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed in Gulino Discrimination Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment
entered on March 20, 2019, in the lawsuit entitled Gulino, et al.
v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
originally filed a class action complaint on Nov. 8, 1996, alleging
that the LAST-1 exam violated Title VII.  The Plaintiffs, a group
of African-American and Latino teachers in the New York City public
school system, alleged that the Defendant, the Board of Education
of the City School District of the City of New York, violated Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et
seq., by requiring the Plaintiffs to pass certain racially
discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a license to
teach in New York City public schools.

The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of
Education, et al., Case No. 19-1178, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Edith Maduakolam is represented by:

          Joshua S. Sohn, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          180 Maiden Lane
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 806-1245
          E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com

Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the New York City School
District of the City of New York is represented by:

          Zachary W. Carter, Esq.
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-1000
          E-mail: zcarter@law.nyc.gov


NEW YORK: Appeals March 20 Judgment in Gulino Discrimination Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment
entered on March 20, 2019, in the lawsuit entitled Gulino, et al.
v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
originally filed a class action complaint on Nov. 8, 1996, alleging
that the LAST-1 exam violated Title VII.  The Plaintiffs, a group
of African-American and Latino teachers in the New York City public
school system, alleged that the Defendant, the Board of Education
of the City School District of the City of New York, violated Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et
seq., by requiring the Plaintiffs to pass certain racially
discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a license to
teach in New York City public schools.

The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of
Education, et al., Case No. 19-1224, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Perfecto Santana is represented by:

          Joshua S. Sohn, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          180 Maiden Lane
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 806-1245
          E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com

Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the New York City School
District of the City of New York is represented by:

          Zachary W. Carter, Esq.
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-1000
          E-mail: zcarter@law.nyc.gov


NEW YORK: Appeals March 20 Judgment in Gulino Suit to 2nd Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment
entered on March 20, 2019, in the lawsuit entitled Gulino, et al.
v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
originally filed a class action complaint on Nov. 8, 1996, alleging
that the LAST-1 exam violated Title VII.  The Plaintiffs, a group
of African-American and Latino teachers in the New York City public
school system, alleged that the Defendant, the Board of Education
of the City School District of the City of New York, violated Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et
seq., by requiring the Plaintiffs to pass certain racially
discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a license to
teach in New York City public schools.

The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of
Education, et al., Case No. 19-1175, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Ellen Jones is represented by:

          Joshua S. Sohn, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          180 Maiden Lane
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 806-1245
          E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com

Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the New York City School
District of the City of New York is represented by:

          Zachary W. Carter, Esq.
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-1000
          E-mail: zcarter@law.nyc.gov


NEW YORK: Appeals Order in Gulino Discrimination Suit to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment
entered on March 20, 2019, in the lawsuit entitled Gulino, et al.
v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
originally filed a class action complaint on Nov. 8, 1996, alleging
that the LAST-1 exam violated Title VII.  The Plaintiffs, a group
of African-American and Latino teachers in the New York City public
school system, alleged that the Defendant, the Board of Education
of the City School District of the City of New York, violated Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et
seq., by requiring the Plaintiffs to pass certain racially
discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a license to
teach in New York City public schools.

The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of
Education, et al., Case No. 19-1165, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Michelle Jennings is represented by:

          Joshua S. Sohn, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          180 Maiden Lane
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 806-1245
          E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com

Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the New York City School
District of the City of New York is represented by:

          Zachary W. Carter, Esq.
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-1000
          E-mail: zcarter@law.nyc.gov


NEW YORK: Appeals S.D.N.Y. Judgment in Gulino Suit to 2nd Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment
entered on March 20, 2019, in the lawsuit entitled Gulino, et al.
v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
originally filed a class action complaint on Nov. 8, 1996, alleging
that the LAST-1 exam violated Title VII.  The Plaintiffs, a group
of African-American and Latino teachers in the New York City public
school system, alleged that the Defendant, the Board of Education
of the City School District of the City of New York, violated Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et
seq., by requiring the Plaintiffs to pass certain racially
discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a license to
teach in New York City public schools.

The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of
Education, et al., Case No. 19-1197, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Cherley Mingot is represented by:

          Joshua S. Sohn, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          180 Maiden Lane
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 806-1245
          E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com

Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the New York City School
District of the City of New York is represented by:

          Zachary W. Carter, Esq.
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-1000
          E-mail: zcarter@law.nyc.gov


NEW YORK: Second Circuit Appeal Initiated in Gulino Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment
entered on March 20, 2019, in the lawsuit entitled Gulino, et al.
v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
originally filed a class action complaint on Nov. 8, 1996, alleging
that the LAST-1 exam violated Title VII.  The Plaintiffs, a group
of African-American and Latino teachers in the New York City public
school system, alleged that the Defendant, the Board of Education
of the City School District of the City of New York, violated Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et
seq., by requiring the Plaintiffs to pass certain racially
discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a license to
teach in New York City public schools.

The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of
Education, et al., Case No. 19-1223, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Emanuel Reda is represented by:

          Joshua S. Sohn, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          180 Maiden Lane
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 806-1245
          E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com

Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the New York City School
District of the City of New York is represented by:

          Zachary W. Carter, Esq.
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-1000
          E-mail: zcarter@law.nyc.gov


NEW YORK: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Judgment in Gulino Bias Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment
entered on March 20, 2019, in the lawsuit entitled Gulino, et al.
v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
originally filed a class action complaint on Nov. 8, 1996, alleging
that the LAST-1 exam violated Title VII.  The Plaintiffs, a group
of African-American and Latino teachers in the New York City public
school system, alleged that the Defendant, the Board of Education
of the City School District of the City of New York, violated Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et
seq., by requiring the Plaintiffs to pass certain racially
discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a license to
teach in New York City public schools.

The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of
Education, et al., Case No. 19-1220 , in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Kia Porter is represented by:

          Joshua S. Sohn, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          180 Maiden Lane
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 806-1245
          E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com

Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the New York City School
District of the City of New York is represented by:

          Zachary W. Carter, Esq.
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-1000
          E-mail: zcarter@law.nyc.gov


NEW YORK: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of N.Y. Judgment in Gulino Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment
issued on March 20, 2019, in the lawsuit entitled Gulino, et al. v.
Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
originally filed a class action complaint on November 8, 1996,
alleging that the LAST-1 exam violated Title VII.  The Plaintiffs,
a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the New York
City public school system, alleged that the Defendant, the Board of
Education of the City School District of the City of New York,
violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
Section 2000e et seq., by requiring the Plaintiffs to pass certain
racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a
license to teach in New York City public schools.

The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of
Education, et al., Case No. 19-1172, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Myriam Jimenez is represented by:

          Joshua S. Sohn, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          180 Maiden Lane
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 806-1245
          E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com

Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the New York City School
District of the City of New York is represented by:

          Zachary W. Carter, Esq.
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-1000
          E-mail: zcarter@law.nyc.gov


NEW YORK: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of S.D.N.Y. Ruling in Gulino Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment
entered on March 20, 2019, in the lawsuit entitled Gulino, et al.
v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
originally filed a class action complaint on Nov. 8, 1996, alleging
that the LAST-1 exam violated Title VII.  The Plaintiffs, a group
of African-American and Latino teachers in the New York City public
school system, alleged that the Defendant, the Board of Education
of the City School District of the City of New York, violated Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et
seq., by requiring the Plaintiffs to pass certain racially
discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a license to
teach in New York City public schools.

The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of
Education, et al., Case No. 19-1200, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Altagracia Montas is represented by:

          Joshua S. Sohn, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          180 Maiden Lane
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 806-1245
          E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com

Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the New York City School
District of the City of New York is represented by:

          Zachary W. Carter, Esq.
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-1000
          E-mail: zcarter@law.nyc.gov


NOKIA CORP: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, captioned Tom v. Nokia Corporation
et al., (Case No. 1:19-cv-03509), on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired Nokia Corporation (NYSE: NOK )
securities between October 25, 2018 and March 21, 2019, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act").

Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from the date
of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.

On March 21, 2019, the Company disclosed that it had been, "made
aware of certain practices relating to compliance issues at the
former Alcatel Lucent business [acquired by Nokia November 2016]
that have raised concerns.″ Nokia then advised investors that it
had initiated an internal investigation and that it was cooperating
with regulatory authorities to resolve the matter. On this news,
shares of Nokia fell $0.38 per share, or over 6%, to close at $5.88
on March 22, 2019, thereby injuring investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Alcatel-Lucent had certain compliance issues;
(2) that, as a result, the Company would be subject to regulatory
scrutiny; (3) that, as a result, the Company was reasonably likely
to face penalties and fines; and (4) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased Nokia securities during the Class Period, you may
move the Court no later than  60 days from the date of this notice
to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. If you inquire
by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and
number of shares purchased. To be a member of the Class you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class.
If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters please contact:

         Lesley Portnoy,Esq.
         Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP
         1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
         Los Angeles, California 90067
         Telephone: 310-201-9150
         Toll Free: 888-773-9224
         Website: www.glancylaw.com
         Email: lportnoy@glancylaw.com
                shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]


NORRED & ASSOCIATES: Underpays Post Commanders, Walker Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
JESSYKA WALKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NORRED & ASSOCIATES, INC.; and DOES 1
THROUGH 100, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV15339 (Cal. Super., May 2,
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 Walker was employed by the Defendants as post
commander.

Norred & Associates, Inc. provides corporate security and
investigative services. It offers uniformed safety and security
services; and corporate investigations, which include undercover
operatives, covert cameras, interviews and fact finding, GPS
tracking systems, surveillance, public records and document
searches, handwriting and latent print analysis, and litigation
support from filing to verdict. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
          Diego Aviles, Esq.
          BIBIYAN LAW GROUP
          1801 Century Park East, Suite 2600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 438-5555;
          Facsimile: (310) 300-1705
          E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com
                  diego@tomorrowlaw.com


NORTH SHORE AGENCY: McKinney Wins Bid to Stay Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William E. Duffin granted the Plaintiff's motion to stay
further proceedings on the motion for class certification filed in
the lawsuit styled PAKITA MCKINNEY, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. NORTH SHORE AGENCY, LLC, and
SANDVIK PUBLISHZING INTERACTIVE, INC., d/b/a EARLY MOMENTS, Case
No. 2:19-cv-00678-WED (E.D. Wisc.).

According to the order, the parties are relieved from the automatic
briefing schedule set forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c).
Moreover, for administrative purposes, it is necessary that the
Clerk terminate the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
However, this motion will be regarded as pending to serve its
protective purpose under Damasco.

On May 8, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint.  At
the same time, the Plaintiff filed what the Court commonly refers
to as a "protective" motion for class certification.  In this
motion, the Plaintiff moved to certify the class described in the
complaint but also moved the court to stay further proceedings on
that motion.

In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011),
the court suggested that class‐action plaintiffs "move to certify
the class at the same time that they file their complaint."  "The
pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts to
buy off the named plaintiffs."  However, because parties are
generally unprepared to proceed with a motion for class
certification at the beginning of a case, the Damasco court
suggested that the parties "ask the district court to delay its
ruling to provide time for additional discovery or
investigation."[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


NUTANIX, INC: Securities Statements Misleading, Zapf Says
---------------------------------------------------------
The case, HEIDI ZAPF, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NUTANIX, INC., DHEERAJ
PANDEY, and DUSTON M. WILLIAMS, the Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-02781 (N.D. Cal., May 22, 2019), is a class action on
behalf of herself and all other persons who purchased Nutanix, Inc.
securities between March 2, 2018 and February 28, 2019, both dates
inclusive.

During the Class Period, the Defendants made repeated statements
that Nutanix was investing heavily in growth and was increasing
sales and marketing activities while maintaining high profit
margins.

Contrary to these statements, and as revealed by the Defendants on
February 28, 2019, starting with the fourth fiscal quarter of 2017
(beginning May 1, 2017) through the third fiscal quarter of 2018
(ending April 30, 2018), Defendants did not increase Nutanix's lead
generation spending, but rather held lead generation spending, an
admitted "key component to building pipeline," flat. Further,
starting with the fourth fiscal quarter of 2018 (beginning May 1,
2018) through the second fiscal quarter of 2019 (ending January 31,
2019), rather than either increasing lead generation spending or
holding that spending flat, Defendants actually decreased Nutanix's
lead generation spending.

By misrepresenting the magnitude of Nutanix's marketing spending,
and failing to disclose Nutanix was pulling back on lead generation
spending, Defendants were able to misrepresent that Nutanix had
improved its profit margins through business acumen, rather than
the truth -- that Nutanix was skimping on important drivers of
revenue growth.

As a result of Nutanix's lower lead generation spending, Nutanix's
pipeline of new Once Defendants revealed the truth on February 28,
2019, the price of Nutanix common stock plummeted $16.39 per share,
or more than 32%, from its closing price of $50.09 per share on
February 28, 2019, to close at $33.70 per share on March 1, 2019.

Once Defendants revealed the truth on February 28, 2019, the price
of Nutanix common stock plummeted $16.39 per share, or more than
32%, from its closing price of $50.09 per share on February 28,
2019, to close at $33.70 per share on March 1, 2019.

As a result, the market price of Nutanix securities was
artificially inflated during the Class Period. Unaware of the
falsity of the statements by Defendants, Plaintiff and the other
members of the Class relied on the statements and/or the integrity
of the market price of Nutanix securities during the Class Period
in purchasing Nutanix securities at prices that were artificially
inflated as a result of the false and misleading statements by
Defendants.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Jonathan D. Lindenfeld, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 405-7190
          E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
                  jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

NXCESS MOTORCARS: Mayberry Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DONALD MAYBERRY, OMAR ARRIAGA and ANTHONY MURRAY, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. NXCESS
MOTORCARS, INC., RICHARD ONG, KATHY TRA.N NGUYEN-ONG and EDWARDO
PERFECTO LUEVANO Individually, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-01583
(S.D. Tex., May 1, 2019) seeks to achieve its humanitarian goals,
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, defines
appropriate pay deductions and sets overtime pay, minimum wage, and
recordkeeping requirements for covered employers.

The Defendants required and/or permitted Plaintiffs to work in
excess of 40 hours per week, but refused to compensate Plaintiffs
for such hours at the overtime rates required the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), says the complaint.

Plaintiffs are former employees of the Defendants.

NXCESS MOTORCARS, INC. is a Texas corporation and is in the
business of selling used cars, principally consisting of high end
or high line vehicles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J. SCOTT DOUGLASS, ESQ.
     JAMMY M. KIGGUNDU, ESQ.
     DOUGLASS & KIGGUNDU, PLLC
     1811 Bering Dr., Suite 420
     Houston, TX 77057
     Phone: 713-227-7492
     Facsimile: 713-227-7497
     Email: jsd@aol.com
            jammy@dkcounsel.com


O2 KOREAN BBQ: Lacked Timekeeping, Denied Cui Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Jun Cui, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. O2 Korean BBQ and Sung Ho Choi,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-02794 (E.D. N.Y., May 13, 2019), seeks
recover unpaid wages, unpaid minimum wages and unpaid overtime
compensation, interests, damages for unreasonably delayed payment
of wages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and disbursements of
the action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York
labor law.

O2 Korean BBQ is a restaurant located at 45-53 Bell Blvd, Bayside,
NY 11361 where Cui worked as a waiter. He was required to work well
in excess of forty hours per week without overtime and was not paid
"spread of hours" premium for shifts that lasted longer than ten
hours, one day each week. Defendants also did not have any
timekeeping system to properly record their employees' hours
worked. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ken H. Maeng, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-20 38th Ave. Suite 10G
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Tel: (718) 353-8588
      Email: kmaeng@hanglaw.com


OH MY GREEN: Removes Kastler Suit to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of ANNE KASTLER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OH MY GREEN,
INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, filed a notice to remove
the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of San Mateo (Case No. 19CIV01058) to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on May 2, 2019. The
clerk of court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:19-cv-02411.

Oh My Green, Inc. provides healthy food and wellness services. The
Company offers wellness platform, which incorporates artificial
intelligence and IoT technology to enhance supply chain management
and improve personalization of the company's food services. Oh My
Green serves customers in the United States. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Javier Torres, Esq.
          STINSON LLP
          1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-4584
          Telephone: (602) 279-1600
          Facsimile: (602) 240-6925
          E-mail: javier.torres@stinson.com


ORION GROUP: Rosen Files Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Orion Group Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:
ORN) from March 13, 2018 through March 26, 2019, inclusive (the
"Class Period") of the important June 10, 2019 lead plaintiff
deadline in class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Orion investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Orion class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1555.html or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. or toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com
or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Orion had overstated goodwill in certain periods; (2)
Orion had overstated accounts receivable in certain periods; (3)
Orion lacked effective internal control over financial reporting,
including over goodwill impairment testing and allowance for
doubtful accounts; (4) that, as a result, the required adjustments
would materially impact Orion's financial results; and (5) as a
result of the foregoing, Orion's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 10,
2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1555.html or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Contact:

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Zachary Halper, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34thFloor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                zhalper@rosenlegal.com
                cases@rosenlegal.com [GN]


ORLANDO HEALTH: Morgan Seeks to Certify TCPA Classes
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit ANGELA MORGAN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
ORLANDO HEALTH, INC., G&G ORGANIZATION, LTD. d/b/a PFS GROUP, and
RMB, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 6:17-cv-01972-CEM-GJK (M.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order decreeing that
the case may proceed on behalf of classes against the Defendants
pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The case is a putative class action about the Defendants' use of
automatic telephone dialing systems (ATDS) and artificial or
prerecorded voices to place debt collection calls for OHI to
unrelated third parties without their consent.

The classes proposed for certification are comprised of persons,
like Plaintiff, who told Defendants they had the wrong number and
to stop calling.

According to the complaint, the Defendants know they routinely call
wrong numbers, as they have multiple specific codes for documenting
wrong number calls in their systems of record. Based on the call
records produced by Defendants, PFS made at least 16,051 "wrong
number"-dispositioned calls to 16,051 telephone numbers on behalf
of OHI. After removing duplicates, there were 9,718 unique cellular
numbers called.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Theodore H. Kuyper, Esq.
          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          Theodore H. Kuyper, Esq
          KEOGH LAW, LTD.
          55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 726-1092
          Facsimile: (312) 726-1093
          E-mail: keith@keoghlaw.com
                  tkuyper@keoghlaw.com

                - and -

          Heather H. Jones, Esq.
          William "Billy" Peerce Howard, Esq.
          THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM, PLLC
          4030 Henderson Blvd.
          Tampa, FL 33629
          Telephone: (813) 500-1500
          Facsimile: (813) 435-2369
          E-mail: Heather@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
                  Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com

PARAMOUNT COUNTRY: Court Awarded $17K Attorney's Fees in Martinez
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and
denying in part Hernandez’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees in the
case captioned MARCO MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PARAMOUNT COUNTRY CLUB,
LLC, Defendant. No. 18 CV 4668 (VB). (S.D.N.Y.).

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy's Report
and Recommendation (R&R), on plaintiff Elsa Hernandez's motion for
attorneys' fees. Judge McCarthy recommended granting Hernandez's
motion in part and awarding attorneys' fees in the amount of
$17,224.50.

A district court reviewing a magistrate judge's report and
recommendation may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,
the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.

First, Hernandez argues equity and public policy considerations
weigh in favor of allowing recovery for fees incurred after the
date of the offer of judgment. The Court disagrees. The parties
explicitly limited Hernandez's recovery to fees accrued as of the
date of the offer of judgment. The Court will not disturb the
parties' unambiguous agreement.

Second, Hernandez argues Judge McCarthy's additional forty-percent
reduction of the fee award is excessive.

The Court disagrees.

Judge McCarthy provided three bases for reducing the fee award by
forty percent, all of which are sound.

First, Judge McCarthy found Hernandez's counsel spent an excessive
amount of time approximately 100 hours on a relatively
straightforward case that did not extend past the pleading stage or
involve complex motion practice. The Court agrees with that
finding. The reduction does not, as Hernandez contends, penalize
Hernandez for participating in a Court-ordered mediation, defending
a motion to compel arbitration, or diligently preparing for
litigation of this matter.

Second, Judge McCarthy recommended reducing the fee award because
counsel billed hours attributable to Hernandez's co-plaintiff
Martinez and to the class action claims. The Court agrees a
reduction in the fee award is appropriate for time spent on class
and other individuals' claims that cannot be fully parsed out.
Moreover, there is no question some of the time counsel billed was
spent on such claims Hernandez admitted as much in her objections,
stating her attorneys prepared for, investigated, and litigated
this case as a putative class action.

Third, Judge McCarthy found Hernandez's hiring of two law firms
resulted in duplicative billing and an excessive number of entries
devoted to conferring with co-counsel. On this issue, Hernandez
argues she was required to retain class counsel that is qualified
and experienced in class action law and wage and hour litigation.
Yet, Hernandez's argument further supports Judge McCarthy's
recommendation to reduce the award by forty percent because it
suggests Hernandez hired a second firm to pursue the class claims,
not Hernandez's own claims. Moreover, Hernandez admits that fifteen
time entries (out of almost 100) included time for conferring with
co-counsel. A reduction that accounts for those time-entries is
especially reasonable in light of the fact that co-counsel was
hired to pursue class claims.

Hernandez's motion for attorneys' fees is granted in part and
denied in part.  The Court awards Hernandez $17,224.50 in
attorneys' fees.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 20, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4lghfq6 from
Leagle.com.

Marco Martinez & Elsa Hernandez, Plaintiffs, represented by Frank
Rocco Schirripa , Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie LLP, John Anthony
Blyth, Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie LLP, Katherine Yesenia
Morales, Katz Melinger PLLC, 112 Madison Ave Fl 10, New York, NY
10016-7416 & Kenneth J. Katz, Katz Melinger PLLC, 280 Madison
Avenue, Suite 600, New York, NY 10016

Paramount Country Club, LLC, Defendant, represented by Emery Lane
Lyon, New York City Law Department & Nancy V. Wright --
nancy.wright@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman &
Dicker LLP.


PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Customers' Class Action in Israel
---------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. ("Partner" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ and TASE: PTNR), a leading Israeli communications operator,
on May 6 disclosed that the Company received a lawsuit and a motion
for the recognition of this lawsuit as a class action, filed
against Partner and against additional telecommunication service
companies (together the "Respondents") in the Central District
Court on April 10, 2019.

In the motion it was allegedly claimed that the Company, as well as
the other Respondents, does not inform its customers as required as
to the possible dangers of using the Internet and the possibility
of joining a free content filtering service offered to its
customers, in violation of the provisions of the Israeli
Communications Law (Telecommunications and Broadcasting), 1982 (the
"Communications Law") and its license. In addition it was claimed
that the websites and harmful content filtering service that
Partner provides, as well as the other Respondents, is not
efficient enough, contrary to the provisions of the Communications
Law and the Company's license.

The total amount claimed against the Respondents if the lawsuit is
recognized as a class action, was not stated by the applicants,
however the overall damage assessment noted in the motion for all
the Respondents together, is at least tens of millions of NIS.

Partner is reviewing and assessing the lawsuit and is unable at
this preliminary stage, to evaluate, with any degree of certainty,
the probability of success of the lawsuit or the range of potential
exposure, if any.

                  About Partner Communications

Partner Communications Company Ltd. ("Partner") is a leading
Israeli provider of telecommunications services (cellular,
fixed-line telephony, internet and television services). Partner's
ADSs are quoted on the NASDAQ Global Select Market(TM) and its
shares are traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (NASDAQ and TASE:
PTNR).
For more information about Partner see:
http://www.partner.co.il/en/Investors-Relations/lobby/[GN]


PLANET FITNESS: Appeals Court Shuts Down Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for Law.com, reports that after finding no
aggrieved consumers, a New Jersey appeals court has reversed a
summary judgment and class certification award in a lawsuit over
contract language at Planet Fitness health clubs.

Plaintiff Krystal Kauffman claimed a clause in the contract
releasing Planet Fitness from liability for injuries suffered at
one of its clubs violated the Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty
and Notice Act. But Kauffman, who suffered no adverse consequences
from the contract language, is not an aggrieved consumer under the
standard set by the state Supreme Court in its 2018 decision, Spade
v. Select Comfort, the appeals court said.

The TCCWNA statute requires the consumer to be "aggrieved." In
Spade, the court determined that to mean a plaintiff must have
suffered actual harm, and was not merely exposed to unlawful
language in a contract.

The Supreme Court issued its Spade ruling in response to the U.S.
Third Circuit Court of Appeals' direct certification of its
questions on TCCWNA.

The April 2018 Supreme Court decision in Spade came after the trial
court entered summary judgment for Kauffman as to liability under
TCCWNA. The judge granted class certification to a class of New
Jersey Planet Fitness members, and appointed Kauffman as the class
representative.

At the Appellate Division, Judges Ellen Koblitz, Mitchel Ostrer and
Heidi Currier said that in light of the Spade ruling, Kauffman's
assertions do not make her an aggrieved consumer under TCCWNA.
Kauffman suffered no adverse consequences or damages from the
contract language, but fit the scenario described in Spade where a
consumer executed a contract that established a clearly established
legal right, the judges said. And because Kauffman lacks standing
under TCCWNA, she cannot be the named representative of the
proposed class.

Enacted in 1980, TCCWNA bars language in consumer contracts that
violate any clearly established legal right. The measure drew
little attention until around 2015 when plaintiffs lawyers began
filing numerous lawsuits claiming violations of the law, some
targeting provisions in e-commerce terms of service.

The Supreme Court's decision in Spade has prompted dismissal of
other TCCWNA cases for lack of an aggrieved consumer as well,
including March's decision in federal court dismissing a class
action against Public Storage.

Cherry Hill solo practitioner Charles Riley, who represented
Kauffman in the latest ruling, said there is "not much you can do
because of the way they have interpreted the word ‘aggrieved' in
the opinion. I'm not positive the Legislature intended to do that
when they enacted the law."

Although Planet Fitness' contract clause disclaiming liability for
on-premises injuries is vulnerable to a challenge by anyone who
was, in fact, injured, the language of such clauses tend to deceive
people into not filing suits, Riley said. And lawyers might be put
off by the extra cost and effort of fighting such contract
language, he said.

"Hopefully, the Legislature will look at this opinion and say
‘that's not what we really intended. We don't want businesses
lying to consumers,'" Riley said.

Anthony Twardowski, Esq. -- artwardowski@zarwin.com -- of Zarwin,
Baum, DeVito, Kaplan, Schaer & Toddy in Philadelphia represented
Planet Fitness. He said in an email, "This is the latest in several
recent state and federal decisions where courts, applying the
Supreme Court's decision in Spade, have dismissed TCCWNA class
actions because the plaintiff suffered no harm and, therefore, was
not an aggrieved consumer under the statue. With the clarity
provided by Spade and cases like Kauffman applying it, businesses
in New Jersey can rest a bit easier knowing that the growing number
of no-harm TCCWNA class actions over the last several years should
finally be coming to an end." [GN]


PLAYTIKA LTD: Appeals Decision in Wilson Suit to Ninth Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Playtika, Ltd., filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Sean Wilson v. Playtika, Ltd., et al., Case No.
3:18-cv-05277-RBL, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Tacoma.

The appellate case is captioned as Sean Wilson v. Playtika, Ltd.,
et al., Case No. 19-80056, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent SEAN WILSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Todd Logan, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Telephone: (415) 638-9660
          E-mail: tlogan@edelson.com

               - and -

          Janissa A. Strabuk, Esq.
          TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
          1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 682-5600
          E-mail: jstrabuk@tousley.com

Defendant-Petitioner PLAYTIKA, LTD., an Israeli limited company, is
represented by:

          John P. Phillips, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          101 California Street, 48th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 856-7000
          E-mail: johnphillips@paulhastings.com

               - and -

          Andrew Mark Legolvan, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS, LLP
          1 Market Plaza
          Spear Tower, 24th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 267-4000
          E-mail:  andylegolvan@paulhastings.com


PRICESMART INC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announced that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities
of PriceSmart, Inc. ("PriceSmart," "PSMT" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: PSMT) between October 26, 2017 and October 25, 2018, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit, filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, seeks to recover damages for PriceSmart investors under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you purchased PSMT securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options, please visit PriceSmart PSMT Class Action
Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414
or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company's
omni-channel business strategy had failed to reach key operating
goals; (2) that the Company's South America distribution strategy
had failed to realize key cost saving goals; (3) that the Company
had invested Trinidad and Tobago dollars into certificates of
deposits with financial institutions; (4) that these investments
had been improperly classified as cash and cash equivalents; (5)
that the relevant corrections would materially impact financial
statements; (6) that there was a material weakness in the Company's
internal controls over financial reporting; (7) that increasing
competition negatively impacted the Company's revenue and
profitability; and (8) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

On October 25, 2018, the Company disclosed that it would have to
restate certain financial statements to correct a balance sheet
misclassification of certain assets.  PSMT also disclosed poor
operating results for the fourth quarter and year ended August 31,
2018, and that its Chief Executive Officer had resigned.

On this news, PriceSmart's share price fell $12.41, or more than
15%, to close at $69.16 on October 26, 2018, thereby injuring
investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in the PriceSmart class
action, you must move the court no later than July 22, 2019. A lead
plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class
members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you
take no action, you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased PriceSmart securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options, please visit
https://tinyurl.com/y238cgyv

Contact:

         Michael S. Bigin, Esq.
         Matthew Guarnero, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         10 East 40th Street, New York,
         New York 1001
         Phone: (877) 779-1414
         Website: https://www.bernlieb.com
         Email: seidman@bernlieb.com
                MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
                Bigin@bernlieb.com [GN]


PRICESMART INC: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that on May 22, 2019, a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California against PriceSmart, Inc. (NASDAQ:
PSMT). The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material
or false misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period,
which is October 26, 2017 through October 25, 2018.

To learn how to participate in this action, please visit
https://tinyurl.com/yxj692ar

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all PriceSmart,
Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class
Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described above.
You may move the Court no later than Monday, July 22, 2019 to serve
as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order to do
so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights, please contact:

         Robin Hester, Esq.
         Federman & Sherwood
         10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
         Oklahoma City, OK 73120
         Website: www.federmanlaw.com
         Email: rkh@federmanlaw.com [GN]


PRICESMART INC: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against PriceSmart, Inc. (Nasdaq: PSMT) in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California on
behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities of
PriceSmart between October 26, 2017 and October 25, 2018, 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.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's
omni-channel business strategy had failed to reach key operating
goals; (ii) the Company's South America distribution strategy had
failed to realize key cost saving goals; (iii) the Company had
invested Trinidad and Tobago dollars into certificates of deposits
with financial institutions; (iv) these investments had been
improperly classified as cash and cash equivalents; (v) the
relevant corrections would materially impact financial statements;
(vi) there was a material weakness in the Company's internal
controls over financial reporting; (vii) increasing competition
negatively impacted the Company's revenue and profitability; and
(viii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.  When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the
Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the July 22, 2019
lead plaintiff motion deadline.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action please contact:

        Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
        Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
        Gainey McKenna & Egleston
        Phone: (212) 983-1300
        Website: www.gme-law.com  
        Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
               gegleston@gme-law.com [GN]


PUFF CORP: Anderson Suit Alleges Consumer Fraud
-----------------------------------------------
Jacob Anderson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Puff Corp., Case No. 2:19-cv-02126 (D. Ariz., March 29,
2019), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the
Arizona's Consumer Fraud Act and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

The Defendants have violated the aforementioned Acts by
misrepresenting and concealing the nature and scope of the
defective PUFFCO PEAK batteries and atomizers, as the Plaintiff
relied on those representations and bore the cost of multiple sets
of replacement atomizers and otherwise incurred damages.

The Plaintiff is an Arizona medical marijuana patient and
authorized to consume cannabis under Arizona’s medical marijuana
law. The Plaintiff purchased a defective product by the Defendant.

Puff Corp. is an American manufacturing company that manufactures
vaporizers for cannabis concentrates and other smoking material for
use in legal medical and adult use states since 2015. The
Defendant's principal office is in Los Angeles, California. The
Defendant distributes and sells PEAK, an electronic vaporizer used
to smoke cannabis or other smoking material. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey C. Matura, Esq.
      Tabitha R. Myers, Esq.
      BARRET & MATURA, P.C.
      8925 East Pima Center Parkway, Suite 100
      Scottsdale, AZ 85258
      Tel: (602) 792-5705
      Fax: (602) 792-5710
      E-mail: jmatura@barrettmatura.com
              tmyers@barrettmatura.com


QUALCOMM INC: July 11 Hearing in 3226701 Canada Case Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that a hearing has been
scheduled for July 11, 2019, in the appeal from a ruling in the
case, 3226701 Canada, Inc. v. QUALCOMM Incorporated et al.

On November 30, 2015, a securities class action complaint was filed
by purported stockholders of the company in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California against the
company and certain of its current and former officers.

On April 29, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On
January 27, 2017, the court dismissed the amended complaint in its
entirety, granting leave to amend. On March 17, 2017, the
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, alleging that the
company and certain of its current and former officers violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, by making false and misleading statements regarding the
company's business outlook and product development between November
19, 2014 and July 22, 2015.

The second amended complaint sought unspecified damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and other costs.

On May 8, 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint. On October 20, 2017, the court entered an order
granting in part the company's motion to dismiss, and on November
29, 2017, the court entered an order granting the remaining
portions of the company's motion to dismiss.

On December 28, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  A hearing has been
scheduled for July 11, 2019.

QUALCOMM said, "We believe the plaintiffs' claims are without
merit."

QUALCOMM Incorporated designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
digital communication products worldwide. It operates through three
segments: Qualcomm CDMA Technologies (QCT); Qualcomm Technology
Licensing (QTL); and Qualcomm Strategic Initiatives (QSI). QUALCOMM
Incorporated was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.


QUALCOMM INC: Quebec Superior Court Certifies Class
---------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the Quebec Superior
Court has issued an order certifying a consumer class action.

Since November 9, 2017, eight consumer class action complaints have
been filed against us in Canada (in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice, the Supreme Court of British Columbia, and the Quebec
Superior Court), each on behalf of a putative class of purchasers
of cellular phones and other cellular devices, alleging various
violations of Canadian competition and consumer protection laws.

The claims are similar to those in the United States Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) and U.S. consumer class action complaints. The
complaints seek unspecified damages.

One of the complaints in the Supreme Court of British Columbia has
since been discontinued by the plaintiffs.

QUALCOMM said, "We have not yet answered the complaints."

On April 15, 2019, the Quebec Superior Court held a class
certification hearing, and on April 30, 2019, the court issued an
order certifying a class.

QUALCOMM said, "We believe the plaintiffs' claims are without
merit."

QUALCOMM Incorporated designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
digital communication products worldwide. It operates through three
segments: Qualcomm CDMA Technologies (QCT); Qualcomm Technology
Licensing (QTL); and Qualcomm Strategic Initiatives (QSI). QUALCOMM
Incorporated was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.


RANIERI LAW: Rowe Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------
Nanci Rowe, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Ranieri Law LLC, Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-61219 (S.D. Fla, May 14, 2019), seeks injunctive relief,
statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable
remedies for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Ranieri is a business of credit repair services. Rowe claims that
it place telemarketing calls to her cellular phone number without
her express consent. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew Fornaro, Esq.
      MATTHEW FORNARO, P.C.
      11555 Heron Bay Boulevard, Suite 200
      Coral Springs, FL 33076
      Tel: (954) 324-3651
      Email: mfornaro@fornarolegal.com


REALOGY HOLDINGS: Fenley Suit vs. Subsidiaries, et al. Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Realogy Holdings Corp.'s subsidiaries are facing a putative class
action complaint filed on April 25, 2019 by plaintiff Elizabeth
Fenley, 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 case is styled, Fenley v. Realogy Franchise Group LLC,
Sotheby's International Realty, Inc., Wish Properties, Inc. and
DOES 1-100 (Superior Court of California, Kern County).

The complaint is filed against Wish Properties, Inc, a Sotheby's
International Realty independently-owned franchisee doing business
as Wish Sotheby's International Realty ("Wish SIR").  The complaint
also names Realogy Franchise Group LLC and Sotheby's International
Realty, Inc., wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company, as alleged
joint employers of the franchisee's independent sales agents and
seeks to certify a class that could potentially include all agents
in California affiliated with any Realogy Franchise Group brand.

The plaintiff alleges that all defendants are jointly responsible
for misclassifying Wish SIR's agents as independent contractors and
failed to reimburse for business expenses, provide accurate wage
statements and timely pay wages, all in violation of the California
Labor Code.  The complaint also asserts an unfair business practice
claim.

Realogy Holdings Corp. is a holding company for its consolidated
subsidiaries including Realogy Intermediate Holdings LLC and
Realogy Group LLC and its consolidated subsidiaries.  Realogy,
through its subsidiaries, is a global provider of residential real
estate services.  Neither Realogy Holdings, the indirect parent of
Realogy Group, nor Realogy Intermediate, the direct parent company
of Realogy Group, conducts any operations other than with respect
to its respective direct or indirect ownership of Realogy Group.


REALOGY HOLDINGS: Sitzer and Winger Class Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Realogy Holdings Corp., among other defendants, is defending
against a putative class action complaint filed on April 29, 2019
by plaintiffs Joshua Sitzer and Amy Winger, 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 case is styled, Sitzer and Winger v. The National Association
of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc.,
RE/MAX Holdings, Inc., and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri).

The complaint contains substantially similar allegations, and seeks
the same relief under the Sherman Act, as the Sawbill and Moehrl
litigations.  The Sitzer litigation is limited both in allegations
and relief sought to the State of Missouri, and includes an
additional cause of action for alleged violation of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA).  The Company has not yet been
served with the complaint.

Realogy Holdings Corp. is a holding company for its consolidated
subsidiaries including Realogy Intermediate Holdings LLC and
Realogy Group LLC and its consolidated subsidiaries.  Realogy,
through its subsidiaries, is a global provider of residential real
estate services.  Neither Realogy Holdings, the indirect parent of
Realogy Group, nor Realogy Intermediate, the direct parent company
of Realogy Group, conducts any operations other than with respect
to its respective direct or indirect ownership of Realogy Group.


REALOGY HOLDINGS: Subsidiary Still Defends Whitlach Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled, Whitlach v. Premier Valley, Inc. d/b/a Century
21 M&M and Century 21 Real Estate LLC (California Superior Court
for the County of Alameda), the defendants are seeking to:

     -- compel arbitration of the claims not related to the
California Private Attorneys General Act ("non-PAGA claims"),

     -- stay the PAGA claim pending resolution of the arbitrable
claims, and

     -- change venue.

Realogy Holdings Corp. 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 is a putative class action
complaint filed on December 20, 2018 by plaintiff James Whitlach
against Premier Valley Inc., a Century 21 Real Estate
independently-owned franchisee doing business as Century 21 M&M
("Century 21 M&M").  The complaint also names Century 21 Real
Estate LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company and the
franchisor of Century 21 Real Estate ("Century 21"), as an alleged
joint employer of the franchisee's independent sales agents and
seeks to certify a class that could potentially include all agents
of both Century 21 M&M and Century 21 in California.

The plaintiff alleges that Century 21 M&M misclassified all of its
independent real estate agents, salespeople, sales professionals,
broker associates and other similar positions as independent
contractors, failed to pay minimum wages, failed to provide meal
and rest breaks, failed to pay timely wages, failed to keep proper
records, failed to provide appropriate wage statements, made
unlawful deductions from wages, and failed to reimburse plaintiff
and the putative class for business related expenses, resulting in
violations of the California Labor Code.  The complaint also
asserts an unfair business practice claim based on the alleged
violations.

On February 15, 2019, the plaintiff amended his complaint to assert
a claim pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act
("PAGA").  The PAGA claim included in the amended complaint are
substantively similar to those asserted in the original complaint.
Under California law, PAGA claims are generally not subject to
arbitration and may result in exposure in the form of additional
penalties.  In April 2019, the defendants filed motions to compel
arbitration of the non-PAGA claims, to stay the PAGA claim pending
resolution of the arbitrable claims and to change venue.

Realogy Holdings Corp. is a holding company for its consolidated
subsidiaries including Realogy Intermediate Holdings LLC and
Realogy Group LLC and its consolidated subsidiaries.  Realogy,
through its subsidiaries, is a global provider of residential real
estate services.  Neither Realogy Holdings, the indirect parent of
Realogy Group, nor Realogy Intermediate, the direct parent company
of Realogy Group, conducts any operations other than with respect
to its respective direct or indirect ownership of Realogy Group.


REYNOLDS METALS: Cothern Suit Moved From Pennsylvania to Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled TERRY COTHERN, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY,
LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-00140, was transferred on May 7, 2019, from
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of (Chicago).

The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-03064
to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings the action under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act for declaratory judgment,
monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest and
costs, including a reasonable attorney's fee as a result of the
Defendant's alleged failure to pay the Plaintiff and other salaried
supervisors an overtime premium for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chris Burks, Esq.
          Joshua Jon Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: chris@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

Defendant Reynolds Consumer Products, LLC, is represented by:

          Robert W. Pritchard, Esq.
          Christian Angotti, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          625 Liberty Avenue, 26th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 201-7628
          E-mail: rpritchard@littler.com
                  cangotti@littler.com


RHAPSODY INTERNATIONAL: Settles Music Royalties Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Rhapsody International,
Inc. regarding a class settlement.

A settlement has been reached with Rhapsody International Inc.
("Rhapsody") in a case known as Lowery et. al. v. Rhapsody
International, Inc. et al. concerning the mechanical royalties of
certain copyright holders. Plaintiffs allege Rhapsody unlawfully
reproduced and distributed certain copyrighted musical compositions
to Rhapsody's users via its music streaming service. Rhapsody
denies the allegations and does not admit liability in agreeing to
the settlement.

WHO IS A CLASS MEMBER?
You may be a class member if you are the owner of mechanically
distributed and/or reproduced rights in Qualifying Registered Works
that were made available or played on the Rhapsody music service in
the United States from March 7, 2013 (registered with the U.S.
Copyright Office on or before March 7, 2016) to March 21, 2019 and
Qualifying Unregistered Works that were not registered with the U.
S. Copyright office.

WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?
For each validly claimed Qualified Registered Work that was played
at least once in its entirety, Rhapsody will pay up to $35 (reduced
pro-rata where there is more than one claiming rights holder for
the same work or the total amount of claims exceeds a set cap of
$10,000,000). To be eligible, the work: (a) must have been
registered with the Copyright Office; (b) for songs with a street
release date prior to March 7, 2016, the copyright must have been
registered prior to March 7, 2016; (c) for songs with a street
release date after March 7, 2016, the copyright must have been
registered within three months of the street release date; and (d)
must be one for which Rhapsody did not have a voluntary or
compulsory license.

For each validly claimed Qualified Unregistered Work that was
played more than 24 times in its entirety by someone other than the
copyright holder and for which Rhapsody did not have a voluntary or
compulsory license, Rhapsody will pay $1.00 (reduced pro rata where
there is more than one claiming rights holder for the same work or
the total amount of claims exceeds a set cap of $10,000,000).

The cap referenced above could increase up to $20 million under
certain circumstances. For more information about those
circumstances, please see paragraphs 82-89 of the Settlement
Agreement.

The Settlement Website below provides complete instructions that
you need to follow when filing a claim.

WHAT ARE MY OPTIONS?
You must submit a claim online by December 31, 2019 or by mail
postmarked no later than December 31, 2019 to receive a payment.
You can opt-out of the class and keep your right to pursue your own
lawsuit about these claims by mail, postmarked by July 5, 2019. You
can also object to the settlement by mail, postmarked by July 5,
2019.  For details on how to opt-out, object, or to file a claim,
please visit www.RhapsodyNOIClassAction.com or contact the Claim
Administrator. If you do nothing you will not receive a payment and
you will be bound by the decisions of the Court.

COURT HEARING AND ATTORNEYS' FEES
The Court will hold a hearing on March 13, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. PT to
consider whether to approve the settlement. If the settlement is
approved, the attorneys for the class have represented to the Court
that they intend to ask for an award of attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses between $5,511,878 and $5,661,877.50, and potentially an
additional $75,000-$150,000 in fees, costs and expenses incurred
between now and the Court's approval. The attorneys for the class
have also represented they will seek class representative payments
of $2,500 for each of the named plaintiffs. You may attend the
hearing, but you do not have to. Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys'
Fees and Costs will be posted on the website after it is filed.

MORE INFORMATION
This is only a summary. For more information, please visit:
www.RhapsodyNOIClassAction.com, or contact the Claim Administrator
by calling 1-833-253-8061 or by writing to Lowery v. Rhapsody, c/o
Claim Administrator P.O. Box 58232, Philadelphia, PA 19102-8232.
[GN]


RICHMOND COUNTY, GA: Property Owners Mull Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Augusta Chronicle reports that approximately 2,500 irate
Richmond County, Georgia, property owners, including Mayor Pop
Newman, blocked Greene Street, cheering suggestions that a class
action suit against the county Board of Tax Assessors be instituted
and that Chief Tax Appraiser Gene B. Meads Sr. be fired.

The taxpayers meeting was scheduled in the state courtroom, which
holds about 300, but overflowed that room before that meeting
began.

The protest was the result of recently received residential tax
assessments, which increased an average of 16 percent over 1,979
assessments.

However, many residents told of assessments that soared more than
100 percent over the last year.

A major increase also hit many property owners in 1979 when the
value of residential properties increased 42 percent. [GN]


RINGCENTRAL INC: Supply Pro Files Petition for Writ of Certiorari
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Supply Pro Sorbents, LLC, filed with the Supreme Court of
United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter
entitled Supply Pro Sorbents, LLC v. RingCentral, Inc., Case No.
18-1381.

Response is due on June 3, 2019.

Supply Pro wants the Supreme Court to determine whether the Ninth
Circuit err by following FCC commentary to hold that an
"'incidental [fax] advertisement' 'does not convert the entire
communication into an advertisement,' considering "the amount of
space devoted to advertising versus the amount of space used for
information," when the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the
FCC's own codified regulation define a fax advertisement as
"any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of
any property, goods, or services."

The Lower Court Case is styled SUPPLY PRO SORBENTS, LLC,
individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons v. RINGCENTRAL, INC., Case No. 17-16528,
in United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The District Court case is captioned as SUPPLY PRO SORBENTS, LLC,
individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons v. RINGCENTRAL, INC., Case No.
16-cv-02113-JSW, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

The District Court granted the Defendant's Rule 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and denied the Defendant's motion under
the doctrine of primary jurisdiction as moot.  The Plaintiff
appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, on April 21,
2016, Supply Pro Sorbents, LLC ("SPS") filed a putative class
action against the Company in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, alleging common law conversion
and violations of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") arising from fax cover sheets used by the Company's
customers when sending facsimile transmissions over the Company's
system ("SPS Lawsuit").  SPS seeks statutory damages, costs,
attorneys' fees and an injunction in connection with its TCPA
claim, and unspecified damages and punitive damages in connection
with its conversion claim.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner Supply Pro Sorbents, LLC, is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 North La Salle Street, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500
          E-mail: phil@classlawyers.com


ROCKLER COMPANIES: Figueroa Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE FIGUEROA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. ROCKLER COMPANIES, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-03917 (S.D. N.Y., May 1, 2019) brought this civil
rights action for Rockler Companies' 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 goods and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website,
www.rockler.com is not equally accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA, the Complaint
asserts.

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 is a hardware retailer that markets tools and related
products, and owns and operates the website, www.rockler.com,
offering features which should allow all consumers to access the
goods and services and which Defendant ensures the delivery of such
goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
     COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
     300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (929) 575-4175
     Email: Joseph@cml.legal

          - and -

     Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
     Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
     GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
     150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
     New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
     Phone: (212) 228-9795
     Email: nyjg@aol.com
            danalgottlieb@aol.com


ROYAL ADMINISTRATION: Anderson Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Anderson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Royal Administration Services, Inc., and Does
1 through 10 inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-02348 (C.D. Calif., March
28, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for violation of
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendants contacted the Plaintiff using an automatic telephone
dialing system seeking to promote or sell their services without
express consent.    

The Plaintiff is a natural person residing in Santa Monica,
California.

The Defendant is an automotive service plans company. Defendant
uses automatic telephone dialing system to promote or sell their
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: Settlement in Ontiveros Suit Has Prelim. OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Dolly M. Gee granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement in the lawsuit
titled Yadir A. Ontiveros v. Safelite Fulfillment, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-07118-DMG-RAO (C.D. Cal.).

According to the Court's civil minutes, following discussions with
counsel, the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class
action settlement is granted for the reasons stated on the record
and subject to the changes to the Class Notice requested by the
Court.  The Court requests that the Plaintiffs' counsel arrange for
a Web site where information related to this class action
settlement can be viewed by class members.

The Plaintiffs' counsel shall file with the Court and upload a copy
of the motion for fees and incentive awards onto the website at
least three weeks before the deadline for class members to file
objections and opt outs.  The Plaintiffs shall file a confirmation
that the LWDA has been notified about this proposed class action
settlement.

By May 7, 2019, Counsel shall e-mail to the Clerk of Court a copy
of the class notice in Word format for the Court to review.
Thereafter, a written order will issue.

The hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class
action settlement will be held on September 20, 2019, at 10:00
a.m.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          222 N Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245-5629
          Telephone: (424) 292-2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Daniel J. Clark, Esq.
          VORYS SATER SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP
          52 East Gay Street
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 464-6400
          Facsimile: (614) 464-6350
          E-mail: djclark@vorys.com


SAINTE-MARTHE-SUR-LE-LAC: Residents Prepare to File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shakti Langlois-Ortega, writing for Global News, reports that a
group of Sainte-Marthe-sur-le-Lac flood victims are filing a class
action lawsuit against the municipality.

Steven Proulx, who is involved in the lawsuit, says that the goal
is to give residents what they deserve.

"I lost everything," he told Global News.

Hundreds of residents gathered on May 3 in the off-island suburb to
discuss the class action, Proulx said.

Gérard Samet, a lawyer representing the group, has confirmed he is
preparing the lawsuit and said it will be filed in the coming
days.

"The priority is to give the people what is owed to them, and then
will we talk about pressing charges," said Proulx.

Residents are accusing the city of negligence concerning the dike
burst that sent water from the Lake of Two Mountains rushing into
2,500 homes and forced 6,000 residents to flee.

As of Saturday, May 4, 832 houses are still flooded in
Sainte-Marthe-sur-le-Lac, leaving 5,506 flood victims displaced
from their homes.Specialized work crews raced to temporarily repair
the breach in the dike on Sunday, May 5, by adding gravel rocks and
membrane.

Saint-Marthe-sur-le-Lac mayor Sonia Paulus says the dike should be
completely plugged by Monday, May 6. As waters levels in the Lake
of Two Mountains continue to recede, there remains no permanent
solution for the future of the dike and the area it protects.

Mayor Paulus says she will stand for her citizens.

"I do not want to force these people to move," Paulus said. "They
have to stay in their city."

Premier François Legault said on May 2 that his government is
looking at several solutions. "It may take months; we need to study
the different scenarios," Legault said.

Water levels, she said, have lowered by five inches in the last 24
hours, but the state of emergency remains in place.

Public health officials also reminded residents of the health risks
associated with contaminated water and to used necessary
precautions when touching soiled objects. [GN]


SB SOUTHERN: Franklin FLSA Suit Moved From W.D. to N.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned DAVID FRANKLIN, individually and
for all others similarly situated v. SB SOUTHERN WELDING, LLC and
SHANE BOSTON, Case No. 7:19-cv-00033, was transferred on May 7,
2019, from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Texas to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
(Dallas).

The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01104-N
to the proceeding.

Mr. Franklin alleges that the Defendants do not pay their welders
overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.  He contends
that although these workers regularly work more than 40 hours a
week, they do not receive the overtime premium dictated by the
FLSA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard J. Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Telecopier: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

               - and -

          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: Adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  mjosephson@mybackwages.com


SEIDBERG LAW: Akins Settlement Has Final Court Approval
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Arizona issued
an Order granting Parties' Joint Motion for Class Certification and
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case captioned
Aaleon Akins, Plaintiff, v. Seidberg Law Offices PC, Defendant. No.
CV-18-00954-PHX-DJH. (D. Ariz.).

After arms-length negotiations, the Plaintiff and the Defendant
entered into a Class Action Settlement Agreement (Agreement), which
is subject to review under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.  

Class Certification

Final approval of a class action settlement requires, as a
threshold matter, an assessment of whether the class satisfies the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b).

Because no facts that would affect these requirements have changed
since the Court preliminarily approved the class on October 23,
2018, this Order incorporates by reference its prior analysis under
Rules 23(a) and (b) as set forth in the order granting preliminary
approval.  

Accordingly, class certification is granted.

Settlement Agreement

The Court finds that adequate notice was sent to the settlement
class members as required in Preliminary Approval Motion and no
members objected or requested to be excluded from the class.

The Court further finds that the settlement of this matter, on the
terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement, is in all respects
fundamentally fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interest
of the Class Members, especially in light of the benefits to the
Class Members; the strength of the Plaintiff's alleged claims; the
strength of Defendant's alleged defenses; the complexity, expense,
and probable duration of further litigation; the risk and delay
inherent in possible appeals; the risk of collecting any judgment
obtained on behalf of the Class; and the limited amount of any
potential total recovery for the Class.

Class Members: Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), the Lawsuit is hereby
certified as a class action on behalf of all individuals with an
Arizona address to whom during the period from March 27, 2017,
through October 23, 2018, Defendant sent a letter substantially
similar to Exhibit B to Plaintiff's Complaint and whose letter was
not returned as undeliverable. Excluded from the Class are:

     a. any person who is already subject to an existing signed
general release that covers Seidberg Law Offices, P.C.

     b. any person who is deceased as of the date of preliminary
certification

     c. any person who has filed for bankruptcy protection under
Title 11 of the United States Code on or after the start of the
class period; and

     d. any class member who timely mails a request for exclusion.

Class Representative and Class Counsel Appointment: Pursuant to
Rule 23, the Court certifies Plaintiff Aaleon Akins as the Class
Representative and Russell S. Thompson IV and David N. McDevitt as
Class Counsel for the Class Members.

Class Certification: The Court finds that the Lawsuit satisfies the
applicable prerequisites for class action treatment under Rule 23,
namely:

     a. the Class Members are so numerous that joinder of all of
them in the Lawsuit is impracticable;

     b. there are questions of law and fact common to the Class
Members, which predominate over any individual questions,

     c. the claims of the Plaintiff are typical of the claims of
the Class Members,

     d. the Plaintiff and Class Counsel have fairly and adequately
represented and protected the interests of all of the Class
Members, and

     e. Class treatment of these claims will be efficient and
manageable, thereby achieving an appreciable measure of judicial
economy, and a class action is superior to other available methods
for a fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy.

Agreement Terms: The Agreement, which is on file in this case shall
be deemed incorporated herein, and the proposed settlement set
forth in the Agreement is finally approved and shall be consummated
in accordance with the terms and provisions thereof, except as
amended by any order issued by this Court. The material terms of
the Settlement include, but are not limited to, the following:

     a. Defendant shall pay Plaintiff $1,000 in statutory damages

     b. Defendant shall pay Plaintiff an additional $1,000 in
compensation for her service as Class Representative  and

     c. Defendant shall pay to the class administrator the total
sum of $4,000.00. The class administrator shall distribute such
funds equally among all members of the Class. The checks to class
members shall be distributed as provided for in the Agreement.

The Joint Motion for Class Certification and Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 20, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y49mnz6n from Leagle.com.

Aaleon Akins, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by David Neal McDevitt, Thompson
Consumer Law Group PLLC, Joseph Michael Panvini, Thompson Consumer
Law Group PLLC & Russell Snow Thompson, IV, Thompson Consumer Law
Group PLLC, 5235 E Southern Ave, D106-618, Mesa, AZ, 85206

Seidberg Law Offices PC, Defendant, represented by Kenneth William
Seidberg, Seidberg Law Offices PC, PO Box 7290, Phoenix, AZ,
85011-7290 & Manuel Harry Newburger -- mnewburger@bn-lawyers.com --
Barron & Newburger PC.


SOUTHERN CO: Securities Class Suit by Monroe County ERS Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Southern Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a putative securities class action suit initiated by
Monroe County Employees' Retirement System.

In January 2017, a putative securities class action complaint was
filed against Southern Company, certain of its officers, and
certain former Mississippi Power officers in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia by Monroe County
Employees' Retirement System on behalf of all persons who purchased
shares of Southern Company's common stock between April 25, 2012
and October 29, 2013.

The complaint alleges that Southern Company, certain of its
officers, and certain former Mississippi Power officers made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Kemper
County energy facility in violation of certain provisions under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages and
litigation costs and attorneys' fees. In 2017, the plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint that provided additional detail about their
claims, increased the purported class period by one day, and added
certain other former Mississippi Power officers as defendants.

Also in 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' amended complaint with prejudice, to which the
plaintiffs filed an opposition. In March 2018, the court issued an
order granting, in part, the defendants' motion to dismiss.

The court dismissed certain claims against certain officers of
Southern Company and Mississippi Power and dismissed the
allegations related to a number of the statements that plaintiffs
challenged as being false or misleading. In April 2018, the
defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's order,
seeking dismissal of the remaining claims in the lawsuit.

In August 2018, the court denied the motion for reconsideration and
denied a motion to certify the issue for interlocutory appeal.

The Southern Company, through its subsidiaries, engages in the
generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity. It
operates in four segments: Gas Distribution Operations, Gas
Pipeline Investments, Wholesale Gas Services, and Gas Marketing
Services. The Southern Company was founded in 1945 and is
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.


SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Canterbury Earthquake Claimants File Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Newsroom reports that a class action lawsuit is being taken against
Southern Response, backed by an Australian litigation funding firm,
seeking redress for Canterbury earthquake claimants.

Southern Response is the government-owned insurance company
responsible for settling claims by AMI policy holders for
Canterbury earthquake damage.

Lawyer for the claimants, Grant Cameron, said they have got
financial backing from a specialist Australian firm which funds
such law suits.

"Claims Funding Australia is a major litigation funder and so we
can now see this through to completion, no matter how long it might
take."

The claimants have alleged the government owned Southern Response,
which picked up quake claims after private insurer AMI failed, paid
policyholders less than they were entitled to.

Cameron said the funding deal and pending legal action meant that
those who settled before 1 October 2014 can come forward.

He said there could be as many as 3000 affected policyholders left
short about $300 million.

The claimants allege Southern Response did not disclose the full
costs of rebuilding and repairs but provided only abridged reports,
which were used to settle claims.

The original claimants, Brendan and Colleen Ross, said the funding
deal and class action would ensure Southern Response had to answer
for its conduct.

They have said they were short changed by $100,000 when they
settled on the basis of the shortened report.

"We think that the many hundreds of policyholders who didn't
receive the settlements that they were entitled to can now get
access to justice, something they would never have obtained on
their own," they said in a statement.

The lawsuit seeks the difference between the abridged and full
reports, along with $25,000 in general damages, interest and costs,
and also an admission from Southern Response that it breached the
Fair Trading Act.

Class actions allow large numbers of people to join together to
take a case to court. They are unusual in New Zealand, but common
overseas where specialist firms funds the case and take a
percentage of any settlement.

Southern Response chairman Ross Butler resigned in December last
year after a report that found a private security firm acting on
the crown agency's behalf made potentially illegal recordings of
quake claimants. [GN]


STATE COLLECTION: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned KAYLA STAMM, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
STATE COLLECTION SERVICE INC., the Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-00672 (E.D Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order certifying a class, appointing the Plaintiff as class
representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief
from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement
that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of
this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896
(7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh
Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in
Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class
representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other
methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class. Fulton
Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545-46 (7th Cir.
2017).[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com

STATE FARM: Class of Insureds in Florida Certified in Sos Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Paul G. Byron granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Class Certification in the lawsuit
styled ANTHONY SOS v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 6:17-cv-00890-PGB-LRH (M.D. Fla.).

The Court certifies a class (the "Florida Class") pursuant to Rule
23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure consisting of:

     All insureds of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
     Company and any subsidiary insurance companies with Florida
     automobile insurance policies that provide Auto Physical
     Damage coverage for a total loss insured leased vehicle,
     whose total loss claim payment did not include full state
     and local sales tax and tag title fees, within the five year
     time period prior to the date on which this lawsuit was
     filed until the date of any certification order.

Anthony Sos is certified as representative of the Florida Class.

Christopher Lynch, Esq., Christopher J. Lynch, P.A., Edmund A.
Normand, Esq., Normand Law PLLC, and Jacob Lawrence Phillips are
certified as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g)(1).

The parties shall jointly file for approval by the Court a proposed
notice to Florida Class members; alternatively, if the parties
cannot agree on a proposed notice, the Plaintiff shall file a
proposed notice, and State Farm shall file any objections within
three days of the filing of the Plaintiff's proposed notice.

The Motion is otherwise denied.[CC]


STEVEN ADLER: Schalamar HOA Seeks to Certify Class of Homeowners
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled Schalamar Creek Mobile
Homeowner's Association, Inc., on behalf of the homeowner-members
in its representative capacity and on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Steven Adler, Lorraine DeMarco, R.
Scott Provost, Charles Crook, Marti Newkirk, Murex Properties,
L.L.C., The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Randall
Knapp, Julie Jennings, f/k/a Julie Knapp, J & J Sanitation
Services, Inc., Osprey Links, LLC, Schalamar GP, Inc., Richard Lee,
David Eastman, Lutz, Bobo & Telfair, P.A., d/b/a Lutz, Bobo,
Telfair, Eastman & Lee, f/k/a Lutz, Webb & Bobo, P.A., Florida
Manufactured Housing Association, Inc., Case No.
8:19-cv-00291-JSM-AEP (M.D. Fla.), seeks certification of a class
defined as:

    ". . . [A]ll persons who are or were mobile homeowners in the
     Schalamar Creek Golf Mobile Home Park from 2009 to the
     present and have identical, or substantially similar
     underlying mobile home lot rental agreements with identical
     or substantially similar restrictions or sub-parts
     requiring, inter alia:

     * the forced surrender of the Plaintiff homeowners' resale
       purchasers' right to assume the resale sellers' less
       expensive lot rental prospectus (denoted P1 through P5)
       and instead require the Plaintiff homeowners to assume and
       adopt a later P6 prospectus requiring significantly higher
       lot rental and an increased rent escalation percentage,
       and causing a $10,000 to $15,000 reduction in resale
       value;

     * payment by the Plaintiff homeowners of fraudulent,
       excessive, and improperly calculated ad valorem tax
       pass-ons resulting from the fraudulent 2011 sale and
       purchase of the Park by the Defendants and currently
       illegal and fraudulent inclusion of ad valorem tax
       pass-ons related to income producing portions of the Park
       clubhouse, a bank, a restaurant, and RV storage lot; and

     * direct-billed annual payment by the Plaintiff homeowners
       of perpetual sanitation costs to Defendant Jennings,
       Defendant Knapp's sister and her family-owned corporation,
       J & J Sanitation Services, as a condition of home
       ownership.

     The Class includes those Plaintiffs who have:

     * been forced or expect to be forced to be fraudulently
       required to surrender of the resale purchasers' right to
       assume the resale sellers' pre-existing prospectus;

     * suffered retaliation or expect to suffer retaliation by
       the Defendants as a result of their and their Schalamar
       HOA's criticism of the Defendants' insistence that all
       listing or purchasing homeowners assume and adopt the P6
       prospectus;

     * paid the excessive ad valorem pass-ons and the perpetual
       sanitation costs or who received threats of liens or
       eviction or restrictions of their use of Park facilities
       or amenities for their nonpayment; and

     * suffered the deprivation or expect to suffer the
       deprivation of a handicap accessible Park clubhouse,
       facilities, golf course, and common areas."[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel W. Perry, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL PERRY
          4767 New Broad St., #1007
          Orlando, FL 32814-6405
          Telephone: (407) 894-9003
          E-mail: dan@danielperry.com


STUPAR SCHUSTER: Certification of Class Sought in Goedde Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Goedde moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit titled SCOTT GOEDDE, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. STUPAR, SCHUSTER &
BARTELL, S.C., and ASSOCIATED BANK, N.A., Case No. 2:19-cv-00664
(E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the motion
for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the
Defendants) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing
schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed
with the Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement
of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that
other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class,
the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco,
Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June
20, 2017).  The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has attempted
a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class
representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D.
Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut,
Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis.
Feb. 24, 2016).

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
contends.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


SUNTRUST BANK: Asks High Court to Review Bickerstaff Class Cert.
----------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company has
petitioned the Georgia Supreme Court to review the decision of the
Georgia Court of Appeals in affirming the grant of class
certification in Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank.

This case was filed in the Fulton County State Court on July 12,
2010, and an amended complaint was filed on August 9, 2010.

Plaintiff asserts that all overdraft fees charged to his account
which related to debit card and ATM transactions are actually
interest charges and therefore subject to the usury laws of
Georgia.

Plaintiff has brought claims for violations of civil and criminal
usury laws, conversion, and money had and received, and purports to
bring the action on behalf of all Georgia citizens who incurred
such overdraft fees within the four years before the complaint was
filed where the overdraft fee resulted in an interest rate being
charged in excess of the usury rate.

On April 8, 2013, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification and that motion was denied but the ruling was later
reversed and remanded by the Georgia Supreme Court. On October 6,
2017, the trial court granted plaintiff's motion for class
certification and the decision was affirmed by the Georgia Court of
Appeals on March 6, 2019.

The Bank filed a petition with the Georgia Supreme Court on April
15, 2019, asking the court to review the decision.

SunTrust Banks, Inc. operates as the holding company for SunTrust
Bank that provides various financial services for consumers,
businesses, corporations, institutions, and not-for-profit entities
in the United States. It operates in two segments, Consumer and
Wholesale. SunTrust Banks, Inc. was founded in 1891 and is
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Wants Remaining Claims in ERISA Case Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that a motion for partial
summary judgment as to successor liability and a separate motion
for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the remaining claims in a
class action lawsuit have been filed by the defendants and are
pending.

On March 11, 2011, the Company and certain officers, directors, and
employees of the Company were named in a putative class action
alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under  Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by offering certain
STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in the Plan.

The plaintiffs purport to represent all current and former Plan
participants who held the STI Classic Mutual Funds in their Plan
accounts from April 2002 through December 2010 and seek to recover
alleged losses these Plan participants supposedly incurred as a
result of their investment in the STI Classic Mutual Funds.

This action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, Atlanta Division (the "District Court").

Subsequently, plaintiffs' counsel initiated a substantially similar
lawsuit against the Company naming two new plaintiffs.

On June 27, 2014, Brown, et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al.,
another putative class action alleging breach of fiduciary duties
associated with the inclusion of STI Classic Mutual Funds as
investment options in the Plan, was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia but then was transferred to the
District Court.


After various appeals, the cases were remanded to the District
Court. On March 25, 2016, a consolidated amended complaint was
filed, consolidating all of these pending actions into one case.
The Company filed an answer to the consolidated amended complaint
on June 6, 2016.

Subsequent to the closing of fact discovery, plaintiffs filed their
second amended consolidated complaint on December 19, 2017 which
among other things named five new defendants.

On January 2, 2018, defendants filed their answer to the second
amended consolidated complaint. Defendants' motion for partial
summary judgment was filed on January 12, 2018, and on January 16,
2018 the plaintiffs filed for motion for class certification.
Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment was granted by the
District Court on May 2, 2018, which held that all claims prior to
March 11, 2005 have been dismissed as well as dismissing three
individual defendants from action.

On June 27, 2018, the District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification. On March 29, 2019, the District Court
dismissed RidgeWorth Capital Management, Inc. from the lawsuit.

A motion for partial summary judgment as to successor liability and
a separate motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the
remaining claims have been filed by the defendants and are
pending.

SunTrust Banks, Inc. operates as the holding company for SunTrust
Bank that provides various financial services for consumers,
businesses, corporations, institutions, and not-for-profit entities
in the United States. It operates in two segments, Consumer and
Wholesale. SunTrust Banks, Inc. was founded in 1891 and is
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.


SUPERIOR TALENT: Zamarripa Sues Wage & Hour Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, ALEJANDRO ZAMARRIPA, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SUPERIOR TALENT
RESOURCES, INC., corporatíon; and DOES I through 50, inclusive,
the Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-00982 (Cal. Super., May 22, 2019),
alleges that STR has systematically implemented policies and
practices that violate California wage and hour laws.

For example, STR has failed to maintain required employment records
and it has failed to provide Plaintiff and othe¡ non-exempt
employees with accurate, itemized wage statements. The intent and
consequence of STR's actions is to keep non-exempt employees in the
dark about their rights to a fair workplace, In addition, STR has
systematically violated California background check laws, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Aubry Wand, Esq.
          THE WAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          400 Corporate Pointe, Ste 300
          Culver City, CA 90230-7620
          Telephone: (310) 590-4503
          Facsimile: (310) 590-4596
          E-mail: awand@wandlawfirm.com

TAISHAN GYPSUM: Court Authorizes Limited Discovery in Amorin
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, Norfolk Division, issued a Memorandum Order authorizing
appropriate limited discovery in the case captioned EDUARDO AND
CARMEN AMORIN, et al., Individually, and on behalf of all Others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TAISHAN GYPSUM CO., LTD, F/K/A
SHANDONG TAIHE DONGXIN CO., LTD., et al., Defendants. Civil No.
2:llcv377. (E.D. Va.).

This matter is before the Court for determination of a trial plan
for 175 Virginia Plaintiffs who are members of a certified class of
property owners (or former property owners)1 who suffered various
forms of damages caused by Defendant Taishan's defective drywall
sold in Virginia under the Venture Supply brand name.

The instant case was part of a larger proceeding before the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, which began in
2009 and involved more than 3,500 properties in Florida, Louisiana,
and Virginia. Following remand from the MDL to this Court, the
Virginia Plaintiffs and the Defendants submitted competing trial
plans to the undersigned Judge.  

Ruling on the Remediation Formula On April 30, 2019, this Court
conducted a hearing on the parties' vastly diverging "trial plans."
After hearing from counsel from both sides, for the reasons
outlined in Judge Cooke's order adopting "all of Judge Fallon's
[MDL] findings of facts and legal conclusions," Jt. App'x 21, at 2,
this Court similarly adopts all of Judge Fallon's findings of fact
and legal conclusions made prior to his suggestion of remand. In so
ruling, this Court applies Fourth Circuit precedent reflecting an
apparent presiamptive rule that it "would be improper to permit a
transferor judge to overturn orders of a transferee judge even
though error in the latter might result in reversal of the final
judgment of the transferor court." In re Food Lion, Inc., Fair
Labor Standards Act Effective Scheduling Litig., 73 F.3d 528, 531
(4th Cir. 1996) (quoting Weigle, S.A., The Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, Transferor Courts and Transferee Courts,
78 F.R.D. 575, 577 (1977)); see 6 Newberg on Class Actions § 18:47
(5th ed.). In other words, the wisdom of the transferee judge's
rulings is a matter to be resolved by the appropriate appellate
court.

Alternatively, even if this Court applies a lesser degree of
deference, in light of the opportunities Defendants have already
had in the MDL to contest class-wide remediation damages, and the
absence of any changed circumstances, this Court would still adopt
Judge Fallon's ruling.  

Assuming that the least deferential law of the case standard were
applicable, Defendants fail to demonstrate that Judge Fallon's
damages ruling violates due process and/or conflicts with Virginia
law merely because it is derived from a mathematical model tied to
square footage rather than being based on an individualized
inspection of each subject property followed by an estimate of the
cost to remediate such structure.6 Notably, not only did Defendants
fully participate in the MDL damages hearing addressing the
propriety of the remediation formula, but they were voluntarily
absent during the damages class certification process, a process
that necessarily involved addressing the "commonality" and
"typicality" of the various plaintiffs' remediation damages.   

While this Court declines to revisit Judge Fallon's MDL rulings, it
notes that Judge Fallon based his damages ruling on facially
reasonable factual findings based on in-court credibility
determinations made after hearing live expert testimony that has
not been heard by this Court.

Judge Fallon's fact-based findings include the following: (1) the
scope of remediation work is consistent regardless of the building
type; (2) the cost of the remediation work per square foot is
consistent across various states and can be modified to reflect
local conditions; and (3) the remediation formula is not tied only
to a small sample of seven homes (as argued by Defendants) but
rather has been tested by Plaintiffs' experts over years, across
various states, and proven to be a reliable measure of the costs on
a square foot basis for a full scope remediation of Chinese drywall
properties, when adjusted for location and time.

Remediation Damages - Current Owners

As to any Plaintiff that is a current owner of an affected property
that has not been fully remediated (seventy one claimants), the
damages formula adopted by Judge Fallon will be applied to
determine remediation damages. As to current owners that have
completely remediated (two claimants), the parties agree that the
actual cost of the remediation work is the appropriate property
damage award. For those Plaintiffs governed by the formula, the
appropriate inputs will be: (1) the litigated under air square
footage and (2) the 2019 RS Means National square foot unit price,
adjusted by locality.

Although the Court adopts the damages formula for current owners
who have not fully remediated, the Court agrees with Defendants
that some limited written discovery should be permitted in order to
verify ownership and square footage, as well as set-offs that must
be made based on proceeds that claimants received from earlier
settlements with different defendants. Defendants have already been
provided preliminary proof of these matters, as well as Plaintiffs'
proposed calculations under the formula.

Procedure Forward - Current Owners

To effectuate the expediated calculation of remediation damages for
current owners. Magistrate Judge Krask will oversee the limited
discovery necessary for application of the formula to each of the
seventy-one current owners of a property that has not been
completely remediated. As to the two Plaintiffs that have
completely remediated, Judge Krask will resolve any disputes that
may exist over the actual remediation costs expended by such
Plaintiffs.

This Court will expeditiously rule on any objections to the R&R and
will issue final Rule 54(b) Judgments as to those current-owner
Plaintiffs that elect not to pursue other damages. To the extent a
small subset of current owners elect to pursue other damages, they
will be placed on a discovery plan and evidentiary hearing schedule
consistent with that of former owners.

Damages - Former Owners

One hundred and two claimants no longer own the property
containing, or previously containing, contaminated drywall.
Twenty-three of the former owners partially remediated their
property prior to transfer, whereas seventy-nine others performed
no remediation before they transferred and/or lost ownership, with
some former owners losing their uninhabitable property through
foreclosure or short-sale based on their inability to access the
finds owed by Defendants to allow them to remediate (and continue
living in) their homes.

Although this Court does not find that the damages formula is
controlling as to any former owners, it agrees with and adopts
Judge Fallon's reasoning and conclusions finding that the
remediation damage formula is not only relevant to the
determination of a former owner's diminution damages, but creates a
rebuttable presumption of the diminution in market value.
Accordingly, in this case-specific default class-action context.
the formula is accepted by the Court as valid and reliable evidence
of the diminution in value of the subject property caused by the
defective drywall, unless Defendants present contrary evidence
demonstrating that such formula should not control as to a specific
affected property. Defendants will be afforded some discovery in
the Court's discretion, but the case will not proceed with the full
extent of discovery applicable outside the default context.

This Court's acceptance of the remediation formula as competent
evidence of the diminution in market value is based on Virginia law
acknowledging the relevance of repair damages to calculating
diminution in value, Defendants' long-term delay tactics (which
caused some Plaintiffs to transfer, rather than adequately repair,
their homes, the fact that liability has been established for
approximately a decade yet no damages have been recovered, and the
attendant difficulty in determining the reduction in market value
of the subject properties so many years after the harm was suffered
by the Plaintiffs (with this difficulty being attributable solely
to Defendants.

Procedure Forward - Former Owners

The Court will utilize the services of a Special Master to resolve
all damages claimed by former owners, and the Special Master will
be tasked (by separate written order) with overseeing discovery,
resolving disputes, and issuing an R&R addressing: (1) diminution
in value damages for former owners, with the remediation damages
formula serving as a rebuttable presumption of the diminution in
value and (2) other damages (loss of use, alternative living
expenses, medical damages, bankruptcy losses, etc. Counsel are
instructed to confer and attempt to agree to a Special Master with
sufficient experience and availability to handle such matters. If
counsel cannot agree to a Special Master by noon on Friday, May 24,
2019, they shall each file a notice on the docket providing two
proposed names with relevant qualifications outlined, no later than
close of business on that same day. By May 29, 2019, counsel for
Plaintiffs and counsel for Defendants shall each file a Notice
identifying ten Plaintiffs that no longer own the affected property
to serve as "Priority Plaintiffs" for evidentiary hearings.

In order to obtain the best representative sample, of the ten
Plaintiffs identified by each side, two should have performed
partial remediation and eight should have performed no remediation
prior to transfer. On that same date, counsel shall submit a
written proposal for discovery deadlines for the Priority
Plaintiffs, including fact discovery and expert discovery relevant
to both the diminution in value of the former-owners' affected
properties and other damages. Counsel shall confer prior to making
such submissions in an effort to narrow disagreements.

Judge Krask will review the proposed discovery plans, determine
whether a scheduling hearing or conference call is necessary, and
issue a Scheduling Order. Without curtailing Judge Krask's
discretion, it is this Court's intention that the evidentiary
hearings before the Special Master be completed for all twenty
Priority Plaintiffs before the end of October of this year. After
Judge Krask issues the Scheduling Order, the Special Master will
oversee and regulate all relevant proceedings, including discovery
disputes.

This Court once again reiterates that, in light of Defendants'
default, the Court is authorizing appropriate limited discovery in
its discretion prior to a damages evidentiary hearing;

accordingly, the scope of discovery and the amount of time
allocated for evidentiary hearings will be consistent with a
damages evidentiary hearing, not a trial. After the hearings are
completed, the Special Master will issue an R&R, and the parties
will have the standard objection periods set forth in Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 53. After the Priority cases are resolved, the
Court will afford the parties a short time to determine whether any
remaining claims can be settled, and if they cannot, the Court will
consider creative alternatives to further expedite the resolution
of the remaining claims, including appointing additional Special
Masters so that multiple evidentiary hearings can be conducted
simultaneously.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 20, 2019 Memorandum
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6esdj5k from
Leagle.com.

Eduardo Amorin, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Carmen Amorin, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Kenneth Abel, Individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Arledys Gallardo, Individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Charmaine Fong,
Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Perry
Fontenot, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Cassandra Fontenot, Individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Julianne Frankze, Individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Joshua Frankze,
Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Bryon
Hand, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Laura Haya, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Daniel Haya, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Irene Haya, Individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Robert Popovitch, Individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Jason Purse, Individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Joseph Quartararo,
Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Frank
Topf, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Yvonne Topf, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Cathy Parker Vapy, Individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Hugh Vest, Individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Tracy Vest, Individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Kenneth Wiltz,
Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated &
Barbara Wiltz, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Richard James Serpe, Law
Office of Richard J. Serpe PC,  580 East Main StreetSuite
310Norfolk, VA 23510, Arnold Levin, Levin Sedran & Berman LLP, 510
Walnut Street, Suite 500Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106-3697, Dawn
M. Barrios -- barrios@bkc-law.com -- Barrios, Kingsdorf & Casteix,
pro hac vice, Emma Kingsdorf Schwab -- eschwab@bkc-law.com --
Barrios, Kingsdorf & Casteix, pro hac vice, Frederick Steven Longer
-- flonger@lfsblaw.com -- Levin Sedran & Berman LLP, pro hac vice,
Gerald Edward Meunier, Gainsburgh, Benjamin, David, Meunier &
Warshauer, LLC, 2800 Energy Centre, 1100 Poydras Street, New
Orleans, LA 70160, pro hac vice, Jeffrey Arnold Breit, Breit Cantor
Grana Buckner, PLLC, 7130 Glen Forest Drive, Suite 400, Richmond,
VA 23226, Keith Joseph Verrier -- kverrier@lfsblaw.com -- Levin
Sedran & Berman LLP, pro hac vice

Taian Taishan Plasterboard Co., Ltd. & Taishan Gypsum Co., Ltd.,
formerly known as Shandong Taihe Dongxin Co., Ltd., Defendants,
represented by Bernard Taylor, Sr. -- bernard.taylor@alston.com --
Alston & Bird LLP, pro hac vice, Christina Hull Eikhoff --
christy.eikhoff@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP, pro hac vice,
David Venderbush -- david.venderbush@alston.com -- Alston & Bird
LLP, pro hac vice, Eric David Cook -- ecook@wilsav.com -- Willcox &
Savage PC, Michael Patrick Kenny -- mike.kenny@alston.com -- Alston
& Bird LLP, pro hac vice & Michele Britton Dallman --
mdallman@wilsav.com -- Willcox & Savage PC.


TATE & KIRLIN: Echeverria Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Salomon Echeverria, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Tate & Kirlin Associates,
Inc. and CVI SGP-CO Acquisition Trust, the Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-00421-A (N.D. Tex., May 22, 2019), seeks to recover actual
and statutory damages, injunctive relief, costs, and attorney's
fees pursuant to Defendants' violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is allegedly obligated to
pay a debt for a Zale Delaware Inc credit card with a balance of
$208.86. The "Original Creditor" is Zale Delaware Inc. The "Current
Creditor" is CVI SGP-CO Acquisition Trust. The alleged debt at
issue is an obligation or alleged obligation of a Consumer to pay
money arising out of a transaction in which the money, property, or
services which are the subject of the transaction are primarily for
personal, family, or household purposes.

On or about April 29, 2019, the Defendant Tate sent Plaintiff a
collection letter to collect an alleged debt owed to Defendant CVI
in the amount of $208.86 for an alleged consumer credit card debt
incurred to Zales Delaware Inc. The Letter does not inform the
Plaintiff that it was a communication from a debt collector. The
Letter does not provide the Plaintiff a notice of his consumer
rights to dispute the validity or demand verification of the
alleged consumer debt as required pursuant to 15 U.S.C. section
l692g. The Defendants have used false, deceptive or misleading
representations or means in the collection of the alleged debt when
they failed to provide the Plaintiff a notice of his consumer
rights. The Defendants. The Plaintiff has suffered an informational
injury from the Defendants’ actions, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff:

          Shawn Jaffer, Esq.
          SHAWN JAFFER LAW FIRM PLLC
          9300 John Hickman Pkwy, Suite 1204
          Frisco, TX 75035
          Telephone (214) 210-9910
          Facsimile: (214) 594-6100
          E-mail: shawn@jafflaw.com

TCM FINANCIAL: Aparicio Suit Alleges TCPA and FDCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Imelda Aparicio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TCM Financial Services, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-02403
(C.D. Calif., March 29, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Defendant violated TCPA by placing automatic telephone dialing
system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on his cellular
telephone for the purpose of collecting debts without the
Plaintiff's consent. Additionally, the Plaintiff did not owe the
alleged debt and the Defendant's conduct of repeated, unreasonable
communication has harassed the Plaintiff and violates FDCPA and
RFDCPA.

The Plaintiff is a natural person residing in Los Angeles County in
the state of California. The Plaintiff is a consumer and debtor as
defined by the aforementioned Acts.

The Defendant is a debt collection company that uses mails and
telephones in collecting debts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TELLURIAN BOARD: Hogan Seeks to Halt Share Issuance to Total
------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas L. Hogan, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated stockholders of Tellurian Inc., Plaintiff, v. Charif
Souki, Martin Houston, Meg Gentle, Dillon J. Ferguson, Diana
Derycz-Kessler, Brooke Peterson, Don Turkleson and Eric Festa,
Defendants, Case No. 2019-0354, (Del. Ch., May 14, 2019), seeks to
enjoin the stockholder vote on the approval of a $200 million
issuance of common stock to Total S.A.

Tellurian is an independent natural gas company based in Houston,
Texas where Total S.A. and its subsidiary Total Delaware, Inc.
beneficially own approximately 19% of Tellurian's outstanding
shares.

The proxy statement issued in connection with soliciting
stockholder support for the Share Issuance allegedly failed to
disclose any information concerning the process and/or negotiations
between Tellurian and Total concerning the Common Stock Purchase
Agreement or the alternatives, potential conflicts of interest
harbored by Total and Festa, and financial analysis prepared for
the Board in connection with approval of the Common Stock Purchase
Agreement and the Share Issuance, says the complaint. [BN]

Hogan is represented by:

      Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
      Craig J. Springer, Esq.
      David M. Sborz, Esq.
      ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
      3801 Kennett Pike, Building C, Suite 305
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Tel: (302)-504-4957
      Fax: (302)-397-2681


TELUS COMMUNICATIONS: Siskinds Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Bach, Esq. -- daniel.bach@siskinds.com -- and Tyler Planeta,
Esq. -- tyler.planeta@siskinds.com -- of Siskinds LLP, in an
article for Mondaq, report that on April 4, 2019, the Supreme Court
of Canada issued reasons in TELUS Communications Inc. v. Wellman.
The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision provides important guidance on the
applicability of arbitration clauses in the class action context,
and makes clear that potentially unfair arbitration agreements
should be addressed through the doctrine of unconscionability.

1.  Background

The Plaintiff brought a proposed class action on behalf of Ontario
residents who entered into mobile phone contract subscribers with
the Appellant, TELUS Communications. The Plaintiff alleged that
TELUS engaged in a secret practice of "rounding-up" calls to the
next minute, resulting in overcharges to class members. The class
included consumers, as that term is defined in Ontario's Consumer
Protection Act, and "non-consumers" -- i.e., businesses.

The standard-form contracts the class members signed with TELUS
included an arbitration clause requiring that most claims arising
from the contract be determined by mediation -- and, if mediation
failed, by way of binding arbitration. Ontario's Consumer
Protection Act makes such clauses invalid where they would prevent
consumers from commencing or joining a class action. Where the
Consumer Protection Act is engaged, Ontario courts have interpreted
section 7(5) of Ontario's Arbitration Act, 1991 (the "Act") to
confer discretion to allow all class members -- including
non-consumers -- to pursue their claims alongside consumers in a
class action. That provision of the Act states:

Agreement covering part of dispute
The court may stay the proceeding with respect to the matters dealt
with in the arbitration agreement and allow it to continue with
respect to other matters if it finds that,

(a) the agreement deals with only some of the matters in respect of
which the proceeding was commenced; and

(b) it is reasonable to separate the matters dealt with in the
agreement from the other matters.

TELUS contended that s. 7(5) did not provide the court with
authority to refuse to stay claims that are subject to an
arbitration agreement.

1. The Decision (Per Moldaver, Gascon, Côté, Brown and Rowe JJ)
The majority, accepting TELUS's argument, held that the Act did not
grant the court discretion to refuse to stay non-consumer claims.
In this case, that meant excluding non-consumers from the class
action.

Justice Moldaver reiterated that arbitration clauses contained in
commercial agreements will generally be enforced absent legislative
override. Allowing non-consumer claims to persist in a consumer
class action was "at odds with the policy underlying the Act that
parties should abide by their agreement." The majority set the Act
against Canadian courts' historical hostility to arbitration.

The majority specifically highlighted that Mr. Wellman had not
argued that the agreement in question was unconscionable, and thus
invalid under another provision of the Act -- "arguments over any
potential unfairness resulting from the enforcement of arbitration
clauses contained in standard form contracts are better dealt with
directly through the doctrine of unconscionability" (see, for
example, Heller v. Uber Technologies Inc., 2019 ONCA 1).

1. The Dissent (Per Wagner C.J. and Abella, Karakatsanis and Martin
JJ)
In dissent, Justices Abella and Karakatsanis focused on the
unfairness of the arbitration clause at issue, and criticized the
majority's approach as "the return of textualism" which allowed the
words of section 7(5) to "dominate and extinguish the contextual
policy objections" of both the Act and class actions legislation.
This approach:

"has the effect of forcing litigants to spend thousands of dollars
to resolve a dispute worth a fraction of that cost; denies others
meaningful access to a remedy if they are not prepared, or cannot
afford to, engage in a cost-benefit losing proposition; and invites
the very proliferation of proceedings a class action was invented
to avoid.",

The Ontario Legislature enacted the Act to allow willing parties to
pursue arbitration. The majority's approach would undermine this
objective. The Ontario courts' historical approach avoided this
unpleasant consequence. The dissenting Justices applied the
principle that the statutory interpretation of section 7(5) must be
"reasonable and just", and defined the overall purpose of the Act
as promoting access to justice.

The dissenting justices reviewed the Act and asserted that the
majority's interpretation would undermine the Class Proceeding Act
by making class certification overly cumbersome. They further
highlighted the "corrosive effect on access to justice" of the
majority's interpretation, since imposing arbitration on unwilling
parties would be an "invisible but formidable barrier to a remedy
that presumptively immunizes wrongdoing from accountability
contrary to our must fundamental notions of civil justice." The
dissenting justices' opinion reflects the reality that the
consequence of mandatory arbitration clauses is to deny access to
justice in the context of low-value claims. [GN]


TICKETMASTER: 2,000+ People Express Interest to Join Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marcella Bernardo, writing for NEWS 1130, reports that reports that
Canadians tired of paying mysterious fees on concert tickets are
suing the company responsible for most event sales.

More than 2000 people, including approximately 400 from British
Columbia, have expressed interest in a class action case against
Ticketmaster.

Lawyer Steven Roxborough says the next step is certification.

"And we're waiting on a judge to provide dates, but we're hoping
that would happen within the year."

He says the case, launched by the Winnipeg-based Merchant Law firm,
is based on service or administration charges that could lead to
prices jumping more than 50 per cent higher than advertised rates.

"Through something called drip pricing, the promoted price and the
actual price are two different things," he says. "There's lots of
people who were purchasing tickets, who realized they were being
wronged and there's other people who were purchasing and didn't
realize."

This action, which has been in the works for several months,
includes claims the company exploits exclusive contracts to
monopolize the market.

The federal Competition Bureau is also suing Ticketmaster and Live
Nation over claims both companies use deceptive marketing practices
to jack up the advertised price of a ticket, something Roxborough
says his firm is watching with interest.

"Those proceedings are different, of course, but we are keeping an
eye on those."

He tells NEWS 1130 one of the biggest complaints from possible
plaintiffs involves higher-priced tickets becoming available within
minutes of initial sales blocks quickly selling out.

Roxborough says this case isn't impacted by recent consumer
protections promised by B.C.'s NDP government, but he welcomes that
legislation.

"The government has realized that this is a problem and they're
taking steps. Really comes down to enforcement, so it's not just
about having good legislation, but it's about enforcing the
legislation that is there and we're hopeful that, not only is this
going to be good legislation, but it's going to be legislation that
the government enforces."

In April, Solicitor General Mike Farnworth introduced the Ticket
Sales Act which will ban the use of software to buy large blocks of
tickets which can be re-sold at inflated prices.

Proposed changes don't include limits on how much a ticket can
cost, but sellers will be forced to clearly disclose prices,
guarantee refunds and let buyers know if they're not the original
provider.

Ticketmaster has not responded to NEWS 1130's request for comment,
but the company has issued a statement welcoming legislation to
prevent the use of bots. [GN]


TIME TO EAT: Thomas Seeks Class Certification
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, LAURA THOMAS, on behalf of herself and
other employees similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TIME TO EAT
DINER, INC., a Florida for-profit corporation, and HENRY RYBAK, an
individual, the Defendants,  Case No. 9:19-cv-80485-WPD (S.D.
Fla.), the the Plaintiff asks the Court on May 3, 2019 to:

   a. order that preliminary class certification is appropriate
      and permit notice to:

      "all current and former servers, who worked for any of the
      Defendants anytime during the three years prior to the
      complaint being filed";

   b. order the Defendants to produce within 14 calendar days of
      the Court's Order, a list of each putative class member's
      name, address, telephone numbers, e-mail address, and date
      of birth, in the form of a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, in
      order to effectuate the notice process;

   c. order that within 5 days of the Court's Order, the Notice to

      Employees be posted in a conspicuous location for employees
      see at the Defendants' Restaurant;

   d. authorize Plaintiff to effectuate notice by mailing and
      emailing the proposed Notice to all putative class members
      within 30 days of receipt of the contact information from
      Defendants;

   e. order that potential opt-in, similarly situated plaintiffs
      must consent to opt into this litigation by no later than 60

      days from the date of mailing the notice, and that the
      Plaintiff's counsel shall file all Consent Forms within
      seven days from receipt of each Consent to Join Form;

   f. allow the Plaintiff to conduct a search for additional
      mailing and email addresses/contact information for any
      potential opt-in Plaintiffs whose address may be invalid, or

      whose notice is returned as undeliverable by the United
      States Post Office and re-mail/re-email the Notice to the
      putative plaintiff's last-known address; and

   g. grant all other relief to the Plaintiff that the Court deems

      just.

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Peter Bober, Esq.
          Samara Robbins Bober, Esq.
          BOBER & BOBER, P.A.
          2699 Stirling Road, Suite A-304
          Hollywood, FL 33312
          Telephone: (954) 922-2298
          Facsimile: (954) 922-5455
          E-mail: peter@boberlaw.com

Counsel for the Defendants:

          Karly A. Wannos, Esq.
          COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
          222 Lakeview Ave Ste 120
          West Palm Beach, FL 33410
          Telephone: 561-383-9222
          E-mail: Karly.wannos@csklegal.com

TREEHOUSE FOODS: Consolidated Labor Suits Underway
--------------------------------------------------
TreeHouse Foods, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019, that it is a party to matters challenging its
wage and hour practices, including a number of class actions
consolidated under the caption Negrete v. Ralcorp Holdings, Inc.,
et al, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, in which the plaintiffs allege a pattern of
violations of California and/or federal law at several current and
former Company manufacturing facilities across the State of
California.

TreeHouse Foods said, "While the Company cannot predict with
certainty the results of this or any other legal proceeding, it
does not expect this matter to have a material adverse effect on
its financial condition, results of operations, or business."

TreeHouse Foods, Inc. operates as a food and beverage manufacturer
in the United States, Canada, and Italy. The company operates
through Baked Goods, Beverages, Condiments, Meals, and Snacks
segments. TreeHouse Foods, Inc. was founded in 1862 and is based in
Oak Brook, Illinois.


TREEHOUSE FOODS: Document Production in PERS Suit Due by Aug. 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Public Employees' Retirement Systems of Mississippi v.
TreeHouse Foods, Inc., et al. (previously the Tarara class action),
document production must be substantially completed by August 2,
2019, according to TreeHouse Foods, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2019.

On November 16, 2016, a purported TreeHouse shareholder filed a
class action captioned Tarara v. TreeHouse Foods, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-10632, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against TreeHouse and certain of its
officers.  The complaint, amended on March 24, 2017, is purportedly
brought on behalf of all purchasers of TreeHouse common stock from
January 20, 2016 through and including November 2, 2016.  It
asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
seeks, among other things, damages and costs and expenses.

On December 22, 2016, another purported TreeHouse shareholder filed
an action captioned Wells v. Reed, et al., Case No. 2016-CH-16359,
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, against TreeHouse
and certain of its officers.  This complaint, purportedly brought
derivatively on behalf of TreeHouse, asserts state law claims
against certain officers for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust
enrichment, and corporate waste.

On February 7, 2017, another purported TreeHouse shareholder filed
an action captioned Lavin v. Reed, Case No. 17-cv-01014, in the
Northern District of Illinois, against TreeHouse and certain of its
officers.  This complaint is also purportedly brought derivatively
on behalf of TreeHouse, and it asserts state law claims against
certain officers for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment,
abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and corporate waste.

Finally, on February 8, 2019, another purported TreeHouse
shareholder filed an action captioned Bartelt v. Reed, et al., Case
No. 1:19-cv-00835, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.  Like Wells and Lavin, this
complaint is purportedly brought derivatively on behalf of
TreeHouse and asserts state law claims against certain officers for
breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control,
gross mismanagement, and corporate waste, in addition to asserting
violations of Section 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

All four complaints make substantially similar allegations (though
the amended complaint in Tarara now contains additional detail).
Essentially, the complaints allege that TreeHouse, under the
authority and control of the individual defendants: (i) made
certain false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations, and future prospects; and (ii) failed to
disclose that (a) the Company's private label business was
underperforming; (b) the Company's Flagstone business was
underperforming; (c) the Company's acquisition strategy was
underperforming; (d) the Company had overstated its full-year 2016
guidance; and (e) TreeHouse's statements lacked reasonable basis.
The Bartelt action also includes substantially similar allegations
concerning events in 2017.  The complaints allege that these
actions artificially inflated the market price of TreeHouse common
stock during the class period, thus purportedly harming investors.

The Company said, "We believe that these claims are without merit
and intend to defend against them vigorously."

Since its initial docketing, the Tarara matter has been
re-captioned as Public Employees' Retirement Systems of Mississippi
v. TreeHouse Foods, Inc., et al., in accordance with the Court's
order appointing Public Employees' Retirement Systems of
Mississippi as the lead plaintiff.  On May 26, 2017, the Public
Employees' defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the court
denied on February 12, 2018.

On April 12, 2018, the Public Employees' defendants filed their
answer to the amended complaint.  On April 23, 2018, the parties
filed a joint status report with the Court, which set forth a
proposed discovery and briefing schedule for the Court's
consideration.

On July 13, 2018, lead plaintiff filed a motion to certify the
class, and defendants filed their response in opposition to the
motion to certify the class on October 8, 2018.

On November 12, 2018, the parties filed an agreed motion to stay
proceedings to allow them to explore mediation.  The motion was
granted on November 19.  The parties thereafter engaged in
mediation but failed to resolve the dispute.

On March 29, 2019, the parties resumed litigation by filing an
agreed motion for extension of time, which was granted on April 9.
Pursuant to that schedule, lead plaintiff must file its reply class
certification brief by May 17, 2019, and document production must
be substantially completed by August 2.

Due to the similarity of the complaints, the parties in Wells and
Lavin entered stipulations deferring the litigation until the
earlier of (i) the court in Public Employees' entering an order
resolving defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss therein or (ii)
plaintiffs' counsel receiving notification of a settlement of
Public Employees' or until otherwise agreed to by the parties.  On
September 27, 2018, the parties in Wells and Lavin filed joint
motions for entry of agreed orders further deferring the matters in
light of the Public Employees' Court's denial of the motion to
dismiss in February 2018.  The Wells and Lavin Courts entered the
agreed orders further deferring the matters on September 27, 2018
and October 10, 2018, respectively.  In Wells, the next status
conference is set for July 8, 2019.  In Bartelt, the parties have
agreed to move to consolidate the matter with Lavin such that the
Bartelt complaint will be subject to the same deferral order
already in place.  There is no set status date in Lavin at this
time.

TreeHouse Foods, Inc. operates as a food and beverage manufacturer
in the United States, Canada, and Italy. The company operates
through Baked Goods, Beverages, Condiments, Meals, and Snacks
segments. TreeHouse Foods, Inc. was founded in 1862 and is based in
Oak Brook, Illinois.


TVJ SEMINOLE: Stevens Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
-----------------------------------------------------
Joshua Michael Stevens, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TVJ Seminole, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 19-cv-01154 (M.D. Fla., May 14, 2019), seeks statutory
damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant operates a chain of health and fitness locations under
the Crunch Fitness franchise name. It engaged in unsolicited
telemarketing directed towards prospective customers and
transmitted multiple text messages with intent to encourage its
recipients to avail of its services. At no point in time did
Stevens provide them with his express written consent to be
contacted using an automated dialer. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
      IJH LAW
      1200 Brickell Ave. Suite 1950
      Miami, FL 33131
      Email: IJHiraldo@IJHlaw.com
      Telephone: (786) 496-4469

             - and -

      Michael Eisenband, Esq.
      EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
      515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
      Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301
      Telephone: (954) 533-4092
      Email: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com


TYSON FOODS: Wright et al. Sue over Fed Cattle Price-Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, DOUGLAS WRIGHT and SAM MENDENHALL (d/b/a MENDENHALL
FARMS), individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. TYSON FOODS, INC.; TYSON FRESH MEATS, INC.; JBS
S.A.; JBS USA FOOD COMPANY; SWIFT BEEF COMPANY; JBS PACKERLAND,
INC.; CARGILL, INCORPORATED; CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS CORPORATION;
MARFRIG GLOBAL FOODS S.A.; and NATIONAL BEEF PACKING COMPANY, LLC,
the Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-01350-WMW-TNL (D. Minn., May 22,
2019), arises from Defendants' unlawful conspiracy to lower the
prices they paid for fed cattle in violation of the Sherman
Antitrust Act and the Commodities Exchange Act.

The Plaintiffs are cattle farmers who sold fed cattle to one or
more Defendants and/or who traded cattle futures contracts on the
Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) and have been damaged by
Defendants' anticompetitive and unlawful conduct.

According to the complaint, beginning no later than January 2015
and continuing today Defendants conspired to suppress the price of
fed cattle they purchased in the United States. Defendants'
coordinated conduct, including slashing their respective slaughter
volumes and curtailing their purchases of fed cattle in the cash
cattle market, caused an unprecedented collapse in fed cattle
prices in 2015. Defendants continued to suppress the price of fed
cattle through coordinated procurement practices and periodic
slaughter restraint.

Defendants' conspiracy impacted both the physical fed cattle market
and the market for live cattle futures and options traded on the
CME. As middle-men in the supply chain, Defendants' profitability
is driven by the "meat margin," which is the spread between the
price packers pay for fed cattle and the price they charge for
beef. Because the supply of fed cattle is insensitive to short-term
price changes -- owing to the long life cycle of fed cattle, their
perishable nature, and their lack of any alternative use -- and as
beef demand is relatively insensitive to changes in price, the meat
margin is very sensitive to changes in aggregate industry slaughter
levels.

Consequently, Defendants can increase their meat margin, and thus
their profitability, by colluding to reduce their respective
slaughter volumes, thereby depressing the price of fed cattle.
Because Defendants have not passed on their illicitly-gained lower
prices to their customers (indeed such a pass-through would defeat
the purpose of Defendants' conspiracy) producers and end consumers
both lose: producers are deprived of fair price competition at the
top of the supply chain, and consumers are unlawfully overcharged
at the bottom of the supply chain. The only parties that win are
the large beef packers who use their collective market power to
squeeze both producers and consumers, the lawsuit says.

Tyson Foods, Inc. is an American multinational corporation based in
Springdale, Arkansas, that operates in the food industry. The
company is the world's second largest processor and marketer of
chicken, beef, and pork after JBS S.A. and annually exports the
largest percentage of beef out of the United States.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the proposed classes:

          William R. Sieben, Esq.
          Alicia N. Sieben, Esq.
          Matthew J. Barber, Esq.
          SCHWEBEL GOETZ & SIEBEN
          5120 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 377-7777
          E-mail: bsieben@schwebel.com
                  asieben@schwebel.com
                  mbarber@schwebel.com

               - and -

          Ward A. Rouse, Esq.
          ROUSE LAW, PC
          4940 Pleasant Street
          West Des Moines, IO 50266
          Telephone: (515) 223-9000
          E-mail: wardrouse@rouselaw.us

               - and -

          Richard M. Paul III, Esq.
          Sean Cooper, Esq.
          PAUL LLP
          601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Telephone: (816) 984-8100
          E-mail: Rick@PaulLLP.com
                  Sean@PaulLLP.com

               - and -

          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          Michael L. Schrag, Esq.
          Joshua Bloomfield, Esq.
          George Sampson, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          505 14th Street, Suite 1110
          Telephone: (510) 350-9700
          E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com
                  mls@classlawgroup.com
                  jjb@classlawgroup.com
                  gws@classlawgroup.com

U.S. XPRESS: Discovery Ongoing in Calif. Wage & Hour Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that discovery is ongoing in
a wage-and-hour class action in California.

On December 23, 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
company and its subsidiary U.S. Xpress, Inc. in the Superior Court
of California, County of San Bernardino. The case was transferred
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.


The putative class includes current and former truck drivers
employed by the company who worked or work in California after the
completion of their training while residing in California since
December 23, 2011 to present.  

The case alleges that class members were not paid for off-the-clock
work, were not provided duty free meal or break times, and were not
paid premium pay in their absence, were not paid minimum wage for
all hours worked, were not provided accurate and complete time and
pay records and were not paid all accrued wages at the end of their
employment, all in violation of California law.  

The class seeks a judgment for compensatory damages and penalties,
injunctive relief, attorney fees and costs and pre- and
post-judgment interest. The matter is currently in discovery, and a
jury trial has been requested. There is currently no trial date
set.  

U.S. Xpress said, "We are currently not able to predict the
probable outcome or to reasonably estimate a range of potential
losses, if any. We intend to vigorously defend the merits of these
claims."

U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. operates as an asset-based truckload
carrier providing services primarily in the United States. It
operates through two segments, Truckload and Brokerage. The company
was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Chattanooga,
Tennessee.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: 6,000+ Drivers Join Class Action in Australia
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dominic Powell, writing for Smart Company, reports that more than
6,000 taxi, hire car and charter drivers are taking on ride-sharing
giant Uber in what's shaping up to be one of Australia's largest
class action lawsuits.

The case alleges Uber, a company recently valued at more than $100
billion, knew it was acting unlawfully when it entered the
Australian market, and in doing so, had a "devastating impact" on
tens of thousands of taxi drivers and other licence owners in
Australia.

The class action is being headed up by Australian law firm Maurice
Blackburn and backed by litigation funder Harbour.

"Uber came in and exploited people by operating outside of
regulations and it was Uber's conduct that led to horrible losses
being suffered by our group members," senior associate at Maurice
Blackburn, Elizabeth O'Shea said in a statement.

"For those reasons, we are targeting the multi-billion dollar
company Uber and its associated entities to provide redress to
those affected."

The case has been 18 months in the making, and Maurice Blackburn is
in the process of encouraging more licence owners to sign up,
saying there are no out-of-pocket costs. The law firm estimates
there are upwards of 40,000 licence owners in Victoria and New
South Wales alone.

Small-business owners have told SmartCompany in the past about
their grievances with Uber -- specifically, the company's delivery
arm UberEats. Business owners allege the platform's fees are
unsustainably high and offers little support to business owners.

Nick Andrianakis, a lead plaintiff in the case and a long-time taxi
driver and operator from Melbourne, said in a statement his
livelihood was suddenly taken away due to Uber's alleged "illegal
activities".

"I can clearly remember the day it all became too much -- I just
stopped driving that day and had to go home to be with my wife.
It's a shocking thing to think of a life's work being stripped away
from you, but this is what's happened to thousands of people
nationwide," he said.

However, in a statement to SmartCompany this morning, an Uber
spokesperson said the company had not been served with a class
action as of yet, despite reports suggesting the case had been
filed in the Victorian Supreme Court on May 3.

"We understand there are media reports suggesting that Maurice
Blackburn has filed a claim that will allege Uber operated
illegally in Australia. Uber denies this allegation and, if a claim
is served making it, the claim will be vigorously defended," the
spokesperson said.

"Over 3.8 million Australians regularly use Uber as a reliable
choice to get from A to B and governments across the country have
recognised ridesharing as part of the transport mix. We will
continue our commitment to delivering a great experience to
Australians in all the cities where we operate."

SmartCompany understands it is not unusual for class action
lawsuits to be announced in the media and filed in the courts prior
to being officially served to potential defendants.

Case to have broad ramifications
Speaking to SmartCompany, employment lawyer and adviser Peter
Vitale says while the case is unlikely to have any immediate effect
from an employment law perspective, the class action will
"unquestionably" have higher-level ramifications.

"It may impact on whether or not Uber is directly liable for the
actions of their drivers, but I suspect there are other courses of
action which don't really depend on if their drivers are employees
or contractors," he says.

"However, more broadly, it is a significant piece of legislation.
It's essentially asserting Uber came into the market as a bunch of
outlaws prepared to do whatever it takes to disrupt the market."

Despite not having any immediate impact on the ‘contractor or
employee' issue, Vitale says the scope of potential litigation and
settlement for the case is "only limited by imagination",
theorising there could be resolution beyond just compensation for
drivers.

"It's a question of if this will be used as straight action for
compensation or used to leverage how Uber operates their systems
and how it engages with drivers. With litigation of this scale,
nothing's off the table," he says.

"It unquestionably will have an impact, but historically we've seen
that large-scale litigation doesn't seem to deter Uber much."

The lawsuit comes in the wake of Uber announcing it would be
raising $10 billion in capital as part of an IPO, which values the
company at more than $100 billion. [GN]


VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Gordon Securities Class Action Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. is defending itself in a securities
class action styled, Gordon v. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019.

The Company said, "In February 2019, a securities class action,
Gordon v. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No.
1:19-cv-01108-ARR-LB, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York naming Vanda and certain of our
officers as defendants.  The complaint, filed on behalf of a
purported stockholder of ours, asserts claims on behalf of a
putative class of all persons who purchased our publicly traded
securities between November 4, 2015 through February 11, 2019, for
alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  The complaint alleges that the defendants made false
and misleading statements and/or omissions regarding Fanapt(R) and
HETLIOZ(R) between November 3, 2015 and February 11, 2019.

"We believe that we have meritorious defenses and intend to
vigorously defend this lawsuit.  We do not anticipate that this
litigation will have a material adverse effect on our business,
results of operations or financial condition.  However, this
lawsuit is subject to inherent uncertainties, the actual cost may
be significant, and we may not prevail.  We believe we are entitled
to coverage under our relevant insurance policies, subject to a
retention, but coverage could be denied or prove to be
insufficient.  We have not yet responded to the complaint."


VBI VACCINES: Decision on Class Certification Motion Suspended
--------------------------------------------------------------
VBI Vaccines Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that an Israeli district
court has accepted SciVac's motion to suspend reaching a decision
on the approval of the class action pending the determination of
liability under the civil action.

On September 13, 2018, two actions were brought in the District
Court of the central district in Israel naming the company's
subsidiary SciVac as a defendant.

In one claim, two minors, through their parents, allege among other
things, defects in certain batches of Sci-B-Vac discovered in July
2015; that Sci-B-Vac was approved for use in children and infants
in Israel without sufficient evidence establishing its safety; that
SciVac failed to provide accurate information about Sci-B-Vac to
consumers and that each child suffered side effects from the
vaccine.

The claim was filed together with a motion seeking approval of a
class action on behalf of 428,000 children vaccinated with
Sci-B-Vac in Israel from April, 2011 and seeking damages in a total
amount of NIS 1,879,500,000 (not in thousands) ($517,483).

The second claim is a civil action brought by two minors and their
parents against SciVac and the Israel Ministry of Health alleging,
among other things, that SciVac marketed an experimental,
defective, hazardous or harmful vaccine; that Sci-B-Vac was
marketed in Israel without sufficient evidence establishing its
safety; and that Sci-B-Vac was produced and marketed in Israel
without approval of a western regulatory body.

The claim seeks damages for past and future losses and expenses as
well as punitive damages.

SciVac believes these matters to be without merit and intends to
defend these claims vigorously.

VBI Vaccines said, "The District Court has accepted SciVac's motion
to suspend reaching a decision on the approval of the class action
pending the determination of liability under the civil action. The
trial of the civil action has been scheduled to begin on September
19, 2019.

VBI Vaccines Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, develops and sells
vaccines to address unmet needs in infectious disease and
immuno-oncology in Israel and internationally. The company was
formerly known as SciVac Therapeutics Inc. and changed its name to
VBI Vaccines Inc. in May 2016. The company is headquartered in
Cambridge, Massachusetts.


VIDEO LOTTERY: Class Suit Awaits Canada Supreme Court Decision
--------------------------------------------------------------
Video Lottery Terminals are among the preferred gaming offerings
for many Canadians seeking the thrill of winning big.  Now the
Supreme Court of Canada is expected to issue its decision on
whether or not the class-action lawsuit against them should
proceed. More than 30,000 individuals are part of the lawsuit as
people that have been affected by the supposedly deceiving nature
of the VLTs.

Players have been drawn to VLTs for many years now, because of
their entertainment qualities and the attractive gaming potential
they feature. Their opponents have previously claimed that the said
gaming devices are deceiving by nature and could easily trick
players into thinking they win more than they actually are, or make
them spend more time playing.

Video Lottery Terminals Attract People

Their controversial nature has stirred the pot in many provinces,
but this particular lawsuit relates to Newfoundland and Labrador.
The Supreme Court of Canada is going to rule on whether this
class-action lawsuit is going to proceed. In its essence, it marks
a milestone in Canada's gambling industry, as its greenlighting
could threaten future VLT operation across other provinces.

The class-action lawsuit aims to prove that the gaming devices are
deceptive and often lead to gambling addiction and unhealthy
relationship to gaming. With the help of various bells and
whistles, the terminals have the potential to captivate the
attention for longer periods. According to the lawsuit, some 30,000
individuals have personally experienced the negative effect of VLTs
across the province.

Furthermore, according to the lawsuit, these devices are in direct
breach of the Criminal Code of Canada and should not continue their
operation in Newfoundland and Labrador. Atlantic Lottery
Corporation is the gaming force that oversees the operation of
these devices in the Atlantic provinces. Plaintiffs want to see
compensation for the cash they have burned through with the help of
the VLTs.

Newfoundland And Labrador Could See VLT Ban

Those 30,000 individuals have participated in VLT gaming ever since
April 2006 and they want to see justice for the negative impact
said devices have had on their personal and professional lives. If
the Supreme Court of Canada decides that VLTs are truly deceptive
and have to be banned, this could trigger major changes in
neighboring provinces, as well as across the nation.

Retirees Douglas Babstock and Fred Small are the main plaintiffs in
this class-action lawsuit are after the profits amassed by Atlantic
Lottery Corporation. They claim that it has been unlawfully amassed
and should be paid out to the VLT players. For the time being the
Supreme Court has yet to appoint a date for the hearing, but it is
expected to take place soon. December 2018 saw the official
greenlighting of the lawsuit and nixing of Atlantic Lottery
Corporation's efforts to stop it from progressing.

Over the last fiscal year, Atlantic Lottery Corporation managed to
amass more than CA$500 million from VLTs only. This only comes to
show the level of popularity the said devices have among individual
of legal age. October is also going to see the 2019 Canadian
Federal Election and many candidates have previously expressed
their willingness to ban VLTs across the provinces. At the moment
there are some 6,300 devices in operation in Newfoundland and
Labrador. [GN]


VIEGA LLC: Ryan Plumbing Sues Over Fittings Price-rigging
---------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Plumbing, Inc. and Airic's Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Viega LLC, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00826, (M.D.
Pa., May 26, 2019), is an antitrust action directed at Viega's
anti-competitive conduct in the markets for copper press fittings
and carbon steel press fittings violations of the Sherman Antitrust
Act and the Clayton Act.

Viega is a privately-owned company that manufactures, imports and
sells fittings in the United States. Viega has allegedly coerced
wholesale distributors not to buy copper press fittings from
competition and refuses to sell its carbon steel press fittings
unless a wholesale distributor also purchases its copper press
fittings and agrees not to purchase copper press fittings from
other competitors.

Ryan Plumbing, Inc. is a Wisconsin business located in Eau Claire,
Wisconsin who has made purchases of Viega copper press fittings
from one or more Viega wholesale distributors in the last four
years. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Walter W. Cohen, Esq.
     Nicholas R. Jimenez, Esq.
     OBERMAYER REBMANN MAXWELL & HIPPEL LLP
     200 Locust Street Suite 400
     Harrisburg, PA 17101-1508
     Tel: (717) 221-7920
     Fax: (717) 326-2485
     Email: walter.cohen@obermayer.com

            - and -

     Heidi Silton, Esq.
     Elizabeth Odette, Esq.
     LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
     100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
     Minneapolis, MN 55401
     Tel: (612) 339-6900
     Fax: (612) 339-0981
     Email: hmsilton@locklaw.com
            erodette@locklaw.com

            - and -

     Nathan D. Prosser, Esq.
     Anne T. Regan, Esq.
     Carol R.M. Moss, Esq.
     HELLMUTH & JOHNSON PLLC
     8050 West 78th Street,
     Minneapolis, MN 55439
     Tel: (952) 941-4005
     Fax: (952) 941-2337
     Email: aregan@hjlawfirm.com
            nprosser@hjlawfirm.com
            cmoss@hjlawfirm.com


WASTE PRO USA: Tweedie Sues Over Illegal Background Check
---------------------------------------------------------
Candiss Tweedie, on her own behalf, and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Waste Pro USA, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 89514369, (Fla. Cir., May 14, 2019), seeks statutory
damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs and relief under the
Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970.

Waste Pro provides solid waste collection, recycling, and disposal
services to residential and commercial customers in the Southeast
United States and routinely obtains and uses information in
consumer reports to conduct background checks on applicants and
employees. Tweedie was formerly employed by Waste Pro.

Tweedie was provided and executed a background check disclosure on
or around September 2017 where the consumer report contained
personal, private and sensitive information about her. She claims
that this information was secured without her consent. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      201 N. Franklin Street, #600
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 223-5505
      Fax: (813) 257-0572
      Email: Medelman@forthepeople.com


WEINSTEIN CO: Harvey Dismissed From Sexual-Misconduct Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Chris Dolmetsch, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that Harvey
Weinstein's former companies and their officers and directors were
dismissed from a federal lawsuit filed by 10 women who claim the
firms and executives aided the alleged sexual misconduct that led
to the movie mogul's ouster.

The women -- actors and screenwriters who say they were assaulted
or mistreated by Weinstein after meeting with him for auditions or
to pitch projects -- sued in December 2017, alleging Weinstein Co.,
its officers and directors and Miramax, the studio Weinstein
formerly ran, enabled his conduct.

U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein on April 18, 2019, threw out
most of the suit's claims, including those alleging violations of
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO,
leaving only one of many claims to remain against Harvey Weinstein
himself, for violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act.

"We agree with the court's decision to dismiss the majority of the
complaint against Mr. Weinstein," Elior Shiloh, Esq. --
Elior.Shiloh@lewisbrisbois.com -- an attorney for Harvey Weinstein,
said in a statement. "As to the remaining claim, we disagree with
the court sustaining the claim and we will explore all options with
respect to having the claim dismissed."

Hellerstein said that although Weinstein Co. "undoubtedly
benefited" from Harvey Weinstein's employment through revenue from
his movies and influence, it did so in spite of his alleged
predatory acts, "which caused many women not to work with TWC,
diverted company resources towards supervision of H. Weinstein and
away from business activities and exposed TWC to potential
liability."

The suit "does not allege that H. Weinstein secured TWC's alleged
complicity in his sexual violence as a condition of his
employment," said Hellerstein, whose ruling echoed that of late
U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet. Sweet allowed a separate suit
against Weinstein, filed by an aspiring actress, to proceed on
similar grounds in August 2018.

"In fact, H. Weinstein's employment agreements made conviction for
such an offense grounds for termination."

Weinstein Co. was sold out of bankruptcy last year to Lantern
Capital Partners for about $440 million, including debt. Under the
arrangement, Harvey Weinstein himself won't profit from the new
venture. [GN]


WELSPUN USA: Court Narrows Claims in Egyptian Cotton Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in
part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned IN RE
WELSPUN LITIGATION. No. 16 CV 6792 (VB). (S.D.N.Y.).

Pending before the Court are (i) the Welspun India Ltd. (WIL) and
Welspun USA Inc. (WUSA) (Welspun Defendants), and defendants
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. d/b/a Walmart, Bed Bath and Beyond, Inc.
(BB&B), and Target Corporation (Retailer Defendants) Defendants'
motion to dismiss the consolidated second amended class action
complaint (CSAC) pursuant to Rules 8, 9(b), 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and
12(b)(6).

The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action against defendants
for allegedly distributing, marketing, and selling bed linens
falsely labeled 100% Egyptian cotton.

Plaintiffs bring the following claims:

First, the California plaintiffs bring claims individually and on
behalf of a proposed California subclass against all defendants for
violation of (i) California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA),
Cal. Civ. Code Section 1750 et seq., (ii) California's Unfair
Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et
seq., and  (iii) California's False Advertising Law (FAL), Cal.
Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500 et seq.

Second, the California plaintiffs bring claims individually and on
behalf of a proposed nationwide class against all defendants for
(iv) breach of express warranty (v) breach of the implied warranty
of merchantability (vi) unjust enrichment, and (vii) violation of
the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) 15 U.S.C. Section
2301 et seq.

Third, all plaintiffs bring claims individually and on behalf of a
proposed nationwide class against all defendants for (viii)
negligent misrepresentation and (ix) fraud; and

Fourth, the New York plaintiffs bring claims individually and on
behalf of a proposed New York subclass for (x) violation of N.Y.
Gen. Bus. Law (NYGBL) Sections 349 & 350.

Personal Jurisdiction

The Welspun Defendants argue plaintiffs fail to establish personal
jurisdiction over nondomiciliary defendant WIL.

The Court agrees only as to the California plaintiffs' claims
against WIL. As to all other claims against WIL, the Court either
finds it has specific personal jurisdiction or defers resolution
until a motion for class certification.

Agency

The Plaintiffs aver facts that, if credited, would establish that
WUSA acted as WIL's agent for purposes of personal jurisdiction.

To establish an agency relationship for purposes of personal
jurisdiction, a plaintiff must show that the alleged agent acts for
the benefit of, and with the knowledge and consent of, the
non-resident principal, and over which that principal exercises
some control.

Here, crediting the evidence plaintiffs have produced at this early
stage of the case and construing the facts in the light most
favorable to plaintiff, the Court finds that if not for WUSA, WIL
would perform substantially similar services, including importing
goods into New York and selling goods to third-party retailers who
in turn sell WIL's goods in the United States. In particular,
plaintiffs have produced evidence that WUSA has described itself as
"the sales, marketing and distribution arm for Welspun's textile
business.

At this stage, plaintiffs' evidence also adequately shows the
Retailer Defendants treated WUSA as WIL's agent. A Rule 30(b)(6)
witness for Walmart testified: Welspun India and Welspun U.S.,
although they are two separate companies, for Walmart, we work with
them like they are one company. A Rule 30(b)(6) witness for Target
similarly testified Target considered WUSA and WIL to be one
entity. Moreover, witnesses for both Walmart and Target testified
representatives from the Welspun Defendants referred to their
employers as Welspun without specifying WUSA or WIL.

Therefore, plaintiffs have produced sufficient evidence that, if
credited, would show WUSA acted as WIL's agent for purposes of
personal jurisdiction.

New York's Long-Arm Statute

CPLR Section 302 is New York's long-arm statute permitting
jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant.  Section 302(a)(1)
provides, As to a cause of action arising from any of the acts
enumerated in this section, a court may exercise personal
jurisdiction over any non-domiciliary, who in person or through an
agent, transacts any business within the state. To establish
personal jurisdiction under section 302(a)(1) two requirements must
be met: (1) The defendant must have transacted business within the
state and (2) the claim asserted must arise from that business
activity.

WIL transacted business in New York, satisfying Section 302(a)(1)'s
first requirement. According to plaintiffs, WUSA's principal place
of business is in New York and maintained an office there.
Moreover, as discussed above, the Court imputes WUSA's contacts to
WIL because WUSA acted as WIL's agent for purposes of personal
jurisdiction over WIL.

Plaintiffs have produced evidence that, if credited, would
establish personal jurisdiction over the New York plaintiffs'
claims against WIL under Section 302(a)(1).

Specific Jurisdiction over the New York Plaintiffs' Claims

The Court's exercise of specific jurisdiction over the New York
plaintiffs' claims against WIL, however, does comport with due
process pursuant to a stream of commerce theory of specific
jurisdiction.

Specific jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant satisfies due
process when: (1) the defendant has purposefully availed itself of
the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State (2)
the claim at issue arises out of or relates to the defendant's
forum conduct and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable
under the circumstances.

Here, there is sufficient evidence to conclude at this stage that
WIL expected true national distribution of the Bed Linens. WIL's
2016-2017 annual report states WIL, India's largest exporter of
home textile products, was ranked #1 in Home Textile Supplier
Giants to USA by Home & Textiles Today magazine for the 5th Year in
a row. The annual report further states that every 5th towel and
every 9th bedsheet sold in the US is manufactured by WIL.
Similarly, WIL's 2011-2012 annual report states nearly 70% of WIL
revenues come from the US markets, down from the nearly 90% of
business coming from the US nearly a decade ago.

Plaintiffs' evidence regarding the size of the New York market also
supports this conclusion. Plaintiffs aver Walmart and BB&B each
have approximately 100 stores in New York and Target has
seventy-nine. Plaintiffs also filed evidence under seal showing
significant Walmart sales of Welspun products in New York.

Plaintiffs have produced sufficient evidence that, if credited,
would satisfy due process for purposes of establishing specific
jurisdiction over the New York plaintiffs' claims against WIL.

Specific Jurisdiction over the California Plaintiffs' Claims

Emphasizing that specific jurisdiction requires the suit to arise
out of or relate to the defendant's contacts with the forum, the
Court found the California courts lacked specific jurisdiction over
named plaintiffs foreign to California who had not alleged any
injury there.

The California plaintiffs did not purchase any of the Bed Linens in
New York. They therefore rely on WIL's contacts with New York
through WUSA, which plaintiffs allege maintains its headquarters in
New York and functions as WIL's sales, marketing, and distribution
arm in the United States.

But for specific jurisdiction, a defendant's general connections
with the forum are not enough.

Thus, because the California plaintiffs' claims do not arise from
WIL's contacts with New York, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction
over the California plaintiffs' claims against WIL.
Bristol-Myers' applicability to the New York plaintiffs'
out-of-state class action claims, however, is less clear.
Accordingly, the Court defers resolution of Bristol-Myers'
applicability to the New York plaintiffs' out-of-state class action
claims until plaintiffs move for class certification.

Pendent Jurisdiction

Plaintiffs argue the Court should exercise pendent personal
jurisdiction over the California plaintiffs' claims against WIL.

Pendent jurisdiction is not applicable in these circumstances.

Pendent jurisdiction traditionally refers to the joinder of a
state-law claim by a party already presenting a federal question
claim against the same defendant.

Plaintiffs have not brought a claim under a federal statute
authorizing nationwide service of process. Nor is a non-traditional
application of pendent jurisdiction appropriate here.
Therefore, the Court will not exercise pendent jurisdiction over
the California plaintiffs' claims against WIL.

In sum, the Court has specific jurisdiction over the New York
plaintiffs' claims against WIL, lacks jurisdiction over the
California plaintiffs' claims against WIL, and defers resolution of
Bristol-Myers' applicability to the New York plaintiffs'
out-of-state class action claims until plaintiffs move for class
certification.

Failure to State a Claim

The Court now assesses defendants' challenges to several of the
CSAC's claims for relief.
The Court will allow the California plaintiffs' claims against WUSA
and the Retailer Defendants for unjust enrichment, negligent
misrepresentation, and for violation of the UCL, CLRA, and FAL, to
proceed. However, the following claims are dismissed: (i) the
California plaintiffs' claims for implied warranty against WUSA and
the Retailer Defendants (ii) the New York plaintiffs' claims for
negligent misrepresentation against all defendants; (iii) all
plaintiffs' claims for violation of the MMWA against all
defendants; and (iv) all plaintiffs' claims for fraud against the
Retailer Defendants.

Implied Warranty

The Welspun Defendants argue the California plaintiffs' implied
warranty claims under California law fail because the California
plaintiffs fail to allege privity.

The Court agrees.

Under California Commercial Code section 2314, a plaintiff
asserting breach of warranty claims must stand in vertical
contractual privity with the defendant.

The Court agrees that California's privity exception for claims
based on label or advertising misrepresentations applies only to
claims for breach of express warranty. Thus, because plaintiffs do
not allege privity with the Welspun Defendants, their claim for
breach of implied warranty under California law fails.

The California plaintiffs' claims for breach of implied warranty
under California law against the Welspun Defendants are dismissed.

Unjust Enrichment

Defendants argue the California plaintiffs' unjust enrichment
claims under California law fail because California does not
recognize unjust enrichment as a standalone claim for relief.

The Court disagrees.

California courts generally do not recognize a standalone claim for
unjust enrichment, which is synonymous with restitution. However,
when a plaintiff alleges unjust enrichment, a court may construe
the cause of action as a quasi-contract claim seeking restitution.

Here, the California plaintiffs allege defendants misrepresented
the Bed Linens were 100% Egyptian Cotton or 100% Long-Staple
Egyptian Cotton, and that defendants were unjustly enriched as a
result. Although the California plaintiffs' restitution claims may
be duplicative or superfluous, the Court will not dismiss the
claims for that reason at this time.

The California plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims under
California law may proceed.

Negligent Misrepresentation

Defendants argue plaintiffs fail to state claims for negligent
misrepresentation under New York or California law because
plaintiffs fail to allege a special relationship between plaintiffs
and defendants.

Plaintiffs do not oppose dismissal of the New York negligent
misrepresentation claims, and therefore the Court dismisses them.
However, the Court will not dismiss plaintiffs' negligent
misrepresentation claims under California law because California's
economic loss rule upon which defendants rely in arguing for
dismissal does not apply to those claims.

In actions for negligence in California, recovery of purely
economic loss is foreclosed in the absence of (1) personal injury
(2) physical damage to property (3) a special relationship existing
between the parties or (4) some other common law exception to the
rule.

Courts are split regarding whether California's economic loss rule
applies to negligent misrepresentation claims. However, the Ninth
Circuit held—albeit in a non-precedential memorandum—that
California law classifies negligent misrepresentation as a species
of fraud, for which economic loss is recoverable.  

In light of the Ninth Circuit's non-precedential memorandum and the
district court's persuasive reasoning in Bret Harte Union High Sch.
Dist. v. FieldTurf, USA, Inc., 2016 WL 3519294, the Court holds
California's economic loss rule does not apply to plaintiffs'
negligent misrepresentation claims.

The New York plaintiffs' negligent misrepresentation claims are
dismissed, but the California plaintiffs' negligent
misrepresentation claims may proceed.

Fraud-Based Claims

The Welspun Defendants argue plaintiffs' CLRA, UCL, FAL, negligent
misrepresentation, and fraud claims fail to satisfy Rule 9(b)'s
particularity requirement because the CSAC fails to explain how the
Bed Linens' 100% Egyptian cotton labels were false.

Further, the Retailer Defendants argue plaintiffs' UCL, CLRA, FAL,
negligent misrepresentation, and fraud claims against them should
be dismissed because plaintiffs fail to plead the Retailer
Defendants' fraudulent intent.

The Court disagrees with the Welspun Defendants because plaintiffs
adequately explain how the 100% Egyptian cotton labels were false.
Moreover, the Court finds plaintiffs need not allege scienter to
state claims under the UCL, CLRA, FAL, or for negligent
misrepresentation. However, plaintiffs fail to raise a strong
inference of fraudulent intent on their fraud claims against the
Retailer Defendants, and therefore those claims are dismissed.

First, Rule 9(b) requires that in alleging fraud or mistake, a
party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting
fraud or mistake. Thus, the complaint must: (1) specify the
statements that the plaintiff contends were fraudulent (2) identify
the speaker (3) state where and when the statements were made, and
(4) explain why the statements were fraudulent.

Second, though mental states may be pleaded generally, a plaintiff
must nonetheless allege facts that give rise to a strong inference
of fraudulent intent. An inference is strong if it is cogent and at
least as compelling as any opposing inference one could draw from
the facts alleged.

Alleged Falsity of 100% Egyptian Cotton Labels

Plaintiffs' allegations concerning the falsity of the 100% Egyptian
cotton labels satisfy the Rule 9(b) standard. As discussed in the
Background section above, plaintiffs allege specific
characteristics unique to Egyptian cotton, including longer cotton
fibers and more porous cotton, and describe how those unique
characteristics result in higher-quality cotton.  

Scienter

Plaintiffs' UCL, CLRA, FAL, and negligent misrepresentation claims
do not require plaintiffs to plead the Retailer Defendants'
fraudulent intent. Thus, the Court will not dismiss those claims
for failure to allege scienter plausibly.

However, plaintiffs' fraud claims against the Retailer Defendants
do fail because plaintiffs do not raise a strong inference of
fraudulent intent. Plaintiffs merely allege Target and BB&B knew
they were selling fake Egyptian cotton sheets after they began
investigating the Welspun Defendants. However, the investigations
indicate a prudent course of action, not an intent to perpetrate a
fraud. Plaintiffs alternatively allege Target and BB&B should have
been aware of issues with the Welspun Defendants' products before
investigating them, yet plaintiffs' allegations are entirely
conclusory.

As for Walmart, plaintiffs allege in 2008, a Walmart employee
expressed concerns about the Welspun Defendants' products; Walmart
investigated the Welspun Defendants; and Walmart buried the results
of that investigation. But plaintiffs plead no specific facts
supporting the conclusory allegation that Walmart buried the
results of its investigation, and Walmart's investigation of the
Welspun Defendants indicates prudence.

Plaintiffs also allege in 2015, the Cotton Egypt Association warned
Walmart, the levels of fraudulent merchandise on offer as Egyptian
cotton had reached a crisis point. But plaintiffs' allegation is
far too general to generate a strong inference of intent to defraud
in particular, plaintiffs do not allege the Cotton Egypt
Association warned Walmart specifically about the Bed Linens or
about the Welspun Defendants.

Plaintiffs' claims under the UCL, CLRA, and FAL, and for negligent
misrepresentation under California law, may proceed. Plaintiffs'
fraud claims against the Retailer Defendants under New York and
California law, however, are dismissed.

MMWA

Defendants proffer several arguments why the Court should dismiss
plaintiffs' claims under the MMWA. Two of those arguments contest
the Court's subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' MMWA
claims. Although neither argument is convincing, the Court must
address those arguments first.

Defendants argue the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
because plaintiffs fail to name at least 100 plaintiffs. However,
where, as here, the jurisdictional prerequisites of the Class
Action Fairness Act are satisfied, the Court may exercise
subject-matter jurisdiction over a claim under the MMWA without
regard for whether the jurisdictional prerequisites of that statute
are also met.

Defendants also argue the federal Textile Act pre-empts the MMWA
pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 2311(d), which states the MMWA is
inapplicable to any written warranty the making or content of which
is governed by Federal law. But because the representations
appearing on the labels of the Class Products do not constitute a
written warranty under the MMWA, section 2311(d) upon which
defendants' argument relies is wholly inapplicable.

Plaintiffs' claims under the MMWA are based entirely on the
California plaintiffs' claims for breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability. The Court has dismissed those claims.

Therefore, plaintiffs' MMWA claims are likewise dismissed.

Rule 8

The Welspun Defendants argue the CSAC fails to meet the basic
notice pleading requirements of Rule 8(a)(2) because it does not
distinguish between WIL and WUSA.

The Court disagrees.

The key to Rule 8(a)'s requirements is whether adequate notice is
given. Adequate notice is that which will enable the adverse party
to answer and prepare for trial, allow the application of res
judicata, and identify the nature of the case so that it may be
assigned the proper form of trial.

Rule 8 does not necessarily require that the complaint separate out
claims against individual defendants.

This is not a case in which the complaint fails to distinguish at
all between WIL and WUSA. On the contrary, plaintiffs allege WUSA
acted as WIL's sales arm in North America, and that WUSA's work
included distributing textile products and working directly with
United States retailers on textile product labeling and marketing.

Accordingly, the CSAC satisfies Rule 8.

The Welspun Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in part and
denied in part.

The Retailer Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in part and
denied in part.

The Retailer Defendants' motion to strike is denied.

Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend is denied.

The Welspun Defendants' and Target's accountings for sanctions are
denied.

The remaining claims are as follows:

   -- The California plaintiffs' claims, individually and on behalf
of the proposed California subclass, against WUSA and the Retailer
Defendants for violation of the CLRA, UCL, and FAL;

   -- The California plaintiffs' claims, individually and on behalf
of the proposed nationwide class, for breach of express warranty
and unjust enrichment against WUSA and the Retailer Defendants;

   -- The California plaintiffs' claims, individually and on behalf
of the proposed nationwide class, for negligent misrepresentation
against WUSA and the Retailer Defendants;

   -- The California plaintiffs' claims, individually and on behalf
of the proposed nationwide class, for fraud against WUSA;

   -- The New York plaintiffs' claims, individually and on behalf
of the proposed nationwide class, for fraud against WIL and WUSA;
and

   -- The New York plaintiffs' claims, individually and on behalf
of the proposed New York subclass, for violation of NYGBL Section
349 & 350 against all defendants.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 20, 2019 Opinion and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4mdrgwn from
Leagle.com.

Meghan Abbott, Plaintiff, represented by Leonard W. Aragon --
leonard@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens, Berman, Sobol, Shapiro, LLP, Robert
Bruce Carey -- rob@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens, Berman, Sobol, Shapiro,
LLP, Stuart Mckinley Paynter -- stuart@paynterlaw.com -- The
Paynter Law Firm PLLC & Jason Allen Zweig -- jasonz@hbsslaw.com --
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.  

Ashley Mistler, Plaintiff, represented by Joel D. Smith --
jsmith@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A. & Scott A. Bursor,
Bursor & Fisher, P.A.

Welspun India Ltd. & Welspun Usa Inc., Defendants, represented by
Joseph Serino, Jr. -- joseph.serino@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP,
Atif Nabeel Khawaja -- atif.khawaja@kirkland.com -- Kirkland &
Ellis LLP & Warren Haskel -- warren.haskel@kirkland.com -- Kirkland
& Ellis LLP.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark Stewart
Cohen, Cohen & Gresser, LLP, Nathaniel P.T. Read, Cohen & Gresser,
LLP 800 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10022 & Jamie A. Levitt --
jlevitt@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP.

Bed Bath And Beyond, Inc., Defendant, represented by Atif Nabeel
Khawaja, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Jamie A. Levitt, Morrison & Foerster
LLP & Warren Haskel, Kirkland & Ellis LLP.


WEST MEMPHIS FENCE: Bid for Conditional Class Certification Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, PEDRO PALMA, Individually and on
Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, the PLAINTIFF, v. WEST
MEMPHIS FENCE & CONSTRUCTION, INC., the DEFENDANT, Case No.
3:18-cv-00208-DPM (E.D. Ark.), the the Hon Judge D.P. Marshall Jr.
entered an order on on April 22, 2019:

   1. denying without prejudice motion for conditional
      certification, with equitable tolling to Palma, and with
      instructions; and

   2. directing targeted written discovery and depositions on the
      employee/contractor issue, and on how defendant operates its
      business.

The Court prefers to consider conditional certification on a
more-complete picture of defendant's operations and whether others
are similarly situated. Renewed motion is due by July 29, 2019.[CC]

WESTERN DIGITAL: Chen Sues Over Sexual Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------
Yunghui Chen, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Western Digital Corporation and Western
Digital Technologies, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00909, (C.D.
Cal., May 14, 2019), seeks redress for violations of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, Equal Pay Act, the California Fair Employment
and Housing Act, the California Equal Pay Act, California Business
and Professions Code against its female employees including
monetary remedies for losses caused by the systemic discrimination,
including back pay, front pay, compensatory damages, and nominal
and punitive damages.

Western Digital is a data storage company and a hard disk
manufacturer. Chen is a female auditor who worked for Western
Digital as a Senior Internal Auditor in the Internal Audit
Department. She claims to be paid $30,000 less than her male
counterparts performing equal and substantially similar work and
Western refused to promote her to Senior Manager, despite promoting
similarly situated, less-qualified men. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
      700 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 300
      Washington, DC 20003
      Telephone: (202) 499-5200
      Facsimile: (202) 499-5199
      Email: dsanford@sanfordheisler.com

             - and -

      Danielle Fuschetti, Esq.
      SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
      111 Sutter Street, Suite 975
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 795-2020
      Facsimile: (415) 795-2021
      Email: dfuschetti@sanfordheisler.com

             - and -

      Felicia Medina, Esq.
      MEDINA ORTHWEIN, LLP
      1322 Webster St., Suite 200
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 823-2040
      Facsimile: (510) 217-3580
      Email: fmedina@medinaorthwein.com


WESTERN UNION: Price Appeals Ruling in Douglas Suit to 7th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Bethany C. Price filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
the lawsuit titled JASON DOUGLAS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. THE WESTERN UNION COMPANY, Case No.
1:14-cv-01741 on Mar 12, 2014, Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Gary
Feinerman (i) granted Douglas' motion to approve the class
settlement and certify the settlement class; and (ii) granted in
part and denied in part his motion for attorney fees, costs, and an
incentive award.

Mr. Douglas filed the suit as a putative class action against
Western Union for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA") by sending unsolicited text messages to him
and the putative class.  Western Union answered two months later.
One month after that, and before litigation efforts commenced in
earnest, the parties reported that they would engage in a private
mediation; a year later, they reported that they had reached a
classwide settlement in principle.  Confirmatory discovery
followed, as did hearings at which the parties reported that they
would soon file a preliminary approval motion.  Douglas moved for
preliminary approval of the class settlement and conditional
certification of the settlement class, which the Court granted.

The Settlement Agreement provides for a non-reversionary payment by
Western Union of $8.5 million, to be distributed as follows: (1)
$5,209,007.64 to the settlement class; (2) $5,000 to Douglas as an
incentive award; (3) $2,804,850.27 in attorney fees; and (4)
$481,142.09 in notice and administration costs (with a cap of
$553,197, with the difference coming from the amount devoted to the
settlement class).  Because 54,315 individuals (approximately 7.3%
of the class) submitted timely claims; each would receive $95.90 if
the referenced figures held.

The appellate case is captioned as Jason Douglas v. Bethany Price,
Case No. 19-1868, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that Appellant's
brief is due on or before June 12, 2019, for Bethany C. Price.[BN]

Plaintiff JASON DOUGLAS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Todd L. McLawhorn, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          17 N. State Street
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236-0000
          E-mail: tmclawhorn@siprut.com

Appellant BETHANY C. PRICE, Objector, is represented by:

          W. Allen McDonald, Esq.
          LACY, PRICE & WAGNER P.C.
          249 N. Peters Road
          Knoxville, TN 37923
          Telephone: (865) 246-0800
          E-mail: amcdonald@lpwpc.com

Defendant-Appellee WESTERN UNION COMPANY, a Delaware corporation,
is represented by:

          Kathleen P. Lally, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          330 N. Wabash Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (312) 876-7700
          E-mail: kathleen.lally@lw.com


WESTROCK CP: Virginia Court Certifies Class in Bell Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ASHTON BELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WESTROCK CP, LLC,
et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-829 (E.D. Va.), Judge
John A. Gibney, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, Richmond Division, granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

The named Plaintiffs live in downtown West Point, Virginia, near
WestRock CP, LLC's paper mill.  West Point Chips, Inc., chips wood
for the paper mill.  The named Plaintiffs bring claims for nuisance
and trespass against WestRock and West Point Chips, alleging that
large amounts of wood dust from the paper mill invade their land,
homes, and cars.  They have moved for certification of a proposed
class of West Point residents who live within one-half mile of the
paper mill.

The proposed class members live or own property within one-half
mile of the paper mill and wood chipper facility in West Point.
West Point residents have complained about the wood dust to the
West Point Town Council and to the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality ("DEQ").  In 2015, DEQ conducted an
inspection in response to complaints filed by a nearby resident
with concerns regarding excessive dust caused by facility
operations.  DEQ found West Point Chips out of compliance with a
condition of its permit requiring it to cover all conveyors that do
not cross 14th Street to control fugitive particulate emissions.
DEQ's investigation revealed that dust at nearby residences
consisted of material that is indicative of material stored at
WestRock.

The named Plaintiffs contend that the wood dust requires constant
cleaning and prevents them from spending time outdoors.  To show
that the wood dust originates from the facility, the Plaintiffs
submitted an expert report from meteorologist David A. Sullivan.
To evaluate airborne exposures and deposition of wood dust from the
facility, Sullivan developed a "dispersion model" using "upper-air
meteorological data."  Sullivan's model showed "substantial
quantities of wood dust being present in the air and deposited onto
surfaces within West Point.

The Plaintiffs sued WestRock and West Point Chips for nuisance,
trespass, and injunctive relief.  The Court dismissed the
Plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief.  On April 17, 2019, the
Court held a hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  Because the Plaintiffs meet the requirements for
class certification, at the hearing, Judge Gibney indicated his
intent to certify a class.  

Following the hearing, he granted the motion for class
certification and certified the class of all persons, who on Dec.
15, 2017, owned or occupied property in West Point located one-half
(0.5) mile or less from 200 14th Street in West Point, Virginia, or
rented and occupied property in West Point located one-half (0.5)
mile or less from 200 14th Street in West Point, Virginia.

Additionally, he certified the class as to the following issues:
(1) whether the Defendants are liable to the Plaintiffs for
nuisance; and (2) whether the Defendants are liable to the
Plaintiffs for trespass.

Let the Clerk send a copy of the Opinion to all the counsel of
record.

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

Ashton Bell, Delilah Bell & Lucy R. Edwards, Plaintiffs,
represented by David Hilton Wise, Wise & Donahue PLC, Charles
Schneider, Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, pro hac vice, Danielle
Lynn Perry -- dperry@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP,
pro hac vice, Evan Patrick Fontenot, Pendley Baudin & Coffin LLP,
pro hac vice, Gary Edward Mason, Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, pro
hac vice, Martha Schneider, Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP & Patrick
W. Pendley -- pwpendley@pbclawfirm.com -- NA, pro hac vice.

Clarence Burrell, Sheila Burrell, Linda White, Dale Saunders, Nancy
Saunders & Olen Sikes, Plaintiffs, represented by David Hilton
Wise, Wise & Donahue PLC, Danielle Lynn Perry, Whitfield Bryson &
Mason LLP, pro hac vice, Gary Edward Mason, Whitfield Bryson &
Mason LLP, pro hac vice & Patrick W. Pendley, NA, pro hac vice.

Westrock CP, LLC, Defendant, represented by Frank Talbott, V --
ftalbott@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, David Mark Bienvenu,
Jr. -- David.Bienvenu@bblawla.com -- Bienvenu Bonnecaze Foco Viator
& Holinga APLLC, pro hac vice, Diane Pulley Flannery --
dflannery@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Joy Cummings Fuhr
-- jfuhr@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Lexi Trahan Holinga,
Bienvenu Bonnecaze Foco Viator & Holinga APLLC, pro hac vice &
Richard Trent Taylor -- rtaylor@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods
LLP.

West Point Chips, Inc., Defendant, represented by David D. Hudgins
-- dhudgins@hudginslawfirm.com -- The Hudgins Law Firm, PC & Robert
Emery Draim -- rdraim@hudginslawfirm.com -- Hudgins Law Firm,
P.C..


WRIGHT-PATT: Qualls Sues Over Illegal Fees and Charges
------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Qualls, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Wright-Patt Credit Union, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 19-cv-01965, (S.D. Ohio, May 14, 2019) seeks restitution
of all relevant fees, disgorgement of the ill-gotten gains, actual,
punitive and exemplary damages, pre-judgment interest, costs and
disbursements including reasonable attorneys' fees and such other
relief resulting from the assessment of multiple Non-Sufficient
Funds Fees on the same transaction and the assessment of two
separate Out-of-Network ATM Fees on a single ATM use that is in
breach of contract and in violation of Ohio law.

Wright-Patt Credit Union is a credit union engaged in the business
of providing retail banking services to consumers, which includes
the issuance of debit cards for use by its customers in conjunction
with their checking accounts. Qualls maintains a Wright-Patt
checking account. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stuart E. Scott, Esq.
      Kevin C. Hulick, Esq.
      SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY & LIBER LLP
      1001 Lakeside Avenue East, Suite 1700
      Cleveland, OH 44114
      Tel: (216) 696-3232
      Fax: (216) 696-3924
      Email: sscott@spanglaw.com

             - and -

      Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
      Sophia G. Gold, Esq.
      KALIEL PLLC
      1875 Connecticut Ave., NW, 10th Floor
      Washington, D.C. 20009
      Tel: (202) 350-4783
      Email: jkaliel@kalielpll.com
             sgold@kalielpllc.com

             - and -

      Jonathan K. Tycko, Esq.
      Anna C. Haac, Esq.
      Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq.
      TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
      1828 L St. NW, Suite 1000
      Washington, DC 20036
      Telephone: (202) 973-0900
      Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
      Email: jtycko@tzlegal.com
             ahaac@tzlegal.com
             kaizpuru@tzlegal.com


ZIMMER BIOMET: Karl Moves to Certify FLSA Class of Salespersons
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled JAMES KARL, on behalf of
himself, and on behalf of a class of those similarly situated v.
ZIMMER BIOMET HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation; ZIMMER US,
INC., a Delaware corporation; BIOMET U.S. RECONSTRUCTION, LLC, an
Indiana limited liability company; BIOMET BIOLOGICS, LLC, an
Indiana limited liability company; and BIOMET, INC., an Indiana
corporation, Case No. 3:18-cv-04176-WHA (N.D. Cal.), asks the Court
to conditionally certify a proposed FLSA Class:

     Any person who signed a contract, from three years prior to
     the date on which notice is issued to the date on which
     notice is issued, with Zimmer Biomet, or any of its
     subsidiaries, that engages the person as an independent
     contractor for the solicitation of sales of Zimmer Biomet
     products and/or services in the market segments or product
     lines: Orthopedics, S.E.T., Biologics, Reconstructive,
     Spine, CMF, Thoracic, Knee, Hip, Foot & Ankle, Sports
     Medicine, Extremities, Surgical, Microfixation, Bone
     Healing, Cement, Trauma.

Mr. Karl also asks the Court to (1) order Zimmer Biomet to produce
a class list to his counsel, and (2) approve his proposed Notice
and direct the dissemination of notice of the pendency of the
action by mail and e-mail.

The Court will commence a hearing on June 6, 2019, at 8:00 a.m., to
consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Lohr, Esq.
          Alec Segarich, Esq.
          LOHR RIPAMONTI & SEGARICH LLP
          140 Geary Street, 4th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 683-7266
          Facsimile: (415) 683-7267
          E-mail: jason.lohr@lrllp.com
                  alec.segarich@lrllp.com

               - and -

          Denis Kenny, Esq.
          SCHERER SMITH & KENNY LLP
          140 Geary Street, 7th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 433-1099
          Facsimile: (415) 433-9434
          E-mail: denis@sfcounsel.com


ZION FARM LLC: Rios Sues Over Illegal Tip Pool, Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ezekiel Rios, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class, Plaintiff, v. Zion Farm LLC, Mountain Farms, Inc.,
Beom Y. Lee and Kyu Ok Han, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-04363, (S.D.
N.Y., May 14, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, compensation
for retaliation, liquidated damages, statutory penalties and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the New York Labor Law and
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate two eateries as a single integrated enterprise
under the shared trade name "Delmonico Gourmet Food Market" in 59th
Street and Lexington Avenue in New York. Rios was hired by
Defendants to work as a cook at its 59th Street location. He
regularly worked six days per week, for a total of fifty-four hours
per week yet was paid a fixed weekly salary without any overtime
compensation. Defendants never provided wage notices and paid him
at "tip credit" rates below the prevailing federal and New York
State minimum wages despite the fact that Defendants were not
entitled to claim any tip credits. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      Anne Seelig, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 465-1188
      Fax: (212) 465-1181


ZOGENIX INC: Pomerantz Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Zogenix, Inc. (NASDAQ: ZGNX) and certain of its officers
and directors.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, United District Court, Northern District of California, and
indexed under 19-cv-01975, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons and entities, other than Defendants and their
affiliates, who purchased or otherwise acquired Zogenix's
securities between February 6, 2019 through April 8, 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 Zogenix securities, you have
until June 11, 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.

Zogenix is a pharmaceutical company that develops and
commercializes therapies for the treatment of transformative
central nervous system disorders in the United States.  Its lead
product candidate is ZX008, which is also known commercially by its
trademarked name "FINTEPLA."  FINTEPLA is a low-dose fenfluramine
that is in Phase III clinical trials for the treatment of seizures
associated with Dravet syndrome.

On February 6, 2019, Zogenix announced the submission of its New
Drug Application ("NDA") to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") for FINTEPLA.

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) Zogenix's NDA for FINTEPLA
contained inadequate non-clinical data and an incorrect version of
a clinical dataset; (ii) consequently, Zogenix's NDA for FINTEPLA
was unlikely to gain FDA approval; and (iii) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

On April 8, 2019, Zogenix announced that the Company had received a
Refusal To File ("RTF") letter from the FDA stating that the
Company‘s NDA for FINTEPLA was not sufficiently complete to
permit a substantive review.  Zogenix advised investors that "the
FDA determined that the NDA . . . was not sufficiently completed to
permit a substantive review . . . . [F]irst, certain non-clinical
studies were not submitted to allow assessment of the chronic
administration of fenfluramine; and, second, the application
contained an incorrect version of a clinical dataset, which
prevented the completion of the review process that is necessary to
support the filing of the NDA."

On this news, Zogenix's stock price fell $11.89 per share, or
nearly 23%, to close at $39.96 per share on April 9, 2019.

         Contact:
         Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
         Pomerantz LLP
         Telephone: 888-476-6529 ext. 9980
         Website: www.pomerantzlaw.com
         Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]


ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Certification of Class Sought in Kaur Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kuldeep Kaur moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit titled KULDEEP KAUR, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES
P.C., Case No. 2:19-cv-00679 (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that
the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant
the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules
setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and
supporting material to be filed with the Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement
of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that
other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class,
the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco,
Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June
20, 2017).  The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has attempted
a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class
representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D.
Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut,
Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis.
Feb. 24, 2016).

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
contends.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff argues.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


[*] India Gov't Readying IEPF Scheme for Minority Investors
-----------------------------------------------------------
Livemint reports that in a significant move, the government is
readying a scheme to provide financial assistance to minority
investors filing class action lawsuits under the companies law, a
senior official said.

Working on ways to further bolster measures to protect the interest
of investors, the corporate affairs ministry would also be
encouraging investors to resort to class action suits.

Under Section 245 of the Companies Act, investors can file a class
action suit in case they feel that the management or conduct of the
affairs of a company are prejudicial to their interests.

The concept of the class action suit, that provides an option for
investors to seek remedy as a group, is well known in Western
countries.

"We are looking at class action suits. We will be soon coming out
with a scheme for providing financial assistance to minority
investors to file class action by using the IEPF (Investor
Education and Protection Fund).

"The IEPF will introduce a scheme for reimbursing legal expenses
incurred on class action," Corporate Affairs Secretary Injeti
Srinivas told PTI in an interview.

The Investor Education and Protection Fund (IEPF) is managed by the
IEPF Authority, which comes under the ministry.

The IEPF's accumulated corpus is around ₹4,138 crore, according
to an official statement issued in April.

"We will define the threshold such as the minimum number of
members, minimum shareholding or deposits. That will be notified
very soon," Srinivas said about the eligibility criteria for filing
class action suits.

Class action thresholds are likely to be notified on May 6.

The minimum shareholding for filing a class action suit is likely
to be 5 per cent for unlisted companies and 2 per cent for listed
firms, an official said.

The push for class action suits also assumes significance against
the backdrop of various instances of investors getting duped by
illegal money pooling schemes as well as being impacted by
corporate governance issues and fraudulent practices at some
companies.

According to the secretary, a class action is not easy, as there is
information asymmetry.

"Minority investors are not well equipped to pursue a class action.
There is provision for disgorgement also... Class action suit is an
important way to empower minority shareholders who are worst
sufferers," he said, adding that the rules would be notified at the
earliest.

"Auditors, credit rating agencies, everybody would be liable to a
class action. Minority investors who are suffering should resort to
class action suits, which is provided for in the Companies Act. We
will certainly do whatever is necessary to encourage investors to
resort to a class action," Srinivas said.

Among others, if statutory auditors have been callous and
negligent, endorsing falsified statements, the investors can
certainly proceed against them with a class action. [GN]



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***