CAR_Public/190610.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, June 10, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 115

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Fails to Pay Plan Benefits Under ERISA, Baker Claims
3M COMPANY: Removed Johnson Suit over Defective CAEv2 to D. Minn.
3M COMPANY: Removes Hill Suit over Defective Earplugs to D. Minn.
3M COMPANY: Removes Woods Suit over Defective Earplugs to D. Minn.
3M COMPANY: Smith Sues Over Contaminated Water Supply

3M COMPANY: Zayas-Bazan Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
ADDUS HEALTHCARE: Court Extends Time to File Pleadings in Encinias
ADVANCED MICRO: California Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
AEROHIVE NETWORKS: Bid to Dismiss McGovney Class Action Underway
AFTERLIFE: Judge Awards $20MM Damages in Obituary Class Action

ALABAMA: Faces Class Action Over Civil Asset Forfeitures System
ALLERGAN PLC: Faces Canadian Class Action Over Breast Implants
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Hossfeld Sues Over Intrusive Telemarketing
AMERICAN FEDERATION: Workers Seek Fair Share Union Fees Refund
AMERICAN FINANCE: Bid to Dismiss St. Clair-Hibbard Suit Pending

AMERICAN FINANCE: Callaway Class Suit Remains Pending
AMERICAN FINANCE: Plaintiffs' Bid for Rehearing En Banc Denied
AMERICAN HOMES: McCann Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
AMERICAN HONDA: Rojas Sues Over Rollaway Defect
APPLE INC: Sells iTunes Customer Data to 3rd Parties, Wheaton Says

APPLE INC: Steamfitters Local Sues Over Exchange Act Breach
ARIZONA: Court Vacates Medicaid Subclass Certification
ARKANSAS: Home to Community Suit Moved to D. Arkansas
ATCO GAS: $20MM Alberta Class Action Over Explosion Certified
AXOGEN INC: Amended Complaint in Einhorn Suit Due July 1

BAPTIST MEMORIAL: Walls Medicare Suit Removed to W.D. Tenn.
BBVA COMPASS: Appeal in Plains All American Securities Suit Pending
BBVA COMPASS: Hossfeld Case Settlement Wins Preliminary Approval
BBVA COMPASS: Mexican Government Bonds Antitrust Suit Ongoing
BECTON, DICKINSON: Heard Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data

BEMIS COMPANY: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
BKUK 10 CORP: Reyes Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
BLAIR'S BAIL: Egana Moves Certification of 3 Classes Under TILA
BOFI HOLDING: Court Dismisses Shareholder Litigation
BOYD GAMING: James Sues Over Unpaid Compensations

BRECK'S RIDGE: Court Denies Bid to File Amended Complaint in Parker
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Villegas Wins Prelim. Nod of Class Accord
CACAFE INC: $640K Settlement in Marino FLSA Suit Has Final Approval
CANADA: B.C. Faces Class Action Over Lack of Orkambi Funding
CANADA: Woodlands Survivors Compensation Program Extended

CELLULAR SALES: Court Decertifies Conditional FLSA Class in Holick
CENIKOR FOUNDATION: Sorey Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
CENTRUS ENERGY: McGlone Sues Over Contaminated Property
CHARLES SCHWAB: Crago Order Routing Litigation Underway
CHEFS' WAREHOUSE: Robinson Moves to Certify Class & 5 Subclasses

CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Appeal in Talmer Merger Suit Still Pending
CHICAGO, ILL: Class Action Over Lead Water Pipes Revived by State
CITRIX SYSTEMS: Howard Sues Over Data Breach
CMH HOMES, INC: Dudley Sues Over Unpaid Compensation
COMMUNITY ASPHALT: Knowles Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

CONNECTICUT WATER: Dunn & Tillotson Plaintiffs Seek Attorney Fees
CONSOL ENERGY: Casey Suit in West Virginia Still Ongoing
CRM US INC: DiSalvo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CURADEN AG: Court Narrows Claims in B. Lyngaas TCPA Suit
CYC DESIGN: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

DAMENZO'S INC: Soto Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
DELOITTE: May Face IFIN Bondholders, Shareholders Class Actions
EAGLE NATIONAL: Dismissal of Suits Over Kickback Schemes Flipped
EI DU PONT: Faces PFOA-Related Class Suit in New York
EI DU PONT: Faces PFOA-Related Class Suit in Ohio

EI DU PONT: Says Roughly $2MM Spent in Water Treatment
EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Securities Class Suit Concluded
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Tameron Files FDCPA Suit in D. Arizona
EQHEALTH SOLUTIONS: Class Certified Under FLSA in Russell Suit
FIAT CHRYSLER: Radi, et al., Sue over Defective Airbag Components

FIVE POINT: Bayview Hunters Point Litigation Still Ongoing
FLINT, MI: Snyder Seeks Taxpayer Funding for Legal Representation
FMS LAWN & LANDSCAPE: Samuelson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Fuel Efficiency Ratings
FORMAN MILLS: Huston-Monahan Files ADA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania

FRONT YARD: Martin Class Action Still Ongoing
GENERAL MOTORS: Oil Consumption Class Action Nears Settlement
GENERAL MOTORS: To Reimburse Cadillac SRX Owners Over Headlights
HANGER INC: Bid for Panel Rehearing in City of Pontiac Suit Okayed
HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Appeals Court Issues Letter in Braun Suit

HAT WORLD: Harris Sues Over Unpaid Compensation
HECLA MINING: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Fraud Class Action
HOPS AT THE PADDOCK: Stengel Sues Over Unpaid Compensation
IDAHO: Faces Class Action Over Treatment Center Abuse
ILLINOIS: Watts Case vs State Court Judges Moved to N.D. Illinois

INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Liu & Fu Suit in New York Ongoing
INTUIT INC: Leon Sues Over Misrepresentations and Deception
IREDALE COSMETICS: Bynes Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
ISAACSON/WEAVER FAMILY: $2.7MM Attys Fees in Securities Suit Upheld
JANSSEN BIOTECH: Iron Workers Sues Over Sherman Act Breach

JBS: Faces Cattle Price-Fixing Antitrust Class Action
JELD-WEN HOLDING: Interior Molded Doors Antitrust Suit Ongoing
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Angel Galloway Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Cartolano Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Dickens Suit Moved to C.D. California

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Enos Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Esquibel Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Fallorina et al. Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Falone et al. Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Fitzhugh Suit Moved to C.D. California

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Ford Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Gambino Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Graham Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Gregory Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Gribsy Suit Moved to C.D. California

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hollis et al. Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Bentrud Talc Injury Suit to M.D. Fla.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Best Talc Injury Suit to M.D. Florida
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Yoo Suit to C.D. California
JUPITER, FL: Faces Class Action Over Video Surveillance

LALO DRYWALL: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
LAMPS PLUS: Court Ruling Clarifies Arbitration Agreement Language
LAS DELICIAS: Suarez Files Wage & Hour Suit in Florida
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Continues to Defend Moses Class Action
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Sept. Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Veal Suit

LILLIAN AUGUST: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LIVEONNY INC: Court OKs Class Certification in A. Henix Suit
LTD FINANCIAL: Court Awards $184K Attorneys' Fees in L. Baez Suit
MDL 2672: Filing of Unredacted Amended Nemet under Seal Partly OK'd
MDL 2741: Belcher v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated

MDL 2741: Brown v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Cocheran v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Gillson v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Peterson v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Puckett v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated

MDL 2741: Slinkard v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Smith v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Somers v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Stokers v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Wiley v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated

MDL 2741: Young v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MELO DAIRY: Torres Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
MERCK & CO: Report and Recommendation in Zetia Suit Challenged
MERCK & CO: Rotavirus Vaccines Antitrust Litig. Stayed Amid Appeal
MIDLAND CREDIT: Chung Suit Moved to Eastern District of New York

MOM'S KITCHEN: Tardiff Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
MONSANTO COMPANY: Bunn Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Payadues Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Wades Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MOVEMENT MORTGAGE: Court Compels Arbitration in Hoober Suit

MOWI ASA: Wood Mountain Alleges Price-Fixing of Salmon Products
MY PILLOW: Wuest Seeks Certification of Class and Four Subclasses
NANTKWEST INC: Awaits Final Court Approval in Sudunagunta Suit
NEW YORK: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed in Gulino Racial Bias Suit
NFL: Assignment Agreements Order in Concussion Suit Partly Affirmed

NUTANIX INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
OCWEN LOAN: Pantano Suit Moved to District of Massachusetts
ONECOIN LTD: Silver Miller Commences Class Action in New York
ORKIN SERVICES: Sanchez Case Removed to C.D. California
ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Dismiss Costas Suit Due July 12

ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Riche Class Action
ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Douvris Class Action Concluded
ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks to Stay Tel Aviv Class Action
PREMIERE CREDIT: Frazee Sues Over FDCPA Violation
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND, CA: Rare Class Suit Gets Go Signal

R.Y. MANAGEMENT: Olsen Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
REALOGY HOLDINGS: Sitzer, Et Al. Hit Brokers' Fee Price Fixing
RICHMOND, CA: Cal. App. Affirms Demurrer in Garbage Levy Suit
RICHMOND, VA: Yerby et al. Seek OT Pay for Finance Dept. Staff
RUSHMORE LOAN: Wortman Disputes Late/Administrative Charges

SARBANAND FARMS: Court Refuses More Opt-Out Evaluation in Rosas
SEARS HOLDINGS: Torres Sues Over SMS/MMS Ad Blasts
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Mediation Ongoing in Anderson Class Suit
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Settlement in EZPay Suit Finally Approved
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Trial in Baker  Suit Set for Sept. 10

SERVICESOURCE INT'L: Bid to Approve Patton Settlement Pending
SETERUS INC: Fisher Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
SIENTRA INC: $400,000 Paid to Resolve miraDry-Related Suit
SIERRA ONCOLOGY: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of NY Suit
SIERRA ONCOLOGY: Parties in California Suits Reach Settlement

SMITTY'S SUPPLY: Zornes Files Suit in D. Kansas
SNAP INC: Court Issues Protective Order in Securities Litigation
STATE FARM: 10th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Mischek
STATE TEACHERS: Retired Teachers File Class Suit Over Pension Cuts
SUNRUN INC: Deal in Consolidated Shareholder Suits Has Final OK

SUNRUN INC: Slovin TCPA Suit Settlement Has Initial Approval
SUPER CARE: Denied Duron Overtime Pay, Meal/Rest Breaks
TAILGATE CLOTHING: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
TBI AIRPORT: Felder Suit Removed to C.D. California
TERRANEA RESORT: Settles Workers' Class Action for $2.15MM

TOM CLAYTON: Seibert Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
TOMTOM NORTH: McVetty Files Suit in S.D. New York
TOYOTA MOTOR: Wash. App. Affirms D. Young's CPA Suit Dismissal
TRUECAR INC: Milbeck's Bid to Certify Granted; Nov. 5 Trial Set
TURTLE BEACH: Trial in VTBH Merger-Related Suit Set for November

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Class Suit for Disabled Passengers Filed
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Teamsters Local 456 Suit Pending
US SOCCER: Gender Bias Case to Have Ramifications for All Women
US STEEL: Bieryla Sues Over Securities Fraud
UTZ QUALITY: Settles False Advertising Class Action for $1MM

VEREIT INC: Pre-Trial in ARCP Litigation Set for August 19
VEREIT INC: Realistic Partners' Class Action Still Ongoing
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION: Ct. Dismisses "Superman" Pro Se Complaint
VM MORRISON: Hunton Andrews Discusses UK Appeal Court Ruling
VOYA FINANCIAL: Advance Trust's COI Class Suit in Colorado Ongoing

VOYA FINANCIAL: Advance Trust's COI Class Suit in Minn. Ongoing
VOYA FINANCIAL: Barnes COI Litigation Ongoing
VOYA FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss Goetz Class Suit Still Pending
VOYA FINANCIAL: Cutler COI Litigation Ongoing
WAH LUNG: Wang Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime Pay

WELBILT INC: Still Faces Schlimm Class Suit in Florida
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Post-Verdict Awards under Appeal
WRIGHT MEDICAL: Discloses 72 Pending Suits Over PROFEMUR
YRC WORLDWIDE: Pomerantz and Kaplan Fox to Lead Case
ZENNI OPTICAL: Reid Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website

ZILLOW: Class Action Over Co-Marketing Program Moves Forward

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Fails to Pay Plan Benefits Under ERISA, Baker Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES E. BAKER, JR. v. 3M COMPANY INC. and 3M SHORT-TERM
DISABILITY PLAN, Case No. 5:19-cv-00704-AKK (N.D. Ala., May 8,
2019), arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay the
benefits available under the Plan's defined benefit as required
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and the terms of
the Plan itself.

Mr. Baker asserts that he had been employed by 3M for 12 years, as
of June 15, 2018, the date of his gunshot wound, and he has been
involuntarily placed on an unpaid leave of absence as of April 1,
2019.  He contends that he has exhausted his administrative
remedies concerning his claim for benefits from the Plan, and
received his final denial and notice of his right to file suit on
November 9, 2018.

3M Company develops, manufactures, and markets various products
worldwide.  3M conducts operations in the City of Decatur in Morgan
County, Alabama, and is the employer through whom Mr. Baker became
vested in the Plan.  3M Short-Term Disability Plan is the Company's
disability plan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John R. Campbell, Esq.
          JOHN R. CAMPBELL, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          229 East Side Square
          Huntsville, AL 35801
          Telephone: (256) 534-0407
          Facsimile: (256) 715-7669
          E-mail: jrc@jrc-law.net


3M COMPANY: Removed Johnson Suit over Defective CAEv2 to D. Minn.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company removed the case, JEFFREY E.S. JOHNSON, the Plaintiff,
vs 3M COMPANY, the Defendant, from the Second Judicial District
Court of Minnesota, Ramsey County to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota on May 23, 2019. The District of
Minnesota Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:19-cv-01354 to the
proceeding.

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

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

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

Attorneys for 3M:

          Jerry W. Blackwell, Esq.
          Benjamin W. Hulse, Esq.
          S. Jamal Faleel, Esq.
          BLACKWELL BURKE P.A.
          431 South Seventh Street, Suite 2500
          Minneapolis, MN 55415
          Telephone: (612) 343 3248
          Facsimile: (612) 343 3205
          E-mail: blackwell@blackwellburke.com
                  bhulsew@blackwellburke.com
                  jfaleel@blackwellburke.com


3M COMPANY: Removes Hill Suit over Defective Earplugs to D. Minn.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company removed the case, NATHANIEL E. HILL, the Plaintiff, vs
3M COMPANY, the Defendant, from the Second Judicial District Court
of Minnesota, Ramsey County to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota on May 23, 2019. The District of Minnesota
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:19-cv-01355-DSD-LIB to the
proceeding.

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

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

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

Attorneys for 3M are:

          Jerry W. Blackwell, Esq.
          Benjamin W. Hulse, Esq.
          S. Jamal Faleel, Esq.
          BLACKWELL BURKE P.A.
          431 South Seventh Street, Suite 2500
          Minneapolis, MN 55415
          Telephone: (612) 343 3248
          Facsimile: (612) 343 3205
          E-mail: blackwell@blackwellburke.com
                  bhulsew@blackwellburke.com
                  jfaleel@blackwellburke.com


3M COMPANY: Removes Woods Suit over Defective Earplugs to D. Minn.
------------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company removed the case, JOHN P. WOODS, the Plaintiff, vs 3M
COMPANY, the Defendant, from the Second Judicial District Court of
Minnesota, Ramsey County to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota on May 23, 2019. The District of Minnesota
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:19-cv-01361-JNE-TNL to the
proceeding.

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

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

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

Attorneys for 3M:

          Jerry W. Blackwell, Esq.
          Benjamin W. Hulse, Esq.
          S. Jamal Faleel, Esq.
          BLACKWELL BURKE P.A.
          431 South Seventh Street, Suite 2500
          Minneapolis, MN 55415
          Telephone: (612) 343 3248
          Facsimile: (612) 343 3205
          E-mail: blackwell@blackwellburke.com
                  bhulsew@blackwellburke.com
                  jfaleel@blackwellburke.com


3M COMPANY: Smith Sues Over Contaminated Water Supply
-----------------------------------------------------
ROBINSON SMITH, NANCY ANN WILLIAMS, ROBERT WILLIAMS, ROBERT
WILLIAMS JR., PATRICIA DUBLIN, WILLIAM DUBLIN, DANIEL YODER, JASON
BOUFFARD, JILL CWIKLIK, MARY KATHRYN RENDALL, RICHARD REYNOLDS,
LORRIE HODGDON, RENEE GAUTHIER, VANESSA SULLIVAN, KATIE TSIGOUNIS,
CHARLES BADGER, JONATHAN ROSE, ROBERT HARRIMAN, BENJAMIN BURKE,
ANTHONY DEBLAISE and JEFF REED, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. 3M COMPANY, f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY, CHEMGUARD, INC., TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P., successor in
interest to THE ANSUL COMPANY, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., E.I DUPONT DE
NEMOURS AND COMPANY, individually and as successor in interest to
DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY,
individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise, and THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, L.L.C.,
individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00560 (D. N.H.,
May 24, 2019) seek recovery from all Defendants for injuries
suffered by the Plaintiffs, each of whom suffered injuries as a
direct and proximate result of exposure to and consumption of
PFAS-contaminated water from the Pease AFB drinking water supply,
in an amount to be determined at trial, exclusive of interest,
costs, and attorneys' fees.

Pease Air Force Base ("Pease AFB") occupies approximately 4,365
acres of land in southeastern New Hampshire. It is bordered on the
east by the City of Portsmouth, on the north by the Town of
Newington, and on the southeast by the Town of Greenland. From the
at least 1970 through 1991, Aqueous film-foaming foam ("AFFF") was
used to extinguish and prevent flammable liquid fires during the
firefighting training exercises that were conducted at Pease AFB.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS") such as
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA"), perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and perflouorohexane sulfonate ("PFHxS") have been present
in various of these foams. Defendants manufactured and distributed
the AFFF to Pease AFB, knowing that AFFF containing PFOA and/or
PFOS presented an unreasonable risk to human health and the
environment and was inherently dangerous.

The Defendants also knew that PFOA and PFOS were highly soluble and
mobile in water, highly likely to contaminate water supplies and
other sensitive receptors, were persistent in the environment, and
would bio-accumulate in humans causing serious health effects.
Defendants marketed and sold their products with knowledge that
large quantities of AFFF, containing toxic PFAS, would be used in
training exercises and in emergency situations at military bases,
including Pease AFB, in such a manner that PFOA and PFOS would
contaminate the air, soil, and groundwater. Defendants marketed and
sold their products with knowledge that large quantities of AFFF,
containing toxic PFC's, would be stored in fire suppressant systems
and tanks on United States Air Force ("USAF") Bases, including
Pease AFB, and that such systems and storage were used and
maintained in such a manner that dangerous chemicals would be
released into the air, soil, and groundwater.

The Defendants failed in their duty to warn users, bystanders, and
sensitive receptors of the inherently dangerous properties of their
AFFF. On May 2, 2012, the United States Environmental Protection
Agency's ("USEPA") published its Third Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Rule ("UCMR3") which required public water systems
nationwide to monitor for thirty (30) contaminants of concern
between 2013 and 2015. New Hampshire currently follows the USEPA
level of 70 ppt for combined PFOA and PFOS levels. As a direct and
proximate result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiffs have
suffered injury and damages from the presence of PFAS in their
drinking water during the time that have lived or worked at Pease
AFB, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs are residents of New Hampshire who has been exposed to
consuming contaminated water.

3M manufactured, distributed, and sold AFFF containing PFOS,
beginning before 1970 and until at least 2002.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Patrick J. Lanciotti, Esq.
     360 Lexington Avenue, 11th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 397-1000
     Email: tkunkle@napolilaw.com
            planciotti@napolilaw.com

          - and -

     Kirk Simoneau, Esq.
     Lawrence A. Vogelman, Esq.
     SIMONEAU P.A.
     77 Central Street, 11th Floor
     Manchester, NH 03101
     Phone: (603) 669-7070
     Email: ksimoneau@davenixonlaw.com
            LVogelman@davenixonlaw.com



3M COMPANY: Zayas-Bazan Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, CHRISTOPHER ZAYAS-BAZAN, the Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY,
AEARO HOLDING LLC, AEARO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE,
LLC, AEARO, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00796 (D. Conn.,
May 23, 2019), seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing loss or damage
Plaintiff allegedly suffered while serving variously in the U.S.
military, including during foreign conflicts. The Plaintiff
contends that Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2 ("CAEv2")
manufactured and sold by Aearo were defectively designed and failed
to provide adequate hearing protection. 3M denies these
allegations.

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Robert I. Reardon, Jr., Esq.
          THE REARDON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          160 Hempstead St.
          P.O. Drawer 1430
          New London, CT 06320
          Telephone: 860-442-0444
          Facsimile: 860-444-6445
          E-mail: rreardon@reardonlaw.com

ADDUS HEALTHCARE: Court Extends Time to File Pleadings in Encinias
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, Oakland Division, issued an Order extending time to
respective Opposition and Reply in the case captioned MARY MOORE,
ALEXANDRIA ENCINIAS, individually, and on behalf of other members
of the general public similarly situated; Plaintiffs, v. ADDUS
HEALTHCARE, INC., an unknown business entity; ADDUS HOMECARE, INC.,
an unknown business entity; and DOES 2 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants. Case No. 4:19-CV-01519-HSG. (N.D. Cal.).

The parties seek an extension of time to file their respective
briefs to provide the parties with an opportunity to meet and
confer regarding Defendants amending their answer to Plaintiffs'
first amended complaint in order to address the concerns raised in
Plaintiffs' motion.

The parties propose a fourteen (14) day extension of Defendants'
time to file their opposition and for Plaintiffs' to file their
reply to Plaintiffs' motion to strike, to May 31, 2019 and June 7,
2019, respectively.

The requested extension of time for each side to respond does not
impact any other dates in this action, including the August 29,
2019 hearing date for Plaintiffs' motion..

Dated: May 20, 2019 AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP GREGORY W.
KNOPP GARY M. MCLAUGHLIN VICTOR A. SALCEDO By /s/Gary M. McLaughlin
Gary M. McLaughlin

Attorneys for Defendants Addus Healthcare, Inc. and Addus HomeCare
Corporation Dated: May 20, 2019LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC Edwin
Aiwazian Arby Aiwazian Tara Zabehi By /s/Edwin AiwazianEdwin
Aiwazian Attorneys for Plaintiffs Mary Moore and Alexandria
Encinias

The deadline for Defendants' opposition to Plaintiffs' motion to
strike portions of Defendants' amended answer to Plaintiffs' first
amended complaint is hereby continued fourteen (14) days and is to
be filed by May 31, 2019.

The deadline for Plaintiffs' reply to Defendants' opposition to
Plaintiffs' motion to strike portions of Defendants' amended answer
to Plaintiffs' first amended complaint is hereby continued fourteen
(14) days and is to be filed by June 7, 2019.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 20, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y6cxx46d from Leagle.com.

Mary Moore, individually and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated & Alexandria Encinias,
individually and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Edwin Aiwazian --
edwin@lfjpc.com -- Lawyers for Justice, PC &Tara Zabehi --
tara@lfjpc.com -- Lawyers for Justice, PC.

Addus Healthcare, Inc., an unknown business entity & Addus HomeCare
Corporation, an unknown business entity, Defendants, represented by
Gary Matthew McLaughlin -- gmclaughlin@akingump.com -- Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, Gregory William Knopp --
gknopp@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP &Victor
A. Salcedo -- vsalcedo@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer Feld
LLP.


ADVANCED MICRO: California Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division issued an Order granting Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned DOYUN KIM, Plaintiff, v.
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No.
5:18-cv-00321-EJD. (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action against Advanced
Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD), its CEO Lisa T. Su, and its CFO Devinder
Kumar (AMD Defendants) for allegedly making misleading statements
or omissions relating to the Spectre computer vulnerabilities.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and of Rule 10b-5 and Su and Kumar individually
violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act all to artificially
inflate AMD's stock prices.

Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants violated Section 10(b)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 by making several allegedly
misleading statement or omissions related the Spectre
vulnerabilities.

The ACAC raises three categories of allegedly misleading statements
or omissions: (1) risk disclosures in corporate filings during the
class period, (2) marketing statements from the launch of the Ryzen
processor, and (3) public statements made in January 2018
concerning the disclosure of the Spectre and Meltdown
vulnerabilities.

But in their opposition, Plaintiffs abandon their claim to the
extent it is based on the representations from the launch of the
Ryzen processors.

The Court therefore dismisses this claim as far as it relies on
those representations.   To plead a claim for violations of Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, a plaintiff must allege
facts showing (1) a material misrepresentation or omission (2)
scienter (3) a connection between the misrepresentation or omission
and the purchase or sale of a security (4) reliance (5) economic
loss; and (6) loss causation.  

The Defendants argue that that the ACAC fails to adequately plead
the first two elements.

Material Misrepresentation or Omission

To adequately plead a material misrepresentation, a plaintiff must
specify (1) each statement alleged to have been misleading [2] the
reason or reasons why the statement is misleading and [3] if an
allegation regarding the statement or omission is made on
information and belief, the complaint shall state with
particularity all facts on which that belief is formed. The
allegedly misleading statements must directly contradict what the
defendant knew at that time. Statements that are not false, but
that omit material information may be misleading if the defendant
had a duty to disclose. The duty to disclose does not arise from
the mere possession of nonpublic market information.

An omission is misleading where it affirmatively create an
impression of a state of affairs that differs in a material way
from the one that actually exists.

The Risk Disclosure Statements

The Plaintiffs allege that three of AMD's SEC filings are
materially false or misleading because their risk disclosure
statements omit any reference to Spectre.  

The Plaintiffs allege that this statement is false and misleading
because the Defendants knew at the time that AMD's chips were
susceptible to Spectre, leaving the owners of AMD's chips in danger
of having their personal and confidential information
misappropriated.

But those facts are not analogous to the factual allegations before
the Court. While the Plaintiffs describe the risk disclosures as
warning that AMD's processors could be susceptible to security
vulnerabilities, this assertion is not accurate. Defendants' risk
disclosures address the risks posed by data breaches and
cyber-attacks and by potential claims for damages resulting from
loss of data from alleged vulnerabilities in the security of our
processors not the existence of a vulnerability. Plaintiffs do not
allege that AMD has suffered any data breaches or cyber-attacks
because of Spectre or that AMD has been subject to claims for
damages resulting from a successful exploitation of Spectre. Nor do
Plaintiffs allege that when Defendants filed the risk disclosures
they had any contemporaneous reasons to believe that cyber-attacks,
data breaches, or litigation because of Spectre were remotely
likely.   

Because those plaintiffs did not allege that the defendant's sales
had suffered as a result of the decision to end the relationship
with the distributor, the Third Circuit found that the defendant
had no duty to disclose its decision to terminate its relationship
with the distributor, and the risk disclosure was not misleading.


Here, the danger warned of by Defendants were cyber-attacks, data
breaches, and resulting litigation not the discovery of
vulnerabilities in AMD's processors. The Court finds that
Plaintiffs have not pled that AMD's risk disclosure statements were
false or misleading.

The January Statements

The Plaintiffs argue that the statements about Spectre that
Defendants made in January 2018 were misleading. The statements on
January 3 and 8, 2018 were false and misleading, they contend,
because AMD knew from the Kocher article that Variant 2 was present
on AMD's processors, but Defendants stated that that the risk of
exploitation was near zero or rare. Thus, those statements are
prohibited half-truths. The falsity of the January 3 and 8, 2018
statements is further shown, Plaintiffs contend, by the January
11th statement that AMD's processors were susceptible to
bothvariants of Spectre, and the accompanying drop in stock
prices.

However, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have not adequately
pled that the January 3 and 8, 2018 statements are false or
misleading. The Defendants represented that Variant 2 posed a near
zero risk to AMD's processors, and that due to AMD's architecture,
Variant 2 was rare and difficult to access. Plaintiffs' argument
that these statements omitted that Variant 2 was present on their
processors is simply not accurate. There is no conflict or omission
between Defendants' statements that Variant 2 was rare and
difficult to access, and Plaintiffs' allegation that the Kocher
article informed Defendants that researchers had observed Variant 2
on AMD's processors.  

To the extent the statements are misleading because they omit any
reference to yet-to-be-announced patches or updates to protect
against Variant 2, the Plaintiffs' allegations are conclusory.

The Plaintiffs plead no facts showing that the Defendants had
contemporaneous knowledge that patches and updates would be
required when they made the statements.  

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have not adequately pled that
the January statements are false or misleading.

Scienter

Even if the Plaintiffs had adequately pled that Defendants had made
materially false or misleading statements or omissions, the Court
would still find that they had not adequately pled scienter.
Scienter refers to a mental state embracing intent to deceive,
manipulate, or defraud.

The PSLRA sets stringent standards for adequately pleading
scienter. A complaint must state with particularity facts giving
rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the
required state of mind.

In assessing whether a complaint fulfills this requirement, a court
must consider plausible, nonculpable explanations for the
defendant's conduct, as well as inferences favoring the plaintiff.
The inference that the defendant acted with scienter need not be
irrefutable or even the most plausible of competing inferences.

The Plaintiffs raise three separate grounds allegedly showing
scienter. But, none supports a strong inference of scienter on its
own.

First, the Plaintiffs contend that because Project Zero notified
AMD on June 1, 2017 that AMD's processors were susceptible to
Variant 1, Defendants filed the risk disclosures and made the
January 2018 statements with the knowledge that those
representations were false or misleading.

The Court finds that under these factual allegations, knowledge of
AMD's susceptibility to Variant 1 is, on its own, not enough to
plead a strong inference of scienter. Plaintiffs allege no facts
showing that Defendants acted with either an intent to deceive, or
with deliberate and reckless disregard for this knowledge in
withholding disclosure until January 2018.  

Second, the Plaintiffs argue that they have sufficiently alleged
facts to impute scienter to Su and Kumar under the core operations
doctrine. Where, as here, a complaint relies on allegations that
management had an important role in the company but does not
contain additional detailed allegations about the management
defendants' actual exposure to the allegedly concealed information,
it will usually fall short of the PSLRA standard for alleging
scienter.  

Based on the facts alleged in the ACAC, the Court finds Defendants'
proposed inference to be substantially more compelling than the one
advanced by Plaintiffs. As discussed above, Plaintiffs do not
allege sufficient facts to support any inference that that the
January statements were intended to provide AMD with a boost over
its competitors.  

Accordingly, the Court finds that the ACAC fails to plead scienter
under the PSLRA's heightened standards.

Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act

In order to maintain claims under Section 20(a), a plaintiffs must
adequately plead a primary violation of section 10(b). If the
plaintiff does not meet that pleading requirement, then the Section
20(a) claims may be dismissed summarily. The therefore Court
dismisses Plaintiffs claims under Section 20(a).

The Court grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 23, 2019 Order is
available at
https://tinyurl.com/y2uvz3z3 from Leagle.com.

Doyun Kim, Plaintiff, represented by J. Alexander Hood, II --
ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Jeremy A. Lieberman --
jlieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Jennifer Pafiti --
jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., Lisa T. Su & Devinder Kumar,
Defendants, represented by Matthew W. Close -- mclose@omm.com --
O'Melveny & Myers LLP & Brittany Allison Rogers -- brogers@omm.com
-- OMelveny and Myers.

Thomas Eric Underwood, Pramela Dojoy & Henry Pua Ang, Movants,
represented by Jennifer Pafiti, Pomerantz LLP.

Darrel Dagdigian & Howard Clark, Movants, represented by Jacob
Alexander Goldberg -- jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law
Firm, P.A., pro hac vice & Laurence Matthew Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com --  The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.

Theodore Anderson, Movant, represented by Adam Christopher McCall
-- amccall@zlk.com -- Levi Korsinsky, LLP.


AEROHIVE NETWORKS: Bid to Dismiss McGovney Class Action Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aerohive Networks, 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 second consolidated amended complaint in McGovney v. Aerohive
Networks, Inc., et al., is currently scheduled to be heard by the
Court in the second half of 2019.

In January 2018, three purported class actions were filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company and two of its officers. Those
actions were subsequently consolidated into a single action titled
as McGovney v. Aerohive Networks, Inc., et al., Case No.
5:18-cv-00435.

The consolidated complaint, as amended, alleges that the defendants
made false and misleading statements, in particular regarding the
Company's financial outlook for the fourth quarter of 2017.

In February 2019, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, finding that the
Complaint failed to state a claim against any defendant.  

In March 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a second consolidated
amended complaint (the "Complaint"). Like the prior complaint, the
Complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading
statements, in particular regarding the Company's financial outlook
for the fourth quarter of 2017.

The Complaint asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 on behalf of those who
purchased the Company's common stock between November 1, 2017 and
January 16, 2018, inclusive. The Complaint seeks monetary damages
in an unspecified amount.  

Defendants have filed a further motion to dismiss the Complaint,
which is currently scheduled to be heard by the Court in the second
half of 2019.

Aerohive Networks, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs
and develops cloud networking and enterprise Wi-Fi solutions in the
Americas, Europe, the Middle East and Africa, and the Asia Pacific.
Aerohive Networks, Inc. was incorporated in 2006 and is
headquartered in Milpitas, California.


AFTERLIFE: Judge Awards $20MM Damages in Obituary Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Cooke, writing for CBC News, reports that Afterlife violated
the copyrighted work of grieving families in order to make a
profit, a judge in Ottawa ruled in ordering damages to be paid in a
class-action lawsuit.

The lawsuit was filed in Federal Court in Ottawa by Newfoundland
lawyer Erin Best on behalf of client Dawn Thomson, who was shocked
to find her father's obituary on the website.

"Afterlife's conduct, aptly characterized as 'obituary piracy,' is
high-handed, reprehensible and represented a marked departure from
standards of decency," wrote Justice Catherine Kane.

Afterlife effectively copied and pasted obituaries and photographs
that had been published elsewhere, and passed the content off as
its own.

It outraged families by selling memorial-themed products like
candles and sympathy cards that unwitting friends and family could
purchase -- but with all the revenue going to Afterlife.

She ordered Afterlife -- run by Pascal Leclerc -- to pay $20
million in damages, and an injunction against the website to
prevent it from operating in the future.

Leclerc initially hired a lawyer to handle his defence, but
eventually backed out of the proceedings, leading to Kane issuing a
default judgment.

Shock and disgust

Thomson's father, Denis Trainor, passed away in early 2017. A year
later, she saw his obituary posted on Afterlife's website, where
people could pay for things like digital flowers and candles.

"Ms. Thomson described her outrage and mortification that others
would think she sought to profit from her father's death," wrote
Kane.

While Thomson was the face case for the class action, the lawsuit
was launched after events set in motion by a different grieving
Newfoundlander.

Raylene Manning-Puddister was sitting at home one morning when she
went to Google her son's baseball stats.

Although she has them memorized, she said, "being a bereaved mom,
it's just a dark road you walk every day of your life."

Instead, she found his obituary as one of the top hits.

It was the same one she had written in 2012, when her
22-year-old-son, Tyller Pittman, passed away. To her surprise, it
was posted on a site she had never seen before.

"His obituary was literally word for word. The same pictures. There
wasn't even any change in what I wrote myself."

Afterlife had even used a poem Manning-Puddister had written for
her son, placed alongside paid advertising and options to purchase
digital tokens of sympathy.

"It was like someone had ripped my chest out again. I felt like I'd
literally gotten kicked in the stomach," she said. "Who in the
world would do something so horrific to take advantage of bereaved
parents, of people that lost their parents?"

Manning-Puddister called into CBC's St. John's Morning Show, where
she shared her story and questioned how it was legal.

CBC then called Best to weigh in on whether it was copyright
infringement. She later decided to file a lawsuit.

'They were absolutely devastated'

In her ruling, Kane said the site had infringed on copyrights by
lifting the obituaries and photos of the deceased from other
websites.

She awarded $10 million in statutory damages and $10 million in
aggravated damages.

Best said once she announced she was filing a suit, she was
bombarded with people who were furious, hurt, shocked and disgusted
by Afterlife.

"You would have a heart of stone if you were not moved by these
people," she said. "They were absolutely devastated . . . they felt
like it was a kick in the stomach at their most vulnerable time."

Whether any of the plaintiffs will see any money remains to be
seen, Best said.

The site had posted more than one million Canadian obituaries at
the time it was taken down. Afterlife now directs people to another
website, Everhere, which the judge said is also run by Leclerc.

Everhere drew ire in Saskatchewan last year when families of
victims of the Humboldt Broncos crash learned it was selling
similar products without their permission.

Kane requested the injunction should name Leclerc personally, so he
cannot continue posting obituaries on Everhere. [GN]


ALABAMA: Faces Class Action Over Civil Asset Forfeitures System
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Sharp, writing for AL.com, reports that Lena Sutton was
separated from her spouse and staying with a friend on the night of
Feb. 20, 2018, when her car was seized during a drug trafficking
arrest in Leesburg.

Sutton, however, wasn't inside the car and was unaware it would be
used in connection with drug activity. To date, she hasn't been
arrested nor charged with a crime.

But her car has yet to be returned. Sutton's story is now being
highlighted in a federal class-action lawsuit -- believed to be the
first of its kind in Alabama -- that questions the
constitutionality of Alabama's civil asset forfeiture system.

"We believe it's unconstitutional at a minimum of the Fourth,
Eighth and Fourteenth amendments," said Allen Armstrong, a
Birmingham-based based attorney representing Sutton in the case
filed on May 1 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama.

Unconstitutional

The case seeks injunctive relief for Sutton and anyone else who has
faced a similar situation. According to the lawsuit, the number of
potential plaintiffs is "at least hundreds."

The lawsuit names Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall as the
defendant. His office declined comment on May 3.

The lawsuit challenges state law that allows civil courts to
determine if an agency involved in the seizure can keep the
property. The determination can be made even if a person, such as
Sutton, is not convicted of a crime or even arrested.

The lawsuit believes Alabama's law and processes are
unconstitutional because it:

  -- Fails to provide notice of and a meaningful opportunity for a
hearing for someone whose property is seized by law enforcement,
thereby violating the Fourth Amendment as an illegal search, and
the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

  -- Fails to provide an opportunity for someone to challenge a
seizure during prompt hearing before a neutral arbitrator. The
state, according to the lawsuit, effectively holds onto the
property indefinitely when it knows there is no meaningful
opportunity for someone to contest the seizure within a quick time
frame. The actual hearing on the merits of the forfeiture usually
takes months, the lawsuit claims, representing more constitutional
violations.

  -- Allows state and local law enforcement agents, who directly
prosecute civil forfeiture actions, to have a direct financial
interest in the proceedings, the lawsuit claims, which is another
constitutional violation.

  -- Allows excessive fines -- a violation of the Eighth Amendment
– to occur in Alabama's system in two ways: Deprivation of
property while its seized, and the costs to hire legal help to
prove they have no connection to the crime.

SPLC's role

The lawsuit's filing comes about three months after a U.S. Supreme
Court ruling against excessive police seizures involving a case out
of Indiana.

The unanimous court decision in Timbs v. Indiana stemmed from a
case involving a small-time drug offender who had his $42,000 Land
Rover seized by police despite claiming that his father's life
insurance policy, not drug money, was used to purchase it.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Eighth Amendment, which limits the
ability of the federal government to seize property, also applies
to states.

Emily Early, staff attorney with the Montgomery-based Southern
Poverty Law Center, said the Supreme Court's decision put Alabama
and other state and local governments "on notice throughout the
country: the government cannot impose excessive economic sanctions,
especially when the government stands to benefit from the
sanction."

She said, "To do so would be unconstitutional."

The Montgomery-based Southern Poverty Law Center in conjunction
with the Alabama Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, released a
detailed analysis and powerful testimonials from victims of
questionable seizures by police. The revelations were included in a
report, released in January 2018, titled "Forfeiting Your Rights."

Some of the statistics from that report were included in the
federal complaint.

"We are glad our investigation of civil asset forfeiture data is
being used in ways that support the public's effort to fight back
against the abuses of the practice in the Statehouse and the
courthouses," said Early.

Armstrong said the SPLC statistics, included within the lawsuit,
were "helpful in explaining our case," but noted that his legal
team has conducted a lot of research regarding the issue.

Barry Matson, executive director with the Alabama District
Attorneys Association, declined comment about the lawsuit other
than to criticize it for including the SPLC statistics which he
claims are inaccurate.

Pending legislation

The DA association and other law enforcement groups, such as the
Sheriffs Association, have long opposed major changes in the
state's civil asset forfeiture system. They are more supportive of
requirements for more transparency in the system, and in April,
Gov. Kay Ivey's office announced a $38,336 federal grant to set up
a statewide database to track property seized by police during
arrests.

Law enforcement remains opposed to legislation, in the Alabama
state Senate, that would require a criminal conviction in order for
seized properties to be kept by law enforcement.

The legislation is SB191, and it's sponsored by Sen. Arthur Orr,
R-Decatur, who pitched similar legislation last year only to see if
fall short of approval amid opposition from law enforcement.

Aside from loosening gun laws, no one issue in Montgomery has
sparked more push back from law enforcement than Orr's proposal.

Orr, on May 3, said he's faced similar resistance this session.

"About the same pushback," he said. The legislation, last year, was
stopped

State Sen. Cam Ward, R-Alabaster, and chairman of the Alabama State
Senate Judiciary Committee, said that law enforcement is "more
vocal" against civil asset forfeiture reform than they are with
prison reform.

"I don't think their opposition will change at all, in my opinion,"
said Ward. "Regardless of this court case."

Ward said while the Indiana case was supported by the Supreme
Court, other cases in other states have failed.

"No one will be surprised the lawsuit was filed," said Ward. [GN]


ALLERGAN PLC: Faces Canadian Class Action Over Breast Implants
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Rochon Genova LLP and Thomson Rogers issued a
class action on behalf of Canadians who were implanted with breast
implants manufactured and distributed by Allergan plc and several
of its affiliates.

The proposed Canada-wide class action, filed with the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice, alleges, among other things, that the
defendants knew or ought to have known that the Allergan Implants
were associated with breast implant-related illnesses, including
several autoimmune, musculoskeletal and neurological disorders,
numerous cognitive adverse health effects, as well as the
development of breast-implant associated anaplastic large cell
lymphoma ("BIA-ALCL"). In spite of having this knowledge, the
defendants have failed to warn Canadian patients adequately or at
all about these risks and have still not recalled the Allergan
Implants in Canada.

The proposed Representative Plaintiff for Canadians with the
Allergan Implants is a Toronto woman who has suffered from a
variety of serious and debilitating adverse medical effects since
having her implant surgery in January of 2014 and who says that if
she had been told about the negative side effects of having the
implants, or of the risk of developing cancer from the implants,
she never would have had the surgery. She is anxious to have her
implants surgically removed soon in order to alleviate her symptoms
and to hopefully mitigate her risk of developing BIA-ALCL.

Vincent Genova, a partner at Rochon Genova LLP, stated, "Canadian
patients have a right to be fully and candidly informed about all
risks associated with medical devices that are to be implanted in
their bodies. Companies that manufacture these devices have an
obligation to provide that information so that Canadian patients
can make educated decisions about whether or not to have a given
procedure and what product to use. When a company fails to
adequately warn about risks that they know of, they take away a
patient's right to make that educated decision. There needs to be
accountability for these companies when they place profit ahead of
patient safety."

The allegations raised in the claim have not yet been proven in
court. The plaintiffs and the prospective class members are
represented by the Toronto based law firms of Rochon Genova LLP and
Thomson Rogers. [GN]


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Hossfeld Sues Over Intrusive Telemarketing
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT HOSSFELD, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-03492 (N.D. Ill., May 24, 2019) brought this action
under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), a federal
statute enacted in response to widespread public outrage over the
proliferation of intrusive, nuisance telemarketing practices.

Plaintiff received an unsolicited, autodialed, prerecorded-voice
call in March 2019, asking if he was interested in auto insurance,
or bundling with homeowner's or renter's insurance. When Plaintiff
indicated that he was interested, he received additional calls from
or on behalf of Allstate, as well as quotes for insurance from
Allstate, including after asking to not be contacted by phone. All
of these calls were made without proper "prior express written
consent."

Given that these calls and violations are widespread, and that
Allstate has been sued multiple times for this same violation, a
class action is the best means of obtaining redress for the
Defendant's illegal telemarketing, and is consistent both with the
private right of action afforded by the TCPA and the fairness and
efficiency goals of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Robert Hossfeld is a natural person and a citizen of the
State of Texas. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was the subscriber
for the cellular telephone at issue.

Allstate Insurance Company is a Delaware corporation headquartered
in
Northbrook, Illinois, in this District.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
     Daniel J. Marovitch, Esq.
     BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
     155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Phone: (312) 729-5288
     Email: aburke@burkelawllc.com
            dmarovitch@burkelawllc.com

          - and -

     Scott D. Owens, Esq.
     SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
     3800 S. Ocean Dr., Suite 235
     Hollywood, FL 33019
     Phone: (954) 589-0588
     Email: scott@scottdowens.com


AMERICAN FEDERATION: Workers Seek Fair Share Union Fees Refund
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Leone, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that continuing
a fight against public employee unions initially spearheaded by
former Gov. Bruce Rauner, nine state workers who say they have
opted out of union membership are asking to be repaid for past
"fair share" fees in a proposed class-action lawsuit.

The lawsuit filed on May 1 argues that more than 2,700 state
employees are entitled to money they paid to the American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31 from
May 1, 2017 -- the furthest back they can demand the money under a
state statute of limitations -- through June 28, 2018, when the
U.S. Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional to make public
employees pay union dues. Attorneys for the plaintiffs say they're
seeking close to $2 million from the union.

The lawsuit that led to the Supreme Court decision was championed
by Rauner and brought by Mark Janus, a former child support
specialist with the Department of Healthcare and Family Services
who was represented by the Liberty Justice Center and the National
Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. Those same groups are
behind the May 1 lawsuit. The plaintiffs worked for a range of
departments, including the Illinois State Police and the Department
of Children and Family Services, and say they were wrongfully
forced to give money to the union.

Janus was the plaintiff in a similar lawsuit that was thrown out
earlier this year by U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman, who
ruled that AFSCME had followed the law in collecting fair share
fees and couldn't have reasonably anticipated those fees becoming
illegal.

"That ruling echoes what more than a dozen other federal and state
courts have decided in similar cases," AFSCME spokesman Anders
Lindall said in an email. "The anti-worker, corporate-funded front
groups prolonging this failed litigation want to use the courts to
further their political attack on working people and our union.
Their repeated lawsuits are nothing but a greedy grab for more."

Workers who weren't part of the union still got pay increases and
benefits the union negotiated, Lindall said.

Patrick Hughes, president and co-founder of the Liberty Justice
Center, acknowledged the lawsuit filed on May 1 makes a similar
argument to the one that was unsuccessful.

"We are making the same legal argument and we are appealing the
legal argument that was rejected," Hughes said. "The district judge
is not the final say on these issues. We'll appeal that decision. .
. . Ultimately if we are successful, we'll see what the unions do.
If we are unsuccessful, we'll appeal that decision to the U.S.
Supreme Court and let the justices that decided the Janus decision
ultimately decide that case as well."

A successful appeal would set precedent for the latest suit "to
recover the money that we feel is owed," Hughes said.

Though he is not named as a plaintiff in the suit filed on May 1,
Janus is part of the class the "fair share" lawsuit seeks to
define, and he spoke at the news conference.

"We just want our money back," Janus said. [GN]


AMERICAN FINANCE: Bid to Dismiss St. Clair-Hibbard Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Finance Trust, 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 class action lawsuit initiated by Carolyn St. Clair-Hibbard is
still pending.

On February 8, 2018, Carolyn St. Clair-Hibbard, a purported
stockholder of the Company, filed a putative class action complaint
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Company, AR Global, the Advisor, Nicholas S.
Schorsch and William M. Kahane.

On February 23, 2018, the complaint was amended to, among other
things, assert some claims on the plaintiff's own behalf and other
claims on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
shareholders of the Company as a class. On April 26, 2018,
defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

On May 25, 2018, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. The
second amended complaint alleges that the proxy materials used to
solicit stockholder approval of the Merger at the Company's 2017
annual meeting were materially incomplete and misleading.

The complaint asserts violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange
Act against the Company, as well as control person liability
against the Advisor, AR Global, and Messrs. Schorsch and Kahane
under 20(a). It also asserts state law claims for breach of
fiduciary duty against the Advisor, and claims for aiding and
abetting such breaches, of fiduciary duty against the Advisor, AR
Global and Messrs. Schorsch and Kahane.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages, rescission of the
Company's advisory agreement (or severable portions thereof) which
became effective when the Merger became effective, and a
declaratory judgment that certain provisions of the Company's
advisory agreement are void.

The Company believes the second amended complaint is without merit
and intends to defend vigorously. On June 22, 2018, defendants
moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. On August 1, 2018,
plaintiff filed an opposition to defendants' motions to dismiss.
Defendants filed reply papers on August 22, 2018, and oral argument
was held on September 26, 2018. That motion is now pending.

American Finance said, "Due to the early stage of the litigation,
no estimate of a probable loss or any reasonably possible losses
are determinable at this time."

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

American Finance Trust, Inc. is a publicly traded real estate
investment trust listed on the Nasdaq focused on acquiring and
managing a diversified portfolio of primarily service-oriented and
traditional retail and distribution related commercial real estate
properties in the U.S.


AMERICAN FINANCE: Callaway Class Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
American Finance Trust, 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 initiated by Lynda Callaway.

On April 30, 2019, Lynda Callaway, a purported stockholder of the
Company, filed a putative class action complaint in New York State
Supreme Court, New York County, against the Company, AR Global, the
Advisor, Nicholas S. Schorsch, William M. Kahane, Edward M. Weil,
Jr., Nicholas Radesca, David Gong, Stanley R. Perla, and Lisa D.
Kabnick.

The complaint alleges that the registration statement pursuant to
which plaintiff and other class members acquired shares of the
Company during the Merger contained materially incomplete and
misleading information.

The complaint asserts violations of Section 11 of the Securities
Act against the Company, Messrs. Weil, Radesca, Gong, and Perla,
and Ms. Kabnick, violations of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities
Act against the Company and Mr. Weil, and control person liability
under Section 15 of the Securities Act against the Advisor, AR
Global, and Messrs. Schorsch and Kahane.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and rescission of the
Company's sale of stock pursuant to the registration statement.

American Finance said, "Due to the early stage of the litigation,
no estimate of a probable loss or any reasonably possible losses
are determinable at this time."

American Finance Trust, Inc. is a publicly traded real estate
investment trust listed on the Nasdaq focused on acquiring and
managing a diversified portfolio of primarily service-oriented and
traditional retail and distribution related commercial real estate
properties in the U.S.


AMERICAN FINANCE: Plaintiffs' Bid for Rehearing En Banc Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Finance Trust, 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 U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has denied plaintiffs' Petition for
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc, in the Maryland class action
suit.

On January 13, 2017, four affiliated stockholders of Retail Centers
of America, Inc. (RCA) filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland a putative class action lawsuit
against RCA, the Company, Edward M. Weil, Jr., Leslie D. Michelson,
Edward G. Rendell (Weil, Michelson and Rendell, the "Director
Defendants"), and AR Global, alleging violations of Sections 14(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") by RCA
and the Director Defendants, violations of Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act by AR Global and the Director Defendants, breaches of
fiduciary duty by the Director Defendants, and aiding and abetting
breaches of fiduciary duty by AR Global and the Company in
connection with the negotiation of and proxy solicitation for a
shareholder vote on what was at the time the proposed Merger and an
amendment to RCA's charter.

The complaint sought on behalf of the putative class rescission of
the Merger, which was voted on and approved by RCA stockholders on
February 13, 2017, and closed on February 16, 2017, together with
unspecified rescissory damages, unspecified actual damages, and
costs and disbursements of the action. RCA was sponsored and
advised by affiliates of the Advisor.

On April 26, 2017, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff. Lead
plaintiff, along with other stockholders of RCA, filed an amended
complaint on June 19, 2017.

The amended complaint named additional individuals and entities as
defendants (David Gong, Stanley Perla, Lisa Kabnick, all of whom
were independent directors of the Company at the time of the Merger
("Additional Director Defendants"), Nicholas Radesca, the Company's
chief financial officer at the time of the Merger and RCA's
advisor), added counts alleging violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities
Act") in connection with the Registration Statement for the
proposed merger, under Section 13(e) of the Exchange Act, and
counts for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

The Company, RCA, the Director Defendants, the Additional Director
Defendants and Nicholas Radesca deny wrongdoing and liability and
intend to vigorously defend the action.

On August 14, 2017, defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. On March 29, 2018, the Court granted defendants' motion
to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint. On April 26, 2018,
the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court's order.

On March 11, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court
dismissing the complaint. On March 25, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a
Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc, which was
subsequently denied on April 9, 2019.

American Finance said, "Due to the stage of the litigation, no
estimate of a probable loss or any reasonable possible losses are
determinable at this time. No provisions for such losses have been
recorded in the accompanying consolidated financial statements for
the three months ended March 31, 2019 or 2018."

American Finance Trust, Inc. is a publicly traded real estate
investment trust listed on the Nasdaq focused on acquiring and
managing a diversified portfolio of primarily service-oriented and
traditional retail and distribution related commercial real estate
properties in the U.S.


AMERICAN HOMES: McCann Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------
OLIVER MCCANN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN HOMES 4 RENT, L.P. Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-01879 (S.D. Tex., May 24, 2019) brought this lawsuit on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated current or
former field inspectors, to recover unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs owed
to him individually and on behalf of other similarly situated
individuals.

The Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") by
forcing Plaintiff and similarly situated workers, to work a
substantial amount of overtime without properly paying all
compensation due, thus depriving them of rightful compensation for
their work that Defendant is legally obligated to pay. Mr. McCann
worked for Defendant as a field inspector and was damaged by those
illegal policies or practices. In short, Mr. McCann was denied the
timely overtime compensation he was due under the FLSA, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Mr. McCann worked for Defendant as a field inspector for
approximately 2 years.

Defendant is a property management and maintenance company that
provides renovated, single-family rental homes to its
customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert W. Cowan, Esq.
     Katie R. McGregor, Esq.
     BAILEY COWAN HECKAMAN PLLC
     5555 San Felipe St., Suite 900
     Houston, TX 77056
     Phone: 713-425-7100
     Fax: 713-425-7101
     Email: rcowan@bchlaw.com
            kmcgregor@bchlaw.com


AMERICAN HONDA: Rojas Sues Over Rollaway Defect
-----------------------------------------------
PATRICK ROJAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., a
California Corporation, and HONDA NORTH AMERICA, INC., a California
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-21721-XXXX (S.D. Fla.,
May 1, 2019) seeks damages for Honda's conduct with regard to the
Rollaway Defect.

One of the most basic safety features in every car in its
implementation of a system that allows the driver to easily take
the vehicle out of gear and place the vehicle in "Park," with the
knowledge and confidence that their vehicle will not inadvertently
roll away after the driver exits the vehicle. The Complaint alleges
that Honda broke this minimum safety standard obligation. Honda's
2016, 2017 and, upon information and belief, its 2018 Honda Civic
vehicles equipped with CVT transmissions ("Class Vehicles") have a
common defect such that their drivers are unable to determine
whether the Class Vehicles are properly placed in "Park" before
exiting the vehicles. The Class Vehicles fail to provide notice to
drivers that their Vehicle is out-of-gear, they fail to
automatically activate the Electric Parking Brake in certain
situations (such as when the driver exits the vehicle or when the
driver's door is opened), and they are prone to—and actually do
unintentionally roll away (the "Rollaway Defect"), often causing
crashes or injuries.

Since and despite its 2016 MY Class Vehicle recall, Honda has
received consumer complaints and reports of accidents regarding the
Rollaway Defect in Class Vehicles, including through the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA"). To date, Honda has
not recalled any 2017 MY Class Vehicles for the Rollaway Defect.

Honda's failure to fix the Rollaway Defect, despite its knowledge
of the problem, caused Plaintiff Patrick Rojas ("Plaintiff") and
other owners of Class Vehicles ("Class Members") to suffer damages
and be placed at risk due to this serious safety issue.

Plaintiff would not have purchased his Class Vehicle, or would have
paid less for it than he did, had he been advised of the Rollaway
Defect at the point of sale. Plaintiff and the putative Class
Members did not receive the benefit of their bargain, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Patrick Rojas purchased a 2016 Honda Civic Ext, VIN
19XFC1F35GE029374, from Honda of Aventura on or about June 14,
2016.

Honda are the developers, designers, manufacturers, assemblers,
testers, inspectors, marketers, advertisers, distributors, sellers,
and/or warrantors of the Class Vehicles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Rachel Soffin, Esq.
     GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
     800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
     Knoxville, TN 37929
     Phone: 865-247-0080
     Facsimile: 865-522-0049
     Email: rachel@gregcolemanlaw.com

          - and -

     Scott C. Harris, Esq.
     WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
     900 W. Morgan St.
     Raleigh, NC 27603
     Phone: 919-600-5000
     Facsimile: 919-600-5035
     Email: scott@wbmllp.com

          - and -

     Bradley K. King, Esq.
     AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
     45 Main Street, Suite 528
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (917) 336-0171
     Facsimile: (917) 336-0177
     Email: bking@ahdootwolfson.com


APPLE INC: Sells iTunes Customer Data to 3rd Parties, Wheaton Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, LEIGH WHEATON; JILL PAUL; and TREVOR PAUL, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
APPLE INC., the Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-02883 (N.D. Cal., May
24, 2019), seeks legal and equitable remedies to redress and put a
stop to the illegal actions of Apple in disclosing to third parties
her Personal Listening Information and that of all other
similarly-situated Rhode Island residents who purchased music from
Apple on its iTunes Store platform, in violation of Rhode Island's
Video, Audio and Publication Rentals Privacy Act (RIVRPA").

In early 2019, in an effort to capitalize on recent revelations
concerning the data-sharing practices of its competitors Facebook,
Inc. and Google LLC, Apple Inc. placed a massive billboard in Las
Vegas, Nevada, touting its supposedly pro-consumer positions on
issues of data privacy.  "The statement on the billboard is plainly
untrue, however, because none of the information pertaining to the
music you purchase on your iPhone stays on your iPhone," according
to the lawsuit.

To supplement its revenues and enhance the formidability of its
brand in the eyes of mobile application developers, Apple sells,
rents, transmits, and/or otherwise discloses, to various third
parties, information reflecting the music that its customers
purchase from the iTunes Store application that comes pre-installed
on their iPhones.

The data Apple discloses includes the full names and home addresses
of its customers, together with the genres and, in some cases, the
specific titles of the digitally-recorded music that its customers
have purchased via the iTunes Store and then stored in their
devices' Apple Music libraries (collectively "Personal Listening
Information"). After Apple discloses its customers' Personal
Listening Information, the various third-party recipients of this
data then append to it a myriad of other categories of personal
information pertaining to Apple's customers -- such as gender, age,
household income, educational background, and marital status --
only to then re-sell that Personal Listening Information (enhanced
with various categories of demographic data) to other third parties
on the open market, the lawsuit says.

According to the complaint, Apple has sold, rented, transmitted,
and/or otherwise disclosed the Personal Listening Information of
the Plaintiffs and millions of its other customers to developers of
various mobile applications available for download in its App
Store, as well as to data aggregators, data appenders, data
cooperatives, list brokers, and other third parties, many of whom
have in turn re-disclosed Plaintiffs' and the other unnamed class
members' Personal Listening Information to other third parties for
further exploitation and monetization -- all without providing
prior notice to or obtaining the requisite consent from anyone.
Such disclosures invaded Plaintiffs' and the unnamed Class members'
privacy and have resulted in a barrage of unwanted junk mail to
their home addresses and e-mail inboxes.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Putative Classes:

          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          David W. Hall, ESQ.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 766-3534
          Facsimile: (415) 402-0058
          E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com
                  dhall@hedinhall.co

               - and -

          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          10728 Lindbrook Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                  twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com

               - and -

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  jmarchese@bursor.com
                  pfraietta@bursor.com

APPLE INC: Steamfitters Local Sues Over Exchange Act Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. APPLE INC., TIMOTHY D.
COOK and LUCA MAESTRI, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-02891 (N.D.
Cal., May 24, 2019) is a securities fraud class action on behalf of
all those who purchased or otherwise acquired Apple securities
during the period from August 1, 2017, through January 2, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), who were damaged thereby (the
"Class") seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The Company's most profitable product is the iPhone smartphone,
which since 2012 has represented more than 40 percent of the
Company's revenue. China is the Company's third largest market, and
most important growth market, yet it is susceptible to geopolitical
and macroeconomic uncertainty and increased competition from
emerging Chinese smartphone manufacturers. In late 2016, reports
surfaced of older model iPhones experiencing sudden shutdown
issues. Unknown to the market at the time was that the shutdowns
were caused by aging iPhone batteries, as opposed to the age of the
iPhone itself. In order to remediate this problem, on January 23,
2017, Apple published iOS update 10.2.1 to every iPhone in the
world to secretly "fix" the shutdown issues by intentionally
slowing down the performance of iPhones with older batteries. The
update disclosed only that it included "bug fixes and improves the
security of your iPhone or iPad."

The Defendants' undisclosed practice of slowing down iPhones with
older batteries came with an undisclosed "benefit" for the Company.
Frustrated with iPhones operating in diminished capacity and
falsely believing their devices to be obsolete, consumers opted to
purchase brand new iPhones on accelerated timetables. These
premature upgrades artificially inflated iPhone sales, provided the
appearance of consistent iPhone sales growth, and resulted in
record iPhones sales throughout 2017. During this period,
Defendants falsely attributed iPhone upgrade rates, progressing at
"highest that [they've] seen," to a myriad of factors—none of
which remotely touched upon the undisclosed phone "throttling."

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants misled investors by making
materially false and misleading statements related to the Company's
revenues and demand for iPhones that artificially inflated and/or
maintained Apple's stock price. Specifically, (1) because Apple
intentionally throttled older-model iPhones during 2017, customers
artificially accelerated iPhone upgrades rates during that year,
thereby unsustainably boosting unit sales and cannibalizing future
sales; (2) the Company's replacement battery program during 2018
(enacted as a direct and primary response to the Company's
intentional phone throttling during 2017) was negatively impacting
iPhone sales; and (3) macroeconomic and geopolitical issues in
China were negatively impacting iPhones sales in Greater China,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff purchased Apple common stock during the Class Period, as
set forth in the accompanying certification incorporated by
reference herein, and has been damaged thereby.

Apple is a multinational technology company headquartered in
Cupertino, California that designs, develops, and sells consumer
electronics, computer software, and online services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James M. Wagstaffe, Esq.
     Frank Busch, Esq.
     WAGSTAFFE, VON LOEWENFELDT, BUSCH & RADWICK LLP
     100 Pine Street, Suite 725
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Phone: (415) 357-8900
     Facsimile: (415) 357-8910
     Email: wagstaffe@wvbrlaw.com
            busch@wvbrlaw.com

          - and -

     Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
     Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
     Francis P. McConville, Esq.
     LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
     140 Broadway
     New York, NY 10005
     Phone: (212) 907-0700
     Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
     Email: ckeller@labaton.com
            ebelfi@labaton.com
            fmcconville@labaton.com


ARIZONA: Court Vacates Medicaid Subclass Certification
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, B.K., by her next friend Margaret Tinsley; B.T., by
their next friend Jennifer Kupiszewski; A.C.-B., by their next
friend Susan Brandt; M.C.-B., by their next friend Susan Brandt;
D.C.-B., by their next friend Susan Brandt; J.M., by their next
friend Susan Brandt, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. JAMI SNYDER, in her
official capacity as Director of the Arizona Health Care Cost
Containment System, Defendant-Appellant, B.K., by her next friend
Margaret Tinsley; B.T., by their next friend Jennifer Kupiszewski;
A.C.-B., by their next friend Susan Brandt; M.C.-B., by their next
friend Susan Brandt; D.C.-B., by their next friend Susan Brandt;
J.M., by their next friend Susan Brandt, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
GREGORY McKAY, in his official capacity as Director of the Arizona
Department of Child Safety, Defendant-Appellant, Case Nos.
17-17501, 17-17502 (9th Cir.), Judge John Clifford Wallace of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

The Arizona Department of Child Safety and the Arizona Health Care
Cost Containment System are responsible for delivering health care
and other services to the thousands of children in the Arizona
foster care system.  In 2015, 10 of those children brought an
action against the directors of these agencies for alleged
violations of the federal Constitution and the Medicaid Act,
alleging that Arizona's state-wide policies and practices deprived
them of required medical services, among other things, and thus
subjected them to a substantial risk of harm.  

The 10 original Plaintiffs in the case were foster children in
Arizona's care.  They initiated the action in February 2015,
alleging that the Directors had state-wide policies and practices
that violated their rights to due process under the Fourteenth
Amendment, family integrity under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth
Amendments, and medical services under the Medicaid Act.  The
Plaintiffs' original goal was to maintain a class action with
themselves as class representatives, but over the next two-plus
years of litigation eight Plaintiffs were adopted or otherwise
removed from the foster care system, leaving only two at the time
of class certification.  

In November 2016, the named Plaintiffs sought class certification
for a class of all children who are or will be in DCS's custody,
along with a subclass of children who, while in DCS's custody, were
not placed in the care of an adult relative or person with a
significant relationship with the child, and a subclass of children
eligible for Medicaid.  Based on the claims, in September 2017, the
district court certified the following classes:

     a. General Class: All children who are or will be in the legal
custody of DCS due to a report or suspicion of abuse or neglect.

     b. Non-KinshipSubclass: All members in the General Class who
are not placed in the care of an adult relative or person who has a
significant relationship with the child.

     c. Medicaid Subclass: All members of the General Class who are
entitled to early and periodic screening, diagnostic, and treatment
services under the federal Medicaid statute.  

Since class certification, moreover, an additional Plaintiff
appears to have aged out of the proposed classes.  B.K. alleges
that that she has been deprived of necessary health care, separated
from her siblings, deprived of family contact, and placed in
inappropriate care environments.  B.K. alleges that these
deprivations amount to violations of her right to due process under
the Fourteenth Amendment and of her right to reasonably prompt
early and periodic screening, diagnostic, and treatment services
(EPSDT services) under the Medicaid Act. B.K. also alleges that
these violations are caused by specified state-wide policies and
practices.

The Director of the Department of Child Safety and the Director of
the Health Care Cost Containment System timely sought review of
those class certification decisions, and the Court accepted their
interlocutory appeals.  The only issue on appeal is whether the
three classes were properly certified, including whether the named
Plaintiffs and the class members have standing to bring their
claims.

Judge Wallace holds that the district court did not err or abuse
its discretion in its rulings on standing, commonality, typicality,
and uniform injunctive relief.  He will affirm the district court's
certification of the General Class.  He will also affirm the
district court's certification of the Non-Kinship Subclass.  He
finds no "clear error of judgment" that shows an abuse of
discretion.

The Judge will vacate the Medicaid Subclass and remand for further
proceedings.  He emphasizez that, while the Court has vacated class
certification based on the nature of the litigation to date,
nothing in their opinion should prevent the district court from
making new factual findings and exercising its discretion to
recertify the Medicaid Subclass on remand, if it determines that
such action would be appropriate.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Wallace affirmed in part, vacated in
part, and remanded.  All parties will bear their own costs on
appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 26, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/fi5Pp6 from Leagle.com.

Robert L. Ellman (argued) and David Simpson, Ellman Law Group LLC,
Phoenix, Arizona; Nicholas D. Acedo, (argued) and Daniel P. Struck,
Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo P.L.C., Chandler, Arizona; Daniel P.
Quigley, Cohen Dowd Quigley P.C., Phoenix, Arizona; Logan T.
Johnston, Johnston Law Offices, Phoenix, Arizona; for
Defendants-Appellants.

Harry Frischer -- info@childrensrights.org -- (argued) and Aaron
Finch, Children's Rights Inc., New York, New York; Anne C. Ronan
and Daniel J. Adelman, Arizona Center for Law in the Public
Interest, Phoenix, Arizona; Andrea J. Diggs , Thomas D. Ryerson ,
Joel W. Nomkin , Shane R. Swindle , and Joseph E. Mais , Perkins
Coie LLP, Phoenix, Arizona; for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Marsha L. Levick -- info@jlc.org -- Juvenile Law Center,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Amici Curiae Juvenile Law Center,
Bluhm Legal Clinic, Center for Children's Law & Policy, Center for
Public Representation, Children & Family Justice Center, Children's
Advocacy Institute, Children's Defense Fund New York, Civitas
Childlaw Center, Columbia Legal Services, Disability Rights
Pennsylvania, Harvard Law School Child Advocacy Program, Impact
Fund, National Association of Counsel for Children, National Center
for Youth Law, National Health Law Program, National Women's Law
Center, Nebraska Appleseed, Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, Rutgers
School of Law—Camden Children's Justice Clinic, Washington
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, and Youth
Law Center.

Corene T. Kendrick, Prison Law Office, Berkeley, California; Amanda
W. Shanor and David C. Fathi, American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation, Washington, D.C.; Kathleen E. Brody , ACLU Foundation
of Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona; for Amici Curiae American Civil
Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, and
Prison Law Office.

Andrew R. Kaufman -- akaufman@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein LLP, Nashville, Tennessee; Katherine I. McBride , Jason
L. Lichtman , and Jonathan D. Selbin , Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein LLP, New York, New York; Elizabeth J. Cabraser , Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, San Francisco, California; for
Amici Curiae Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, and Federal
Courts Professors.


ARKANSAS: Home to Community Suit Moved to D. Arkansas
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against the Arkansas Department of Human
Services and its officers was removed from the Pulaski County
Circuit Court (Case No. 60-CV-19-02768) to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Little Rock) on May 24, 2019.
The Eastern District of Arkansas Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:19-cv-00368-BSM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Chief Judge Brian S. Miller.

The case is captioned as Home to Community Living Inc. on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
Arkansas Department of Human Services; Cindy Gillespie, in her
Official Capacity as Director of the Arkansas Department of Human
Services; Paula Stone, in her Official Capacity as Deputy Director
Innovation and Delivery System Reform; APC Passe LLC, doing
business as: Summit Community Care; Empower Healthcare Solutions
LLC; Arkansas Total Care Inc.; Centene Corporation, Parent Company
of Arkansas Total Care Inc.; Optum Services Inc., a division of
United Healthcare Services, Inc., other United Healthcare Services
Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00368-BSM.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Lucien Ramseur Gillham, Esq.
          Luther Oneal Sutter, Esq.
          SUTTER & GILLHAM, PLLC
          Post Office Box 2012
          Benton, AR 72018
          Telephone: (501) 315-1910
          Facsimile: (501) 315-1916
          E-mail: lucien.gillham@gmail.com
                  luthersutter.law@gmail.com

Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Human Services; Cindy
Gillespie; Paula Stone;

          William C. Bird III, Esq.
          ARKANSAS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
          Catlett-Prien Tower Building
          323 Center Street, Suite 200
          Little Rock, AR 72201-2610
          Telephone: (501) 682-1317
          Facsimile: (501) 682-2591
          E-mail: william.bird@arkansasag.gov

Attorneys for APC Passe LLC:

          Erika Ross Gee, Esq.
          Gary D. Marts, Jr., Esq.
          JESSICA PRUITT KOEHLER, ESQ.
          WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS
          200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3699
          Telephone: (501) 371-0808
          Facsimile: (501) 376-9442
          E-mail: egee@wlj.com
                  gmarts@wlj.com
                  jkoehler@wlj.com

Attorneys for Empower Healthcare Solutions LLC:

          William A. Waddell , Jr., Esq.
          FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK, LLP
          Regions Center, Suite 2000
          400 West Capitol Avenue
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3522
          Telephone: (501) 370-1510
          E-mail: waddell@fridayfirm.com

Attorneys for Arkansas Total Care Inc. and Centene Corporation:

          Edward T. Pivin, Esq.
          Oliver H. Thomas, Esq.
          Winthrop B. Reed, Esq.
          LEWIS RICE LLC
          600 Washington Avenue, Suite 2500
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 444-7600
          Facsimile: (314) 241-6056

               - and -

          Peter R. Shults, Esq.
          Steven T. Shults, Esq.
          SHULTS & ADAMS LLP
          200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1600
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3621
          Telephone: (501) 375-2301
          E-mail: pshults@shultslaw.com
                 sshults@shultslaw.com

Attorneys for Optum Services Inc.:

          Lauren S. Grinder, Esq.
          Megan D. Hargraves, Esq.
          MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG,
          GATES & WOODYARD, P.L.L.C.
          425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 688-8800
          E-mail: lgrinder@mwlaw.com
                  mhargraves@mwlaw.com

ATCO GAS: $20MM Alberta Class Action Over Explosion Certified
-------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that an Alberta judge has certified a $20-million
class-action lawsuit against Atco Gas and Pipelines Ltd. over an
explosion in Fort McMurray after the devastating 2016 wildfire.

Court of Queen's Bench Justice Peter Michalyshyn certified the
class action in Edmonton on May 22, 2019, Higgerty Law and James H.
Brown and Associates said in a joint news release.

"It means that the people who have been affected have some hope now
of the prospect of a more efficient, economic way of resolving
their claims that might otherwise go unresolved," Higgerty Law
principal Pat Higgerty, Esq. -- info@higgertylaw.ca -- told CBC
News.

When the statement of claim was first filed, the claimants were
seeking $10 million in damages. The claim has since been amended
several times. The $20 million figure is only an estimate, Higgerty
said. It includes damages for financial losses as well as emotional
and psychological suffering, he said.

The explosion in the Dickinsfield subdivision happened shortly
after Atco reinstated the gas supply to the community after the May
2016 wildfire, but before the evacuation was lifted, the law firms
said.

The explosion destroyed several homes and damaged others. The law
firms said occupants of the affected homes "suffered significant
financial losses for destroyed personal items, living expenses
while trying to repair their homes, and serious mental distress."

Higgerty said his firm has been hired by just under 50 homeowners
whose homes are within a 0.25-kilometre radius of "ground zero."
Several other homeowners who live outside that radius but within a
0.5-kilometre radius have been in contact, he said.

"How many more homeowners come forward remains to be seen," he
said.

Gabriel Brophy-MacLean said he bought a house in 2013 that was
about 100 metres away from the explosion. He's part of the
class-action lawsuit.

He said the explosion damaged his roof and the windows and
insulation on his house, blew open the refrigerator door  and
knocked his TV off the stand. He said repairs cost him $60,000 to
$70,000.

"It's great that we actually made a step forward, it's only been
three years," he said after learning the lawsuit had been
certified. "It's definitely a big step from where we were before,
that's for sure. I know it's not the end of the line yet, but at
least we're that much closer to seeing what will happen or who's
responsible."[GN]


AXOGEN INC: Amended Complaint in Einhorn Suit Due July 1
--------------------------------------------------------
AxoGen, 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 a consolidated amended complaint in the
case, Einhorn v. Axogen, Inc., et al., is due July 1, 2019.

On January 9, 2019, Plaintiff Neil Einhorn, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated, filed a putative class action
complaint in the United Stated District Court for the Middle
District of Florida alleging violations of the federal securities
laws against Axogen, Inc., certain of its directors and officers
("Individual Defendants"), and Axogen's 2017 Offering Underwriters
and 2018 Offering Underwriters (collectively, with the Individual
Defendants, the "Defendants"), captioned Einhorn v. Axogen, Inc.,
et al., No. 8:19-cv-00069 (M.D. Fla.).  

Plaintiff asserts that Defendants made false or misleading
statements in connection with the Company's November 2017
registration statement issued regarding its secondary public
offering in November 2017 and May 2018 registration statement
issued regarding its secondary public offering in May 2018, and
during a class period of August 7, 2017 to December 18, 2018.   

In particular, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants issued false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
the Company aggressively increased prices to mask lower sales; (2)
that the Company's pricing alienated customers and threatened the
Company's future growth; (3) that ambulatory surgery centers form a
significant part of the market for the Company's products; (4) that
such centers were especially sensitive to price increases; (5) that
the Company was dependent on a small number of surgeons whom the
Company paid to generate sales; (6) that the Company's consignment
model for inventory was reasonably likely to lead to channel
stuffing; (7) that the Company offered purchase incentives to sales
representatives to encourage channel stuffing; (8) that the
Company's sales representatives were encouraged to backdate revenue
to artificially inflate metrics; (9) that the Company lacked
adequate internal controls to prevent such channel stuffing and
backdating of revenue; (10) that the Company's key operating
metrics, such as number of active accounts, were overstated; and
(11) 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.  

Axogen was served on January 15, 2019. On February 4, 2019, the
court granted the parties' stipulated motion which provided that
Axogen is not required to file a response to the complaint until
thirty days after Plaintiff files a consolidated amended complaint,
which will not occur until thirty days after the court appoints a
lead plaintiff and lead counsel.

On April 30, 2019, the Court granted Police and Fire Retirement
System of the City of Detroit ("Detroit")’s Motion for
Appointment as Lead Counsel and approved of its Lead Counsel Saxena
White P.A. and Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., and set the following
schedule: on or before May 30, 2019, Detroit must file a
consolidated amended complaint; on or before July 1, 2019,
Defendants must file an answer or move to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint; on or before July 29, 2019, the parties shall
meet and confer and prepare to file a Case Management Report, which
must be filed by August 12, 2019; and, on or before 30 days after
either the filing of an answer or the Court's ruling on a motion to
dismiss, Detroit must file a motion for class certification and
Defendants must file an opposition 30 days later.  

Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages, reimbursement of
expenses and costs, including counsel and expert fees and such
other relief as the court deems just and proper.    

The Company and Individual Defendants dispute the allegations and
intend to vigorously defend against the Complaint.

AxoGen, Inc. provides surgical solutions for physical damage or
transection to peripheral nerves. The company provides its products
to hospitals, surgery centers, and military hospitals in the United
States, Canada, the United Kingdom and other European countries,
and internationally. AxoGen, Inc. is headquartered in Alachua,
Florida.


BAPTIST MEMORIAL: Walls Medicare Suit Removed to W.D. Tenn.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Nichole A. Walls, on behalf of herself and all
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Baptist Memorial Hospital
and Baptist Memorial Healthcare Corporation, Defendants, Case No.
CH-19-0470 (Tenn. Ch., March 27, 2019) has been removed to the
United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee
in late April 2019 under Case No. 19-cv-02270.

Ms. Walls seeks declaratory judgment, permanent injunction and
punitive damages resulting from unjust enrichment, negligence and
negligence per se, constructive fraud and violations of the
Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. Ms. Walls claims that Baptist
Memorial billed its Medicare/TennCare patients amounts in excess of
those amounts that Medicare/TennCare has reimbursed it for covered
medical services.

Defendants' counsel claims that said action is removable because it
arises under federal law. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Frank L. Watson, Esq.
      William F. Burns, Esq.
      William E. Routt, Esq.
      WATSON BURNS, PLLC
      253 Adams Avenue, Memphis, TN 38103.
      Telephone: (901) 529-7996
      Facsimile: (901) 529-7998

Defendants are represented by:

      Brett A. Hughes, Esq.
      Emily Hamm Huseth, Esq.
      HARRIS SHELTON HANOVER WALSH, PLLC
      6060 Primacy Parkway, Suite 100
      Memphis, Tennessee 38119
      Tel: (901) 525-1455
      Email: bhughes@harrisshelton.com
             ehuseth@harrisshelton.com


BBVA COMPASS: Appeal in Plains All American Securities Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BBVA Compass Bancshares, 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 plaintiffs' appeal
in the case, In re Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. Securities
Litigation, is still pending.

In January 2016, BBVA Securities Inc. BSI was named as a defendant
in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, In re Plains All
American Pipeline, L.P. Securities Litigation, wherein the
plaintiffs challenge statements made in registration materials and
prospectuses filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) in connection with eight securities offerings of stock and
notes issued by Plains GP Holdings and Plains All American Pipeline
and underwritten by BSI, among others.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary relief.

On April 2, 2018, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss with prejudice. The plaintiffs have appealed.

The Company believes there are substantial defenses to these claims
and intends to defend them vigorously.

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

BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. operates as the bank holding company
for Compass Bank that provides various banking services. It
operates in Commercial Banking and Wealth, Retail Banking,
Corporate and Investment Banking, and Treasury segments. The
company was founded in 1970 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.
BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Bilbao
Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.


BBVA COMPASS: Hossfeld Case Settlement Wins Preliminary Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
BBVA Compass Bancshares, 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 court in Robert
Hossfeld, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BBVA Compass, has granted preliminary approval of the
parties' settlement.

In December 2016, the Bank was named as a defendant in a putative
class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama, Robert Hossfeld, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BBVA Compass,
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in the
context of customer satisfaction survey calls to the cell phones of
individuals who have not given, or who have withdrawn, consent to
receive calls on their cell phones.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary relief.

The parties reached a settlement in principle on November 6, 2018,
and the Court has entered a Preliminary approval of Settlement
Order. The claims process is ongoing.

BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. operates as the bank holding company
for Compass Bank that provides various banking services. It
operates in Commercial Banking and Wealth, Retail Banking,
Corporate and Investment Banking, and Treasury segments. The
company was founded in 1970 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.
BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Bilbao
Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.


BBVA COMPASS: Mexican Government Bonds Antitrust Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
BBVA Compass Bancshares, 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 putative class action suit entitled, In re Mexican
Government Bonds Antitrust Litigation.

In March 2018, the Company and BBVA Securities Inc. (BSI) were
named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
In re Mexican Government Bonds Antitrust Litigation, alleging that
the defendant financial institutions engaged in collusion with
respect to the purchase and sale of Mexican government bonds.

Five substantially similar lawsuits were filed and consolidated
with the original lawsuit. The plaintiffs seek injunctive and
unspecified monetary relief.

The Company believes there are substantial defenses to these claims
and intends to defend them vigorously.

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

BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. operates as the bank holding company
for Compass Bank that provides various banking services. It
operates in Commercial Banking and Wealth, Retail Banking,
Corporate and Investment Banking, and Treasury segments. The
company was founded in 1970 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.
BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Bilbao
Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.


BECTON, DICKINSON: Heard Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
-----------------------------------------------------------------
COREY HEARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BECTON, DICKINSON & COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 2019CH06434 (Circuit Ct. Cook Cty., Ill., May 24, 2019)
brought the following Class Action Complaint pursuant to the
Illinois Code of Civil Procedure against the Defendant, its
subsidiaries and affiliates, to redress and curtail Defendant's
unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiffs
sensitive and proprietary biometric data.

Becton manufactures the Pyxis MedStation system, and related Pyxis
devices (collectively referred to as "Pyxis"), all of which are
automated medication dispensing systems that require their users to
scan a fingerprint to access the system. Becton requires users to
scan their biometric information, namely their fingerprint, when
using the Pyxis devices to access medication. Within a single
hospital location, there are typically multiple Pyxis devices. Once
a user has registered his or her fingerprint with the system, they
have access to multiple Pyxis devices within that hospital.
Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like
these, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act
("BIPA"), specifically to regulate companies that collect, store
and use Illinois citizens' biometrics, such as fingerprints.

The Defendant improperly discloses Pyxis user's fingerprint data to
other, currently unknown, third parties, including, but not limited
to third parties that host biometric data in their data center(s).
Plaintiff and other similarly-situated individuals are aggrieved
because they were not: (1) informed in writing of the purpose and
length of time for which their fingerprints were being collected,
stored, disseminated and used; (2) provided a publicly available
retention schedule or guidelines for permanent destruction of the
biometric data; and (3) provided (nor did they execute) a written
release, as required by BIPA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Corey Heard is a natural person and a resident of the
State of Illinois.

Defendant Becton is a leading manufacturer of medical technology
that produces and sells medical devices, instrument systems, and
reagents.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
     Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq.
     Haley R. Jenkins, Esq.
     STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
     100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
            cmitchell@stephanzouras.com
            hjenkins@stephanzouras.com


BEMIS COMPANY: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No.
1:19-cv-03356-PGG, on behalf of shareholders of Bemis Company, Inc.
("BMS" or the "Company") (NYSE:BMS) who have been harmed by the
Company's and its board of directors' (the "Board") alleged
violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the proposed
merger of the Company with Amcor Limited to form New Amcor.

On August 6, 2018, the Board caused the Company to enter into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Merger") under which BMS
shareholders will have the right to receive 5.1 shares of common
stock of New Amcor for each share of BMS stock they own. On March
27, 2019, BMS filed a Proxy Statement on Form DEFM 14A to solicit
shareholders to vote in favor of the Merger.

The complaint alleges that the Form DEFM14A filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission violates Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act because it provides materially incomplete
and misleading information or omits material information about the
Company and the Merger, including information concerning the
Company's financial projections and analysis, on which the Board
relied to recommend the Proposed Transaction as fair to BMS
shareholders.

If you wish to obtain information concerning this action, you can
do so by clicking here: www.faruqilaw.com/BMS

Take Action

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, is a law firm with extensive experience in
prosecuting class actions, and significant expertise in actions
involving corporate fraud. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, was founded in
1995 and the firm maintains its principal office in New York City,
with offices in Delaware, California, Georgia, and Pennsylvania.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from May 7, 2019, the date of this notice. Any
member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member.  If you wish to discuss
this action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact:

         Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
         James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
         FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
         685 3rd Avenue, 26th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Telephone: (877) 247-4292
                    (212) 983-9330
         E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                 jwilson@faruqilaw.com [GN]


BKUK 10 CORP: Reyes Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
--------------------------------------------------
JOSE VAZQUEZ REYES, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BKUK 10 CORP. (D/B/A GALLO NERO (A/K/A CARA
MIA)), BESIM KUKAJ, GRANDE DOE, and NELSON DOE, Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-03919 (S.D. Fla., May 1, 2019) brought this action on
behalf of himself, and other similarly situated individuals, for
unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards
Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law (the
"NYLL"), and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the
New York Commissioner of Labor (herein the "Spread of Hours Wage
Order"), including applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Complaint asserts that the Defendants failed to maintain
accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay
Plaintiff Vazquez appropriately for any hours worked, either at the
straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium.
Further, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Vazquez the required
"spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10
hours a day.

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

Plaintiff Vazquez is a former employee of Defendants.

BKUK 10 Corp. own, operate, or control an Italian restaurant,
located at 623 9th Ave., New York, NY 10036 under the name "Gallo
Nero (a/k/a Cara Mia)".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BLAIR'S BAIL: Egana Moves Certification of 3 Classes Under TILA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled RONALD EGANA, SAMANTHA
EGANA, and TIFFANY BROWN, on behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated v. BLAIR'S BAIL BONDS, INC., et al., Case No.
2:17-cv-05899-JTM-DMD (E.D. La.), move the Court pursuant to Rules
23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
for certification of three classes:

   1. The "Overcharged Class" defined as:

      All individuals who as a "principal" or an "indemnitor"
      entered or will enter into an agreement with one or more of
      the Defendants for the provision of bail bond services and
      who are or were charged fees in excess of $25 plus 12.5% of
      the bail amount in Jefferson Parish or $25 plus 12% of the
      bail amount elsewhere in Louisiana;

   2. The "TILA Class" defined as:

      All individuals who, since June 16, 2016 as a "principal"
      or an "indemnitor" entered into an agreement with one or
      more of the Defendants for the provision of bail bond
      services and who agreed to pay the balance in more than
      four installments or as to whom the bail bonding fee
      included the requirement to pay outstanding prior balances;
      and

   3. The "Surrendered Class" defined as:

      All individuals who, as a "principal" or an "indemnitor"
      entered into an agreement with one or more of the
      Defendants for the provision of bail bond services where
      the principal was surrendered to jail on or after June 16,
      2016, where payments made toward the premium were not
      refunded, and where no statement of surrender was filed
      indicating that the principal was surrendered because of
      one of the following reasons: change of address,
      concealment, leaving the jurisdiction without permission,
      failure to appear in court, withdrawal of an indemnitor
      from his obligation on the bond, or conviction of a
      felony.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ivy Wang, Esq.
          Clara Potter, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2000
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 486-8982
          Facsimile: (504) 486-8947
          E-mail: ivy.wang@splcenter.org
                  clara.potter@splcenter.org

               - and -

          Caren E. Short, Esq.
          Sara Zampierin, Esq.
          Samuel Brooke, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          400 Washington Avenue
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 956-8200
          Facsimile: (334) 956-8481
          E-mail: caren.short@splcenter.org
                  sara.zampierin@splcenter.org
                  samuel.brooke@splcenter.org

               - and -

          Charles M. Delbaum, Esq.
          NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER
          7 Winthrop Square, Fourth Floor
          Boston, MA 02110-1245
          Telephone: (617) 542-8010
          Facsimile: (617) 542-8028
          E-mail: cdelbaum@nclc.org

               - and -

          Noah A. Levine, Esq.
          Ryanne E. Perio, Esq.
          Ilya Feldsherov, Esq.
          William Roth, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
          7 World Trade Center
          250 Greenwich Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 230-8800
          E-mail: noah.levine@wilmerhale.com
                  ryanne.perio@wilmerhale.com
                  ilya.feldsherov@wilmerhale.com
                  william.roth@wilmerhale.com


BOFI HOLDING: Court Dismisses Shareholder Litigation
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
the Second Amended Consolidated Shareholder Derivative Complaint IN
RE: BofI HOLDING, INC. SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION. Case No.
3:15-cv-02722-GPC-KSC. (S.D. Cal.).

Currently before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the
Second Amended Consolidated Shareholder Derivative Complaint (SAC)
filed by BofI shareholder Andrew Calcaterra.

This is a shareholder derivative suit, brought by a stockholder of
BofI Holding, Inc., on behalf of the company, against Gregory
Garrabrants, Andrew J. Micheletti, Eshel Bar-Adon, and John C.
Tolla (Defendants).   Plaintiff filed a Verified Shareholder
Derivative Complaint alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and other
derivative claims arising from the individual defendants' false and
misleading statements and omissions regarding BofI's internal
controls, compliance with regulatory requirements, and the
Company's current and future prospects for revenue and earnings
growth.  

LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 12(b)(6)

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint may be
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. Dismissal may be based on the lack of a cognizable legal
theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a
cognizable legal theory. A claim is plausible when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.

B. Fed. R. Civ. P 23.1

A derivative shareholder's claim allows an individual stockholder
to bring suit to enforce a corporate cause of action against
officers, directors, and third parties.
This derivative right, however, is not absolute. Before a
shareholder can act on behalf of the corporation in this manner, he
or she must demonstrate that the corporation itself had refused to
proceed after suitable demand, unless excused by extraordinary
conditions.

Demand Futility Under Delaware Law

Tests for Demand Futility

The Aronson test applies when a shareholder challenges a decision
made, or a transaction entered into, by the corporation's board of
directors. To satisfy the Aronson test a shareholder must allege
particularized facts giving rise to a reasonable doubt that, at the
time the complaint was filed (1) the directors were disinterested
and independent or (2) the underlying transaction was the product
of a valid exercise of business judgment. Aronson v. Lewis, 473
A.2d 805, 814 (Del. 1984).

Particularity Requirement

Delaware Rule 23.1, like its federal counterpart, requires a
shareholder to plead facts with particularity, which is a more
stringent standard than that required by ordinary notice pleading.

Accordingly, when assessing a motion to dismiss for failure to
comply with the requirements of Federal Rule 23.1 and Delaware law,
a court should credit the shareholders with all reasonable factual
inferences that logically flow from the particularized facts
alleged. Conclusory allegations are those that add no, or only de
minimis, substance to the Court's demand-futility inquiry. By
contrast, particularized facts are "substantive allegations that
are by themselves insufficient but, when viewed in toto, may push
the analysis over the threshold of reasonable doubt and thereby
excuse demand.

The Rales Test Under Rule 23.1

Since the plaintiff does not challenge a board decision in seeking
to recover costs from Garrabrants, Micheletti, Bar-Adon, and Tolla
for actions that culminated in an internal investigation, the Rales
test applies. Thus, a pre-suit demand on BofI's board is futile
under Rule 23.1 if the SAC provides sufficient particularized
factual allegations that create a reasonable doubt that, as of the
time the complaint is filed, the board of directors could have
properly exercised its independent and disinterested business
judgment in responding to demand.

Demand Futility on New Board of Directors

This is the third time that the Defendants have raised demand
futility as a basis to dismiss the operative complaint. Originally,
in March 2017, the Court dismissed the complaint concluding that
Plaintiff had failed to provide particularized facts demonstrating
demand futility as to a majority of the then nine-person board.
Thereafter, on August 8, 2017, the Court found that demand futility
had been established as to the eight-man board in place. Now, BofI
is asking the Court to once again review Plaintiff's amended
complaint for compliance with demand compliance with the current
nine-man board on the grounds that an amended complaint typically
triggers a demand on the board of directors in place at that time
the amended complaint is filed and not when the original complaint
was filed. However, under Delaware law, when an amended derivative
complaint is filed, the existence of a new independent board of
directors is relevant to a Rule 23.1 demand inquiry only as to
derivative claims in the amended complaint that are not already
validly in litigation.

The Plaintiff responds that the ASC was a well-pleaded action that
satisfied demand excusal because this Court never dismissed, in
full, the prior claims in the ASC that are re-asserted in the SAC.
Plaintiff takes the position that BofI II necessarily found that
any claims or theories arising from allegations in the ASC are
validly in litigation. Although he acknowledges that the Court did
not engage in individualized analysis for the remaining
investigation costs claim, Plaintiff argues that BofI II evaluated
the claims together as a whole in finding that demand was
futile..As such, Plaintiff submits that he is excused from
establishing demand excusal against the current board since neither
BofI II nor the Court's order for judgment on the pleadings
dismissed the original complaint in totality.

The Court concludes that the filing of the SAC has triggered an
obligation to make a new demand upon the directors because the
original complaint did not legally satisfy demand excusal for this
claim. Though the Court was unable to previously evaluate demand
futility with respect to actions arising from Erhart's allegations
that led to the internal investigation, it can do so now under the
nine-person board in place when the SAC was filed.

Demand Futility Analysis

As instructed by the Court, the Plaintiff only asserts four
specific allegations of misconduct against four discrete
individuals in the newly-streamlined SAC: (1) Bar-Adon instructing
Erhart and Ball to obscure audit findings (2) Tolla instructing
Erhart to never state in an audit report that BofI had violated a
federal or state law (3) Micheletti's possible doctoring of company
numbers prior to disclosure to the public and (4) Garrabrants'
questionable account deposits of nearly $100,000 in checks made
payable to third parties and his control of BofI's largest deposit
account, maintained in his brother's name. According to Plaintiff,
these acts of misconduct spawned an internal investigation with
costs he now seeks to recover. Plaintiff postulates that a pre-suit
demand on the Board would have been a futile and useless act
because the Board faces a substantial likelihood of liability.

In turn, the Defendants move to dismiss the SAC on the basis that
it fails to plead, as required by Rule 23.1 and Delaware law, that
a majority of the Board of Directors faced a substantial likelihood
of personal liability for the claim asserted.

In his opposition to the Defendants' motion to dismiss, the
Plaintiff advances six theories of demand futility. One, that the
Court's August 8, 2017 order in BofI S'holder Litig. II established
demand futility for claims against Bar-Adon, Tolla, Micheletti, and
Garrabrants. Two, that the demand would have been futile due to the
hostility displayed by the Individual Defendants as well as the
other now-former defendant directors, toward this action since its
inception. Three, that all members of the Board face a substantial
likelihood of liability for breaching their fiduciary duties by
causing BofI to violate the anti-retaliation provisions of
Sarbanes-Oxley, Dodd-Frank, and other laws. Four, that the Court
should infer that the directors acted with intent and bad faith
because the internal control and potential compliance issues
alleged by Erhart concerned the Company's core (and only) business
consumer and banking products and services. Five, that the
directors' receipt of compensation and loans creates reasonable
doubt about their independence and disinterestedness And six, that
Grinberg faces a substantial likelihood of liability for failing to
disclose a $31.9 million loan BofI made in 2014 to the affiliate of
a company that then employed Grinberg.

The Court rejects each of these arguments and concludes that
Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden to establish demand
futility with respect to a majority of the board.

Whether the Court Previously Established Demand Futility for Claims
Against Bar-Adon, Tolla, Micheletti, and Garrabrants

The Court did not previously consider the present aspect of the
plaintiff's claims against Garrabrants, Micheletti, Bar-Adon, and
Tolla to recover costs expended by BofI in connection with the
Audit Committee's April 2015 internal investigation in its previous
analysis of demand futility in BofI II. The claim now at issue was
not validly in litigation at the time of the ASC and demand
futility must be evaluated anew. Thus, the Court's prior BofI II
order establishing demand futility with respect to other separate
since-dismissed and unripe claims is inapplicable here.

Hostility

The Plaintiff also alleges that demand would have been futile due
to the hostility displayed by the Individual Defendants, as well as
the other now-former defendant directors, toward this action since
its inception. However, mere hostility, without more, is
insufficient to prove demand excusal. Certainly, a board is
entitled to defend against a claim that they in good faith dispute.


Allegations that directors would refuse demand due to hostility
meets the demand futility standard under Rales only if refusal
would have been wrongful. As it stands, the Plaintiff does not
assert in his generalized hostility theory how directorial
hostility would have led to wrongful refusal of the demand to
recover, against Garrabrants and non-directors Bar-Adon, Tolla, and
Micheletti, the costs of the exonerative internal investigation
into their actions. Furthermore, Plaintiff has not identified and
this Court is unaware of any authority that has held pre-suit
demand to be futile on the basis of mere hostility.

The Court holds that the Plaintiff's theory of hostility is
insufficient to prove demand futility.

Substantial Likelihood of Liability for Breach of Fiduciary Duties

Next, the Plaintiff argues that all Board members face a
substantial likelihood of liability for breaching their fiduciary
duties by causing BofI to violate the anti-retaliation provisions
of Sarbanes-Oxley, Dodd-Frank, and other laws. While the Court held
in BofI II that the Board would be disabled with respect to
considering the retaliation and wrongful termination claims against
Erhart, the Court later dismissed those claims as unripe.
Plaintiff, in accordance with the Court's earlier ruling, does not
replead those unripe claims in the SAC.

The Plaintiff also fails to explain why either the old or new Board
would be disabled from now considering the relevant claim at issue
to recover costs incurred as a result of the AC's investigation
into allegations of internal control violations. All referenced
paragraphs in the SAC that provide support for this theory, refer
only to the Board's knowledge and actions in light of Erhart's
wrongful termination, which are no longer part of the SAC. The
plaintiff provides no additional factual inferences to connect this
theory to the sole remaining claim.  

The Court holds that Plaintiff's arguments premised on the
directorial breach of fiduciary duty are insufficient to prove
demand futility.

Intent and Bad Faith Due to Core Services

The Plaintiff argues that the alleged misconduct of Garrabrants,
Micheletti, Bar-Adon, and Tolla concerned BofI's core business and
therefore imputes knowledge and conscious misconduct on the Board.
According to Plaintiff, the instances of alleged conduct that led
to the internal investigation could conceivably impart substantial
liability onto the directors for disregarding their oversight
duties. However, Plaintiff's only claim in the SAC is to recover
for the internal investigation. Plaintiff does not submit a well
articulated and cognizable Caremark failure-of-oversight claim
against the directors.

The Plaintiff's core services theory to plead demand futility is
unsupported by law or the factual allegations. First, the Court
agrees with the Defendants that as a matter of law, the core
operations presumption does not apply in shareholder derivative
litigation. Second, the Court finds that the directors do not face
a substantial likelihood of personal liability for
failure-of-oversight since Plaintiff does not assert a discernable
claim related to core services theory in the SAC. And finally, the
core services theory of demand futility does not apply to the
isolated instances of internal control or compliance issue here.
Directors' Receipt of Compensation and Loans

Even so, the Plaintiff again questions board members' independence
because all board members receive compensation and a majority of
the Board (namely, Argalas, Burke, Garrabrants, Grinberg, and
Mosich) received below-market mortgage rates through BofI's
mortgage-lending program designed for its directors, officers, and
employees.

Merely articulating that the majority of the Board once took
advantage of a company-wide program that provided each member with
a single below-market favorable mortgage, without alleging how that
benefit would indefinitely disqualify a majority of members from
exercising independent judgment, is insufficient for this Court to
presume directorial interest with respect to recovering costs for
an internal investigation that stemmed from allegations against
Garrabrants, Micheletti, Bar-Adon, and Tolla.   

The Plaintiff fails to plead a sufficient basis upon which the
Court can reasonably conclude that Board members' judgment is
impaired by the receipt of board-related compensation and a single
loan at below-market rates.

Grinberg's Liability for Undisclosed Affiliate Loan

The Plaintiff contends that Grinberg is further interested in this
litigation because he breached his fiduciary duty in failing to
disclose a $31.9 million loan between BofI and his employer Encore
Capital in 2014. However, Plaintiff does not assert a claim against
Grinberg or anyone else for the nondisclosure. As Defendants note,
Plaintiff also does not allege that any party has asserted a claim
against Grinberg for the alleged nondisclosure. Moreover, Plaintiff
does not articulate how the nondisclosure or potential liability
for the nondisclosure could impact Grinberg's or other board
members' fairness in considering a demand to sue four BofI officers
to recover the costs of the Audit Committee's wholly unrelated
investigation of unconnected actions. For those reasons, the Court
does not find a viable theory for demand excusal based on the
sparse facts and the absent analysis originating from Grinberg's
non-disclosure of a stand-alone loan.

As it follows, the Court does not find that a majority of the Board
faces a substantial likelihood of liability that would render
demand futile.

Rule 12(b)(6)

As an antecedent matter, the Court has found above that Plaintiff
cannot establish demand futility for a majority of the board under
Rule 23.1. However, the Court notes that Plaintiff also fails to
state a claim for relief on behalf of BofI to recover investigation
costs against the Defendants. Throughout the SAC, Plaintiff does
not identify any authority or apparent theory that might allow
stockholder plaintiffs to bring a claim to recover investigation
costs against the subjects that were exonerated by the
investigation. He does not point to any factual allegations
connecting the independent directors to the internal control
missteps reported by Erhart.

He does not substantiate that the Defendants breached any legal
duty. He neglects to put forth any facts that would call into
question the integrity of the Audit Committee's investigation into
Erhart's allegations. And he does not call into question the
investigation's completeness or the efficacy of its conclusions.
Plaintiff's only corresponding assertion is a single threadbare
allegation that the Audit Committee's investigation was a cover-up
authorized by the Board to conceal its own misconduct.

This allegation is textbook conclusory devoid of any additional
factual support that might substantiate the claim. In its current
form, the sole remaining claim is functionally an injury without a
cause of action, akin to a tail in search of a dog. And after three
attempts to state viable and ripe claims, the Plaintiff has still
failed to identify any theory or new facts that might state a
plausible claim for relief. Accordingly, the Court finds that the
SAC does not contain sufficient factual matter to survive under
Rule 12(b)(6).

Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss
under Rules 23.1 and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 23, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y5wa5a47 from Leagle.com.

In re Bofi Holding, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Defendant,
represented by Arezoo Jamshidi -- jamshidi@scmv.com -- Seltzer
Caplan McMahan Vitek, Neal Philip Panish -- panish@scmv.com --
Seltzer Caplan McMahon Vitek & Scott Walter Perlin --
perlin@scmv.com -- Seltzer Caplan McMahan Vitek.

Andrew Calcaterra, derivatively on behalf of BofI Holding, Inc.,
Plaintiff, represented by Albert Chang -- achang@bottinilaw.com --
Bottini & Bottini, Inc. & Francis A. Bottini --
fbottini@bottinilaw.com -- Bottini & Bottini, Inc.

Robylee Doherty, Plaintiff, represented by Francis A. Bottini ,
Bottini & Bottini, Inc.
David Deyoung, derivatively and on behalf BofI Holding, Inc.,
Plaintiff, represented by Laurence M. Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.

Gregory Garrabrants, Andrew J. Micheletti, Theodore C. Allrich,
Nicholas A. Mosich, James S. Argalas, John Gary Burke, Paul J.
Grinberg, James J. Court, Edward J. Ratinoff, Eshel Bar-Adon, John
C. Tolla, Uzair Dada, BofI Holding, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
Derrick K. Walsh & BofI Holding, Inc., Nominal Defendant,
Defendants, represented by Alejandro E. Moreno --
amoreno@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton,
LLP & John P. Stigi, III – jstigi@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton.


BOYD GAMING: James Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
-------------------------------------------------
ROGER JAMES, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BOYD GAMING CORPORATION, and KANSAS STAR
CASINO, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02260 (D. Kan., May 24,
2019) seeks to recover damages from Defendants in the form of the
difference between their direct cash wage and the FLSA's $7.25
minimum wage for all hours worked for the three years preceding the
filing of this Collective Action Complaint through the present, all
pooled tips wrongfully diverted to managers and supervisors, an
equal amount in liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff, and other similarly
situated employees, the mandated federal and state minimum wage
rate for all hours worked and overtime for all hours worked over 40
in a single workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"). Specifically, as explained in more depth below,
Defendants employ a significant number of tipped employees who are
paid a direct cash wage below the FLSA's $7.25 per hour minimum
wage. Defendants claim a portion of tipped employees' tips as a
credit against their obligation to pay these employees minimum
wage, says the complaint.

Plaintiff worked at Defendants' Kansas Star Casino property in
Mulvane, Kansas.

Defendant Boyd is a casino entertainment company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     George A. Hanson, Esq.
     Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
     STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
     460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
     Kansas City, MO 64112
     Phone: (816) 714-7100
     Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
     Email: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
            ricke@stuevesiegel.com

          - and -

     Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
     Michael J. Rahmberg, Esq.
     McCLELLAND LAW FIRM
     A Professional Corporation
     The Flagship Building
     200 Westwoods Drive
     Liberty, MO 64068-1170
     Phone: (816) 781-0002
     Facsimile: (816) 781-1984
     Email: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com
            mrahmberg@mcclellandlawfirm.com



BRECK'S RIDGE: Court Denies Bid to File Amended Complaint in Parker
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio,
Eastern Division, issued an Opinion and Order denying Plaintiff's
Combined Emergency Motion to File First Amended Collective and
Class Action Complaint and Motion to Extend Case Schedule in the
case captioned GARRY PARKER, Plaintiff, v. BRECK'S RIDGE, LLC, et
al., Defendants. Case No. 2:17-cv-633. (S.D. Ohio).

The Plaintiff filed this action on behalf of himself and those
similarly situated of current and former general laborer employees
of Defendants Breck's Ridge, LLC (Breck's Ridge) and Breck's
Paving, Inc. (Breck's Paving) (Defendants). Plaintiff alleges that
employees were not compensated at a rate of one-and-onehalf times
their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over forty in any
workweek.   

The Plaintiff filed the Emergency Motion, seeking leave to file an
Amended Complaint to include the following: (1) individual
liability as to Kevin and Barb Bloxam of Breck's Paving (2)
additional unpaid overtime claims (i.e. failure to fully pay its
employees for all hours worked as well as at the correct regular
rate of pay due to production bonuses) against Breck's Paving (3)
successor-in-interest facts as to Breck's Ridge (4) individual
liability as to Mark Fissell of Breck's Ridge due to his intimate
control and decision-making over the day-today activities of its
employees and (5) additional unpaid overtime claims (i.e. failure
to fully pay its employees for all hours worked to its
Pay-to-Shift/Wage Theft Policy outlined above and its failure to
pay its employees at the correct regular rate of pay for purposes
of calculating overtime compensation) against Breck's Ridge.  

The Plaintiff also seeks to extend the case schedule by 75 days.  

Although Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) governs amendments
to the pleadings, when, as here, a motion to amend is brought after
the deadline set within the court's scheduling order, a party must
satisfy the standards of both Rule 15(a) and 16(b)(4).  

Under Rule 16(b)(4), the Court will modify a case scheduling only
for good cause. The party seeking modification of the case schedule
has the obligation to demonstrate `good cause' for failing to
comply with the district court's scheduling order. In determining
whether good cause exists, the primary consideration "is the moving
party's diligence in attempting to meet the case management order's
requirements.

The Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good
cause under Rule 16(b)(4). As previously explained, the key inquiry
is whether Plaintiff was diligent in his efforts to timely move to
amend the Complaint. In May or June 2018, Plaintiff served his
first set of written discovery on Defendants. After securing
extensions for responding, Breck's Ridge served its responses and
objections on August 29, 2018. Breck's Paving represents that the
parties agreed to extend the response dates to discovery requests
and produced its discovery responses. While Plaintiff now
apparently complains that it did not receive Defendants' responses
until months after he served the requests   the present record does
not establish that Plaintiff took any steps to secure the
purportedly belated responses even presuming he did not agree to
extend the response dates.

The Plaintiff goes on to complain that the Court should not punish
Plaintiff for having complete discovery responses and the
opportunity to depose Defendants. However, as set forth above,
Plaintiff failed to make any attempt to secure discovery responses
from Breck's Paving for months and notified Breck's Ridge of
deficiencies in its responses (served in August 2018) as recently
as February 2019. This record does not establish that Plaintiff
acted with the diligence necessary to establish good cause.

Although the Court's diligence finding is dispositive of this
issue, the Court notes further that, for the reasons discussed
above, Plaintiff has demonstrated an undue delay in filing under
Rule 15(a). Defendants would likely suffer prejudice should the
Court permit amendment. As Defendants point out, supplementing
Plaintiff's Complaint to add new claims and new parties at this
stage of the case would require serving the new Defendants which
would significantly delay resolution of this action.

In short, because of the dilatory nature of the filing as well as
the prejudice that Defendants would suffer in this matter's current
posture, Plaintiff's Emergency Motion is not well-taken.  

A full-text copy of the District Court’s May 23, 2019 Opinion and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxgwdtql from Leagle.com

Jack Richard Pigman, Mediator, pro se.

Garry Parker, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew James Porter
Coffman , Coffman Legal, LLC, 1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126,
Columbus, OH 43220 & Daniel I'Anson Bryant , Bryant Legal, LLC,
1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126, Columbus, OH, 43220

Breck's Ridge, LLC, Defendant, represented by Michael Sabin Kolman,
Newhouse, Prophater, Kolman & Hogan, LLC & D. Wesley Newhouse, II,
Newhouse, Prophater, Kolman & Hogan, LLC, 5025 Arlington Ctre
Blvd., Suite #400, Columbus , OH 43220

Breck's Paving, Inc., Defendant, represented by William R. Creedon
-- billc@scottscrivenlaw.com -- Scott, Scriven & Wahoff LLP &
Timothy E. Cowans -- tim@scottscrivenlaw.com -- Scott Scriven LLP.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Villegas Wins Prelim. Nod of Class Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon grants in part and denies in
part the Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class
Action Settlement Agreement in the lawsuit titled Villegas et al.
v. Cablevision Systems New York City Corp., et al., Case No.
17-cv-05824-VMS (E.D.N.Y.).

The Court preliminarily approves the settlement reached by the
parties (the "Settlement Agreement"), excluding Section 8.11,
finding that the Settlement Agreement is the result of serious,
arms-length negotiations and appears to fall within the range of
possible final settlement approval.  The Court does not approve
Section 8.11 of the Settlement Agreement as it is inconsistent with
the guidance of Cheeks and its progeny.

The Court's Order also provisionally certifies the settlement class
as defined in the Notice of Motion, appoints The Law Office of
Christopher Q. Davis, PLLC, as Class Counsel, approves RG2 Claims
Administration as the Administrator, and approves the Parties'
proposed schedule for final settlement approval.

The attached, revised Notice is approved and may be distributed to
the class as set forth in the proposed scheduling order and the
Settlement Agreement, the Court rules.

The final approval hearing will be held on October 23, 2019, at
10:00 a.m.[CC]


CACAFE INC: $640K Settlement in Marino FLSA Suit Has Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LEONA MARINO on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CACAFE, INC., JANE ZHENG, TED
CHAO, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, CLUB DEMONSTRATION SERVICES,
INC., and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
4:16-cv-06291-YGR (N.D. Cal.), Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted
the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement, and their Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs.

On April 23, 2019 at 2:00 p.m., Judge Rogers, presiding the action,
came on for hearing on the Plaintiff's Motions.  Having considered
the papers and oral argument submitted in support of the motions
and the parties' class action settlement, she finds that the class
as conditionally certified by the Preliminary Approval Order meets
all of the legal requirements for class certification for
settlement purposes and the class is appropriate for final
certification for settlement purposes.  Considering strength of the
case and the risks of further litigation, she views the $640,000
settlement result as very favorable for the class.  Experienced
class counsel, Bryan Schwartz Law, have worked ably and actively to
vindicate the class members' interests.

Moreover, the Judge finds reasonable the service payments requested
for Plaintiff Marino ($15,000), class member deponents Ralph Tracy
and William Harris ($2,500 each), and opt-ins and the class member
declarants ($1,000 each).  The Plaintiff's request for $320,000 in
attorneys' fees and $55,000 in costs is reasonable.  The amount of
$9,000 requested to be paid to the Settlement Administrator is
reasonable and fairly supported.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Rogers approved the settlement, and
the foregoing amounts will be paid from the settlement fund.  Upon
completion of administration of the Settlement, the Settlement
Administrator will provide written certification of such completion
to the Court and counsel for the parties.  Her Order will
constitute a final judgment (and a separate document constituting
the judgment) for purposes of Rule 58, Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

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

Leona Marino, Plaintiff, represented by Eduard R. Meleshinsky --
eduard@bryanschwartzlaw.com -- Bryan Schwartz Law & Bryan Jeffrey
Schwartz -- bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com -- Bryan Schwartz Law.

CAcafe, Inc., Jane Zheng & Ted Chao, Defendants, represented by Sam
Xiong-Jie Wu -- debtfree@lawofficeofsamwu.com -- Attorney at Law.

Costco Wholesale Corporation, Defendant, represented by Catherine
M. Dacre -- cdacre@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, David D.
Kadue -- dkadue@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Justin Taylor
Curley -- jcurley@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Tatyana
Shmygol -- tshmygol@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

Club Demonstration Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Fermin
Humberto Llaguno -- fllaguno@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson,
Justin Taylor Curley, Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Oliver B. Dreger, Littler
Mendelson, PC.


CANADA: B.C. Faces Class Action Over Lack of Orkambi Funding
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosa Marchitelli, writing for CBC News, reports that meanwhile,
Canadians like Joshua Larocque go without the medications they
need, he said.

"It's shameful. Absolutely shameful."

MacLeod is also a lawyer and is heading up a class action lawsuit
against the B.C. government, federal government, CADTH and others
over the lack of funding for Orkambi. The suit claims governments
are "denying access to lifesaving drugs in a very non-transparent,
non-evidence-based manner."

None of the allegations has been proven in court.

In an email to Go Public, B.C.'s Ministry of Health said CADTH
recommended Orkambi not be funded due to a lack of evidence on two
separate occasions.

"These recommendations are based on clinical and cost factors," a
spokesperson said. "And with Vertex setting the cost of Orkambi at
$250,000 a year per patient, its cost is unsustainable for public
and private drug plans."

In an email to Go Public, a CADTH spokesperson said that over the
past five years, the agency has taken steps to clarify and enhance
processes to address the unique challenges of evaluating drugs for
rare diseases.

Ontario health minister ignores family's calls for help
Andre and Joshua's parents have repeatedly reached out to Ontario
Health Minister Christine Elliott.

In October, the family asked for a meeting with Elliott. They said
they were told by her office it would happen. They're still waiting
to hear when, and their followup messages have gone unanswered.

As opposition health critic, Elliott criticized the government at
the time for not funding Kalydeco, one of the three gene-modifying
cystic fibrosis medications. The drug was later added to the
coverage list in Ontario, but few patients qualify.

It's a similar story with Orkambi. In February, Ontario agreed to
fund the drug on a case-by-case basis under what's called the
Exceptional Access Program. So far, not one cystic fibrosis patient
has qualified for provincial coverage under the program's criteria,
said MacLeod.  

The minister turned down a request for an interview with Go Public
and didn't respond to specific questions we sent about Joshua and
Andre's situation and about access to the cystic fibrosis
medications, providing instead a general statement from a
spokesperson.

"Young Ontarians with rare diseases deserve every opportunity to
enjoy healthy and happy childhoods," spokesperson Hayley Chazan
wrote in an email to Go Public.

"Orkambi, which helps treat pediatric cystic fibrosis, is currently
considered for funding in Ontario in exceptional cases …
consistent with clinical evidence."

Joshua and Andre's parents are still hopeful the federal government
will deliver on a 2019 federal budget promise to implement a rare
disease strategy that could help people like Joshua.

The family believes Andre will continue to get access to Symdeko
indefinitely. The trial is to test the medication on younger
children and track it as they grow. It's already approved by Health
Canada for children ages 12 and older.

Vertex Pharmaceuticals makes both Orkambi and Symdeko. It tells Go
Public it has no plans to ask CADTH to review Symdeko for
provincial funding, saying the present system for assessing drug
coverage in Canada "has challenges."

When asked why the cost of Orkambi is so high, Vertex didn't
answer, but Cystic Fibrosis Canada says developing medications for
rare disease is expensive because the market for them is so small.

"That leaves Symdeko and the other drugs coming down the pipeline
completely inaccessible," Haughian said. "Without a proper rare
disease strategy for evaluating drugs in place, there is not much
incentive for drug companies to even try to develop drugs for rare
diseases."

She and her husband worry their younger son will never get the
medication he needs.

"I fear Joshua will spend his childhood getting sicker, living in
and out of the hospital, needing more and more treatments, and
ultimately dying young," Haughian told Go Public in an email after
the interview, because she didn't want her sons to hear about her
fears.

"While Andre is out playing hockey and hanging with friends … and
as he gets older and understands more and more, the 'survivor's
guilt' he could potentially feel is a dangerous thing." [GN]


CANADA: Woodlands Survivors Compensation Program Extended
---------------------------------------------------------
Rob Shaw, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that when the province
began offering compensation last year for survivors of abuse at the
Woodlands mental institution, it looked as though efforts to right
a historic wrong committed against some of the B.C.'s most
vulnerable people were finally at an end.

But it turns out that announcing the money was the easy part.
Finding the survivors and getting them cheques was much more
complicated than anyone imagined.

A year after the announcement of $10,000 payments, the government
has compensated 1,113 people, including 394 people who were at the
school before 1974 and were cut out of a past settlement under the
previous Liberal government.

It has spent roughly $10.7 million out of the $15.8 million
compensation fund. No one is quite sure how many survivors are
unaccounted for, but a new round of letters and calls are going out
to find approximately 400 people -- likely elderly, suffering some
type of developmental disability and still living with some type of
support or care programs.

Health Minister Adrian Dix, an advocate of the victims for more
than a decade, has extended the compensation program for another
year in an attempt to find more people.

"There's still more work to be done," said Dix. "We're continuing
to reach out and find people and engage with people and make sure
everybody who is eligible for a payment gets the payment."

Woodlands opened in 1878 as B.C.'s "provincial asylum for the
insane." It later housed children and adults with developmental
disabilities, mental illnesses, runaways and wards of the state. It
closed in 1996 and was destroyed in 2011.

B.C.'s ombudsperson concluded in a 2002 report that Woodlands had
been the site of widespread physical, sexual and psychological
abuse against residents. Patients were beaten, kicked, shackled,
isolated and bullied, concluded the report. Mentally handicapped
girls were sexually assaulted, resulting in some pregnancies.

The job of finding the former residents fell to Antje Helmuth, a
government librarian who volunteered to lead a small team inside
the Ministry of Health.

As she tracked them down, she experienced first-hand the gamut of
emotions felt by survivors at the idea of compensation — some
were overwhelmed at the offer of so much money, others deeply
distrustful and bitter at government, some thought it was a hoax
like a fake Canada Revenue Agency scam call, and a handful refused
completely or gave the cash back because they didn't want to reopen
such a dark and painful part of their lives.

"Quite a few families asked me to let them know when the cheque was
in the mail, so they could be there to support the person when it
arrived because they knew they'd be very distressed when it arrived
because of Woodlands memories," said Helmuth. Others, she said,
wanted to be there to make sure the recipient understood he
significance of $10,000 to their lives.

Helmuth started with two lists of names — files from a
class-action lawsuit against Woodlands and an Excel spreadsheet
someone in government had manually compiled years ago from an old
patient card index.

The only criterion was that a person needed to be alive to get the
money. Many Woodlands survivors have died and the rest are mostly
senior citizens with mental and developmental issues. Helmuth
narrowed out the deceased using the vital statistics database. She
reached out to the public guardian and trustee, which handled the
finances and health care of some survivors. She put ads in every
newspaper in B.C., started a social media campaign to reach
families and met with advocacy groups.

There were also regulatory hurdles. The government had to issue a
cabinet order to make sure the compensation wasn't declared income
and deducted from a person's benefit payments. That involved three
ministries and approval from the Canada Revenue Agency.

A ministry call centre handled inquires from survivors, care
givers, family members and friends. Helmuth's team was able to cut
through red tape and get cheques mailed, in some cases within two
weeks. Then she'd follow up if a cheque wasn't cashed, helping to
troubleshoot bank deposits, mailing addresses and other snafus.

One part of the job did keep Helmuth up at night was fear that the
money could make the survivor (often living in poverty) a target
for financial abuse. Perhaps they'd be tricked into giving the
money to someone else, or not recognize the enormity of the sum.

"My biggest concern in this whole thing is somebody is going to be
taken advantage of," she said. "Because we're really talking about
such a vulnerable population."

The team developed safeguards, including conversations with family
and friends, checking documents to see who had power of attorney,
making sure the money was in the survivor's name, and in some cases
mailing the cheque to a safe address so the person could receive it
discreetly.

She also got to see how the money brightened troubled lives.

"One person wanted a new bed and it sounded like they hadn't
received a new bed since they were a child -- I actually looked and
saw the person was born in the 1950s," said Helmuth.

"One person really wanted to go on a cruise. They were up north and
their home-share provider said we are going to go on B.C. Ferries.

"Lots of dental work and orthotics and those type of things they
could pay for now. Two folks mentioned they could stay in their
home that they had inherited longer now."

A few -- in their 80s with the mental capacity of a four or five
year old child -- wanted to go to Disneyland.

Vancouver lawyer David Klein, who spearheaded a class-action
lawsuit on behalf of Woodlands survivors in 2005, praised the year
of work by government.

"They implemented an extensive outreach program and have reached
more of the survivors than I expected, and paid out more people
than I've expected," said Klein.

"It wasn't just lip service, (Dix) empowered the staff that were
working on this to take the needed steps to find as many of these
people as possible and put some money into their hands."

The extension of another year is the right move as well, he said.

"There will be people who are never found," said Klein. "But if in
that year they find another 20 or 30 or 50 people, it will be worth
it."

Dix said he's been incredibly proud of the work the ministry team
has done.

"They've been thoughtful, they've acted with integrity, with
compassion, they've adjusted and learned and I think for people on
the other end they've made an enormous difference," he said. "I am
really impressed."

Helmuth, 52, said the work has been its own reward.

"In my 24 years of government it's been the absolute highlight of
it," she said. "It's been the most worthwhile thing I've worked
on." [GN]


CELLULAR SALES: Court Decertifies Conditional FLSA Class in Holick
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAN P. HOLICK, JR., STEVEN MOFFITT, JUSTIN MOFFITT,
GURWINDER SINGH, JASON MACK, WILLIAM BURRELL, and TIMOTHY M. PRATT,
Plaintiffs on behalf Case of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. CELLULAR SALES OF NEW YORK, LLC, and CELLULAR SALES OF
KNOXVILLE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:12-CV-584 (NAM/DJS) (N.D.
N.Y.), Judge Norman A. Mordue of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of New York (i) denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, and (ii) granted the Defendants' motion to
decertify the conditional Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
collective action.

The named Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, bring this action under the FLSA, and New York
State Labor Law ("NYLL"), against Cellular Sales of New York, LLC
("CSNY") and Cellular Sales of Knoxville, Inc. ("CSK"), asserting
claims for alleged violations of minimum wage and overtime
requirements.  The Plaintiffs further allege NYLL violations
related to the Defendants': (1) failure to pay for compensable
work; (2) unlawful wage deductions; and (3) failure to timely pay
wages.

The Plaintiffs' claims stem from their alleged employment
relationship with the Defendants prior to January 2012.
Essentially, they claim that the Defendants misclassified them as
"independent contractors" instead of "employees" as defined by the
FLSA and NYLL, thus depriving them of employee benefits required by
law.  

On Feb. 14, 2014, the parties filed a stipulation for conditional
certification pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA, and the
collective was later expanded by stipulation and order dated Oct.
21, 2015, to include members of the following group: All
individuals who, during any workweek between June 24, 2010 up to
and through Dec. 31, 2011, who (a) performed sales services for
Cellular Sales of New York, LLC or Cellular Sales of Knoxville,
Inc. in New York; (b) were classified as non-employee contractors;
and (c) were paid, in whole or in part, on a commission basis.

The parties also stipulated to the dissemination of a notice of the
FLSA claim to putative collective action members.  A total of 47
opt-in Plaintiffs initially joined the conditional FLSA collective
action.  There are currently seven named Plaintiffs and 43 opt-in
Plaintiffs involved in the lawsuit.  The Plaintiffs' claims are
limited to the period prior to Jan. 1, 2012 when their Sales
Companies contracted with CSNY.

The Defendants deny the Plaintiffs' allegations and contend that no
employment relationship existed prior to January 2012.  On Oct. 1,
2018, the Defendants filed a motion to decertify the conditional
certification of the FLSA collective action.  The Defendants argue
that the conditionally certified FLSA collective action should be
decertified because the Plaintiffs cannot satisfy their heightened
burden to prove the opt-in Plaintiffs are similarly situated.

The Plaintiffs oppose the Defendants' motion to decertify, and they
have also moved for class certification under Rule 23, with a
proposed class almost identical to the FLSA collective.  The
Defendants oppose Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

After careful review of the record and consideration of the
parties' arguments, Judge Mordue concludes that the Plaintiffs have
failed to demonstrate that they are similarly situated to the
degree necessary to maintain an FLSA collective action, or to
certify a Rule 23 class action.  He finds that the Plaintiffs'
disparate and highly individualized experiences with the Defendants
are not conducive to the production of representative evidence
required to proceed collectively.  The Plaintiffs' inability to
present common proof demonstrating the nature of their employment
relationship with the Defendants frustrates the possibility of
collective resolution and militates against considerations of
fairness and procedure.

Accordingly, for the reasons that follow, the Judge denied the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and granted the
Defendants' motion to decertify the conditional FLSA collective
action.  The action will proceed on behalf of the named Plaintiffs
only, and the claims of the Opt-In Plaintiffs are dismissed without
prejudice.  The Clerk provide a copy of the Memorandum-Decision and
Order to the parties in accordance with the Local Rules of the
Northern District of New York.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 26, 2019 Memorandum-Decision
and Order is available at https://is.gd/YWw3rf from Leagle.com.

Jan P. Holick, Jr., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Steven Moffitt, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Justin Moffitt, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Gurwinder Singh, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Jason Mack, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Timothy M. Pratt,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated & William
Burrell, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel A. Jacobs -- djacobs@gdwo.net --
Gleason, Dunn Law Firm, Ronald G. Dunn -- rdunn@gdwo.net --
Gleason, Dunn Law Firm & Christopher M. Silva, Gleason, Dunn Law
Firm.

Cellular Sales of New York, LLC, Defendant, represented by Charles
L. Carbo, III -- Larry.carbo@chamberlainlaw.com -- Chamberlain,
Hrdlicka Law Firm, Joseph M. Dougherty --
jdougherty@hinmanstraub.com -- Hinman, Straub Law Firm, Julie R.
Offerman -- Julie.offerman@chamberlainlaw.com -- Chamberlain,
Hrdlicka Law Firm, pro hac vice, Ryan O. Cantrell --
ryan.cantrell@chamberlainlaw.com -- Chamberlain, Hrdlicka Law Firm,
pro hac vice, Benjamin M. Wilkinson -- bwilkinson@hinmanstraub.com
-- Hinman, Straub Law Firm & David T. Luntz --
dluntz@hinmanstraub.com -- Hinman, Straub Law Firm.

Cellular Sales of Knoxville, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Charles L. Carbo, III, Chamberlain, Hrdlicka Law Firm, pro hac
vice, Joseph M. Dougherty, Hinman, Straub Law Firm, Julie R.
Offerman, Chamberlain, Hrdlicka Law Firm, pro hac vice, Ryan O.
Cantrell, Chamberlain, Hrdlicka Law Firm, pro hac vice & David T.
Luntz, Hinman, Straub Law Firm.


CENIKOR FOUNDATION: Sorey Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
The action captioned GREGORY SOREY, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v.
CENIKOR FOUNDATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00267 (M.D. La.,
May 1, 2019) asserts violations of the minimum wage and overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

The Complaint asserts that Defendant oppresses the victims that it
claims to serve by requiring them to work long hours at for-profit
companies, including Wal-Mart, Shell, and Exxon, without paying
them any compensation in return for their labor. The Defendant gets
paid for each hour of labor its "residents" -- who are supposed to
be recovering from addition -- provide to third-party companies and
individuals, including an overtime premium when residents work over
40 hours in a week, yet Defendant passes none of that compensation
onto the individuals who performed the work.

As a result, Defendant violated the minimum wage provisions of the
FLSA by not paying Plaintiff and other residents -- who qualify as
Defendant's employees -- at least $7.25 per hour. In addition,
Defendant violated the overtime provisions of the FLSA by failing
to pay Plaintiff and other residents at least one and one-half
times their regular rate of pay when they work over 40 hours in
individual workweeks, says the Complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from approximately December
2017 to May or June 2018.

Defendant is a non-profit organization that holds itself out as
providing rehabilitation services for victims of substance
addiction.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew D. Bizer, Esq.
     Garret S. DeReus, Esq.
     BIZER & DEREUS, LLC
     3319 St. Claude Ave.
     New Orleans, LA 70117
     Phone: 504-619-9999
     Fax: 504-948-9996
     Email: andrew@bizerlaw.com
            gdereus@bizerlaw.com

          - and -

     Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
     Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq.
     Werman Salas, P.C.
     77 West Washington, Suite 1402
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 419-1008
     Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com
            zflowerre@flsalaw.com


CENTRUS ENERGY: McGlone Sues Over Contaminated Property
-------------------------------------------------------
URSULA MCGLONE, JASON MCGLONE, JULIA DUNHAM, and K.D. and C.D.,
minor children by and through their parent and natural guardian
Julia Dunham Ohio residents, on behalf of themselves individually
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CENTRUS ENERGY
CORP. a Delaware Corporation, individually and as successor-in
interest to USEC Incorporated, UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT CORPORATION
a Delaware Corporation, URANIUM DISPOSITION SERVICES, LLC a
Tennessee Limited Liability Company, BWXT CONVERSION SERVICES, LLC
a Delaware Limited Liability Company, MID-AMERICA CONVERSION
SERVICES a Delaware Limited Liability Company, BECHTEL JACOBS
COMPANY, LLC a Delaware Limited Liability Company, LATA/PARALLAX
PORTSMOUTH, LLC a New Mexico Limited Liability Company, FLUOR-BWXT
PORTSMOUTH, LLC an Ohio Limited Liability Company, Defendants, Case
No. 2:19-cv-02196-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio, May 24, 2019) seek
remediation of the radioactive and metal contamination found on
their property.

In Pike County, Ohio sits the 3,777-acre Portsmouth Site Which has
accommodated uranium enrichments operations by Defendants. What the
populace did not know was that the operations at the Portsmouth
Site expelled air laden with radioactive material and other metals.
Winds have carried the radioactive materials and other metals
throughout the area in such concentrations that radioactive
materials and metals can be found deposited in soils and buildings
in and around Piketon, Ohio. On May, 13, 2019 Zahn's Corner Middle
School in Piketon was suddenly closed due to health concerns
because enriched uranium was detected inside the building.
Neptunium-237 was also detected by an air monitor next to the
school. The school is approximately two miles from the Portsmouth
Site and serves more than 300 students. This incident was the first
notification to the community about radioactive materials migrating
into populated areas from the Portsmouth Site. Plaintiffs and Class
Members have all suffered in common an array of damages from
Defendants' emissions of radioactive material, specifically and as
explained in more detail herein, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs and Class Members are individuals who have suffered
economic losses, property losses, and non-economic damages as the
result of Defendants' toxic and radioactive releases.

Defendant Centrus Energy Corp. ("Centrus"), formerly USEC
Incorporated ("USEC Inc"), is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Maryland.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Stuart E. Scott, Esq.
     Kevin C. Hulick, Esq.
     Spangenberg Shibley & Liber LLP
     1001 Lakeside Avenue East, Suite 1700
     Cleveland, OH 44114
     Phone: (216) 696-3232
     Facsimile: (216) 696-3924
     Email: sscott@spanglaw.com
            khulick@spanglaw.com

          - and -

     Mark Underwood, Esq.
     Underwood Law Office
     923 Third Avenue
     Huntington, WV 25701
     Phone: (304) 209-4387
     Email: markunderwood@underwoodlawoffice.com

          - and -

     Jason Leasure, Esq.
     Vital & Vital, L.C.
     536 Fifth Avenue
     Huntington, WV 25701
     Phone: (304) 525-0320
     Email: jleasure@vitallc.com

          - and -

     Celeste Brustowicz, Esq.
     Stephen H. Wussow, Esq.
     Victor Cobb, Esq.
     Cooper Law Firm, LLC
     1525 Religious Street
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Phone: (504) 399-0009
     Email: cbrustowicz@sch-llc.com
            swussow@sch-llc.com
            vcobb@sch-llc.com

          - and -

     Stuart H. Smith, Esq.
     Stuart H. Smith, LLC
     508 St. Philip Street
     New Orleans, LA 70118
     Phone: (504) 566-1558
     Email: ssmith@sch-llc.com

          - and -

     Kevin W. Thompson, Esq.
     David R. Barney, Jr., Esq.
     Thompson Barney
     2030 Kanawha Boulevard, East
     Charleston, WV 25311
     Phone: (304) 343-4401
     Facsimile: (304) 343-4405
     Email: kwthompsonwv@gmail.com
            drbarneywv@gmail.com


CHARLES SCHWAB: Crago Order Routing Litigation Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
The Charles Schwab Corporation 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 the Crago Order Routing Litigation.

On July 13, 2016, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of a putative class of customers executing equity orders
through CS&Co.

The lawsuit names Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (CS&Co) and The
Charles Schwab Corporation (CSC) as defendants and alleges that an
agreement under which CS&Co routed orders to UBS Securities LLC
between July 13, 2011 and December 31, 2014 violated CS&Co's duty
to seek best execution.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, interest, injunctive and
equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.

After a first amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend,
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on August 14, 2017.
Defendants again moved to dismiss, and in a decision issued
December 5, 2017, the court denied the motion.

Defendants have answered the complaint to deny all allegations, and
intend to vigorously contest the lawsuit.

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

The Charles Schwab Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides
wealth management, securities brokerage, banking, asset management,
custody, and financial advisory services. The company operates
through two segments, Investor Services and Advisor Services. The
Charles Schwab Corporation was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in San Francisco, California.


CHEFS' WAREHOUSE: Robinson Moves to Certify Class & 5 Subclasses
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled SHAON ROBINSON, SEAN CLARK,
SAUL PRADO, JAMES ROBERTS on behalf of themselves, all others
similarly situated, and the general public v. THE CHEFS' WAREHOUSE,
INC., a Delaware corporation, THE CHEFS' WAREHOUSE WEST COAST, LLC,
a California limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 3:15-cv-05421-RS (N.D. Cal.), move for an order
certifying their class action claims.

The class and subclasses are defined as:

   * The Reimbursement Class:

     All employees of Chefs' who worked as delivery drivers in
     California from October 26, 2011, until judgment is entered;

   * The Meal Period Subclass:

     All employees of Chefs' who worked as delivery drivers in
     California from June 25, 2014, until judgment is entered;

   * The Rest Period Subclass:

     All employees of Chefs' who worked as delivery drivers in
     California from June 25, 2014, until judgment is entered;

   * The Off-The-Clock Subclass:

     All employees of Chefs' who worked as delivery drivers in
     California from June 25, 2014, until judgment is entered;

   * The Wage Statement Subclass:

     All employees of Chefs' who worked as delivery drivers in
     California from October 26, 2014, until judgment is entered
     and who are members of any of the following: Meal Period,
     Rest Period, or Unpaid Wages/Overtime Wages Subclass;

   * The Waiting Time Penalty Subclass:

     All employees of Chefs' who worked as delivery drivers in
     California from June 25, 2014, until judgment is entered,
     whose employment with Chefs' has terminated, and who are
     members of any of the following: Meal Period, Rest Period,
     or Unpaid Wages/Overtime Wages Subclass.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint Plaintiffs Prado and
Roberts as Class Representatives, and to appoint Stephen Noel Ilg,
Esq., of ILG Legal Office, PC, and Leonard Emma, Esq., of Emma Law,
PC, as Class Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on June 27, 2019, at 1:30 p.m.,
to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen Noel Ilg, Esq.
          ILG LEGAL OFFICE, PC
          1001 Bayhill Drive, 2nd Floor
          San Bruno, CA 94066
          Telephone: (415) 580-2574
          Facsimile: (415) 735-3454
          E-mail: silg@ilglegal.com

               - and -

          Leonard Emma, Esq.
          EMMA LAW, PC
          1999 Harrison Street, 18th Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (415) 362-1111
          Facsimile: (415) 362-1112
          E-mail: lemma@employment-lawyers.com


CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Appeal in Talmer Merger Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Financial Corporation 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 an appeal from a court
ruling in the shareholder lawsuit challenging the Company's merger
deal with Talmer Bancorp remains pending before the Michigan Court
of Appeals.

On June 16, 2016, the putative class plaintiff that filed the City
of Livonia Employees' Retirement System v. Chemical Financial
Corporation et. al., Case No. 2016-151641-CB state court action
filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, styled City of Livonia Employees'
Retirement System v. Chemical Financial Corporation, et al., Docket
No. 1:16-cv-12229.

The plaintiff purports to bring this action "individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated," and requests
certification as a class action. The Complaint alleges violations
of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and alleges, among other things, that the Defendants issued
materially incomplete and misleading disclosures in the Form S-4
Registration Statement relating to the proposed merger between
Chemical Financial and Talmer Bancorp, Inc..

The Complaint contains requests for relief that include, among
other things, that the Court enjoin the proposed transaction unless
and until additional information is provided to Talmer Bancorp
shareholders, declare that the Defendants violated the securities
laws in connection with the proposed merger, award compensatory
damages, interest, attorneys' and experts' fees, and that the Court
grant such other relief as it deems just and proper.

Talmer, Chemical, and the individual defendants all believe that
the claims asserted against each of them in this lawsuit are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend against this lawsuit.


On October 18, 2016, the Federal Court entered a stipulated order
staying this action until the Oakland County Circuit Court issues
rulings on motions for summary disposition In re Talmer Bancorp
Shareholder Litigation, case number 2016-151641-CB.

Following the Oakland County Circuit Court's denial of the Motions
by Keefe Bruyette & Woods, Inc. (KBW) and the individual defendants
and their ensuing application for leave to appeal that ruling, the
Federal Court issued an order extending the stay of this action. On
November 13, 2017, the Federal Court issued an Order Directing
Plaintiff To Show Cause Why The Stay Should Not Be Lifted.

On June 29, 2018, the Court issued an Order Lifting Stay. The
plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 27, 2018. In response
to the amended complaint, the Defendants filed a Motion To Dismiss
on August 24, 2018. A ruling on the Defendant's motion is awaited.


On November 8, 2018, the Court entered an Order Staying Case
Pending Appeal And Holding In Abeyance Motion To Dismiss. In the
Order, the Court ruled that the case is stayed pending resolution
of the appeals in the state court actions. The Order provides that
if the Michigan Court of Appeals upholds the trial court decisions,
and that ruling becomes final, the doctrine of collateral estoppel
will preclude the plaintiffs in the City of Livonia and Nicholl
cases from pursuing the federal case.

A copy of the November 2018 court order is available at
PacerMonitor.com at https://is.gd/RSgObh

In response to the failure of the City of Livonia case to qualify
as a class action, on July 31, 2017, the same attorneys who filed
the City of Livonia action filed a new lawsuit in the Oakland
County, Michigan Circuit Court, based on the Talmer transaction.
That case is styled Kevin Nicholl v Gary Torgow et al, Case No.
2017-160058-CB.

The Nicholl case makes substantially the same claims as were
brought in the City of Livonia case, and seeks certification of a
shareholder class. The Nicholl case has been assigned to Judge
Wendy Potts, the same judge presiding over the City of Livonia
case.

On November 22, 2017, the plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint
purporting to add the City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System
and Regina Gertel Lee as additional named plaintiffs in the case.
The Defendants moved to strike the class allegations in the Nicholl
case based on the failure of the plaintiffs to timely file a motion
to certify a class.

On April 2, 2018, the Court entered an opinion and order confirming
that the class allegations in the Nicholl case are stricken, and
the Nicholl case will proceed as an individual action only. On
April 23, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a claim of appeal with the
Michigan Court of Appeals from the Court's April 2, 2018 opinion
and order.

As in the City of Livonia case, the Defendants filed motions for
summary disposition in the Nicholl case, seeking dismissal of the
Nicholl case.

Argument on these motions was heard on April 11, 2018, together
with arguments on the summary disposition motions of the Defendants
in the City of Livonia case. On May 8, 2018 the Court issued its
opinion and order granting the motion of the Defendants, and
dismissing the Nicholl case.

On May 25, 2018 the plaintiffs filed a claim of appeal from the
Court's decision with the Michigan Court of Appeals. The Court's
dismissal of the Nicholl case obviates the April 23, 2018 appeal
filed by the Nicholl plaintiff with respect to the Court's order of
April 2, 2018 finding that the plaintiff failed to timely certify a
class in the Nicholl litigation.

By order dated August 7, 2018, the Michigan Court of Appeals
consolidated the Nicholl case with the City of Livonia case. A
ruling from the Court is awaited.

On January 3, 2018, the plaintiffs in the City of Livonia case
filed a Motion For Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice.
Defendants filed an opposition to that motion.

The Court did not rule on that motion, pending ruling on the
Defendant's summary disposition motions in the City of Livonia and
Nicholl cases. The Court's dismissal of the City of Livonia case
obviates the need for a ruling on this motion.

Chemical Financial Corporation operates as a financial holding
company of Chemical Bank that offers a range of banking and
fiduciary products and services to residents and business
customers. Chemical Financial Corporation was founded in 1917 and
is headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.


CHICAGO, ILL: Class Action Over Lead Water Pipes Revived by State
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Hawthorne, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that
Chicago could be forced to replace thousands of water pipes made of
brain-damaging lead, a state appeals court ruled, in a decision
that draws renewed attention to widespread hazards the city largely
ignored -- and likely made worse -- during former Mayor Rahm
Emanuel's administration.

The 2-1 opinion by Illinois Appellate Court judges rejected
multiple arguments from Kirkland & Ellis, a Chicago-based
international law firm that represents the lead industry and
defended the city for free in a lawsuit demanding the removal of
lead service lines required under local building codes until
Congress banned the practice in 1986.

While the judges did not rule on the details of the case, they
ordered the Cook County Circuit Court to take another look,
potentially giving trial lawyers who filed the lawsuit a second
chance to argue for expanded lead testing and payouts from the city
to compensate Chicagoans for declining property values.

It is unclear if the city will challenge the latest court decision.
Mayor Lori Lightfoot pledged during her campaign to add lead-pipe
replacements to municipal construction projects for the first time.
She also promised to halt street work in neighborhoods that could
be at risk.

"The health and safety of Chicago residents -- especially children
-- is our top priority," Anel Ruiz, Lightfoot's chief spokeswoman,
said in a statement. "The mayor has been clear that she intends to
address the issue head on, and her administration will be working
across city departments to find solutions to address the potential
risks posed by aging infrastructure like lead service lines."

Water drawn from Lake Michigan generally is lead-free after leaving
the city's treatment plants; it becomes contaminated only after
passing through service lines and internal plumbing made of lead.
Levels of the toxic metal in tap water can vary widely between
homes and during different times of day, depending on water usage,
the length of the service line and other factors that can limit the
effectiveness of corrosion-inhibiting chemicals added to the water
supply.

Before Lightfoot took office, city officials had denied for years
that Chicagoans are at risk from drinking lead-contaminated tap
water, which can cause permanent brain damage even at extremely low
levels.

As recently as September, Emanuel aides and water department
officials continued to insist that it is up to individual
homeowners to protect themselves from mostly invisible particles
leaching out of city-mandated lead pipes. Emanuel himself declared
Chicago's drinking water is safe while opposing plans introduced in
the City Council to finance the replacement of lead service lines
-- something other U.S. cities already are doing.

Warning signs have been apparent for years.

"The city has let its residents down and turned a blind eye to its
own," said Steve Berman, Esq. -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- a
Seattle-based trial lawyer who grew up in Chicago and filed suit on
behalf of two families living in the city.

The Chicago Tribune first reported in 2013 that the Chicago
Department of Water Management and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency had found high levels of lead in city tap water
after lead service lines had been disturbed by street work or
plumbing repairs.

Emanuel dramatically expanded that type of work after taking office
in 2011. His administration borrowed more than $481 million to
install meters and new water mains citywide, raising water rates to
pay back the 20-year loans.

None of the money was earmarked to replace lead service lines. But
in response to the EPA study, and the water crisis in Flint, Mich.,
the Chicago water department began distributing free lead-testing
kits to residents in early 2016.

As of March 21, more than 8,400 kits had been analyzed. The results
confirm that people are at risk in every neighborhood, according to
an updated Chicago Tribune analysis of data posted online by the
city.

Tap water in 13 percent of the homes sampled had lead
concentrations above 5 parts per billion, the maximum allowed in
bottled water by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the
newspaper found. Samples from nearly 1 in 5 homes contained high
levels of lead after the water had been running for three minutes.

Even after water had been running for five minutes, 6 percent of
the homes tested had lead levels above the FDA's bottled water
standard.

One of the arguments from lawyers behind the lawsuit is that city
officials have provided neither advice nor directions about steps
that can be taken to reduce the chance of exposure to lead in
drinking water.

The Tribune reported in 2016 that the water department had removed
references to lead in handouts distributed before water mains were
replaced on a city block. The department later began advising
residents to flush their taps for three to five minutes any time
water hadn't been used for several hours.

In November, Emanuel's water commissioner revealed the city had
found high levels of lead in nearly 1 in 5 homes sampled where
water meters had been installed or replaced. The city offered a
free pitcher and six water filters to all 165,000 metered homes,
seeking to blunt criticism before a hearing about the department's
proposed budget.

Water utilities are considered to be in compliance with federal
water quality regulations as long as 90 percent of the homes tested
have lead levels below 15 parts per billion, a standard the EPA
acknowledges is based not on the dangers of lead but because the
agency thought the limit could be met with corrosion-inhibiting
chemicals.

Chicago conducts that type of testing in just 50 homes every three
years -- the minimum required -- and typically doesn't find
anything wrong. Most of the Chicago homes tested for regulatory
purposes during the past decade were owned by water department
employees or retirees living on the Far Northwest and Far Southwest
sides.[GN]


CITRIX SYSTEMS: Howard Sues Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------
LINDSEY HOWARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CITRIX SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
0:19-cv-61311-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 24, 2019) brings this class
action case against Defendant Citrix for its failures to secure and
safeguard its current and former employees' (and in some cases
beneficiaries and/or dependents of those employees) personal
information, including names, Social Security numbers, financial
information, and other personally identifiable information ("PII")
(collectively "Personal Information"), which Citrix collected as a
condition of employment, and for failing to provide timely,
accurate and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class members
that their Personal Information had been stolen and precisely what
types of information were stolen.

On March 8, 2019, Citrix disclosed that cyber criminals had gained
access to the internal Citrix network. At that time, Citrix
disclosed only that "it appears that the hackers may have accessed
and downloaded business documents. The specific documents that may
have been accessed, however, are currently unknown." Even at that
early time, however, the "FBI had advised that the hackers likely
used a tactic known as password spraying, a technique that exploits
weak passwords. Once they gained a foothold with limited access,
they worked to circumvent additional layers of security." The cyber
security event initially disclosed by Citrix on March 8, 2019 is
referred to hereinafter as the "Data Breach." Ultimately, in late
April 2019, Citrix sent notice confirming that hackers had access
to its network between October 13, 2018 and March 8, 2019, and that
"they removed files from our systems, which may have included files
containing information about our current and former employees and,
in limited cases, information about beneficiaries and/or
dependents."

This Personal Information was compromised due to Citrix's acts and
omissions and its failure to properly protect the Personal
Information of its current and former employees. Citrix could have
prevented this Data Breach simply by adopting industry-standard
security protocols. Password spraying is a well-known and
defensible intrusion tactic. Citrix disregarded the rights of
Plaintiff and Class members by intentionally, willfully,
recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable
measures to ensure its data systems were protected, failing to
disclose the material fact that it did not have adequate computer
systems and security practices to safeguard Personal Information,
failing to take available steps to prevent and stop the Data Breach
from ever happening, and failing to monitor and detect the Data
Breach on a timely basis. As a result of the Data Breach, the
Personal Information of Plaintiff and Class members has been
exposed to criminals for misuse, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Lindsey Howard is a resident and citizen of Coral
Springs, Florida and former employee of Citrix.

Citrix is a major technology company, specializing in "delivering
digital workspace, networking, and analytics solutions that help
customers drive innovation and be productive anytime,
anywhere".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     JOHN A. YANCHUNIS, ESQ.
     PATRICK A. BARTHLE II, ESQ.
     MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
     201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Phone: (813) 223-5505
     Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
     Email: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
            pbarthle@ForThePeople.com

          - and -

     Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
     Barrett J. Vahle, Esq.
     J. Austin Moore, Esq.
     STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
     460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
     Kansas City, MO 64112
     Phone: (816) 714-7100
     Fax: (816) 714-7101
     Email: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
            vahle@stuevesiegel.com
            moore@stuevesiegel.com



CMH HOMES, INC: Dudley Sues Over Unpaid Compensation
----------------------------------------------------
SABRINA DUDLEY, JENNIFER KOEHLER, VICTOR NUNEZ and MARIO TREVINO,
Individually and on Behalf of All Similarly Situated Employees,
Plaintiffs, v. CMH HOMES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-01546-JKB (M.D. Md., May 24, 2019) seeks to recover unpaid
wages, liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
(hereinafter, "FLSA"); unpaid wages, liquidated damages, reasonable
attorney's fees and costs under the North Carolina Wage and Hour
Act (hereinafter, "NCWHA").

To facilitate sales, Defendant employs "Home Sales
Consultants," also referred to as "Sales Representatives" or "Sales
Consultants" (collectively, as "HSC(s)") at various offices across
the country. HSCs are primarily responsible for making sales over
the phone. They are charged with contacting prospective customers
in order to assist them with constructing and selling their homes.

The Defendant has an express policy of not paying its HSCs overtime
wages. Plaintiffs and other HSCs never received "time-and-a-half"
their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a week.
The Defendant required Plaintiffs and other HSCs to work excessive
hours. Plaintiffs and other HSCs routinely worked more than 50
hours per week. There were numerous occasions when they worked as
many as 60 to 70 hours each week. They never received any
additional compensation for their additional time worked. By
failing to pay its HSCs overtime wages, Defendant knowingly
violated the FLSA and numerous state wage laws, says the
complaint.

Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees all hold or held
the title of HSC.

CMH Homes, Inc., is a national company that specializes in building
and selling manufactured and mobile homes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq.
     Michael A. Brown, Esq.
     The Law Offices of Peter T. Nicholl
     36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
     Baltimore, MD 21201
     Phone No.: (410) 244-7005
     Email: bdavis@nicholllaw.com
            mbrown@nicholllaw.com


COMMUNITY ASPHALT: Knowles Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
KIAM KNOWLES, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. COMMUNITY ASPHALT CORPORATION, a Florida Corporation,
and OHL USA, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-22142-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 24, 2019) brought this action on
behalf of himself1 and other current and former employees of OHL
COMMUNITY ASPHALT similarly situated to Plaintiff who have worked
as "Field Engineers," however variously titled, for unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonable attorneys'
fees of this action under the provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA").

The additional persons who may become Plaintiffs in this action are
OHL COMMUNITY ASPHALT's current and former non-exempt "Field
Engineers," however variously titled, who have worked for
Defendants in one or more weeks between May 2016 and the present
without being paid time and one-half wages for all of their actual
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week for OHL COMMUNITY
ASPHALT. However, OHL COMMUNITY ASPHALT has failed to pay time and
one-half wages for the overtime hours worked by Plaintiff and the
other similarly situated non-exempt "Field Engineers," however
variously titled, for all of their actual overtime hours worked
within the 3 year statute of limitations period, with Defendants
instead paying salaried wages for 40 hours per week without time
and one-half compensation for the overtime hours worked between May
2016 and the present by Plaintiff and the other similarly situated
employees, says the complaint.

In or around September 2015, Defendants hired Plaintiff in the
position known as "Field Engineer."

Defendants have at all times material to this Complaint owned
and/or operated an asphalt paving and general road construction
business at multiple locations throughout Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Keith M. Stern, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
     80 SW 8th Street, Suite 2000
     Miami, FL 33130
     Phone: (305) 901-1379
     Email: employlaw@keithstern.com


CONNECTICUT WATER: Dunn & Tillotson Plaintiffs Seek Attorney Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut Water Service, 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 plaintiffs in the
case, Dunn v. Benoit, et al., Case No. MMX-CV18-6021536-S (Conn.
Super.) and Tillotson v. Benoit, et al., Case No.
MMX-CV18-6021537-S (Conn. Super.), respectively sought an award of
attorneys' fees of $1.5 million, which the Company intends to
oppose.

On June 14, 2018, two nearly identical putative class action
complaints were filed against the members of the Board of
Directors, SJW Group (SJW) and Mr. Eric W. Thornburg (the chief
executive officer and president of SJW) on behalf of the Company's
shareholders in the Connecticut Superior Court in the Judicial
District of Middlesex under the captions Dunn v. Benoit, et al.,
Case No. MMX-CV18-6021536-S (Conn. Super. Ct.) and Tillotson v.
Benoit, et al., Case No. MMX-CV18-6021537-S (Conn. Super. Ct.),
respectively.

The complaints, as amended on September 18, 2018 and September 20
2018, respectively, allege, among other things, that (i) the
members of the Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties
owed to the Company's shareholders in connection with negotiating
the Merger, (ii) the Company's preliminary proxy statement, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 20, 2018 in
respect of the special meeting of its shareholders held on November
16, 2018 in connection with the Merger, omits certain material
information and (iii) SJW and Mr. Thornburg aided and abetted the
alleged breaches by the Board of Directors.

Among other remedies, the actions seek to recover rescissory and
other damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

The parties to these actions entered into an agreement in principle
to settle and release all claims that were or could have been
alleged by the plaintiffs in those actions.

On November 20, 2018, the plaintiffs in these two actions filed
motions seeking an award of attorneys' fees of $1.5 million, which
the Company intends to oppose.

Connecticut Water Service, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a regulated water company. The company operates through
three segments: Water Operations, Real Estate Transactions, and
Services and Rentals. Connecticut Water Service, Inc. was founded
in 1956 and is headquartered in Clinton, Connecticut.


CONSOL ENERGY: Casey Suit in West Virginia Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy 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 against the consolidated Casey class action suit in West
Virginia federal court.

A class action lawsuit was filed on August 23, 2017 on behalf of
two nonunion retired coal miners against Consolidation Coal Company
(CCC), CONSOL of Kentucky Inc. (COK), CONSOL Buchanan Mining Co.,
LLC and Kurt Salvatori in West Virginia Federal Court alleging
ERISA violations in the termination of retiree health care
benefits.

Filed by the same lawyers who filed the Fitzwater litigation, and
raising nearly identical claims, the Plaintiffs contend they relied
to their detriment on oral promises of "lifetime health benefits"
allegedly made by various members of management during Plaintiffs'
employment and that they were not provided with copies of Summary
Plan Documents clearly reserving to the Company the right to modify
or terminate the Retiree Health and Welfare Plan.

Plaintiffs request that retiree health benefits be reinstated for
them and their dependents and seek to represent a class of all
nonunion retirees of any subsidiary of the Company's former parent
that operated or employed individuals in McDowell or Mercer
Counties, West Virginia, or Buchanan or Tazewell Counties, Virginia
whose retiree welfare benefits were terminated.

On December 1, 2017, the trial court judge in Fitzwater signed an
order to consolidate Fitzwater with Casey.

The Casey complaint was amended on March 1, 2018 to add new
plaintiffs, add defendant CONSOL Pennsylvania Coal Company, LLC and
eliminate defendant CONSOL Buchanan Mining Co., LLC in an attempt
to expand the class of retirees.

CONSOL Energy said, "The Company believes it has a meritorious
defense and intends to vigorously defend this suit."

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

CONSOL Energy Inc. produces and exports bituminous coal. It owns
and operates its mining operations in the Northern Appalachian
Basin. The company owns and operates the Pennsylvania Mining
Complex (PAMC), which comprises three underground mines, including
Bailey, Enlow Fork, and Harvey; and CONSOL Marine Terminal located
in the port of Baltimore. CONSOL Energy Inc. was founded in 1864
and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.


CRM US INC: DiSalvo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------
ZACHARY DISALVO, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CRM US, INC. d/b/a INSPIRO, Defendant, Case
No. 3:19-cv-00425-slc (W.D. Wis., May 24, 2019) alleges, on behalf
of himself and the putative classes, that this conduct is in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the
Wisconsin Wage Payment and Collection Act.

Plaintiff and the putative class members were paid overtime wages
when they worked hours in excess of 40 in a workweek. However,
Defendant failed to properly calculate the regular rate of pay when
determining overtime wages. Defendant failed to include commission
payments in its computation of the regular rate for overtime pay to
Plaintiff and the putative class members. As a result, Plaintiff
and the putative class members were regularly denied earned
overtime wages, says the complaint.

Plaintiff DiSalvo was employed as a sales representative by
Defendant within the past three years.

CRM US, Inc., d/b/a Inspiro and formerly known as "SPi CRM," is a
foreign business corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David C. Zoeller, Esq.
     Caitlin M. Madden, Esq.
     HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
     Post Office Box 2155
     Madison, WI 53701-2155
     Phone: (608) 257-0040
     Facsimile: (608) 256-0236
     Email: dzoeller@hq-law.com
            cmadden@hq-law.com


CURADEN AG: Court Narrows Claims in B. Lyngaas TCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, issued an Opinion and Order granting
in part and denying in part Motion for Summary Judgment in the case
captioned BRIAN LYNGAAS, D.D.S., individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff,
v. CURADEN AG, et al. Defendants. Case No. 17-cv-10910. (E.D.
Mich.).

In this case, Plaintiff Brian Lyngaas contends that Defendants
Curaden AG and Curaden USA Inc. are liable under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), for sending him unsolicited fax
advertisements.

Curaden AG does not dispute that the March 8, 2016 and March 28,
2016 faxes received by Lyngaas constitute unsolicited
advertisements within the meaning of the statute.

However, the parties dispute several other issues that bear on
summary judgment: whether this Court lacks personal jurisdiction
over Curaden AG; whether Curaden AG is liable as a sender of the
faxes; and whether Curaden AG can be held liable for Curaden USA's
actions under an alter ego theory. The Court will address each
argument in turn.

This Court has jurisdiction over Curaden AG.

Nearly two years ago, Curaden AG argued in its motion to dismiss
that it was not subject to this Court's jurisdiction.  

Curaden AG now argues that discovery has revealed that the Court
does not have personal jurisdiction over it.  

The Court previously found that Curaden AG was subject to
Michigan's long-arm statute, Michigan Compiled Laws Section
600.715(2), because it created Curaden USA and authorized it to
market.

Curaden AG's toothbrushes in the entire United States including
Michigan, and any nexus between business transaction and tort shall
allow limited personal jurisdiction to operate. This is still the
case.

Curaden AG argues that it did not do or cause to be done the acts
that resulted in a tort; it only entered into a distribution
agreement with Curaden USA, which is not tortious. But as this
Court already found, Michigan Compiled Laws Section 600.715(2) has
been interpreted broadly and Curaden AG caused consequences to
occur in Michigan that resulted in an action for tort when it
created Curaden USA and authorized it to market Curaden AG's
toothbrushes throughout the entire United States, including
Michigan.

This Court also found that the exercise of jurisdiction over
Curaden AG comported with due process, because (i) Curaden AG
purposefully availed itself of the privilege of acting in Michigan
(ii) the cause of action arose from Curaden AG's activities there
and (iii) the acts of Curaden AG or the consequences it caused had
a substantial enough connection with Michigan to make the exercise
of jurisdiction over it reasonable.  

There is an issue of fact as to whether Curaden AG is a sender of
the faxes

Turning now to the merits of the TCPA claim, Curaden AG argues that
it is not a sender of the faxes, as defined by the FCC regulation:
the person or entity on whose behalf a facsimile unsolicited
advertisement is sent or whose goods or services are advertised or
promoted in the unsolicited advertisement.

Entity whose goods or services are advertised or promoted standard

Curaden AG relies heavily on Health One Medical Center v. Mohawk,
Inc., 889 F.3d 800 (6th Cir. 2018). There, Mohawk Medical sent two
unsolicited faxes to Health One Medical Center, listing Mohawk's
contact information and offering discounts on fourteen drugs,
including one manufactured by Bristol-Myers Squibb and one by
Pfizer.

The plaintiff argued that Bristol-Myers and Pfizer had sent the
unsolicited faxes because the faxes mentioned their drugs. The
Sixth Circuit rejected the argument that Bristol-Myers Squibb and
Pfizer could be held liable under the TCPA, explaining that the
regulation purports to allocate liability in cases where the party
that physically sends (i.e., dispatches) the fax and the party that
causes it to be sent are not one and the same. Thus, only Mohawk
can be liable for the faxes, as Bristol and Pfizer neither
dispatched the faxes nor caused them to be sent; instead Mohawk did
both. Curaden AG argues that, like the defendants in Health One, it
did not cause the faxes to be sent nor dispatch the faxes, and it
therefore cannot be held liable.  

The facts of the instant case, at this stage of factual
development, do not show quite the level of attenuation between the
entity sending the faxes and the entity whose products were
advertised in the faxes as in Health One. True, Curaden USA hired a
third party to send the faxes, not Curaden AG. There is no evidence
that Curaden AG designed the faxes, instructed Curaden USA to send
the faxes, or engaged with AdMax Marketing in any way. The faxes
themselves do not refer to Curaden AG they refer communications to
a Curaden USA employee, and, had an individual attempted to access
the website on the fax, they would have been directed to Curaden
USA's website. And as Defendants point out, the agreement between
Defendants requires that Curaden USA use its best endeavors to
promote the sale of the Products throughout the Territory and to
that end shall ensure that such marketing is ethical, tasteful and
does not adversely affect the image of the Products or the
Company.

However, there is a level of closeness between Curaden AG and its
subsidiary that was not present between Mohawk Medical and
Bristol-Myers or Pfizer. The agreement between Curaden AG and
Curaden USA is in fact a template agreement used for all of Curaden
AG's distributors; it was never signed by either entity. Curaden
USA basically follows most of the tenets in the template that was
provided, but there are elements of the template that don't apply
to Curaden USA's operation or maybe slightly different that are
found in that template. And the relationship between the two
entities is informal in other ways, as well Curaden USA does not
pay for the goods it purchases from its parent company, instead
taking on the cost as long-term debt that it will pay back when it
is able. Curaden USA did not take out an official loan with Curaden
AG to pay for these products.

"On whose behalf" standard

Lyngaas also argues that Curaden AG is liable under the other prong
of the FCC regulation, which provides that a sender is the entity
on whose behalf the advertisements are sent. In Alco, the Sixth
Circuit approved the following standard for determining on whose
behalf a fax was sent:
Circumstances to be considered include, but are not limited to, the
degree of input and control over the content of the fax(es), the
actual content of the fax(es), contractual or expressly stated
limitations and scope of control between the parties, privity of
the parties involved, approval of the final draft of the fax(es)
and its transmission(s), method and structure of payment, overall
awareness of the circumstances (including access to and control
over facsimile lists and transmission information), and the
existence of measures taken to ensure compliance and/or to cure
non-compliance with the TCPA.

The Court finds that there is a question of fact as to whether the
faxes were sent on behalf of Curaden AG. It is not clear what
degree of input and control Curaden AG had over the faxes, or its
overall awareness of the circumstances under which the faxes were
sent.

Summary Judgment is Appropriate in favor of Curaden AG on the Alter
Ego Issue

Lyngaas also argues that the Court should pierce the corporate veil
to hold Curaden AG liable for the actions of Curaden  Curaden AG
seeks summary judgment on this issue, contending that Lyngaas did
not allege in his complaint that Curaden USA is Curaden AG's alter
ego, and also arguing that the evidence does not support that
theory.  

Even assuming that Lyngaas had properly raised this theory of
liability, it would still fail. Under Michigan law, the general
principle is that separate corporate identities will be respected,
and thus corporate veils will be pierced only to prevent fraud or
injustice. A plaintiff who wishes to pierce the corporate veil must
show that the following requirements are met: first, the corporate
entity must be a mere instrumentality of another; second, the
corporate entity must be used to commit a fraud or wrong; and
third, there must have been an unjust loss or injury to the
plaintiff. Nonetheless, there is no mechanical test for determining
when the existence of a separate entity must be disregarded and
whether to disregard the separate existence of an entity depends on
the totality of the circumstances.

Curaden AG argues that it and Curaden USA have different employees,
different officers and executives, and different offices. The two
entities maintain separate bank accounts and file separate bank
returns. Pursuant to the distribution agreement that governs the
relationship between the two entities, Curaden USA is not Curaden
AG's agent and is prohibited from marketing itself as such. Curaden
AG contests Lyngaas' characterization of Curaden USA as
undercapitalized, arguing that it has received $800,000 in revenue
from Curaden USA since it was founded in 2014.  

To show that one entity is the mere instrumentality of another, the
Court looks to the following factors: (1) whether the corporation
is undercapitalized (2) whether separate books are kept  (3)
whether there are separate finances for the corporation (4) whether
the corporation is used for fraud or illegality (5) whether
corporate formalities have been followed and (6) whether the
corporation is a sham.

Here, only the first factor weighs in favor of finding that Curaden
USA is a mere instrumentality of Curaden AG. Curaden USA's
financial position is certainly not strong, as it is not currently
profitable and the evidence regarding whether it has ever paid
Curaden AG for any of the products it has purchased is not clear.
Curaden AG points out that Curaden USA has only been in operation
since 2014, and the company has an eight-year plan to
profitability. The two companies keep separate books and separate
finances, and follow corporate formalities. Curaden USA is used to
distribute Curaden AG's products in the United States, not to
promote fraud or illegality. Curaden USA has its own employees and
its own offices, and there is no basis for thinking it is merely a
sham corporation.

There is simply no evidence of Curaden AG misusing the corporate
form.

Thus, Curaden AG's motion for summary judgment is granted regarding
any claim for alter-ego liability. Nonetheless, as discussed above,
because an issue of fact remains as to Curaden AG's knowledge of
the faxing campaign at issue in this case, the Court denies summary
judgment as to both Lyngaas and Curaden AG regarding Curaden AG's
liability under the TCPA.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 23, 2019 Opinion and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4jzfd6u from
Leagle.com.

Brian Lyngaas, D.D.S., Plaintiff, represented by David M. Oppenheim
-- david@classlawyers.com -- Bock, Hatch, Lewis, & Oppenheim, LLC,
Richard Shenkan, Shenkan Injury Lawyers, LLC, 6550 Lakeshore St.
West Bloomfield, MI 48323-1429, Tod A. Lewis --
tod@classlawyers.com -- Bock Law Firm, LLC dba Bock, Hatch, Lewis &
Oppenheim, LLC & Phillip A. Bock, Bock Law Firm, LLC dba Bock,
Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC, 134 N LaSalle St # 1000  Chicago, IL
60602

Curaden AG & Curaden USA Inc., Defendants, represented by Brian S.
Sullivan -- brian.sullivan@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl & Jason
M. Renner -- jason.renner@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.


CYC DESIGN: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CYC Design
Corporation. The case is styled as Brian Fischler Individually and
on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CYC
Design Corporation doing business as: Wing + Horns, Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-03130 (E.D. N.Y., May 25, 2019).

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

CYC Design Corp is a retail company based out of 196 W 6th Ave,
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
     Lipsky Lowe LLP
     630 Third Avenue
     New York, NY 10017-6705
     Phone: (212) 392-4772
     Fax: (212) 444-1030
     Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


DAMENZO'S INC: Soto Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------
FELIPE GARCIA SOTO, an individual, and CRISTIAN RENE ZAVALA
REYNOSO, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all other
plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs, v.
DAMENZO'S, INC., an Illinois corporation, DAMENZO'S 3, INC., an
Illinois corporation, DAMENZO'S 4, INC., an Illinois corporation,
and DOMINICK MANNINO, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03486 (N.D.
Ill., May 24, 2019) is a arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"),  the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), and the Chicago
Minimum Wage Ordinance ("CMWO"), for Defendants' failure to pay
Plaintiffs, and other similarly situated employees, their overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 in individual
workweeks.

The Defendants did not compensate Plaintiffs, and other non-exempt
cooks, food preparers, cleaners and other kitchen staff employees,
at one and one-half times their regular hourly rates of pay for
hours worked in excess of 40 in individual workweeks. The
Defendants never paid Plaintiffs an overtime premium when they
worked more than 40 hours in a workweek, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs are current and former cooks, food preparers, cleaners
and other kitchen staff employees of Defendants' Damenzo's
restaurants.

Damenzo's, Inc. operates the Damenzo's restaurant is engaged in
selling and serving prepared food and beverages to customers for
consumption on and off its premises.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Timothy M. Nolan, Esq.
     NOLAN LAW OFFICE
     53 W. Jackson Blvd., Ste. 1137
     Chicago, IL 60604
     Phone: (312) 322-1100
     Fax: (312) 322-1106
     Email: tnolan@nolanwagelaw.com


DELOITTE: May Face IFIN Bondholders, Shareholders Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gireesh Chandra Prasad, writing for livemint, reports that Deloitte
Haskins and Sells Llp, the auditor of struggling IL&FS Financial
Services Ltd (IFIN), may have to disgorge the audit fees it had
received from the lender with penalty if a probe finds that the
auditing firm had overlooked irregularities or colluded with the
non-bank's management, a person familiar with the investigation
said.

Deloitte may also face class action suits from bondholders and
shareholders of IFIN, the person said on condition of anonymity.

The Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), which comes under
the corporate affairs ministry, has also extended its probe to BSR
and Associates Llp, which came in as the joint auditor of IFIN for
the year ended 31 March 2018.

If the ongoing probe finds any shortcoming in the audit of the
company, which reported a spike in its bad loans to 90% in the
December quarter from 5% in the March 2018 quarter, the government
may take action against the individual audit teams assigned to IFIN
or Deloitte itself.

The government last year sacked the board members of IFIN's parent,
Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd (IL&FS), and some
of them are now being probed for negligence, diversion of funds and
the company's inability to manage risks. IL&FS's payment defaults
triggered a liquidity crisis in the non-bank financial sector,
which has affected the real estate industry as well as small and
medium enterprises.

SFIO is examining if the auditors took the explanations given by
the company management at face value or whether they adequately
corroborated the genuineness of transactions.

An industry executive familiar with the IFIN audit process said on
condition of anonymity that the scope of a statutory audit is
narrower than that of a forensic audit, which can track
transactions in much greater detail.

"That is not a tenable argument . . . If the auditors are to accept
every claim of the management, what is the need for an auditor?"
said the first person cited earlier. "There should be punishment
commensurate with the audit lapses to ensure accountability and to
prevent such future occurrence. It will have a demonstrative
effect."

The regulatory action will depend on the conclusions at the end of
the probe. SFIO is examining the firm's transactions and how the
auditors treated them. It is also examining whether individual
auditors or the audit firm itself are liable for any lapse.

The second person cited earlier said liability would rest with the
audit firm only if it failed to put in place systems that ensured
standard audit practices by its professionals.

A spokesperson for Deloitte said the company was fully cooperating
with the ongoing investigations relating to IFIN. "We reaffirm that
we have conducted our audits in accordance with the standards on
auditing and the applicable laws and regulations," added the
spokesperson.

The second person said Deloitte had made important observations
about IFIN's dealings in its notes, although it has not qualified
the auditor's report. "During the period Deloitte audited the
company, there was no financial trouble. It is hard to predict the
future value of a security. Besides, the Piramal Group had
expressed interest to buy a stake in IL&FS in 2015-16 at a price
above its market capitalization, which reflected the company's
financial health," said the person. Deloitte was IL&FS's auditor
then.

BSR and Co. said in a statement to Mint that it remains committed
to the highest standards of ethics and audit quality and that it
came into the audit of IFIN as joint auditors only in FY18. "We are
not the auditors for IL&FS or any other material subsidiary of
IL&FS. We stand by our audit, which was performed in line with the
applicable auditing standards and regulations, and are fully
committed to cooperating with the regulatory authorities on their
inquiries," BSR said.

The exchanges between BSR and SFIO and the National Financial
Reporting Authority were at an early stage and no substantial issue
had been discussed yet, a third person privy to the development
said on condition of anonymity. [GN]


EAGLE NATIONAL: Dismissal of Suits Over Kickback Schemes Flipped
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARY E. EDMONSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EAGLE
NATIONAL BANK; EAGLE NATIONWIDE MORTGAGE COMPANY; EAGLE NATIONAL
BANCORP, INCORPORATED; ESSA BANCORP, INCORPORATED; ESSA BANK &
TRUST, Defendants-Appellees. RENITA JAMES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
ACRE MORTGAGE & FINANCIAL, INC., Defendant-Appellee. D'ALAN E.
BAUGH; PENNY FRAZIER, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE FEDERAL SAVINGS
BANK, Defendant-Appellee. TRACIE PARKER DOBBINS; GLADYS PARKER,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
Defendant-Appellee. JILL BEZEK; MICHELLE HARRIS,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FIRST MARINER BANK, Defendant-Appellee,
Case Nos. 18-1216, 18-1229, 18-1230, 18-1260, 18-1262 (4th Cir.),
Judge James A. Wynn Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of the Plaintiffs'
actions.

Each of the five Plaintiffs in the matter brought a putative class
action alleging that between 2009 and 2014 certain lenders
participated in "kickback schemes" prohibited by the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA").  But the district court
dismissed their claims because the first of the five class actions
at issue in the appeal was not filed until June 23, 2016, well
after the expiration of RESPA's one-year statute of limitations.

Between 2009 and 2014, the Defendants -- several banks and mortgage
companies -- originated or serviced residential mortgages obtained
by the Plaintiffs.  Mortgage brokers and loan officers employed by
the Lenders referred the Plaintiffs to Genuine Title, LLC to
procure title insurance and obtain escrow and settlement services.
The Plaintiffs allege that Genuine Title provided the Lenders with
several forms of "unearned fees and kickbacks" to induce those
referrals in violation of RESPA, which forbids, among other things,
any person from giving or accepting any fee, kickback, or thing of
value pursuant to any agreement or understanding as part of a real
estate settlement service involving a federally related mortgage
loan.

The Plaintiffs further allege that Glickstein founded a second
company, Competitive Advantage Media Group, LLC, that made in-kind
payments to the Lenders' brokers and loan officers.  In particular,
Competitive Advantage provided free or discounted leads, postage,
and/or marketing materials and services and/or credits for mortgage
brokers and lenders associated with the Lenders.   Genuine Title
allegedly paid for some or all of the promotional materials
Competitive Advantage provided to the Lenders' brokers and loan
officers.

Furthermore, the Plaintiffs allege that Genuine Title entered into
agreements pursuant to which a broker or loan officer associated
with a Lender that refused to lend to a prospective borrower
because the borrower failed to meet the Lender's underwriting
standards would refer the borrower to another Lender that
frequently worked with Genuine Title.

Although the complaint alleges violations between 2009 and 2014,
the first of the five class actions at issue in the appeal was not
filed until June 23, 2016, well after the expiration of RESPA's
one-year statute of limitations.  The Plaintiffs' complaints assert
that they are entitled to relief from the limitations period,
however, because the Lenders fraudulently concealed the alleged
kickback scheme.

Like the Defendants in Fangman v. Genuine Title, the Lenders moved
to dismiss on grounds that the Plaintiffs failed to file their
actions within RESPA's one-year limitations period and were not
entitled to rely on the doctrine of fraudulent concealment to
obtain relief from the limitations period.  Unlike in Fangman,
however, the district court refused to toll the limitations period
based on fraudulent concealment and, therefore, dismissed the
Plaintiffs' actions.

The Plaintiffs timely appealed.  The sole issue on appeal is
whether the district court properly dismissed the five complaints
on grounds that the Plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege their
entitlement to relief from RESPA's one-year limitations period
based on fraudulent concealment.  To decide this issue, Judge Wynn
considers (A) whether RESPA's one-year statute of limitations for
claims under Section 2607 is subject to tolling based on fraudulent
concealment; (B) if so, whether the district court applied the
proper test in holding that the Plaintiffs failed to adequately
allege their entitlement to tolling based on fraudulent
concealment; and (C) whether the Plaintiffs' allegations bearing on
fraudulent concealment are sufficient to survive a motion to
dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).

The Judge does not believe that Congress intended to allow
individuals and entities that conceal their unlawful kickback
schemes and other RESPA violations to reap the benefit of the
statute of limitations as a defense.  On the contrary, allowing
tolling based on fraudulent concealment advances the goals Congress
sought to serve in enacting RESPA.  Therefore, he joins the
majority of the sister circuits and hold that the statute of
limitations found in Section 2614 is not jurisdictional in nature
and may be tolled based on equitable grounds, including fraudulent
concealment.

Having determined that RESPA's one-year statute of limitations is
subject to tolling on equitable grounds -- including fraudulent
concealment -- the Judge turns to whether the district court
applied the proper test in holding that the Plaintiffs failed to
adequately allege their entitlement to tolling based on fraudulent
concealment.  He holds that Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v.
United States does not supplant the Court's long-standing
three-step framework for analyzing allegations of fraudulent
concealment.  Accordingly, the district court committed legal error
when it applied Menominee's two-step framework and dismissed the
Plaintiffs' action for failing to satisfy the "extraordinary
circumstances" element.

Having concluded that the Court's three-step test for determining
whether a plaintiff is entitled to invoke the doctrine of
fraudulent concealment continues to apply, the Judge now turns to
whether the Plaintiffs' allegations bearing on fraudulent
concealment are sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss under
Rule 12(b)(6).  He finds that the Plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded
that the Lenders engaged in affirmative acts of concealment.  And
based upon the limited record before the Court, he cannot conclude
as a matter of law that these Plaintiffs unreasonably failed to
discover or investigate the basis of their claims within the
limitations period.

For the reasons stated, the district court erred in holding that
the two-element test applied in Menominee abrogated this Court's
long-standing three-element test for determining whether a
plaintiff is entitled to relief from a limitations period based on
the fraudulent concealment tolling doctrine. Applying the proper
test, we hold that Plaintiffs' allegations as to fraudulent
concealment are sufficient to withstand the Lenders' motions to
dismiss.

Accordingly, Judge Wynn reversed the judgment of the district court
and remanded the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with
his Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 26, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/OcWpG1 from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: William James Murphy -- wmurphy@zuckerman.com -- ZUCKERMAN
SPAEDER LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants. Ryan Thomas
Becker -- rbecker@foxrothschild.com -- FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellees. Brian David Schmalzbach
-- bschmalzbach@mcguirewoods.com -- McGUIREWOODS LLP, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee Bank of America National Association.

ON BRIEF: Cyril V. Smith -- csmith@zuckerman.com -- Adam B. Abelson
-- aabelson@zuckerman.com -- ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP, Baltimore,
Maryland; Michael Paul Smith -- mpsmith@sgs-law.com -- SMITH,
GILDEA & SCHMIDT, LLC, Towson, Maryland; Timothy F. Maloney,
JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE, P.A., Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellants.

George J. Krueger -- gkrueger@foxrothschild.com -- FOX ROTHSCHILD
LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Brian Moffet
bmoffet@milesstockbridge.com -- MILES & STOCKBRIDGE P.C.,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees Eagle Nation Bank, Eagle
Nationwide Mortgage Company, Eagle National Bancorp, Incorporated,
Essa Bancorp, Incorporated, and Essa Bank & Trust. Bradley R.
Kutrow, McGUIRE WOODS LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee
Bank of America National Association. Ari Karen, OFFIT KURMAN, PA,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees Acre Mortgage & Financial, Inc,
and The Federal Savings Bank. Michael E. Blumenfeld, NELSON MULLINS
RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee First
Mariner Bank.


EI DU PONT: Faces PFOA-Related Class Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company 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 is
defending against a class action suit related to
perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOA") in New York around the
Hoosick Falls Area.

Historical DuPont (the company) is a defendant in about 52
lawsuits, including a putative class action, brought by persons who
live in and around Hoosick Falls, New York.

These lawsuits assert claims for medical monitoring and property
damage based on alleged perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) releases from
manufacturing facilities owned and operated by co-defendants in
Hoosick Falls and allege that Historical DuPont and 3M supplied
some of the materials used at these facilities.

Historical DuPont is also one of more than ten defendants in a
lawsuit brought by the Town of East Hampton, New York alleging PFOA
and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS") contamination of the
town's well water.

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company operates as a science and
technology based company in the United States and internationally.
The company was founded in 1802 and is headquartered in Wilmington,
Delaware. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company is a subsidiary of
DowDuPont Inc.


EI DU PONT: Faces PFOA-Related Class Suit in Ohio
-------------------------------------------------
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company 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 is
defending against a nationwide class action suit in Ohio related to
perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) water contamination.

Historical DuPont is a defendant in three lawsuits: an action by
the State of Ohio based on alleged damage to natural resources, a
putative nationwide class action brought on behalf of anyone who
has detectable levels of perfluorinated chemicals, including PFOA,
in their blood, and an action by the City of Dayton claiming losses
related to the investigation, remediation and monitoring of PFAS,
including PFOA, in water supplies.

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company operates as a science and
technology based company in the United States and internationally.
The company was founded in 1802 and is headquartered in Wilmington,
Delaware. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company is a subsidiary of
DowDuPont Inc.


EI DU PONT: Says Roughly $2MM Spent in Water Treatment
------------------------------------------------------
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company 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 as of March 31,
2019, approximately $2 million had been disbursed from the water
treatment account since its establishment in 2012 and the remaining
balance is approximately $1 million.

Historical DuPont (the company) has residual liabilities under its
2004 settlement of a West Virginia state court class action, Leach
v. DuPont, which alleged that perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) from
Historical DuPont's former Washington Works facility had
contaminated area drinking water supplies and affected the health
of area residents. The settlement class has about 80,000 members.

In addition to relief that was provided to class members years ago,
the settlement requires Historical DuPont to continue providing
PFOA water treatment to six area water districts and private well
users and to fund, through an escrow account, up to $235 million
for a medical monitoring program for eligible class members.

As of March 31, 2019, approximately $2 million had been disbursed
from the account since its establishment in 2012 and the remaining
balance is approximately $1 million.

The Leach settlement permits class members to pursue personal
injury claims for six health conditions (and no others) that an
expert panel appointed under the settlement reported in 2012 had a
"probable link" (as defined in the settlement) with PFOA:
pregnancy-induced hypertension, including preeclampsia; kidney
cancer; testicular cancer; thyroid disease; ulcerative colitis; and
diagnosed high cholesterol.

After the expert panel reported its findings, approximately 3,550
personal injury lawsuits were filed in federal and state courts in
Ohio and West Virginia and consolidated in multi-district
litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio ("MDL"). The MDL was settled in early 2017 for $670.7 million
in cash, with Chemours and Historical DuPont (without
indemnification from Chemours) each paying half.

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company operates as a science and
technology based company in the United States and internationally.
The company was founded in 1802 and is headquartered in Wilmington,
Delaware. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company is a subsidiary of
DowDuPont Inc.


EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Securities Class Suit Concluded
------------------------------------------------------
Emergent BioSolutions 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 time to file a
notice of appeal in the class action suit initiated by William
Sponn in 2016 has passed.

On July 19, 2016, Plaintiff William Sponn (Sponn), filed a putative
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock between January 11, 2016 and June 21, 2016, inclusive
(the Class Period), seeking to pursue remedies under the Exchange
Act against the Company and certain of its senior officers and
directors (collectively, the Defendants).

The complaint alleged, among other things, that the Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements about the government's
demand for BioThrax and expectations that the Company's five-year
exclusive procurement contract with the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) would be renewed, and omitted certain
material facts. Sponn sought unspecified damages, including legal
costs.

On October 25, 2016, the court added City of Cape Coral Municipal
Firefighters' Retirement Plan and City of Sunrise Police Officers'
Retirement Plan as plaintiffs and appointed them Lead Plaintiffs
and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Lead Counsel.

On December 27, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
that cited the same class period, named the same defendants and
made similar allegations to the original complaint. The Defendants
filed a Motion to Dismiss on February 27, 2017. The Plaintiffs
filed an opposition brief on April 28, 2017.

The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss was heard and denied on July 6,
2017. The Defendants filed an answer on July 28, 2017. The parties
then engaged in the discovery process.

The Plaintiffs filed an amended motion for class certification and
appointment of Lead Plaintiffs, Sponn, and Geoffrey L. Flagstad
(Flagstad) as Class Representatives on December 20, 2017. A hearing
on that motion was heard on May 2, 2018. On June 8, 2018 the Court
granted class certification with a shortened class period, from May
5, 2016 to June 21, 2016. In that same order, the court appointed
Flagstad as Class Representative and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP as Class Counsel.

The Defendants have denied, and continue to deny, any and all
allegations of fault, liability, wrongdoing, or damages. However,
recognizing the risk, time, and expense of litigating any case to
trial, on August 27, 2018, the Defendants reached an agreement in
principle with Plaintiffs to settle all of the related claims of
any individual plaintiff that purchased or acquired Company stock
from January 11, 2016 to June 21, 2016, for $6.5 million, an amount
that was paid by the Company’s insurance carrier.

The settlement required no payment by any of the Defendants. The
Defendants continue to deny any and all liability. The parties
executed the settlement agreement on October 16, 2018 and filed the
agreement with the court on October 17, 2018. The court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement on October 18, 2018, issued
an amended preliminary approval of the settlement on October 25,
2018, and scheduled a hearing regarding final approval for January
22, 2019. At the time of the final approval hearing on January 22,
2019, there were no objections to the settlement, but there were
two shareholders who had submitted opt-outs so that they could be
excluded from the settlement.

On January 25, 2019, the court issued an order and final judgment
approving the settlement. The time to file a notice of appeal has
passed.

The case has been terminated as of Jan. 25, 2019, according to the
docket.

Defendants continue to believe that the allegations in the
complaint are without merit.  

Emergent BioSolutions Inc. develops, manufactures, and
commercializes immunobiotics such as vaccines and immune globulins
that assist the body's immune system. The company, which was
founded in 1998, is based in Rockville, Maryland.


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Tameron Files FDCPA Suit in D. Arizona
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enhanced Recovery
Company LLC. The case is styled as Joseph Tameron on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
Enhanced Recovery Company LLC doing business as: ERC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-03481-MHB (D. Ariz., May 24, 2019).

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

Enhanced Recovery Company LLC provides business process outsourcing
services that include recovery, outsourcing, and market research
primarily for Fortune 500 companies in the United States and
internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel Zemel, Esq.
     Zemel Law LLC
     1373 Broad St., Ste. 203C
     Newark, NJ 07013
     Phone: (862) 227-3106
     Fax: (862) 204-5901
     Email: DZ@ZEMELLAWLLC.com


EQHEALTH SOLUTIONS: Class Certified Under FLSA in Russell Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Shelly D. Dick grants the Plaintiff's motion to
conditionally certify a Putative Class of plaintiffs in the
collective action styled MELISSA RUSSELL, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. EQHEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No.
3:19-cv-00005-SDD-EWD (M.D. La.), and facilitate notice of the
action to the Putative Class.

For purposes of the collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Court conditionally certifies a Putative Class
defined as:

     Defendant's current and former non-managerial employees paid
     on a salary basis who may have worked more than 40 hours in
     at least one workweek between March 19, 2016 and the date of
     this Order 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 Defendant'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 Defendant'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 Defendant's employees, if
     any, whose job duties involved providing direct medical care
     to members or traditional nursing care to patients in a
     clinical setting.

Judge Dick directs the Defendant to produce to the Plaintiff's
counsel the names, last known home addresses, last known personal
e-mail addresses, and last known home and cell phone numbers
(collectively, "Employee Information") of the Putative Class
Members within 14 days after the date of the Order.

The Court approves the Notice attached to the Plaintiff's motion
and the Consent form attached to Plaintiff's motion.  The
Plaintiff's counsel will have 14 days from the date of receipt of
the Employee Information to distribute the Notice to the Putative
Class Members in accordance with the below-provided 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 Court acknowledges the Parties' position that nothing in the
motion or in the Notice or Consent shall be interpreted as
limiting, waiving, or modifying any of the Parties' claims or
defenses and that the Defendant continues to deny that it violated
the FLSA in any respect.  The Court has not taken any position on
the merits of the claims or defenses.[CC]


FIAT CHRYSLER: Radi, et al., Sue over Defective Airbag Components
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against FCA (Fiat Chrysler
Automobiles) US LLC, Hyundai Motor America, Inc., Toyota Motor
Sales, U.S.A., Kia Motor America, Inc., Toyota Motor Corporation,
and ZF TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. for fraud, unjust enrichment,
breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty and
merchantability, and for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, New York
General Business Law, Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law, and the Georgia Fair Business Practices
Act. The case is captioned DAVID RADI, CURLINE G. REGISTE, and
YAMIRA COLLAZO, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
public similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FCA ("Fiat Chrysler
Automobiles") US LLC, a Delaware Corporation, HYUNDAI MOTOR
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation, TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A,
INC.., a California Corporation, KIA MOTOR AMERICA, INC., a
California Corporation, TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, and ZF TRW
AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS CORP., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-02769 (E.D.N.Y., May 10, 2019). Defendants engaged in
unfair, deceptive, unlawful and/or fraudulent acts or practices, in
trade or commerce, by failing to disclose that certain vehicles
were designed, manufactured, and sold with defective airbag
components. Defendants and ZF-TRW knew and had reason to know of
this defect well before the issuance of any recalls in 2018 but
concealed this defect from the public. Defendants worked in concert
to delay the reporting of this defect to consumers and to
regulators to protect each Defendant's financial interests.
Further, the Defendants acted to conceal the depth of this problem
and the number of airbag non-deployments that occurred worldwide.

Hyundai Motor America, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business located at 10550 Talbert Avenue,
Fountain Valley, California. Kia Motor America, Inc. is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business located at 111
Peters Canyon Road, Irvine, California. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A.,
(TMS) Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the State
of Kentucky and headquartered in at 1001 Cherry Blossom Way,
Georgetown, KY 40324. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. is the U.S.
sales, marketing, and distribution arm of its Japanese parent
company, Toyota Motor Corporation. FCA US LLC is a for-profit
limited liability company organized under the laws of the state of
Delaware, and maintains its headquarters and principal place of
business at 1000 Chrysler Drive, Auburn Hills, Michigan. FCA US LLC
is wholly owned by Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., a Dutch
corporation headquartered in London, England. ZF TRW Automotive
Holdings Corp. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business located at 12001 Tech Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
The company is an American global supplier of automotive systems,
modules, and components to automotive original equipment
manufacturers and related aftermarkets. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Paul J. Napoli, Esq.
     Hunter J. Shkolnik, Esq.
     Nicholas R. Farnolo, Esq.
     NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
     400 Broadhollow Road
     Melville, NY 11747
     Telephone: (212) 397-1000
     Facsimile: (646)843-7603
     E-mail: NFarnolo@NapoliLaw.com


FIVE POINT: Bayview Hunters Point Litigation Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Five Point Holdings, LLC 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 itself against a putative class action suit filed by the
residents of the Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood.

In May 2018, residents of the Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood in
San Francisco filed a putative class action in San Francisco
Superior Court naming Tetra Tech, Inc., an independent contractor
hired by the U.S. Navy to conduct testing and remediation of toxic
radiological waste at The San Francisco Shipyard ("Tetra Tech"),
Lennar and the Company as defendants.

The plaintiffs allege that, among other things, Tetra Tech
fraudulently misrepresented its test results and remediation
efforts. The plaintiffs are seeking damages against Tetra Tech and
have requested an injunction to prevent the Company and Lennar from
undertaking any development activities at The San Francisco
Shipyard.

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

Five Point Holdings, LLC, through its subsidiary, Five Point
Operating Company, LP, plans, develops, and owns mixed-use
communities in California, the United States. The company operates
through four segments: Newhall, San Francisco, Great Park, and
Commercial. The company was formerly known as Newhall Holding
Company, LLC and changed its name to Five Point Holdings, LLC in
May 2016. Five Point Holdings, LLC was founded in 2009 and is
headquartered in Irvine, California.


FLINT, MI: Snyder Seeks Taxpayer Funding for Legal Representation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Oosting, writing for The Detroit News, reports that former
Gov. Rick Snyder is seeking continued taxpayer funding for private
attorneys to represent him in criminal inquiries related to the
Flint water crisis but is relying on Attorney General Dana Nessel's
office to defend him in a major class-action lawsuit.

The arrangement is another test of the Flint firewall maintained by
Nessel, a Plymouth Democrat whose office is also prosecuting Snyder
administration officials. As a candidate last year, Nessel said she
would not rule out seeking charges against additional officials --
including Snyder -- if warranted upon re-examination of the
evidence.

The Attorney General's office became the Ann Arbor Republican's
first line of defense in a major lawsuit filed by Flint residents
after a state contract with his private attorneys ended as Snyder
left office at the end of last year.

The former governor was re-instated as a defendant in the case in
April. Assistant attorneys general representing Snyder, his former
Treasurer Andy Dillon and current Gov. Gretchen Whitmer are
challenging that decision, and filed a notice of a planned appeal
to the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.  

"The appeal is part of our ethical obligation to represent clients
in good faith and make all arguments supported by fact or law on
their behalf," said Dan Olsen, a spokesman for the Attorney
General's office.

The consolidated class-action lawsuit was filed on behalf of Flint
residents claiming personal injury and/or property damage as a
result of the city's lead-contaminated water crisis, including
those exposed to lead and at least one person who died due to
possible Legionnaires' disease.

Plaintiffs contend Snyder was aware of significant risks posed by
Flint River water as early as April 2015 but did not inform
residents until five months later, when the crisis could no longer
be denied.

Losing the suit -- which targets other government officials --
could cost the state significant sums of money. The Whitmer
administration has been discussing a potential settlement.

Plaintiff attorney Michael Pitt said he was not surprised the state
appealed on Snyder's behalf.

"The current governor has a duty to protect the office of the
governor," he said. "And if there's a ruling that impacts the
ability of the governor to exercise discretion, the governor should
seek court review of that."

But unlike the Snyder administration, Whitmer has shown "that she's
very committed to trying to get the matter resolved," Pitt said,
referencing ongoing settlement talks that continued May 3.

Private attorneys Eugene Driker, Morley Witus and Todd Mendel --
who were part of Snyder's defense team in the civil lawsuit
--withdrew from the case earlier this year with the former
governor's consent, according to court records.

Attorneys from Warner Norcross & Judd continue to represent Snyder
"in relation with inquiries of a criminal nature related to the
Flint water crisis," the law firm told The Detroit News in a
statement.

Warner Norcross contacted the Whitmer administration about
continued state payments for those services, a request the
administration is "still reviewing," said Whitmer spokeswoman
Tiffany Brown.

Whitmer told The Detroit News in January that she is worried about
the legal bills and is working with Nessel to figure out how to
handle the situation. "It's not easy, but I'm going to make sure
that taxpayers are protected and are getting their money's worth
and that people of Flint get the justice they deserve," she said.

An attorney for the firm emailed Whitmer's office on April 30
"stating that he was interested in executing a new supplemental
agreement with the Executive Office of the Governor for
continuation of legal services to be delivered to former Gov.
Snyder," Brown said.

Warner Norcross declined further comment on the nature of its work
with Snyder. The former governor has never faced criminal charges
but Democratic U.S. House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah
Cummings of Maryland has said he would like to bring Snyder back
before Congress for a second time.

In February, Warner Norcross attorney Brian Lennon chided former
Special Assistant Attorney General Noah Hall for implying in a
radio interview that the former governor should be held
"accountable" for his testimony on the city's lead-contamination
crisis before Congress in March 2016 and demanded a retraction.

The state has paid nearly $240,000 for services related to the
Flint water crisis to Warner Norcross since late November,
according to a report from the Department of Technology, Management
and Budget.

Under Snyder, invoices for the governor's Flint representation
would go first to the governor's office for review and
authorization, and then were sent to the budget department for
payment.

The $240,000 in legal bills, nearly $85,000 of which was paid in
early January, were from invoices issued in the last few months of
the 2018 calendar year, Brown said. Whitmer's office does not have
copies of the invoices linked to those payments nor did it
authorize any of the payments, Brown said.

Snyder has publicly apologized for the Flint water crisis but
fought claims against himself and the state. Shortly before leaving
office due to term limits on Jan. 1, the Ann Arbor Republican said
he'll "always have issues" with the crisis and how the city's water
switch was mishandled by the "so-called" experts who worked for
him.

Senate Minority Leader Jim Ananich, a Flint Democrat who has
repeatedly chided Snyder for his handling of the water
contamination crisis, said he believes it is appropriate for the
state to pay the former governor's legal fees for criminal
inquiries related to his government job.

But it is fair to question who provides the legal fees and how much
they cost, Ananich said.

"As much as I have some serious issues with former Gov. Snyder and
the way he handled my town -- I believe he was dishonest about a
lot of things related to this -- people doing something in the
service of their job still deserve to have their attorneys covered
by the state," he said.

U.S. District Court Judge Judith Levy dropped Snyder from the
class-action lawsuit last fall but reinstated him as a defendant in
April, citing new evidence in the case.

The amended complaint she allowed alleges that Snyder did not do
enough to intervene in the lead contamination crisis or warn the
public about outbreaks of deadly Legionnaire's disease.

The allegations, if proven true, would show Snyder was
"deliberately indifferent" and showed "callous disregard" for the
health and safety of Flint residents, Levy wrote in her 128-page
decision.

Assistant attorneys general Richard Kuhl, Margaret Bettenhausen,
Nathan Gambill and Zachart Larsen filed a notice of appeal on April
30. They have not yet presented their arguments but are expected to
do so soon in the Court of Appeals.

Nessel's office is asking for a six-month delay in prosecuting two
Snyder administration officials -- former Health Director Nick Lyon
and ex-Chief Medical Officer Eden Wells -- on Flint water crisis
charges first filed by former Attorney General Bill Schuette.

As promised on the campaign trail, Nessel has shaken up the entire
body of Flint litigation. On the criminal side, she put new
Solicitor General Fadwa Hammoud in charge of Flint cases, and
Hammoud fired special prosecutor Todd Flood.

Nessel said a recent dispute between Hammoud and Assistant Attorney
General Christina Grossi over evidence concealment claims in the
Lyon case shows her department's "conflict wall works."

She's also denied potential conflict questions over her office's
supervision of civil cases. The same assistant attorneys general
now defending Snyder in the civil case are also prosecuting a state
lawsuit against water engineering firms that had worked in Flint.
[GN]


FMS LAWN & LANDSCAPE: Samuelson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Samuelson On behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FMS LAWN & LANDSCAPE LLC d/b/a TOLEDO
LAWNS, TOLEDO LANDSCAPE DESIGN LLC and JOSHUA WAY, Defendants, Case
No. 3:19-cv-01194 (N.D. Ohio, May 24, 2019) brought this case to
challenge policies and practices of Defendants that violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), as well as the statutes and
common law of the State of Ohio.

Plaintiff and other members of the FLSA Collective regularly worked
more than 40 hours in a single workweek. The FLSA and Ohio law
required Defendants to pay overtime compensation to their employees
at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate for the
hours they worked in excess of forty. The Defendants did not pay
overtime compensation to Plaintiff and other members of the FLSA
Collective at the time-and-a-half rate for all of the hours they
worked in excess of 40 hours each workweek, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Christopher Samuelson worked for Defendants from
approximately April 2018 to April 2019.

Toledo Lawns provides landscaping, landscaping design, ground
maintenance, interior/exterior painting, irrigation maintenance,
snow removal and other services to commercial and residential
customers at various locations throughout Lucas County and
surrounding areas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
     Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
     Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
     Scott & Winters Law Firm, LLC
     The Caxton Building
     812 Huron Rd. E., Suite 490
     Cleveland, OH 44115
     Phone: (216) 912-2221
     Fax: (216) 350-6313
     Email: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
            rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
            kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com



FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Fuel Efficiency Ratings
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ian Thibodeau, writing for The Detroit News, reports that a
class-action lawsuit filed on May 6 in U.S. District Court alleges
Ford Motor Co. installed devices on 2019 Ford Ranger pickups that
misrepresent fuel economy, and that the automaker deceptively
advertised the truck's fuel efficiency.

The lawsuit was filed less than two weeks after Ford disclosed in a
regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that
the Department of Justice had opened a criminal investigation into
Ford's emissions certifications processes. In February, the
automaker said it had opened an internal investigation to check
whether faulty computer modeling had caused the automaker to
misstate fuel economy estimates for some vehicles.

"Ford deceptively advertised its Rangers to consumers as
‘best-in-class' in fuel economy," said Steve Berman, managing
partner of Hagens Berman, one of the firms that filed the lawsuit,
in a statement. "Ford knew that consumers pay a premium for fuel
efficiency and that less fuel burned means less emissions, and
therefore more profits. Its own employees questioned its fuel
efficiency calculations. Ford chose to blatantly ignore the clear
warning signs it was given."

As of May 7 afternoon, Ford officials had not been served the
complaint. "When we are," Jennifer Flake, a Ford spokesperson said
in an e-mail, "we'll review it and respond appropriately."

Ford notified the Environmental Protection Agency in February that
it had hired an outside firm to investigate the vehicle "road load"
specifications used in the company's testing and applications for
emissions and fuel economy standards. The automaker said then that
the investigation had determined the company did not use any
"defeat devices" on its vehicles to fool emissions tests.

Road load is essentially the force put on a vehicle while driving
at a constant speed over a level surface. A lighter load in the
mathematical equation could result in better fuel economy than
stated.

The automaker said in February that the investigation is first
looking at the 2019 Ranger, which currently boasts a best-in-class
EPA-estimated 23-miles-per-gallon combined fuel economy. Ford has
had problems with emission testing before. The Dearborn company was
forced to lower the fuel economy ratings of six models and pay
compensation to drivers in 2014.

Berman and Robert Hilliard, a Texas-based attorney, allege in the
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan that the Ford F-150 and other Ford vehicles could also
be affected by the alleged emissions miscalculations.

The lawsuit filed on May 6 on behalf of Texas resident and 2019
Ranger owner Marshall Lloyd and "on behalf of all others similarly
situated" alleges Ford deliberately miscalculated road testing
factors during its internal fuel economy test process "in order to
report that its vehicles were more efficient than they actually
were."

Ford then used the higher fuel economy as a "selling tool,"
according to the lawsuit. Lloyd purchased his 2019 Ranger "on or
about" Feb. 20, just a day before Ford publicly announced it was
investigating the vehicle's fuel economy.

The lawsuit cites multiple blogs that claimed to find the Ranger's
fuel economy was not close to the EPA rating. Berman and Hilliard
also allege that Ford programmed the vehicle's computers "with a
mileage cheat device to continue to lie about the vehicle's fuel
economy in order to continually conceal the misrepresentation."

"There is no question that Ford used the fuel efficiency ratings as
a sales tool to entice consumers into purchasing the 2019 Ford
Ranger," Berman and Hilliard allege in the lawsuit. "By cheating in
the certification testing, and providing a mileage cheat device in
the vehicles, Ford made its Ranger trucks more appealing and
competitive in the marketplace, to the point of being named 'best
in class' and driving up sales and profits."

Hagens Berman was the first firm in the U.S. to file suit against
Volkswagen AG for its diesel emissions-cheating scandal. The firm
bills itself as "no stranger" to emissions cheating.

The attorneys allege violations of trade practices throughout the
U.S., a breach of express warranty, fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment as a result of the
allegations. They're requesting financial relief for the class, and
a jury trial if applicable.

Emissions-tests cheating has been an issue for large automakers in
recent years, most notably Volkswagen AG. Last May, former
Volkswagen AG CEO Martin Winterkorn was indicted on federal
conspiracy charges to defraud the United States, to commit wire
fraud and to violate the Clean Air Act for his alleged role in
"Dieselgate."

Volkswagen admitted to cheating U.S. diesel emissions tests by
using defeat devices. Those devices caused pollution-control
systems to work properly when being tested on dynamometers, but
turned off those systems on the open road.

In January, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles was required to pay about
$800 million to settle allegations from federal regulators that the
company used software on about 104,000 diesel-powered pickups and
SUVs that's similar to "defeat devices" used by VW to cheat U.S.
emissions-testing.

The government said then the stiff penalties were intended as a
warning to other "bad actors" that might be tempted to violate laws
protecting the environment and health. Fiat Chrysler was not
required to admit wrongdoing as part of the settlement. [GN]


FORMAN MILLS: Huston-Monahan Files ADA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FORMAN MILLS, INC.
The case is styled as COLLEEN HUSTON-MONAHAN individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FORMAN MILLS,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02270-NIQA (E.D. Pa., May 24,
2019).

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

Forman Mills, Inc. is a Pennsauken, New Jersey-based retail chain
and department store with 35 stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
     Carlson Lynch, LLP
     1133 Penn Avenue
     5th Floor
     Pittsburgh, PA 15222
     Phone: (412) 322-9243
     Email: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com


FRONT YARD: Martin Class Action Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------
Front Yard Residential Corporation continues to defend itself
against the class action suit entitled, Martin v. Altisource
Residential Corporation et al., it disclosed 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.

On March 27, 2015, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court of the Virgin Islands
by a purported shareholder of the Company under the caption Martin
v. Altisource Residential Corporation, et al., 15-cv-00024.

The action names as defendants the Company, its former Chairman,
William C. Erbey, and certain officers and a former officer of the
Company and alleges that the defendants violated federal securities
laws by, among other things, making materially false statements
and/or failing to disclose material information to the Company's
shareholders regarding the Company's relationship and transactions
with Altisource Asset Management Corporation (AAMC), Ocwen
Financial Corporation ("Ocwen") and Home Loan Servicing Solutions,
Ltd.

These alleged misstatements and omissions include allegations that
the defendants failed to adequately disclose the Company's reliance
on Ocwen and the risks relating to its relationship with Ocwen,
including that Ocwen was not properly servicing and selling loans,
that Ocwen was under investigation by regulators for violating
state and federal laws regarding servicing of loans and Ocwen's
lack of proper internal controls.

The complaint also contains allegations that certain of the
Company's disclosure documents were false and misleading because
they failed to disclose fully the entire details of a certain asset
management agreement between the Company and AAMC that allegedly
benefited AAMC to the detriment of the Company's shareholders.

The action seeks, among other things, an award of monetary damages
to the putative class in an unspecified amount and an award of
attorney's and other fees and expenses.

In May 2015, two of the company's purported shareholders filed
competing motions with the court to be appointed lead plaintiff and
for selection of lead counsel in the action. Subsequently,
opposition and reply briefs were filed by the purported
shareholders with respect to these motions. On October 7, 2015, the
court entered an order granting the motion of Lei Shi to be lead
plaintiff and denying the other motion to be lead plaintiff.

On January 23, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint.

On March 22, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims
in the action. The plaintiff filed opposition papers on May 20,
2016, and the defendants filed a reply brief in support of the
motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 11, 2016.

On November 14, 2016, the Martin case was reassigned to Judge Anne
E. Thompson of the United States District Court of New Jersey. In a
hearing on December 19, 2016, the parties made oral arguments on
the motion to dismiss, and on March 16, 2017 the Court issued an
order that the motion to dismiss had been denied.

On April 17, 2017, the defendants filed a motion for
reconsideration of the Court's decision to deny the motion to
dismiss. On April 21, 2017, the defendants filed their answer and
affirmative defenses. Plaintiff filed an opposition to defendants'
motion for reconsideration on May 8, 2017.

On May 30, 2017, the Court issued an order that the motion for
reconsideration had been denied. Shortly thereafter, discovery
commenced.

On October 10, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint, which added a second lead plaintiff to the case. The
allegations and causes of action asserted by the plaintiffs were
virtually identical to the prior complaint, except that they added
what the plaintiffs claimed was additional detail in support of
their allegations.

On December 7, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended complaint in its entirety. Plaintiffs filed their
opposition to the motion on December 31, 2018, and defendants filed
their reply brief on January 24, 2019.

On February 21, 2019, Judge Thompson issued an order that granted
defendants' motion and dismissed the second amended complaint in
its entirety.

On February 26, 2019, the Court granted plaintiffs' request for
leave to file a Third Amended Complaint within 14 days. On March
12, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint, and on
April 12, 2019, Defendants moved to dismiss the Third Amended and
Restated Complaint in its entirety.

Plaintiffs have until May 13, 2019 to file their opposition to the
motion to dismiss, and Defendants have until May 31, 2019 to file
their reply in support of the motion.

Front Yard said, "We believe this complaint is without merit. At
this time, we are not able to predict the ultimate outcome of this
matter, nor can we estimate the range of possible loss, if any."

Front Yard Residential Corporation considers itself an industry
leader in providing quality, affordable rental homes to America's
families in a variety of suburban communities that have easy
accessibility to metropolitan areas.


GENERAL MOTORS: Oil Consumption Class Action Nears Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a GM oil
consumption lawsuit may be reaching an end concerning allegations
2010-2013 Chevrolet Equinox and GMC Terrain SUVs equipped with
2.4-liter Ecotec engines are defective.

The plaintiffs and General Motors reached a proposed settlement
agreement that still needs to be certified and approved by the
judge.

General Motors denies there are oil consumption problems, but
agreed to settle the class action lawsuit to save on the time and
expenses guaranteed in a lengthy trial.

According to the agreement, the class action will include all
consumers in the U.S. who purchased or leased 2010-2013 GMC Terrain
or Chevy Equinox SUVs equipped with 2.4 liter Ecotec engines.

The plaintiffs allege the SUVs are prone to excessive oil
consumption and piston or engine damage, problems that caused three
proposed class action lawsuits.

The three lawsuits, Berman v. General Motors, Hindsman v. General
Motors and Sanchez v. General Motors all allege 2.4-liter Ecotec
engines burn one quart of oil every 1,000 miles. In addition, the
plaintiffs claim the SUVs suffer from fouled spark plugs, knocking
sounds, timing chain damage, low oil pressure and total failures of
the engines.

Much of the proposed agreement involves what GM calls "special
coverage adjustments" that already exist for 2010-2012 Chevy
Equinox and GMC Terrain SUVs. In addition, General Motors issued a
technical service bulletin (TSB 15285C) in 2016 that covered 2011
Chevrolet Equinox and 2011 GMC Terrain SUVs.

The special coverage adjustments (SCAs) were created by GM to pay
all or part of the cost for certain covered repairs after the
express warranties expired. The SCAs only apply for work not
previously reimbursed by the automaker and not reimbursed by a
third-party provider.

SCA 14159 applies to 2010 Terrain and Equinox SUVs and provides
free piston assembly replacements for 10 years or 120,000 miles,
whichever comes first, after initial sale or lease.

SCA 15285 applies to 2011 SUVs and provides free piston assembly
replacements for seven years and six months or 120,000 miles,
whichever comes first, after initial sale or lease.

Then SCA 16118 applies to 2012 Terrain and Equinox SUVs and
provides free piston assembly replacements for seven years and six
months or 120,000 miles, whichever comes first, after initial sale
or lease.

While those current coverage adjustments will remain, the lawsuit
agreement says within 30 days of the effective settlement date, GM
will offer a new SCA for 2013 Chevrolet Equinox and GMC Terrain
SUVs.

"Under the New SCA, subject to its express terms, conditions and
time and mileage limits, Settlement Class Members may take their
Class Vehicles to authorized GM dealerships for free diagnoses and,
if diagnosed as currently consuming excessive oil within New SCA
time and mileage limits, receive free piston assembly replacement."
-- GM oil consumption lawsuit

In addition to the SCAs, the proposed settlement agreement includes
reimbursements for customers who previously paid out-of-pocket for
replacing the piston assemblies due to excessive oil consumption.

According to the proposed settlement terms, expenses paid by
customers must have been incurred within the SCA's time and mileage
limits.

"Reimbursable expenses include expenses covered explicitly by the
applicable SCAs as well as certain other out-of-pocket expenses,
including for the avoidance of doubt reasonable rental car charges
supported by documentation showing that such charges were incurred
during the period that Class Vehicles were at a dealership or
repair shop for piston assembly repairs related to oil consumption,
and that such expenses were incurred within SCA time and mileage
limits."

Reimbursement decisions must pass approval by a special settlement
administrator assigned to the case.

According to court documents, GM has agreed to pay attorney fees
and expenses in the amount of $3.5 million.

The GM oil consumption lawsuit is being held in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida - Berman, et al., v.
General Motors, LLC.

The plaintiffs are represented by Greg Coleman Law PC, Ahdoot &
Wolfson, PC, and Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP. [GN]


GENERAL MOTORS: To Reimburse Cadillac SRX Owners Over Headlights
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sam McEachern, writing for GM Authority, reports that owners of
2010-2015 model year Cadillac SRX crossovers will be reimbursed for
expenses they may have incurred making repairs to the vehicle's
headlights after a class action lawsuit was filed in 2017.

This class action proceeding is actually separate from the class
action suit over the SRX's headlights that was recently filed in
Detroit. Unknown legal hurdles caused this class action suit to be
thrown out in all states except for Florida and California.

Like the lawsuit filed in Detroit, this proceeding alleges the
headlights on the 2010-2015 model year Cadillac SRX may have faulty
weather seals that erode prematurely, allowing moisture to enter
the headlight casing. This may cause the bulb to either dim or burn
out entirely.

Owners have complained of dim headlights when driving to the point
where some can not use their vehicles at night. The problem also
returns once the headlights are repaired at dealers, causing owners
to incur additional repair expenses. Furthermore, some Cadillac
dealers have refused to fix the problem even when the vehicle in
question is still under warranty.

According to Car Complaints, General Motors has now agreed to
reimburse owners for any replaced headlamp capsules or lightbulbs,
with a cap of up to $1,600 per replacement. The repairs must have
been associated with problems caused by moisture and owners must
initially pay out of pocket for the repairs.

However both the California/Florida and Detroit lawsuits claim that
having the headlights repaired does little to fix the problem, as
moisture will simply re-enter the headlight and the dimming issue
will return. Car Complaints says SRX owners are routinely faced
with bills of around $1,500 to fix the issue, while some have even
faced repairs totalling more than $5,000.

The Detroit suit also says GM actively tried to cover up the
Cadillac SRX headlight defect and continues to do so today. [GN]


HANGER INC: Bid for Panel Rehearing in City of Pontiac Suit Okayed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hanger, 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 Court of Appeals have granted the
petition for panel rehearing in the case, City of Pontiac General
Employees' Retirement System v. Hanger, et al., C.A. No.
1:14-cv-01026-SS.

In November 2014, a securities class action complaint, City of
Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System v. Hanger, et al.,
C.A. No. 1:14-cv-01026-SS, was filed against the company in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.  

The complaint named the company and certain of its current and
former officers for allegedly making materially false and
misleading statements regarding, inter alia, the company's
financial statements, RAC audit success rate, the implementation of
new financial systems, same-store sales growth, and the adequacy of
the company's internal processes and controls.  

The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The complaint
sought unspecified damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and equitable
relief.

On April 1, 2016, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss
the lawsuit for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, and permitted plaintiffs to file an amended complaint.  

On July 1, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  On
September 15, 2016, the company and certain of the individual
defendants filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit.  

On January 26, 2017, the court granted the defendants' motions and
dismissed with prejudice all claims against all defendants for
failure to state a claim. On February 24, 2017, plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit.  

On August 6, 2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and
reversed in part. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of
the case against individual defendants Vinit Asar, the company's
current President and Chief Executive Officer, and Thomas Kirk, the
company's former President and Chief Executive Officer, but
reversed the dismissal of the case against George McHenry, the
company's former Chief Financial Officer, and Hanger, Inc.  

On August 20, 2018, Hanger, Inc. and George McHenry filed a
petition for panel rehearing and a petition for rehearing en banc
with the Court of Appeals.

On April 10, 2019 the Court of Appeals granted the petition for
panel rehearing, withdrew its previous panel decision, and
substituted a new panel decision in its place that affirmed the
District Court's dismissal with prejudice of all claims against all
the defendants for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs did not
petition the Court of Appeals for a panel rehearing or a rehearing
en banc.  

Should plaintiffs decide to continue the litigation, their sole
remaining option is to petition the United States Supreme Court to
review the new Fifth Circuit panel decision issued on April 10,
2019. The deadline for such petition is July 9, 2019.

Hanger, Inc. provides orthotic and prosthetic (O&P) services; and
distributes O&P devices and components, manages O&P networks, and
provides therapeutic solutions to patients and businesses in acute,
post-acute, and clinic settings in the United States. It operates
through two segments, Patient Care and Products & Services. The
company was formerly known as Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc. and
changed its name to Hanger, Inc. in June 2012. Hanger, Inc. was
founded in 1861 and is headquartered in Austin, Texas.


HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Appeals Court Issues Letter in Braun Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Letter was issued on May 9, 2019, by the Texas Court of Appeals,
Fourteenth Court of Appeals, in the lawsuit titled Harris County
Appraisal District, Appellant v. Anjali Braun, Individually and on
Behalf of Those Similarly Situated, Case No. 14-19-00382-CV.

According to the Appellate Case's calendar, record is due to be
filed, Appellate Court filing fee is now due, and docketing
statement is due.[BN]

Appellant Harris County Appraisal District is represented by:

          Ramon G. Viada, III, Esq.
          VIADA & STRAYER
          17 Swallow Tail Court, Suite 100
          The Woodlands, TX 77381
          Telephone: (281) 419-6338
          Facsimile: (281) 661-8887
          E-mail: rayviada@viadastrayer.com

Appellee Anjali Braun, Individually and on Behalf of Those
Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Ashish Mahendru, Esq.
          THE LITIGATION GROUP
          639 Heights Blvd.
          Houston, TX 77007
          Telephone: (713) 571-1519
          Facsimile: (713) 651-0776
          E-mail: amahendru@thelitigationgroup.com


HAT WORLD: Harris Sues Over Unpaid Compensation
-----------------------------------------------
ALEXIS HARRIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. HAT WORLD, INC. d/b/a and a/k/a LIDS LOCKER
ROOM; DOES 1 through 50; inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00882 (Eight Judicial Ct. Nev., Clark Cty., May 24, 2019)
seeks to recover unpaid wages has a private right of action
pursuant to the Nevada Constitution, Article 15 Section 16, and
Nevada Revised Statute ("NRS")

The Defendant maintains an unlawful policy of not paying daily
overtime to non-exempt hourly employees who earn 1/2 times less
than the applicable minimum wage. Plaintiff has frequently worked
over 8 hours in any 24-hour workday. On many occasions, Plaintiff
has worked a shift until the late evening hours and then returned
early the next morning to work a day shift. The number of hours she
worked in a workday under Nevada law was over 8 hours in a 24-hour
period of time. But despite having worked more than 8 hours in a
24-hour period of time, Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiff.
at 1'/2 times her regular rate of pay for the overtime hours she
worked, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Alexis Harris was employed by Defendant as a non-exempt
hourly employee from February of 2018 to March of 2019.

Defendant Hat World, Inc. d/b/a and a/k/a Lids Locker Room is a
foreign corporation registered with the Nevada Secretary of
State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christian Gabroy, Esq.
     Kaine Messer, Esq.
     GABROY LAW OFFICES
     170 S. Green Valley Pkwy
     Henderson, NV 89012
     Email: christian@gabroy.com
            kmesser@gabroy.com
            lwang@gustafsongluek.com

          - and -

     Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
     Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
     Leah L. Jones, Esq.
     THIERMAN BUCK LLP
     7287 Lakeside Drive
     Reno, NV 89511
     Email: mark@thiermanbuck.com
            josh@thiermanbuck.com
            leah@thiermanbuck.com


HECLA MINING: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Fraud Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP (www.kaplanfox.com) has filed a class
action suit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Hecla Mining Company (NYSE: HL),
Phillips S. Baker, Jr., the Company's President and Chief Executive
Officer and a Director of the Board, Lindsay A. Hall, the Company's
Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, and
Lawrence P. Radford, the Company's Senior Vice President-Operations
(collectively, the "Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 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, and is brought by plaintiffs on behalf of all persons
and entities who purchased Hecla's publicly traded common stock
between March 19, 2018 and May 8, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period").  

The complaint further alleges that, "Hecla purports to discover,
acquire, develop, and produce silver, gold, lead and zinc."  On
March 19, 2018, the start of the Class Period, Hecla announced it
was acquiring three high-grade Nevada gold mines through the
acquisition of Klondex Mines Ltd. ("Klondex") for a mix of cash and
stock worth $462 million.  Hecla's President and CEO, Defendant
Baker, represented that "Klondex's three operating mines -- Fire
Creek, Midas and Hollister -- are some of the highest-grade gold
mines in the world" and that "[a]fter extensive due diligence, we
see significant opportunity to improve costs, throughput and
recoveries over time with our expertise."

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, Defendants
falsely and misleadingly represented that the Nevada operations
would be "accretive" and cash flow positive, or at the very least
"self-funding", but this was not true.  As admitted by the
Defendants at the end of the Class Period, the Defendants knew from
their extensive due diligence that the Nevada mines faced many
undisclosed material problems that would prevent the operations
from being cash flow positive, or even cash flow neutral.
Specifically, Defendants were aware from their extensive due
diligence that the Nevada operations had material problems in terms
of excessive water, equipment availability, achieving enough
development to have consistent production, and lack of
characterization of ore types, among other things.

Further, according to the complaint, on May 9, 2019 Hecla shocked
investors when, before the market opened, the Company issued a
press release entitled "Hecla Reports First Quarter Results Nevada
operations under review," in which the Company disclosed a
"comprehensive review" of its Nevada operations that it
characterized during the ensuing conference call as "really just
asking the question, are we going to get the return for the
investment we're making."

On May 9, 2019, following the disclosures that Hecla's Nevada
operations were cash flow negative and subject to a comprehensive
review to determine the best path forward for its Nevada operations
given the poor economics, including the possibility of an
impairment charge, the price of Hecla's common stock declined by
23.5% over two trading days, from a closing price of $2.04 per
share on May 8, 2019, to close at $1.56 per share on May 10, 2019.


If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the court
no later than 60 days from today to serve as a lead plaintiff for
the proposed Class.  You need not seek to become a lead plaintiff
in order to share in any possible recovery.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of the proposed Class
and are represented by Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
(www.kaplanfox.com).  Our firm, with offices in New York, San
Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, and New Jersey, has decades of
experience in prosecuting investor class actions and actions
involving violations of the Federal securities laws.

If you have any questions about this Notice, the action, your
rights, or your interests, or would like a copy of the complaint,
please e-mail attorneys Robert Kaplan, Esq. --
rkaplan@kaplanfox.com -- or Jeffrey Campisi, Esq. --
jcampisi@kaplanfox.com -- or contact them by phone, regular mail,
or fax:

         Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
         Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
         KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
         850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Toll-Free: (800) 290-1952
         Phone: (212) 687-1980
         Fax: (212) 687-7714
         Email: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
                jcampisi@kaplanfox.com [GN]


HOPS AT THE PADDOCK: Stengel Sues Over Unpaid Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT STENGEL, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. HOPS AT THE PADDOCK, INC. and SCOTT HOPPY,
Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-02272-JLS (E.D. Pa., May 24, 2019)
brought this action for himself and all other similarly situated
collective members to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as a
result of Defendants' willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA"), the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA") and as
well as the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law ("WPCL").

In several weeks Defendants required the hourly-paid restaurant
workers to perform work of 40 hours a week. The Defendant failed to
pay overtime wages at a rate not less than one and one-half times
the regular rate of pay for all hours they worked iin excess of 40
hours in a workweek, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was an hourly-paid restaurant worker who was hired by
Defendants.

Defendant operate and own Hops at the Paddock and Hops Fogelsville
Hotel in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jason T. Brown, Esq.
     BROWN, LLC
     111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
     Jersey City, NJ 07310
     Phone: (877) 561-0000
     Fax: (855) 582-5297
     Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com


IDAHO: Faces Class Action Over Treatment Center Abuse
-----------------------------------------------------
Audrey Dutton, writing for Idaho Statesman, reports that the
families of residents at Southwest Idaho Treatment Center, or
SWITC, are pursuing a class action against the state and the Idaho
Department of Health and Welfare over alleged "abuse, neglect,
illegal restraint and humiliation."

The sister of Drew Rinehart -- a man who died while at SWITC --
called for "meaningful change" at the treatment center in a news
release announcing the claims.

Rinehart's death "is a devastating loss to our family," Jamie
Foruria, Rinehart's sister, said in the release. "Had Drew received
appropriate care, treatment and services from SWITC staff and
management, he would still be with us.

A notice of the class action said the families and their lawyers
want to meet with state officials to talk about the allegations and
a possible settlement that "appropriately addresses all issues."
They have not filed a lawsuit yet.

SWITC treats residents who have developmental delays and mental
illnesses, as well as some serious health conditions. It is
operated by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare.

The department spokeswoman, Niki Forbing-Orr, said on May 2
afternoon that officials had just received the notice and "are
still reviewing it and assessing our options."

The notice gives the state 10 business days to respond to the
families' meeting request, and 30 days for the meeting to take
place.

The notice alleges: "Staff at SWITC continually and repeatedly
inflicted abuse, neglect and humiliation upon residents, and SWITC
leadership failed (to) curtail such conduct. Instead of providing
needed support and care intended to allow their return (to) the
community, their family and friends, and their homes, they were
beaten, neglected, and abused. Some residents died from the abuse
and neglect, and then SWITC staff tried to cover it up."

The claim follows about two years of scrutiny, investigations and
legal action regarding staff and managers' conduct at SWITC.

DisAbility Rights Idaho last year said it found 49 cases of abuse
and neglect during a yearlong investigation of SWITC. The class
action claim references the disability advocacy nonprofit's report,
which was released in October.

DisAbility Rights said it found at least 14 residents were victims
of confirmed abuse or neglect.

"In a facility with only about 23 residents, these are appalling
numbers. In our opinion, these point to systemic failures," said
the nonprofit's former Executive Director Jim Baugh.

The Department of Health and Welfare disputed some of the report's
claims and said it had already changed some policies based on the
report's recommendations.

Also last year, the state agreed to pay $10,000 to settle a lawsuit
by the mother of Moses Rodriguez, a 24-year-old patient who died
after living at SWITC. His mother claimed Rodriguez was neglected
at the facility.

Erika Dreyer, mother of young resident Brandon Buchanan, said in
the news release that SWITC "staff repeatedly placed Brandon in
situations where he became injured, resulting in serious head
injuries and scars."

Dreyer said in the release that no staff members reported the
incidents to authorities. [GN]


ILLINOIS: Watts Case vs State Court Judges Moved to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against the Illinois state court system and
its judges was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on May 23, 2019. The Northern District of
Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-03473 to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Robert M. Dow, Jr.,
and alleges claims under the Civil Rights Act.

The case is captioned as Gordon Wayne Watts, individually, and on
behalf of similarly situated persons(some, but not all, whom are
named in the instant complaint), the Plaintiff, vs. Circuit Court
of Cook County, Illinois; James P. Flannery, Jr., in his individual
capacity and in his Official Capacity as Presiding Judge; Diane M.
Shelley, in her individual capacity and in her Official Capacity as
Circuit Judge; Michael F Otto, in his individual capacity and in
his Official Capacity as Associate Judge; Appellate Court of State
of Illinois First District; Daniel J. Pierce, in his individual
capacities and, in his Official Capacity as Justice for the First
District Appellate Court of State of Illinois; Mary L Mikva, in her
individual capacities and, in her Official Capacity as Justice for
the First District Appellate Court of State of Illinois; John C.
Griffin, in his individual capacities and, in his Official Capacity
as Justice for the First District Appellate Court of State of
Illinois; Mary Anne Mason, in her individual capacities and, in her
Official Capacity as Justice for the First District Appellate Court
of State of Illinois; Terrence J. Lavin, in his individual
capacities and, in his Official Capacity as Justice for the First
District Appellate Court of State of Illinois; Michael B Hyman, in
his individual capacities and, in his Official Capacity as Justice
for the First District Appellate Court of State of Illinois; and
Carl Anthony Walker, in his individual capacities and, in his
Official Capacity as Justice for the First District Appellate Court
of State of Illinois, the Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-00829 (Filed
April 6, 2019).[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Liu & Fu Suit in New York Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, 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 in New York entitled, Hou Liu and Amy
Fu v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

On September 27, 2017, a purported shareholder class action,
initially styled DeSmet v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, naming the Company and certain of its
officers as defendants.

The Court appointed lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit on June 1, 2018,
and the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 31,
2018, captioned Hou Liu and Amy Fu v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., naming the Company and certain of its current and
former officers as defendants.

The lead plaintiffs claim to be suing on behalf of anyone who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between
June 9, 2016 and September 20, 2017.

This lawsuit alleges that material misrepresentations and/or
omissions of material fact were made in the Company's public
disclosures during the period from June 9, 2016 to September 20,
2017, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The alleged improper disclosures relate to statements regarding
Ocaliva dosing, use and pharmacovigilance-related matters, as well
as the Company's operations, financial performance and prospects.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the
putative class, an award of costs and expenses, including
attorney's fees, and rescissory damages.

On September 14, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

Separately, on January 5, 2018, a follow-on derivative suit, styled
Davis v. Pruzanski et al., was filed in New York state court by
shareholder Gregg Davis based on substantially the same allegations
as those set forth in the securities case. On December 1, 2017, a
purported shareholder demand was made on the Company based on
substantially the same allegations as those set forth in the
securities case.

Intercept said, "While the Company believes that it has a number of
valid defenses to the claims described above and intends to
vigorously defend itself, the matters are in the early stages of
litigation and no assessment can be made as to the likely outcome
of the matters or whether they will be material to the Company.
Accordingly, an estimate of the potential loss, or range of loss,
if any, to the Company relating to the matters is not possible at
this time."

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

Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company,
focuses on the development and commercialization of therapeutics to
treat progressive non-viral liver diseases. The company was founded
in 2002 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


INTUIT INC: Leon Sues Over Misrepresentations and Deception
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARIA LEON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. INTUIT, INC. Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-02878 (N.D.
Cal., May 24, 2019) brought this action for injunctive and
equitable relief to put an end to Intuit's misrepresentations and
deception, and for damages.

Intuit, the market leader in the electronic tax filing business,
has engaged in false and deceptive advertising, diverting
lower-income tax payers who are eligible to receive free tax
preparation and filing services under the Internal Revenue
Service's ("IRS") Free File program ("Free File Program") to its
paid TurboTax products. Legally obligated under an agreement with
the IRS to provide free tax filing services to tax payers who fall
in the bottom 70% of earners, Intuit deliberately hid access to its
TurboTax Free File Program by locating the service on a different
website and using code to block search engine access to that very
website.

Then, to further confuse and mislead its 36 million TurboTax
customers, the majority of whom are likely qualified for the IRS
Free File Program, Intuit also launched a "free" product on its
main website and widely advertised its "free" tax services to draw
taxpayers to that website, as opposed to the separate (and largely
hidden website) for the Free File Program. Once the taxpayer
entered in extensive personal information, TurboTax would inform
the applicant that they had to pay a fee in order to submit their
tax returns. As a result of its misrepresentations and deceptive
practices, Intuit has profited handsomely. By evading and violating
its obligations under its agreement with the IRS, Intuit coopted a
free program that was intended to minimize the burden of filing
taxes, and instead, through misrepresentations and deceptive
practices, made billions of dollars on the backs of millions of
lower-income taxpayers who were legally entitled to receive free
tax services, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Maria Leon is a citizen and resident of Oakland,
California. Ms. Leon used TurboTax to file her 2015 tax returns.

Intuit Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Mountain View, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     JONATHAN K. LEVINE, ESQ.
     ELIZABETH C. PRITZKER, ESQ.
     HEATHER P. HAGGARTY, ESQ.
     PRITZKER LEVINE LLP
     180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1390
     Oakland, CA 94612
     Phone: (415) 692-0772
     Facsimile: (415) 366-6110
     Email: jkl@pritzkerlevine.com
            ecp@pritzkerlevine.com
            hph@pritzkerlevine.com


IREDALE COSMETICS: Bynes Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
SHANNA BYNES, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
IREDALE COSMETICS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case
No. 0:19-cv-61310-FAM (S.D. Fla., May 24, 2019) is a collective
action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
(hereinafter "FLSA"), to recover unpaid overtime wages on behalf of
Plaintiff and all others similarly-situated to her who were
formerly, or are currently, employed as salaried Customer
Experience Managers by Defendant.

For at least three years prior to the filing of this complaint and
continuing (hereinafter "Liability Period"), Defendant paid its
Customer Experience Managers on a salary basis. Defendant's
Customer Experience Managers work more than 40 hours per week, but
do not receive any overtime compensation. Accordingly, all Customer
Experience Managers who work more than 40 hours per week have not
received overtime compensation as mandated by the FLSA, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Customer Experience
Manager.

Defendant has owned and operated a cosmetic manufacturing and
distribution company known as Jane Iredale, The Skincare Makeup,
doing business within the Southern District of Florida and
worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert S. Norell, Esq.
     ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A.
     300 N.W 70th Avenue, Suite 305
     Plantation, FL 33317
     Phone: (954) 617-6017
     Facsimile: (954) 617-6018
     Email: rob@floridawagelaw.com


ISAACSON/WEAVER FAMILY: $2.7MM Attys Fees in Securities Suit Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, issued an
Opinion affirming the District Court’s judgment granting Lead
Counsel’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees in the case captioned
FRESNO COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ISAACSON/WEAVER FAMILY TRUST,
Objector-Appellant. No. 17-2662. (2nd Cir.).

Isaac/Weaver Family Trust appeals from the District Court’s Order
finding Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP is entitled to
its requested fee and expense award.

This case is collateral litigation arising from the settlement of a
consolidated securities class action brought by shareholders of
BioScrip, Inc. The district court appointed Fresno County
Employees' Retirement Association as lead plaintiff and Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (Lead Counsel) as lead counsel for
the action. The class sought to recover for two allegedly material
misrepresentations that BioScrip, Inc. made and brought an action
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5; and Sections
11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

Lead Counsel moved for an award of attorneys' fees of 25% of the
settlement fund, totaling $2,725,000 plus interest, and an expense
award of $133,565.28. Lead Counsel's requested fee award amounted
to a 1.39 multiplier of the lodestar fee.

The district court subsequently held a settlement fairness hearing
where it heard argument on, among other things, Lead Counsel's fee
request. In a thorough and discerning opinion, the district court
found that Lead Counsel's requested fee was reasonable and granted
the fee in full.

The Objector argues that, because the parties created the common
fund to resolve claims based on statutes with fee-shifting
provisions, the Supreme Court's fee-shifting jurisprudence applies,
and Lead Counsel is presumptively entitled to only the unenhanced
lodestar fee.

Lead Counsel disagrees, arguing that the settlement that created
the common fund resolved claims based on statutes that do not have
applicable fee-shifting provisions, and regardless, the common-fund
doctrine governs a district court's award of attorneys' fees when
counsel has secured a settlement fund for the benefit of the class.
  class counsel's fee recovery.  

The American Rule and Its Exceptions

When a statute's fee-shifting provision authorizes a reasonable
attorneys' fee, the Supreme Court has held that the lodestar method
yields a fee that is presumptively sufficient. Fee-shifting
provisions typically encourage counsel to represent plaintiffs in
actions where Congress has opted to rely heavily on private
enforcement to implement public policy. Where a litigant acts as a
private attorney general, the goal of fee shifting is to provide a
fee that is sufficient to induce a capable attorney to undertake
the representation of a meritorious case.

In contrast to fees awarded pursuant to fee-shifting provisions,
fees awarded pursuant to the common-fund doctrine do not extract a
tax on the losing party but instead confer a benefit on the
victorious attorney for her representation of her client and the
class members. The doctrine rests on the perception that persons
who obtain the benefit of a lawsuit without contributing to its
cost are unjustly enriched at the successful litigant's expense.
The common-fund doctrine is therefore rooted in the courts'
historic power of equity to permit a person who secures a fund for
the benefit of others to collect a fee directly from the fund.
Under the common-fund doctrine, a district court may select either
the lodestar or percentage of the recovery methods to calculate
fees. A common-fund-percentage fee must still be evaluated for
reasonableness, but may exceed the lodestar—i.e., it may be less
than, equal to, or greater than the lodestar.

Accordingly, the means by which an attorney becomes entitled to a
fee can affect the method used to calculate what a reasonable fee
is. Subject always to the district court's discretion, an attorney
seeking a fee after establishing statutory liability will
presumptively receive a fee equal to the unenhanced lodestar, and
an attorney seeking a fee after establishing a common fund will
receive a fee calculated using either the lodestar method or a
percentage-of-the-fund method, which can yield a fee that is less
than, equal to, or greater than the lodestar fee.

Fee-Shifting Statutes Do Not Circumscribe the Common-Fund Doctrine

Fee-shifting principles and the common-fund doctrine occupy
separate realms. In Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness
Society, the Court identified a consistently followed rule that
fee-shifting statutes do not interfere with the historic power of
equity to permit a party preserving or recovering a fund for the
benefit of others in addition to himself, to recover his costs,
including his attorneys' fees, from the fund itself or directly
from the other parties enjoying the benefit. 421 U.S. at 257.  The
Supreme Court therefore suggested that, even when statutory fees
and the common-fund doctrine collide, the common-fund doctrine
operates autonomously from fee-shifting principles.

Our Sister Circuits Have Articulated Sound Rationale for Precluding
the Application of Fee-Shifting Principles to Common-Fund Awards

The settling defendant's focus is on its bottom line, and once that
bottom line has been inked, the defendant's interest in how class
members and class counsel spend the settlement money dwindles. This
is in stark contrast to fees awarded pursuant to a fee-shifting
statute, where as part of its liability and in addition to any
monetary judgment, the defendant is forced to pay for the costs of
the statute's enforcement against it.  Therefore, where a statute
shifts fees, we consider a reasonable fee with the defendant's
perspective in mind.  

In contrast, where an attorney has settled a case and created a
common fund, we determine what a reasonable fee is from the
plaintiff's perspective. Critically, a reasonable fee from the
plaintiff's perspective can account for contingency risk where such
risk exists and a common-fund fee may therefore exceed what would
be a reasonable fee in the fee-shifting context. The Seventh
Circuit has persuasively articulated why accounting for contingency
risk can be appropriate when the plaintiff funds the fee but not
when the defendant funds the fee. Assessing a fee that accounts for
contingency risk against a defendant would require the defendant to
subsidize plaintiffs' attorneys for unsuccessful lawsuits against
other defendants. But in a common fund case, because compensation
for risk is charged against the plaintiff class, defendants would
not be forced to subsidize directly plaintiffs' attorneys' losing
endeavors.

The plaintiff class is therefore appropriately charged for
contingency risk where such risk is appreciable because the class
has benefited from class counsel's decision to devote resources to
the class's cause at the expense of taking other cases.  

The Common-Fund Doctrine Does Not Threaten to Misalign Counsel and
Her Client's Incentives
In agreeing with the Seventh and Ninth Circuits, the Second Circuit
declines to yield to the Objector's contention that applying
common-fund principles to fee recoveries from cases initiated under
fee-shifting statutes will misalign attorneys' incentives. The
Objector argues that allowing counsel to extract a percentage fee
under the common-fund doctrine encourages counsel to settle cases
early even when her client's best interests are served by
prosecuting the claim to trial. The Second Circuit recognizes that
both the lodestar methodology and the common-fund methodology
provide imperfect solutions for aligning an attorney's incentive to
settle with her client's.  

As to the first reason, the Second Circuit has previously noted
that the percentage method has the advantage of aligning the
interests of plaintiffs and their attorneys more fully by allowing
the latter to share in both the upside and downside risk of
litigation. Thus, once the parties have agreed to settle, the
percentage-of-the-fund methodology serves as important motivation
for counsel to maximize the class's recovery, and, a fortiori,
counsel's fee.

As to the second reason that a percentage-fee method is workable
despite the Objector's concerns, the Court is comforted by the fact
that a court is to act as a fiduciary who must serve as a guardian
of the rights of absent class members in reviewing a class-action
settlement and a class fee award. Thus, the district court is
required to review both the terms of the settlement and any fee
award encompassed in a settlement agreement. This review provides a
backstop that prevents unscrupulous counsel from quickly settling a
class's claims to cut a check.

The Court thus have confidence in the district court as fiduciary
of the class and ultimate decisionmaker on a class-action
settlement to substantially alleviate the Objector's concerns about
class counsel's incentives. Having obtained such reassurance, we
hold that, where a class action results in a common-fund settlement
for the benefit of the class, the common-fund doctrine applies and
permits a district court to use its discretion to award class
counsel either an unenhanced lodestar fee or a fee calculated as a
percentage of the settlement fund. This principle applies even when
claims are initiated pursuant to a statute with a fee-shifting
provision. Since the parties do not argue that the district court
abused its discretion in analyzing the propriety of the fee award
under the discretionary factors, we affirm the order of the
district court.

The class, including the Objector, has benefited from Lead
Counsel's negotiation of a common settlement fund. Because Lead
Counsel's fee is extracted directly from the beneficiaries of its
work, Lead Counsel is entitled to compensation not only for
skillfully negotiating that settlement fund but for bearing the
risk that the suit would not generate any recovery. Accordingly,
even if the class's claims were initiated under fee-shifting
statutes, common-fund principles would govern, and the district
court had the discretion to award Lead Counsel a fee equaling
either the lodestar fee or a percentage of the fund. The district
court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that a
percentage of the fund reasonably compensated counsel.

A full-text copy of the Second Circuit's May 23, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2ka4pmm from Leagle.com.

ERIC ALAN ISAACSON -- ericalanisaacson@icloud.com -- La Jolla, CA,
for Objector-Appellant.

HANNAH G. ROSS -- hannah@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP (Jai Chandrasekhar -- jai@blbglaw.com -- on the
brief), New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellee.


JANSSEN BIOTECH: Iron Workers Sues Over Sherman Act Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
IRON WORKERS DISTRICT COUNCIL (PHILADELPHIA and VICINITY) HEALTH
BENEFIT PLAN, on behalf of itself and all those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. JANSSEN BIOTECH, INC., JANSSEN ONCOLOGY, INC.,
JANSSEN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, LLC, and BTG INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00642 (E.D. Va., May 24, 2019) seeks
to recover damages, including treble damages, under the state
antitrust and consumer protection laws enumerated below or in the
alternative, damages under the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act.

Patents protect innovation and encourage new discoveries.
Sometimes, a party can obtain multiple patents relating to the same
product. But each patent must protect a novel invention or
discovery. If an invention claimed in a patent application is
obvious in light of existing technology, it is generally not
patentable. However, an invention that is obvious may still be
patentable if the patent applicant can prove that "secondary
considerations" overcome the obviousness. Janssen got a patent on
the compound abiraterone acetate in 1997. That patent – U.S.
Patent No. 5,604,213 (the '213 patent) – lasted nearly twenty
years and expired in December 2016. During the life of the '213
patent was in place, only Janssen could sell an abiraterone acetate
product; no other company could. On April 28, 2011, Janssen got
approval from the FDA for Zytiga, abiraterone acetate tablets, for
the treatment of prostate cancer in combination with prednisone.

For the next five and a half years, because of the '213 patent,
Janssen had a legitimate monopoly on sales of Zytiga. The company
made billions of dollars: U.S. sales of Zytiga went from $191
million in 2011 to $463 million in 2012, its first full year on the
market. In 2015, U.S. Zytiga sales exceeded $1 billion. But the
'213 patent would not last forever, and Janssen (and its partner
BTG) wanted to extend that monopoly. So beginning in 2007 and
continuing through 2014, Janssen sought a second patent: on a
method of using abiraterone acetate in combination with prednisone
to treat prostate cancer. Not surprisingly, the United States
Patent & Trademark Office (the PTO) repeatedly rejected this second
patent application, correctly finding that it was obvious to
combine abiraterone acetate and prednisone together to treat
prostate cancer, and the claimed invention was therefore not
patentable. On Five separate occasions, the PTO rejected Janssen's
application. (Years later the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
and district court, under broad and narrow claim constructions
respectively, would both reach the same conclusion.)

Realizing the futility of trying to persuade the PTO that its
claimed invention was not obvious, Janssen pivoted, moving away
from trying to prove non-obviousness and instead pursuing a
"commercial success" argument. But with no other party present to
call the blocking patent to the PTO's attention in 2013, Janssen's
ruse worked. The PTO examiner found that "the unexpected commercial
success" of Zytiga was sufficient to overcome the finding of
obviousness. And on that basis – and that basis alone – United
States Patent No. 8,822,438 (the '438 patent) issued. To protect
Janssen's monopoly, Janssen and BTG then asserted the '438 patent
in infringement litigation that they both knew they could never
ultimately win in the courts. Their goal was not to win a
litigation victory, though; it was simply to delay generic
competition. In that sense, Janssen and BTG did win. Their wrongful
conduct delayed generic competition by more than one year – and
during that time, Zytiga was among the most profitable drugs sold
by Janssen's parent company, Johnson & Johnson. Absent the
defendants' unlawful conduct, generic competition for Zytiga would
have entered as early as December 2016 and no later than October
2017. Instead, the defendants' unlawful conduct prevented generic
manufacturers from entering the market with competing abiraterone
acetate products for more than year, delayed the entry of
additional generic competitors, and has cost purchasers hundreds of
millions of dollars in overcharge damages, says the complaint.

Iron Workers District Council (Philadelphia and Vicinity) Health
Benefit Plan is maintained and receives contributions in accordance
with collective bargaining agreements with various employers in the
industry.

Defendant Janssen Biotech is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     William H. Monroe, Jr., Esq.
     Marc C. Greco, Esq.
     Kip A. Harbison, Esq.
     Michael A. Glasser, Esq.
     GLASSER AND GLASSER, P.L.C.
     Crown Center, Suite 600
     580 East Main Street
     Norfolk, VA 23510
     Phone: (757) 625-6787
     Facsimile: (757) 625-5959
     Email: bill@glasserlaw.com
            marcg@glasserlaw.com
            kip@glasserlaw.com
            michael@glasserlaw.com

          - and -

     Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
     Terence S. Ziegler, Esq.
     Donna Siegel Moffa, Esq.
     KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP
     280 King of Prussia Road
     Radnor, PA 19087
     Phone: (610) 667-7706
     Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
     Email: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
            tziegler@ktmc.com
            dmoffa@ktmc.com


JBS: Faces Cattle Price-Fixing Antitrust Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
KUNC reports that a group of Midwestern feedlot operations have
filed a class-action lawsuit, alleging that several major
meatpacking companies, including JBS, Cargill and Tyson, broke
antitrust laws by conspiring to lower the prices paid to ranchers.


In the past few years, price-fixing allegations have been leveled
against poultry and pork industries. And it's not clear whether any
of the lawsuits for any type of meat producers will bring about
reforms.

In the 121-page court document filed April 30, plaintiffs claim
desperate ranchers were forced into accepting reduced prices for
their animals. The lawsuit alleges that meatpacking companies,
which control 80 percent of the market, profited from record
margins.

For example, the lawsuit alleges, slaughter plants would
temporarily shut down operations in order to drive up the supply of
cattle and reduce demand.

R-CALF USA President Bill Bullard also said companies also appear
to have coordinated their buying schedules to just one day a week
and for as little as a half-hour at a time.

"This puts the producer in a very difficult position, trying to
market a perishable commodity,"said Bullard, whose association of
cattlemen is one of the lead plaintiffs.

Officials with the Meat Institute, an association that represents
the meatpacking industry, told Harvest Public Media that the
allegations are "unfounded and ignore the economics of the
marketplace."

The lawsuit seeks to recoup lost profits for rancher and reinforce
federal laws that Bullard said have been broken, including the
Packers and Stockyards Act and the Commodity Exchange Act.

Chicken plants have faced similar lawsuits over the last two years,
coming from major food companies Heinz Kraft and Nestle USA Inc.
The companies named in those suits include Pilgrim's Pride (a
subsidiary of JBS) and Tyson.

While the lawsuits against the poultry plants are still pending,
they're unlikely to cause significant reforms within the industry
because it's private litigation, according to University of
Wisconsin-Madison law professor Peter Carstensen.

On the other hand, Carstensen said, the cattle ranchers' suit may
have a better outcome because a large industry association is
behind it.

"It is somewhat more likely that there would be a stronger focus on
forward-looking relief," said Carstensen, who is an expert on
competition and regulations in the meat industry.

He noted that he's concerned that the U.S. Departments of Justice
and Agriculture, as well as state governments, aren't doing
anything about the increasing allegations of collusion in the
buying markets for livestock and poultry. [GN]


JELD-WEN HOLDING: Interior Molded Doors Antitrust Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
JELD-WEN Holding, 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 30, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, In Re:
Interior Molded Doors Antitrust Litigation.

On October 19, 2018, Grubb Lumber Company, on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated, filed a putative class action lawsuit
against the company and one of its competitors in the doors market,
Masonite Corporation ("Masonite"), in the Eastern District of
Virginia.

The company subsequently received additional complaints from and on
behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of interior molded doors.
The suits have been consolidated into two separate actions, a
Direct Purchaser Action and an Indirect Purchaser Action.

The suits allege that Masonite and we violated Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, and, in the Indirect Purchaser Action, related state
law antitrust and consumer protection laws, by engaging in a scheme
to artificially raise, fix, maintain or stabilize the prices of
interior molded doors in the United States.

The complaints seek unquantified ordinary and treble damages,
declaratory relief, interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

The Company believes the claims lack merit and intends to
vigorously defend against the actions.

JELD-WEN said, "At this early stage of the proceedings, we are
unable to conclude that a loss is probable or to estimate the
potential magnitude of any loss in the matters, although a loss
could have a material adverse effect on our operating results,
consolidated financial position or cash flows."

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

JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. manufactures and sells doors and windows
primarily in North America, Europe, and Australasia. The company
was founded in 1960 and is headquartered in Charlotte, North
Carolina.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Angel Galloway Suit Moved to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL GALLOWAY AND CHRIS GALLOWAY, 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. 18CV325914
(April 5, 2018), was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of Santa Clara, to U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on April 30, 2019. The Central District of
California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03632 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:

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

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Cartolano Suit Moved to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
VICTORIA CARTOLANO, an Individual, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON &
JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC690885 (Jan. 17,
2018), was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of
Los Angeles, to U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on May 1, 2019. The Central District of California Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03736 the proceeding.

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

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Dickens Suit Moved to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
CYNTHIA DICKENS, an Individual, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON &
JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC., F/K/A LUZENAC AMERICA, INC.; PERSONAL CARE PRODUCT
COUNCIL, F/K/A COSMETIC, TOILETRY, AND FRAGRANCE ASSOCIATION; and
DOES 1-10 inclusive, and each of them, the Defendants, Case No.
16CV297634 (July 8, 2016), was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of Santa Clara, to U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on April 30, 2019. The Central
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03627
to the proceeding.

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

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          James A. Morris, Esq.
          Amy Anderson, Esq
          MORRIS LAW FIRM
          San Vicente Blvd. Suite 360
          Los Angeles, CA 90048
          Telephone: (323) 302-9488
          Facsimile: (323) 931-4990
          E-mail: jmorrris@jamlawyers.com
                  aanderson@jamlawyers.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Enos Suit Moved to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH ENOS, an individual, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON &
JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC. P/N/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. F/K/A LUZENAC
AMERICA, INC. and DOES 1 — 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. BC66113 (May 11, 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-03647
to the proceeding.

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

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Robert A. Mosier, Esq.
          Timothy M. Clark, Esq.
          Lauren A. Welling, Esq.
          SANDERS PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
          2860 Michelle Drive Suite 220
          Irvine, CA 92606
          Telephone: (877) 480-9142
          Facsimile: (213) 330-0346
          E-mail: tclark@thesandersfirm.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Esquibel Suit Moved to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
TRAVIS ESQUIBEL, Individually, and as Successor-in-Interest on
behalf of the ESTATE OF SANDRA ESQUIBEL, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON
& JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC. P/N/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. F/K/A LUZENAC
AMERICA, INC. and DOES 1 - 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
17CV321181 (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 April 30, 2019. The Central
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03652
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: Fallorina et al. Suit Moved to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANNETTE FALLORINA, an individual; SHONDA EMERY, an individual;
DAWNE RIPLEY, an individual; CYNTHIA ALBANESE, an individual;
CYNTHIA CABRERA, an individual; TRACY WILLIAMS, an individual;
SABRINA CARMACK, an individual; KATHLEEN FRANCE, an individual; and
LAWONA KISER, an individual, the Plaintiffs, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON,
a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON &
JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES,
INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS
TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place
of business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 34-2017-0021O628 (April 6,
2017), was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of
Sacramento, 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-03718 to the proceeding.

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

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Brian D. Chase, Esq.
          Tom G. Antunovich, Esq.
          BISNAR | CHASE
          1301 Dove Street, Suite 120
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 752-2999
          Facsimile: (949) 752-2777
          E-mail: bchase@bisnarchase.com
                  tantunovichcalbisnarchase.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Falone et al. Suit Moved to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
GUY FALONE, an individual and as Successor in Interest for MICHELE
FALONE; BRYANT FALONE, an individual and as Successor in Interest
for MICHELE FALONE; GREGORY FALONE, an individual and as Successor
in Interest for MICHELE FALONE; JASON FALONE, an individual and as
Successor in Interest for MICHELE FALONE, the Plaintiffs, vs.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in
California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business
in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation
with its principal place of business in the State of California;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
18STCV07430 (Dec. 8, 2016), 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-03724 to the
proceeding.

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

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Brian D. Chase, Esq.
          Tom G. Antunovich, Esq.
          BISNAR | CHASE
          1301 Dove Street, Suite 120
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 752-2999
          Facsimile: (949) 752-2777
          E-mail: bchase@bisnarchase.com
                  tantunovichcalbisnarchase.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Fitzhugh Suit Moved to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIA FITZHUGH, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON &
JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC. P/N/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES,
INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. F/K/A LUZENAC AMERICA, INC. and
DOES 1 — 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC681548 (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-03673 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: Ford Suit Moved to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
KATHLENE FORD, an individual, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON;
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC. P/N/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER
COMPANIES, INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. F/K/A LUZENAC AMERICA,
INC. and DOES 1 - 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. SCV262201
(March 26, 2018), was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of Sonoma, 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-03679
to the proceeding.

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

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          John Foley, Esq.
          SIMMONS HANEY CONROY
          One Court Street
          Alton, IL 6242
          Telephone: (618) 259 2222
          Facsimile: (618) 259 2222
          E-mail: jfoley@simmonsfikin.com



JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Gambino Suit Moved to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINA GAMBINO, 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. 18CV324488 (March 9, 2018), was
removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Santa
Clara, to U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on April 30, 2019. The Central District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03638 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.
          Cherisse Cleofe
          KIESEL LAW LLP
          8648 Willshire Blvd.
          Beverley Hills, CA 90211-2910
          Telephone: 310 854 4444
          Facsimile: 310 354 0812
          E-mail: atkin@lchasellaw
                  paliner@kiesellaw
                  cleofe@kiesellaw

               - 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: Graham Suit Moved to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
HERMAN GRAHAM, Individually, and as Successor-in-Interest on behalf
of the ESTATE OF RUTH S. GRAHAM, the Plaintiff, 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. 17CV321183 (Filed 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 April 30, 2019. The Central District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03628 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: Gregory Suit Moved to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
KAREN ANN GREGORY, 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. 17CV318649
(Nov. 6, 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-03639 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: Gribsy Suit Moved to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY GRIBSY, 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. BC654 016
(March 14, 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-03642
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:

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

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hollis et al. Suit Moved to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
VEDA L. HOLLIS; JANE BOUCHER; BRENDA C. DIXON, Individually, and as
Executor of the ESTATE OF ANNIE MAE CARLTON., Deceased; ROSALIE
MORELLI; WILLENE DAVIS; DONESHI A L. GORDON, aka DONESHIA MCCOY,
the Plaintiffs, 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. BC634856 (Sept. 22, 2016), 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-03783
to the proceeding.

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

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

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

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Bentrud Talc Injury Suit to M.D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on May 8, 2019, the lawsuit entitled KATHERINE A. BENTRUD
v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC., f/k/a
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA,
INC., f/k/a LUZENAC AMERICA, INC., f/k/a RIO TINTO MINERALS, INC.;
PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC., Case No. 18-CA-009060, from the Circuit
Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County,
Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:19-cv-01105-WFJ-CPT to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiff seeks an award of damages as a result of injuries
arising from her use of the Defendants' products, including Johnson
& Johnson Baby Powder and Johnson & Johnson Shower to Shower.  She
contends that in January 2018, she was diagnosed with and developed
ovarian cancer, which was directly and proximately caused by her
regular and prolonged exposure to talc, contained in the
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David A. Jagolinzer, Esq.
          James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
          THE FERRARO LAW FIRM, P.A.
          600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3800
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 375-0111
          Facsimile: (305) 379-6222
          E-mail: DAJ@ferrarolaw.com
                  JJR@ferrarolaw.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Best Talc Injury Suit to M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on May 8, 2019, the lawsuit styled BARBARA BEST and DAVID
BEST v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES,
INC., and PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC., Case No. 2018-CA-09596, from
the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange
County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:19-cv-00877-CEM-TBS to
the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Haberman, Esq.
          SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A.
          1212 SE 3rd Avenue
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 467-8800
          E-mail: jhaberman@schlesingerlaw.com

Defendants Johnson & Johnson, and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.,
f/k/a Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., are represented
by:

          Brian T. Guthrie, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
          100 N. Tampa Street, Suite 2900
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 202-7100
          Facsimile: (813) 221-8837
          E-mail: bguthrie@shb.com

               - and -

          Hildy M. Sastre, Esq.
          Jennifer A. McLoone, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, L.L.P.
          Miami Center, Suite 3200
          201 South Biscayne Blvd.
          Miami, FL 33131-4332
          Telephone: (305) 358-5171
          Facsimile: (305) 358-7470
          E-mail: hsastre@shb.com
                  jmcloone@shb.com

Publix Super Markets, Inc., is represented by:

          Andrea Cox, Esq.
          SAUL EWING ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP
          200 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3600
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 428-4500
          Facsimile: (305) 374-4744
          E-mail: Andie.cox@saul.com

Debtor Imerys Talc America, Inc., is represented by:

          Jeffrey E. Bjork, Esq.
          Kimberly A. Posin Esq.
          Amy Christine Quartarolo, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
          Telephone: (213) 891-8872
          E-mail: jeff.bjork@lw.com
                  kim.posin@lw.com
                  amy.quartarolo@lw.com

               - and -

          George A. Davis, Esq.
          Jeffrey T. Mispagel, Esq.
          Annemarie V. Reilly, Esq.
          Keith A. Simon, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          885 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 906-1200
          E-mail: george.davis@lw.com
                  jeffrey.mispagel@lw.com
                  annemarie.reilly@lw.com
                  keith.simon@lw.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Levy, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (312) 876-7700
          E-mail: richard.levy@lw.com

               - and -

          Mark D. Collins, Esq.
          Marcos Alexis Ramos, Esq.
          Sarah Silveira, Esq.
          Amanda R. Steele, Esq.
          RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.
          One Rodney Square
          920 North King Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 651-7700
          E-mail: collins@rlf.com
                  ramos@rlf.com
                  silveira@rlf.com
                  steele@rlf.com

               - and -

          Brett Michael Haywood, Esq.
          RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.
          Obe Rodney Square
          920 North King Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 651-7700
          E-mail: haywood@rlf.com

               - and -

          Angela R. Elbert, Esq.
          NEAL, GERBER & EISENBERG LLP
          Two North LaSalle Street, Suite 1700
          Chicago, Illinois 60602-3801
          Telephone: (312) 269-8000
          E-mail: aelbert@nge.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Yoo Suit to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson removed the case, JUN YOO and MINDY YOO, the
Plaintiffs, vs. BRENNTAG NORTH AMERICA, INC. (sued individually and
as successor-in-interest to MINERAL PIGMENT SOLUTIONS, INC. and as
successor-in-interest to WHITTAKER CLARK & DANIELS, INC.) et al.,
the Defendants, Case No. JCCP 4674 / BC693884, 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-03731 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.:

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



JUPITER, FL: Faces Class Action Over Video Surveillance
-------------------------------------------------------
Mike Florio, writing for NBC Sports, reports that a Palm Beach
County judge soon will rule on whether to ban the "sneak and peek"
video generated during Patriots owner Robert Kraft's January 2019
visits to a Jupiter, Florida day spa from evidence to be introduced
during the trial of his case. In time, a federal judge in Florida
will enter judgment, possibly after the return of a massive jury
verdict, regarding whether and to what extent this practice
violated the privacy rights of individuals whose massages resulted
in no sexual activity of any kind.

In April, an unnamed plaintiff (operating under the standard "John
Doe" moniker) filed a class action against the Town of Jupiter
Police Department, Detective Andrew Sharp, and district attorney
David Aronberg. The plaintiff allegedly visited the Orchids of Asia
facility on January 19, 2019, and the class action spans the five
days of video surveillance, from January 18 through January 22. The
class, which allegedly encompasses at least 31 persons, includes
all people who were "videotaped without their knowledge or consent
while receiving a lawful massage, and have not been charged with
any crime for their patronage of the Spa during the referenced time
period."

The complaint alleges that the police department had obtained
"overwhelming evidence that certain masseuses were engaging in
low-level prostitution" well before commencing the "sneak and peek"
operation, making video surveillance of all customers (including
those getting massages without sexual activity) unnecessary. The
complaint also alleges that the video generated by the surveillance
operation has become, essentially, leverage in the broader effort
to obtain plea deals from persons charged with soliciting
prostitution, with the potential public release of the videos
exacerbating the violation of the privacy rights of persons who
received massages and nothing more.

In other words, this lawsuit contends that the effort to end
alleged prostitution at the Orchids of Asia day spa went way too
far, resulting in video surveillance of individuals who did nothing
other than secure a massage. Now, those videos may end up being
publicly released, especially since Florida law has sweeping
requirements for public disclosure of material generated by police
officers in the performance of their duties.

It's an important angle to what has become a hotly contested
criminal case. Kraft's efforts to expose the failure of the police
to follow proper practices has shed light on the potential privacy
violations endured by those who were doing nothing that could
remotely be characterized as a violation of the law. If the "sneak
and peek" operation hadn't ensnared a defendant with the resources
and motivation to fight, these surveillance practices of private
citizens may have continued without the kind of scrutiny they are
now receiving.

Basically, the police thought they'd landed a big fish in Kraft. As
this fight continues, it's becoming more and more clear that the
cops may need a bigger boat. [GN]


LALO DRYWALL: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
FRANKLIN GEOVANNY CHILLOGALLO RODRIGUEZ, FREDDY JESUS SORIANO
SANCHEZ, HIMMER ABEL OLIVEROS MARTINEZ, JOSE BAUDILIO ZUNIGA
ALVARENGA, KEVIN DUBON, and KLEVER SINCHI QUIZHPI, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LALO DRYWALL
INC. (D/B/A LALO DRYWALL), HUDSON MERIDIAN CONSTRUCTION GROUP LLC
(D/B/A HUDSON MERIDIAN CONSTRUCTION GROUP), SERGIO RAYMUNDO,
WILLIAM I. COTE, LUIS E. MARTINEZ, MAURO CHAVEZ, and JOSE ANAYA,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03112 (E.D. N.Y., May 24, 2019)
brought this action on behalf of themselves, and other similarly
situated individuals, for unpaid minimum and overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of ("FLSA"), and for
violations of the N.Y. Labor Law (the "NYLL"), including applicable
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the
hours that they worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain
accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay
Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the
straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. The
Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiffs
and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without
providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by
federal and state law and regulations, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs were employed as carpenters and sheet rock installers at
the construction corporations.

Defendants operate a construction company located in Ulster County,
New York and a general contractor corporation in New York
County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LAMPS PLUS: Court Ruling Clarifies Arbitration Agreement Language
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A recent Supreme Court ruling clarifies that a party bringing a
class action claim cannot compel arbitration if an arbitration
agreement lacks specific language, according to Leslie Machado, an
Alexandria-based partner in national law firm LeClairRyan. If the
agreement is ambiguous on whether the parties agreed that claims
could proceed on a class-wide basis, no such arbitration can be
ordered, he added.

"In Lamps Plus Inc. v. Varela. (No. 17-988) employee Frank Varela
filed a putative class action after his tax information, and the
tax information of other employees, was compromised," Machado
writes in a recent blog, Trend of Pro-Employer Arbitration SCOTUS
Decisions on Class-Actions Continues with Lamps Plus. "Lamps Plus
moved to compel arbitration on an individual rather than class-wide
basis, and to dismiss the lawsuit. Both the California District
Court and the Ninth Circuit held that arbitration could proceed on
a class-wide basis."

But at the Supreme Court, Lamps Plus continued to argue that --
because it had not clearly and affirmatively agreed to class-wide
arbitration in its arbitration agreements -- such arbitration could
not be compelled. Plaintiff Varela countered that the lower courts
were correct because the agreement was ambiguous on whether
class-wide arbitration was allowed.

Building upon its decision in Stolt-Nielsen S. A. v. AnimalFeeds
Int'l Corp., 559 U. S. 662 (2010) -- where the Court held that a
court may not compel arbitration on a class-wide basis when an
agreement is "silent" on the availability of such arbitration --
the majority concluded that "Like silence, ambiguity does not
provide a sufficient basis to conclude that parties to an
arbitration agreement agreed to sacrifice the principal advantage
of arbitration."

The decision continues a trend of pro-employer class-action
arbitration decisions issues, including American Exp. Co. v.
Italian Colors Restaurant, where the Court held the Federal
Arbitration Act does not permit courts to invalidate a contractual
waiver of class arbitration on the ground that the plaintiff's cost
of individually arbitrating a federal statutory claim exceeds the
potential recovery; AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, where the
Court held the FAA prohibits states from conditioning the
enforceability of certain arbitration agreements on the
availability of class-wide arbitration procedures; and Epic Systems
Corp. v. Lewis, where the Court held that arbitration agreements
providing for individualized proceedings must be enforced.

The latest decision "is a win for employers, who will not be forced
into class-wide arbitration unless they have clearly and explicitly
agreed to proceed in that manner," Machado concludes. But he
cautions that it is also "a good reminder of the need to make sure
arbitration agreements and clauses are drafted as clearly as
possible."

The full column is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5ptkx4m

                          About LeClairRyan

As a trusted advisor, LeClairRyan -- http://www.leclairryan.com--
provides business counsel and client representation in corporate
law and litigation. In this role, the firm applies its knowledge,
insight and skill to help clients achieve their business objectives
while managing and minimizing their legal risks, difficulties and
expenses. With offices from coast to coast, the firm represents a
wide variety of clients nationwide. [GN]


LAS DELICIAS: Suarez Files Wage & Hour Suit in Florida
------------------------------------------------------
A case, MILAGROS YANES SUAREZ, MARISOL PELLOL SOTO, and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. LAS DELICIAS ALF, INC., a
Florida Corporation, AMARILYS MARQUEZ, individually, and FREDDY
MARQUEZ, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-22133-KMW
(S.D. Fla., May 24, 2019) seeks to recover monetary damages,
liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees for
Defendants' willful violations of overtime wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants knew and/or showed
reckless disregard of the provisions of the FLSA concerning the
payment of overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act. The Defendants were aware of Plaintiffs' work schedule and
further aware that Plaintiff was working more than 40 hours per
week. The Defendants were aware of the amounts that they were
paying Plaintiffs and were aware that they were not paying
Plaintiffs their overtime wages.

The Defendants were aware or should have known the requirements to
pay overtime wages to the Plaintiffs, and/or Defendants failed to
conduct a reasonable investigation as to whether they were
obligated to pay overtime wages. Despite the obligation to pay
overtime to the Plaintiffs, Defendants continued to fail to pay
overtime wages, the lawsuit says.

LAS DELICIAS ALF is engaged in the care of the infirm and the aged,
which provides services to the elderly and infirm by assisting them
with one or more activities for major life functions, of which the
ALF residents cannot perform on their own and/or require assistance
in performing. These functions include but is not limited to
providing the elderly and infirm with assistance in eating, food
preparation, dispensing medication, bathing, washing, cleaning, and
other similar functions.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Isaac Mamane, Esq.
          MAMANE LAW LLC
          10800 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 350A
          Miami, FL 33161
          Telephone (305) 773- 6661
          E-mail: mamane@gmail.com

               - and -

          Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
          DANIEL T. FELD, P.A.
          2847 Hollywood Blvd.
          Hollywood, FL 33020
          Telephone: (954) 361-8383
          E-mail: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com


LENDINGCLUB CORP: Continues to Defend Moses Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
LendingClub Corporation 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 putative class action suit entitled, Moses v.
LendingClub Corporation, 2:17-cv-03071-JAD-PAL.

In December 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company in the State of Nevada (Moses v. LendingClub
Corporation, 2:17-cv-03071-JAD-PAL) alleging violations of the
federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The complaint alleged that the Company improperly accessed the
credit report of the plaintiff, who had formerly had a loan
serviced by the Company. The complaint further alleged, on
information and belief, that the Company improperly accessed credit
reports of other similarly situated individuals.

The Company filed a motion to compel arbitration on the grounds
that the plaintiff waived the right to bring a class action and
must individually arbitrate any claim.

On February 6, 2019, the court issued an order granting this
motion, dismissed the putative class action without prejudice, and
ordered the parties to arbitrate the plaintiff's claim.

The Company denies the plaintiff's claim and is prepared to
vigorously defend against it in the event the plaintiff initiates
an arbitration following the court's recent order.

LendingClub said, "No assurances can be given as to the timing,
outcome or consequences of this matter."

LendingClub Corporation operates an online lending marketplace
platform that connects borrowers and investors in the United
States. The company's marketplace facilitates various types of loan
products for consumers and small businesses, including unsecured
personal loans, unsecured education and patient installment loans,
auto refinance loans, and small business loans. It also enables
investors to invest in a range of loans based on term and credit.
The company was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in San
Francisco, California.


LENDINGCLUB CORP: Sept. Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Veal Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
LendingClub Corporation 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 motions to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint in Veal v. LendingClub
Corporation et.al., is set to be heard in September 2019.

In May 2018, following the announcement of the Federal Trade
Commission's (FTC's) litigation against the Company, putative
shareholder class action litigation was filed in the U.S. District
Court of the Northern District of California (Veal v. LendingClub
Corporation et.al., No. 5:18-cv-02599) against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors alleging
violations of federal securities laws in connection with the
Company's description of fees and compliance with federal privacy
law in securities filings.

The court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for the
litigation in November 2018. On January 7, 2019, the lead
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint
which asserts the same causes of action as the original complaint
and adds additional allegations.

On March 8, 2019, the Company and the individual defendants in the
case filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended class action
complaint.

These motions are set for hearing in September 2019. This lawsuit
is in the early stages.

LendingClub said, "The Company denies and will vigorously defend
against the allegations. No assurances can be given as to the
timing, outcome or consequences of this matter."

LendingClub Corporation operates an online lending marketplace
platform that connects borrowers and investors in the United
States. The company's marketplace facilitates various types of loan
products for consumers and small businesses, including unsecured
personal loans, unsecured education and patient installment loans,
auto refinance loans, and small business loans. It also enables
investors to invest in a range of loans based on term and credit.
The company was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in San
Francisco, California.


LILLIAN AUGUST: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lillian August
Designs, Inc. The case is styled as Linda Slade individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. Lillian August Designs, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-04895 (S.D. N.Y., May 24, 2019).

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

Lillian August Designs, Inc. owns and operates stores that sell
home furnishings and provide interior design services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dan Shaked, Esq.
     Shaked Law Group P.C.
     44 Court Street, Suite 1217
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (917) 373-9128
     Fax: (718) 504-7555
     Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


LIVEONNY INC: Court OKs Class Certification in A. Henix Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court, New York County, issued a Decision and Order
granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case
captioned AVERY HENIX and ANTHONY WARE, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LIVEONNY, INC.,
Defendant. Docket No. 158222/2016, Motion Seq. No. 003 (N.Y.).

The Plaintiffs move pursuant to CPLR article 9 to certify a class
of all similarly situated persons.  

The Plaintiffs were formerly employed by defendant as tissue
recovery specialists (TRSs). As TRSs, plaintiffs and the proposed
class traveled to hospitals, recovered tissue, facilitated the
recovery of tissue for transplant, complete paperwork, and
communicated with other members of the recovery team. They were
misclassified as exempt employees and paid a flat fee per tissue
recovery case.  

The Plaintiffs thus seek to certify a class consisting of:

     All current and former TRSs who worked for Defendant in the
State of New York during the Class Period and who (a) were not
compensated for all time spent traveling to jobs and between jobs
(b) were not compensated for all time spent on-call (c) were not
paid at their straight or agreed upon rate for all hours worked
under forty (40) hours in a week  (d) were not paid overtime of
time and one-half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked
over forty (40) in a week; (e) were not paid spread of hours pay
and/or (f) were not provided accurate wage statements.

Numerosity

Plaintiffs' contentions

The Plaintiffs maintain that there are approximately 38 proposed
class members, as defendant produced a list of 28 TRSs, and Henix
identified an additional ten. As a class consisting of 40 members
is presumed to satisfy numerosity, 38 members is sufficient. In
support, plaintiffs submit a list, produced by defendant, of
current and former TRSs employed by defendant during the class
period, affidavits of six proposed class members who state that
they fall within the class definition, and two affidavits in which
Henix identifies, by name, a combined ten additional proposed class
members.  

The Defendant alleges that the plaintiffs' proposed class consists
of 28 members, too few to satisfy numerosity, and that the
additional nine class members should not be considered because they
were not per diem TRS's like plaintiffs and thus, are not similarly
situated and cannot be part of the class.

There is no mechanical test to determine whether the requirement of
numerosity has been met. Classes of 40 proposed members have been
deemed sufficient for class certification that Henix personally
knows of an additional ten potential class members is sufficient to
establish numerosity.  

The Defendant's assertion that the additional ten proposed class
members should not be considered because they are not similarly
situated with the plaintiffs is a question of commonality and
typicality, not numerosity.

Commonality

Plaintiffs' contentions

The Plaintiffs maintain that commonality is met because plaintiffs
and the proposed class members held the same job title and worked
during the class period. Moreover, plaintiffs contend that common
questions among the proposed class members include whether they
were misclassified as exempt, whether they were unlawfully denied
pay for travel time, on-call time, and straight time, and whether
they are owed overtime pay.

They argue that the proposed class members' claims predominate over
individual issues because they concern whether defendant instituted
an unlawful wage policy or practice. In support, plaintiffs
reference their affidavits, as well as those of the proposed class
members who state that they were not paid for travel and/or on-call
time.

The Defendant argues that commonality has not been satisfied as
individual issues predominate over those common to the class, and
because there were: (1) different starting points for each job
assignment; (2) different job locations; (3) different job
durations; (4) different ending points for each job assignment; (5)
different compensation structures depending on level of TRS; (6)
different job titles; (7) different times when employees were
on-call; (8) different times where employees accepted a job while
on-call; (9) different times where employees declined a job while
on-call; and, (10) different employment statuses.

Even if a common question exists as to whether they were not
compensated properly, that question must predominate over all
individual issues, defendants assert, and as plaintiffs identify
one or two common issues, predominance is not satisfied.

The determination of whether common issues predominate over
individual issues does not include a consideration of the proposed
class members' damages. Rather, the proposed class members must
have been subjected to the same alleged unlawful conduct of the
defendant.  

Here, the plaintiffs demonstrate that common issues predominate
over individual issues because each proposed class member was
subject to the same allegedly unlawful wage policy, whereas the
issues highlighted by defendant reflect differences in the damages
alleged by the class members. Thus, the assessment of liability is
identical for each class member, and certification is not
precluded.  

Typicality

The Plaintiffs contend that their claims are typical of the class
because the defendant's wage policies and practices affected them
and all proposed class members in the same manner: they were not
adequately paid for travel time and/or on-call time.

The Defendant observes that although the plaintiffs assert claims
based on minimum wage, overtime, spread-of-hours compensation, and
accurate wage statements, they only seek certification based on
travel time and failure to compensate on-call time. As plaintiffs
have claims different from those of the proposed class, the
requirement of typicality is not satisfied.

Claims are typical when the named plaintiffs' claims derive from
the same practice or course of conduct that gave rise to the
remaining claims of other class members and are based upon the same
legal theory.

Here, the plaintiffs' claims are typical of those of the proposed
class as they are premised on the same allegedly unlawful wage
policy. That some class members may not advance all the claims
asserted by the named plaintiffs is no bar to class certification.


In any event, to the extent further discovery reveals that the
claims of plaintiffs are not typical of those of the class,
defendants may move to decertify the class.  

Adequacy

The Plaintiffs maintain that their proposed class counsel is
qualified and experienced to litigate this matter as a class
action. In support, plaintiffs' counsel submits an affidavit
detailing his background and experience with class action
litigation. The named plaintiffs are themselves adequate because
they have been injured in the same manner as was the proposed
class.  

The Defendant asserts that the named plaintiffs are inadequate to
serve as representatives because they assert claims that are not
common with the proposed class.

When assessing the adequacy of the representative parties, the
court considers the potential conflicts of interest between the
representative and the class members, personal characteristics of
the proposed class representative (e.g. familiarity with the
lawsuit and his or her financial resources), and the quality of the
class counsel.

The Plaintiffs' claims are identical to those of the proposed
class, and thus, there are no conflicts of interest between the
named plaintiffs and the class. Additionally, the affidavits of the
named plaintiffs demonstrate that they understand the nature of the
case and the claims asserted therein.

Superiority

The Plaintiffs contend that adjudicating this matter as a class
action is superior to other methods, as otherwise there would be
numerous individual actions, each of which would be duplicative and
wasteful. In addition, the size of individual damages may
disincentivize class members from pursuing their claims absent
class certification.

The Defendant contends that a class action is not a superior method
of adjudication as plaintiffs have the administrative remedy of
filing a complaint pursuant to Labor Law Section 196 and 196-a with
the Department of Labor (DOL) which has specialized knowledge and
experience with wage and hour claims and can provide full relief to
plaintiffs and the class.

A class action is considered a superior method of adjudication
where there is a large number of proposed class members with
similar claims and a relatively small potential recovery for each
member.  

Class certification is appropriate for wage and hour actions like
this one, even where an administrative remedy is available.  

CPLR 902

In determining whether to certify a class, the court must consider:
(1) the interest of members of the class in individually
controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions (2) the
impracticability or inefficiency of prosecuting or defending
separate actions (3) the extent and nature of any litigation
concerning the controversy already commenced by or against members
of the class (4) the desirability or undesirability of
concentrating the litigation of the claim in the particular forum
and (5) the difficulties likely to be encountered in the management
of a class action.  

The Plaintiffs contend that the costs of prosecuting individual
actions outweigh the potential individual recovery, and thus, no
class member would have an interest in filing an individual action.
Moreover, it would be inefficient and a burden on the judicial
system if each class member were to bring their own individual
action. Plaintiffs maintain that they know of no other action
commenced by class members asserting the same wage claims and
assert that this court is the proper forum as affected class
members like plaintiffs live in New York County, and there would be
no manageability issues if the class were certified.

The Defendant contends that certification of the proposed class
would present management issues for the court, as it would require
mini-trials for liability and damages for each class member. It
reiterates that an administrative remedy is available.

As the assessment required for determining liability is the same
for each class member, the holding of individual trials is
unnecessary and the differences in class members' damages does not
defeat class certification.  

It is uncontested that there are no pending actions by proposed
class members concerning the claims advanced here, and given the
relatively small individual potential recovery, there is little
incentive for a class member to forego certification in favor of
prosecuting individual claims.  

The availability of administrative remedies does not render this
forum inappropriate.  

The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is granted.

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's May 23, 2019 Opinion and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5lbhzt4 from
Leagle.com.


LTD FINANCIAL: Court Awards $184K Attorneys' Fees in L. Baez Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Orlando Division, issued an Order granting in part and
denying in part Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Attorneys' Fees,
Costs, and Incentive Award in the case captioned LIZNELIA BAEZ,
Plaintiff, v. LTD FINANCIAL SERVICES, L.P., Defendant. Case No.
6:15-cv-1043-Orl-40TBS. (M.D. Fla.).

The Plaintiff prevailed at trial, with the jury awarding $1,000.00
in statutory damages and $49,361.29 to the class. Plaintiff seeks
$253,650.00 in attorneys' fees and $23,042.22 in costs. Plaintiff
also requests a $2,500.00 class representative incentive award.  

The Plaintiff presented the following information regarding the
time her Counsel worked on this case and their requested hourly
rates:

   Attorney/Paralegal        Hours Rate    Lodestar
   ------------------       ------ ----    --------
   Brian W. Warwick, Esq.   199.50 $500     $99,750
   Janet R. Varnell, Esq.   120    $500     $60,000
   David K. Lietz, Esq.     165.60 $500     $82,800
   Steven Simmons, Jr., Esq. 34.60 $500     $10,380
   Karen Stroly               4.8  $150        $720

   TOTAL                    524.50         $253,650

The Defendant argued that both the hours claimed, and rate
requested by the Plaintiff, were excessive and the Magistrate
agreed.   

The Court calculates the lodestar as follows:

   Partner time: 390.1 hours x $450 = $175,545.00

   Associate: 34.6 hours x $250 = $8,650.00

   TOTAL: $184,195.00

Costs

The Plaintiff seeks reimbursement of $23,042.22 in litigation
costs. Included in that number is $16,890.24 of costs incurred in
issuing notice to the class. The Magistrate recommended this
request be denied and that Plaintiff seek recovery by filing a Bill
of Costs to be taxed by the Clerk in the usual course. Plaintiff
concedes that a Bill of Costs may be appropriate as to many of the
costs requested, but objects to this procedure as to the $16,890.24
costs being recovered in this manner. Plaintiff avers that the cost
of notice to the class  is a matter outside the Clerk's purview and
must be awarded by a district court acting in its discretion.
Defendant did not address the costs issues in its response to
Plaintiff's objections.

The Plaintiff directs the Court to Hunt v. Imperial Merchant
Services, Inc., 560 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2009), which followed other
district courts that placed notice costs on the class action
defendant once the defendant's liability has been established.

The Court agrees that it may, in its discretion, award costs of
providing notice to the class where Plaintiff has shown success on
the merits. Accordingly, the Court will tax costs of $16,890.24
against the Defendant.

Incentive Award

The R&R also recommended the named Plaintiff be awarded a $2,500.00
incentive award. This incentive, however, was already awarded in
the Court's May 3, 2019, so it is denied here as moot.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 23, 2019 Order is
available at  https://tinyurl.com/yycncz7x from Leagle.com.

Liznelia Baez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian W. Warwick --
bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com -- Varnell & Warwick, PA, David K.
Lietz -- dlietz@varnellandwarwick.com -- Varnell & Warwick, PA, pro
hac vice, Janet R. Varnell -- jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com --
Varnell & Warwick, PA & Michael Tierney, Michael Tierney, PA, 918
Beard Ave, Winter Park, FL 32789

LTD Financial Services, L.P., a Texas Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Dale Thomas Golden -- dgolden@gsgfirm.com -- Golden
Scaz Gagain, PLLC & Joseph C. Proulx -- jproulx@gsgfirm.com --
Golden Scaz Gagain, PLLC.


MDL 2672: Filing of Unredacted Amended Nemet under Seal Partly OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION This Order Relates To:
MDL Dkt. No. 5514. Nemet, No. 3:17-cv-04372-CRB, MDL No. 2672 CRB
(JSC) (N.D. Cal.), Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and
denied in part the Plaintiffs in Nemet permission to redact
confidential information from their first amended complaint and to
file an unredacted version of their complaint under seal.

The confidential information falls into two categories.  The first
category consists of information that identifies non-party
employees of Volkswagen and Bosch (e.g., names, job titles, and
department designations). The second category consists of excerpts
from, and summaries of, internal Volkswagen and Bosch documents,
most of which are emails.

Volkswagen and Bosch, the parties who designated both categories of
information as confidential, have not requested that information in
the second category be redacted.  That information will accordingly
be made publicly available.  Judge Breyer denied the Plaintiffs'
motion to seal it.

With respect to the first category, the Judge finds that the Court
has previously held that redacting non-parties' names and other
identifying information is supported by a compelling reason:
disclosure of such information can infringe on those individuals'
privacy rights.  Yet the Court has also noted that sometimes a
non-party's privacy rights will be outweighed by other interests.


Some of the non-party identifying information in the first amended
complaint provides needed context for understanding the
allegations.  In paragraphs 344 through 360, for example, the
complaint summarizes and quotes from specific emails between Bosch
employees about "cycle-beating" software.  Because of the
back-and-forth nature of the emails, it would be challenging (if
not impossible) to fully comprehend these paragraphs if the
employees' names were redacted.  Paragraphs 369 through 371 and
557, 558, 560, and 561 are similar.  The personal identifying
information therein is needed to comprehend the allegations. The
Judge denied the Plaintiffs' motion to seal the non-party
identifying information found in the identified paragraphs.

He also denied the request to redact the non-party identifying
information found in paragraph 365.  The former Volkswagen
employees named in this paragraph, Heinz-Jakob Neusser and Oliver
Schmidt, have been charged with (and in Mr. Schmidt's case
convicted of) crimes for their roles in the "clean diesel" scheme.
Their identities and the roles they played in the scheme are
already publicly known, so their privacy rights will not be
infringed if they are also identified in the Plaintiffs' first
amended complaint.

The remainder of the non-party identifying information that the
Plaintiffs seek to redact is not needed to understand the
allegations and does not identify Volkswagen employees who have
been criminally charged.  The Judge granted the Plaintiffs' motion
to seal this information.

By May 3, 2019, the Plaintiffs will file a revised redacted version
of their first amended complaint that comports with the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 26, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/X3uVUs from Leagle.com.

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

Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart --
astewart@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G.
Shapiro
-- tshapiro@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro,
Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague --
avague@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin & White, Casey Erin
Lucier -- clucier@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J.
Baker, III -- chuck.baker@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge
and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker -- ctucker@rhodesokla.com –
Rhodes
Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Dana Woodrum Lang --
dana.lang@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, David
M.
Eisenberg -- eisenberg@bscr-law.com -- Sterchi, Cowden & Rice,
LLC,
Henry Buist Smythe, Jr. -- henry.smythe@wbd-us.com – Womble
Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller --
hfeller@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, William R. Scherer
--
wscherer@conradscherer.com -- Conrad and Scherer, LLP, J. Randolph
Bibb, Jr. -- rbibb@lewisthomason.com -- Lewis, Thomason, King,
Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., James K. Toohey -- tooheyj@jbltd.com --
Johns & Bell LTD, Jeffrey Lance Chase -- JChase@herzfeld-rubin.com
-- Chase Kurshan Herzfeld & Rufin LLC, Jeffrey S. Rugg --
jrugg@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Jennifer
Marino Thibodaux -- jthibodaux@gibbonslaw.com -- Gibbons PC.


MDL 2741: Belcher v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY BELCHER, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00985 (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-02820-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 Belcher 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: Brown v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
LISA BROWN, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case
No. 4:19-cv-00978 (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 23, 2019. The Northern District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02812-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. 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 Brown 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: Cocheran v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
LAVELLE COCHERAN AND WILEY COCHERAN, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00966 (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-02805-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. Lavelle
Cocheran'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 Cocheran 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: Gillson v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
QUENTIN GILLSON, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, a Delaware
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01026 (Filed April 29,
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 23, 2019. The
Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02828-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 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 Willson 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
Plaintiffs alleges that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. The 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: Peterson v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
LINDA PETERSON and RONALD PETERSON, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-00979 (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 23, 2019. The Northern District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02813-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. Linda
Peterson'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 Peterson 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 Plaintiffs allege that they or their
decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over
the course of several or more years. The Plaintiffs also allege
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: Puckett v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN PUCKETT, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-01030 (Filed April 29, 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-02831-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 Puckett 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: Slinkard v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA SLINKARD AND DALE SLINKARD, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-00968 (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 23, 2019. The Northern District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02807-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. Patricia
Slinkard'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 Slinkard 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 Plaintiffs allege that they or their
decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over
the course of several or more years. The Plaintiffs also allege
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: Smith v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
DIANE SMITH and F. ALLEN SMITH, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-00980 (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 23, 2019. The Northern District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02814-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. Diane Smith'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 Smith 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
Plaintiffs allege that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. The Plaintiffs also allege 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: Somers v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID SOMERS and BONNIE SOMERS, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-01028 (Filed April 29, 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 23, 2019. The Northern District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02829-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. David Somers'
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 Somers 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
Plaintiffs allege that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. The Plaintiffs also allege 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: Stokers v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLOTTE C. STOKER AND SHAWN STOKER, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00967 (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-02806-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. Charlotte C.
Stoker'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 Stoker 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: Wiley v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
ESTATE OF STANLEY WILEY, by and through his personal representative
Janice Wiley; and JANICE WILEY, surviving spouse of Stanley Wiley
on behalf of all legal heirs of Stanley Wiley, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-01001 (Filed April 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 23, 2019. The Northern District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02827-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. Stanley
Wiley'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 Wiley 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
Plaintiffs allege 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:

          E. Elliot Adler, Esq.
          Brittany S. Zummer, Esq.
          ADLER LAW GROUP, APLC
          402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619 531-8700
          Facsimile: 619 342-9600


MDL 2741: Young v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD YOUNG, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, a Delaware
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01029 (Filed April 29,
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 23, 2019. The
Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02830-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. Plaintiff'
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 Young 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. The 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


MELO DAIRY: Torres Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MELO DAIRY ET AL. The
case is styled as ENRIQUE JUAREZ TORRES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. MELO DAIRY, FRED
MELO, Defendants, Case No. BCV-19-101450 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern
Cty., May 24, 2019).

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

Melo Dairy has been providing Management Consulting Services from
Merced.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     EVAN M SELIK, ESQ.
     Retained


MERCK & CO: Report and Recommendation in Zetia Suit Challenged
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., 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 defendants and retailer
opt-out plaintiffs in the Zetia Antitrust Litigation object to a
report and recommendation of the magistrate judge, who recommended
that the district judge grant, in part, and deny, in part,
defendants' motions to dismiss on non-arbitration issues.

Merck, MSD, Schering Corporation and MSP Singapore Company LLC
(collectively, the Merck Defendants) are defendants in putative
class action and opt-out lawsuits filed in 2018 on behalf of direct
and indirect purchasers of Zetia alleging violations of federal and
state antitrust laws, as well as other state statutory and common
law causes of action.

The cases have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in a federal
multidistrict litigation before Judge Rebecca Beach Smith in the
Eastern District of Virginia.

On December 6, 2018, the court denied the Merck Defendants' motions
to dismiss or stay the direct purchaser putative class actions
pending bilateral arbitration.

On February 6, 2019, the magistrate judge issued a report and
recommendation recommending that the district judge grant in part
and deny in part defendants' motions to dismiss on non-arbitration
issues.

On February 20, 2019, defendants and retailer opt-out plaintiffs
filed objections to the report and recommendation.

The parties await a decision from the district judge.

Merck & Co., Inc. provides healthcare solutions worldwide. It
operates through four segments: Pharmaceutical, Animal Health,
Healthcare Services, and Alliances. Merck & Co., Inc. was founded
in 1891 and is headquartered in Kenilworth, New Jersey.


MERCK & CO: Rotavirus Vaccines Antitrust Litig. Stayed Amid Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., 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 Rotavirus Vaccines
Antitrust Litigation has been stayed pending the outcome of an
appeal.

MSD is a defendant in putative class action lawsuits filed in 2018
on behalf of direct purchasers of RotaTeq, alleging violations of
federal antitrust laws.

The cases were consolidated in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. On January 23, 2019, the court denied MSD's motions
to compel arbitration and to dismiss the consolidated complaint.

On February 19, 2019, MSD appealed the court's order on arbitration
to the Third Circuit.

The appellate briefing is currently ongoing, and the district court
case is stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.

Merck & Co., Inc. provides healthcare solutions worldwide. It
operates through four segments: Pharmaceutical, Animal Health,
Healthcare Services, and Alliances. Merck & Co., Inc. was founded
in 1891 and is headquartered in Kenilworth, New Jersey.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Chung Suit Moved to Eastern District of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Andrew Chung, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Midland Credit Management,
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 617235/2018, was removed from the
Supreme Court, Nassau County, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York (Central Islip) on May 23, 2019. The
Eastern District of New Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03071
to the proceeding. The suit demands $501,000 alleging Fair Debt
Collection Act violation.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Attorneys for Midland Credit Management, Inc.:

          Ellen Beth Silverman, Esq.
          Matthew B Corwin, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULLERTSON
          800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 471-6229
          Facsimile: (212) 935-1166
          E-mail: esilverman@hinshawlaw.com
                  mcorwin@hinshawlaw.com

MOM'S KITCHEN: Tardiff Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
-----------------------------------------------------
DENISE TARDIFF, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
MOM'S KITCHEN, INC., a Florida profit corporation, and GEORGE
LAMONICA, individually, Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-61316-XXXX
(S.D. Fla., May 24, 2019) is an action arising under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") to seek redress of Defendants' violations of
the FLSA against this Plaintiff, and all other employees similarly
situated, during the course of their employment.

During Plaintiff's employment, Plaintiff worked an average of 40
hours per week. Plaintiff's compensation during her employment with
Defendants yields regular hourly rates well below the statutorily
prescribed federal minimum rate of $7.25 per hour for all hours
worked at or below 40 per week. The Defendants failed to compensate
Plaintiff at or above the required federal minimum wage rate. The
wage violations committed by Defendants were willful and/or
intentional, as Defendants knew of the minimum wage requirements of
the FLSA and recklessly or intentionally failed to compensate
Plaintiff in accordance with such requirements, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff began working for Defendants as a non-exempt employee as
a waitress/restaurant server at the Defendants' restaurant in
2000.

MOM'S KITCHEN, is an old-fashioned diner serving traditional
American comfort food for breakfast and lunch in Broward County,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     MELISSA SCOTT, ESQ.
     JORDAN RICHARDS, ESQ.
     USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
     805 E. Broward Blvd. Suite 301
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: (954) 871-0050
     Email: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
            Jill@jordanrichardspllc.com
            Melissa@jordanrichardspllc.com
            Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com
            Stephanie@jordanrichardspllc.com
            Mike@usaemploymentlawyers.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Bunn Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------
DONOVAN K. BUNN, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-01411 (E.D. Mo., May 23, 2019), seeks to recover
damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result
of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active
ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Payadues Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
JEROME C. PAYADUE and CHERYL C. PAYADUE, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01413 (E.D. Mo.,
May 23, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs,
as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Wades Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------
LAURA WADE and JAMES K. WADE, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY,
the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01416 (E.D. Mo., May 23, 2019),
seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, as a direct
and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful
conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture,
testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

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


MOVEMENT MORTGAGE: Court Compels Arbitration in Hoober Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Tacoma, issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to
Compel Arbitration in the case captioned TIFFNEY HOOBER and DAVID
MORDUE, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. MOVEMENT MORTGAGE, LLC, a limited liability company,
and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, Defendants. Case No. C18-6001
BHS. (W.D. Wash.).

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Movement Mortgage,
LLC's (Movement) motion to compel arbitration on an individual
basis, dismiss class claims, and stay proceedings.  

Hoober and Mordue are putative class representatives seeking unpaid
wages for themselves and on behalf of a putative class of all other
Movement employees paid on commission. Plaintiffs filed their
complaint alleging Movement violated Washington law by failing to
pay Plaintiffs or Class Members for time spent performing non-sales
tasks or for rest breaks, failing to pay overtime, failing to pay
for missed meal breaks, and failure to pay all wages due at pay
periods and at termination.  

Scope of the Arbitration Agreement

Movement argues that the agreements specifically provide that they
cover any claims or controversies during or following employment,'
and specifically cover claims for wages, other compensation due,
penalties, and claims under state wage and hour laws. Movement
makes specific reference only to the Plaintiffs' Washington law
claims as being with the scope of the agreement.   

The Plaintiffs do not dispute whether their claims fall within the
scope of the agreements and rely on their argument that the
entirety of the agreements to arbitrate are invalid because
unconscionability permeates the agreements. Therefore, the
Plaintiffs appear to concede that the merits of their claims fall
within the scope of the agreements to arbitrate.

Valid Agreement to Arbitrate

Once a court establishes that a claim is within the scope of an
arbitration agreement, the agreement is valid, irrevocable, and
enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist in law or in equity
for the revocation of any contract.

Procedural Unconscionability

Procedural unconscionability refers to impropriety during the
formation of the contract.

Washington courts evaluating the circumstances surrounding an
agreement to arbitrate to determine whether the signer lacked
meaningful choice consider (1) the way in which the contract was
entered (2) whether the signer had a reasonable opportunity to
understand the terms of the contract and (3) determine whether the
important terms were hidden in a maze of fine print.  

Hoober first contacted Movement in September 2016 to inquire about
employment. Movement was receptive to her inquiry and had a
representative meet with and speak with her multiple times in
September and October, leading her to believe Movement had firmly
decided to hire her and that only paperwork remained.

Mordue first contacted Movement to inquire about employment in
January 2018. Mordue had multiple conversations and interviews with
Movement and declares that Movement expressed strong interest in
hiring me right away, and explained that they only needed to make
sure I would be able to obtain the licenses I would need to work
for them before formally hiring me. Movement require him to convert
his national mortgage broker's license to a Washington state
license, and instructed him to take several hundred dollars worth
of classes and pay approximately $150 in licensing fees, all of
which Movement promised to reimburse.

The Plaintiffs do not allege that Movement refused to answer their
questions about the agreement and do not allege that the terms were
beyond the comprehension of an average person or hidden in a maze
of fine print. While Plaintiffs received the agreements as part of
a package of documents, the agreements were contained in
independent, plainly written documents with fewer than four pages
of contracted terms. Plaintiffs were required to initial each page,
sign the document, and then initial and sign an Acknowledgement
that they had the opportunity to read the Agreement.

Alluding to the opportunity to ask questions, Mordue alleges that
he was given the agreement without any opportunity to negotiate its
terms. Hoober similarly argues that she understood all employment
forms had to be completed with no opportunity to negotiate.
However, understanding that the terms could not be changed is
substantively different from asking questions about the terms and
being refused an answer and has not been found in Washington courts
to be a basis for procedural unconscionability.  

Regarding undue pressure and lack of reasonable opportunity to
consider the terms, Plaintiffs make a fair case that they were
under some pressure to sign the arbitration agreements. Plaintiffs
explain that by the time they received the package of documents
containing the agreements, each had been led to believe by Movement
that employment was virtually guaranteed and each had taken
significant steps in reliance on an offer of employment by
Movement, including stopping looking for other work. Mordue had
incurred expenses in reliance on his prospective employment, and
Hoober was pressured to complete the new hire paperwork quickly in
order to participate in training that was taking place shortly
after the paperwork was sent to her.

Movement argues that the agreements are enforceable because
Plaintiffs each voluntarily executed the arbitration agreements and
failed to exercise the option to opt out of arbitration within
thirty days of signing. On one hand, the opt-out provision was
clearly indicated under the heading Opt Out Rights in the last
paragraph of the agreement and features a minimally burdensome
procedure. During the thirty-day period, Plaintiffs arguably could
have reviewed the agreements and consulted counsel to make a more
informed choice.  

On the other hand, under the Court's reading of the contracts, the
opportunity to opt out is not costless. Plaintiffs do not address
the opt-out provision in their briefing. Section 13 of the Hoober
Agreement states that If you opt out, you will not receive the
consideration provided to those who sign the Agreement and do not
opt out thereafter, and section 13 of the Mordue Agreement states
that If you opt out, you will not receive the consideration
provided to those who sign the Agreement and do not opt out
thereafter, including the ability to raise disputes through the
arbitration process.

In the Court's reading, the contract operates to make litigation
substantially less appealing, both based on the cost of travel to a
distant forum and because the question of what substantive law
would apply in the North Carolina federal district court is
unclear. Because the opt out provision is somewhat confusing and
misleading, the Court finds it does not advance Movement's
argument.

Under the entirety of the circumstances, the Court finds that
Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to provide the minimum
showing as the party opposing arbitration that the arbitration
agreements are not enforceable due to procedural unconscionability.


Substantive Unconscionability

Substantive unconscionability involves cases where a clause or term
in the contract is alleged to be one-sided or overly harsh.
Plaintiffs argue that the choice of law provisions in both the
Hoober Agreement and the Mordue Agreement, the one-sided nature of
both agreements, the confidentiality provisions in both agreements,
and the venue provision in the Mordue Agreement are substantively
unconscionable.

The Plaintiffs argue that these unconscionable provisions in the
agreements operate in concert to eliminate any realistic
possibility of relief and so the Court should refuse to enforce
either the Hoober Agreement or the Mordue Agreement.  

First, Plaintiffs argue that both the Mordue Agreement and the
Hoober Agreement are governed by a choice of law provisions
selecting North Carolina law as the governing law. Plaintiffs argue
that while the choice of law provision in Hoober's employment
paperwork appears in her Employment Agreement, not her Arbitration
Agreement, in Washington instruments on the same topic executed
together should be read and construed together as one contract.

Movement argues that the Choice of Law provision Hoober references
is contained in her Team Leader Agreement and does not apply to her
arbitration agreement.

Movement calls Plaintiffs' argument, that compelling arbitration
would preclude relief under Washington wage and hour laws,
outrageous and argues that it appears to be based on a deliberate
failure to read the plain language of the Agreements because both
arbitration agreements provide that the arbitrator is authorized to
award any remedy or relief that would have been available to the
Parties, in their individual capacity, had the matter been heard in
a court having jurisdiction over the claim, to specifically include
attorneys' fees and costs.  

The Court construes Movement's arguments as an admission that their
intent in contracting and their position as to the contracts'
correct interpretation is that all rights and relief available
under Washington law are available in arbitration. Therefore, any
provisions in either Mordue or Hoober's contract are severed to the
degree they contradict this admission. This finding applies to both
the agreements to arbitrate and any jointly executed instrument
which may be read as one contract under Washington law, consistent
with Movement's position that nothing in the Team Leader Agreement
precludes substantive relief under Washington law in arbitration.

Second, a subject-matter exclusion may also be nominally mutual,
yet have the impermissible effect of being so one-sided and harsh
that it is substantively unconscionable.

Section 3 of both the Hoober Agreement and the Mordue Agreement is
titled Mutual Duty to Arbitrate and reads in part by signing this
Agreement, the Parties agree that any arbitration shall be
conducted before one neutral arbitrator selected by the Parties.
Plaintiffs argue that because the agreements limit all claims which
would be brought by employees to individual arbitration, but
Movement can and does initiate lawsuits against its employees,
sometimes joining multiple employees as defendants despite the
arbitration agreements' provisions prohibiting class arbitration,
the agreements are sufficiently one-sided as to be substantively
unconscionable.  

Here, the Plaintiffs' complaint prays for back wages, damages,
prejudgment interest, and costs and fees, not injunctive relief.
Plaintiffs do not provide examples of the type of injunctive relief
an employee would seek such that the Court may evaluate, even in a
hypothetical case, whether the opportunity to seek injunctive
relief against multiple defendants is so one-sided that it is
unconscionable. While there may be other factual scenarios in which
unequal access to injunctive relief against multiple defendants
would be clearly unconscionable, the Court finds that on the facts
at bar, Plaintiffs have not met their burden as the party opposing
arbitration to show that an exception in favor of Movement for
injunctive relief is unconscionable.  

Third, both the Mordue Agreement and the Hoober Agreement feature
confidentiality provisions which state all statements and
information made or revealed during the arbitration process are
confidential and neither you nor the company may reveal any such
statements or information, except on a need-to-know basis or as
permitted or required by law. Plaintiffs argue these provisions are
substantively unconscionable because confidentiality provisions in
arbitration agreements with repeat players on one side and one-time
players on the other create a substantial advantage in the repeat
player in developing work product, learning about arbitrators, and
understanding legal issues.  

The Court concludes that employees seeking to enforce state law
wage and hour claims would be substantially disadvantaged by the
inability to benefit from repeat-player status in the ways the
Washington Supreme Court has identified. Therefore, the Court finds
the confidentiality provision is substantively unconscionable under
Washington law. However, the Court agrees with Movement that this
provision may be severed without substantially changing the nature
of the agreement to arbitrate.  

Fourth, the Plaintiffs argue that the Mordue agreement requires
arbitration in North Carolina. Section 3 of Mordue's agreement,
titled Mutual Duty to Arbitrate, states that any arbitration
hearing will be scheduled on a date or dates of mutual agreement
and will be conducted within Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
Section 6, titled Starting Arbitration and Costs, states that the
arbitration shall take place in the county where you were employed
by the Company.

Mordue was employed in Washington, so these provisions conflict.
Plaintiffs argue that Movement intended to remove the provision
siting arbitration in the county of employment, in favor of a
distant venue provision as a condition of access to arbitration for
its Washington employees. Movement argues that to the extent Mordue
claims that the North Carolina venue is unreasonable or unduly
oppressive,' only that provision should be deemed unconscionable,
appearing to concede the issue. The Court finds that the
conflicting provision in Section 6 siting arbitration in North
Carolina would impose substantial costs on Mordue and may be
properly severed,  

In sum, the Court finds that the identified unconscionable and
potentially unconscionable provisions do not pervade the agreement
to arbitrate such that the Court cannot easily excise the
problematic provisions but enforce the remainder.

Therefore, the Court severs the identified portions of the choice
of law provision, the confidentiality provision, and the venue
provision, and denies Plaintiffs' request that it find the entirety
of the Hoober Agreement and the Mordue Agreement void.

Unclean Hands

The Plaintiffs argue that Movement's request to compel arbitration
should be denied because it is an action in equity to compel
specific performance, and the unclean hands doctrine closes the
doors of a court of equity to one tainted with inequitableness or
bad faith relative to the matter in which he seeks relief.
Plaintiffs raise the same argument the Court found unavailing in
its discussion of the one-sided nature of the duty to arbitrate.
Plaintiffs argue without more that Defendant's conduct as to the
matter in which it now seeks relief has not been equitable or fair.


Because the Court did not find the agreements were so permeated
with unconscionability as to be stricken, and Plaintiffs have not
established that Movement acted in bad faith, it is similarly
inappropriate to deny the motion on the basis of unclean hands.

Therefore, it is ordered that Movement's motion to compel
arbitration on an individual basis, is granted, subject to the
exclusion of the severed unconscionable provisions as stated
herein.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 23, 2019 Order is
available at
https://tinyurl.com/y696ajxn from Leagle.com.

Tiffney Hoober & David Mordue, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Julian
Hammond -- jhammond@hammondlawpc.com -- HAMMOND LAW, P.C.

Movement Mortgage LLC, a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Susan W. Pangborn --
spangborn@kilpatricktownsend.com -- KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON
LLP, pro hac vice & Rachel Saimons --
rsaimons@kilpatricktownsend.com -- KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON
LLP.


MOWI ASA: Wood Mountain Alleges Price-Fixing of Salmon Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Mowi ASA (fka Marine Harvest ASA),
Marine Harvest USA, LLC, and others alleges the unlawful
coordination of the prices charged to indirect purchasers of
farm-raised salmon and salmon products (such as salmon fillets or
smoked salmon) which were sold by the Defendants between July 1,
2015 and the present in violation the antitrust and consumer
protection laws of each state recognizing a right of action for
indirect purchasers harmed by anticompetitive conduct.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief under the Clayton Act and
Sherman Act.

The European Commission ("EC") recently confirmed "that on 19
February 2019 its officials carried out unannounced inspections in
several Member States at the premises of several companies in the
sector of farmed Atlantic salmon." The EC commenced its
investigation by sending a letter in early February 2019 to the
world's dominant suppliers of farm-raised salmon and their
affiliates, in which it explained that it had received information
that the companies – the Defendants -- are "participating in or
have participated in anti-competitive agreements and/or concerted
practices related to different ways of price coordination in order
to sustain and possibly increase the prices for Norwegian salmon."

The salmon market is susceptible to manipulation by the major
salmon producers in Norway. The industry is highly concentrated and
the spot market for salmon in Oslo, Norway, is the most important
benchmark for salmon prices around the globe. Salmon is sold on the
spot market and through annual contracts. Only 1% of Norway's
salmon production is sold on the spot market, but those spot prices
set the baseline for longer term contract prices, the lawsuit
says.

The case is captioned WOOD MOUNTAIN FISH LLC, the Plaintiff, v.
Mowi ASA (fka Marine Harvest ASA), Marine Harvest USA, LLC, Marine
Harvest Canada, Inc., Ducktrap River of Maine LLC, Grieg Seafood
ASA, Grieg Seafood BC Ltd., Bremnes Seashore AS, Ocean Quality AS,
Ocean Quality North America Inc., Ocean Quality USA Inc., Ocean
Quality Premium Brands, Inc., SalMar ASA, Leroy Seafood Group ASA,
Leroy Seafood USA Inc., and Scottish Sea Farms Ltd., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-22128-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 24, 2019).

Wood Mountain Fish LLC is a Massachusetts company that distributes
fish and seafood. Mowi ASA is a Norwegian seafood company with
operations in several countries around the world.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

          Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq.
          Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
          Veronica Bosco, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
          FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: 212-545-4600
          Facsimile: 212-545-4653
          E-mail: isquith@whafh.com
                  burt@whafh.com
                  Bosco@whafh.com

               - and -

          Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401-2159
          Telephone: 612-596-4092
          Facsimile: 612-339-0981
          E-mail: hmsilton@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq.
          PRITZKER LEVINE LLP
          180 Grand Avenue
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: 415-692-0772
          Facsimile: 415-366-6110
          E-mail: ecp@pritzkerlevine.com

               - and -

          Richard J. Vita, Esq.
          VITA LAW OFFICES P.C.
          100 State Street, Suite 900
          Boston, MA 020109
          Telephone: 617-426-6566
          E-mail: rjv@vitalaw.com

MY PILLOW: Wuest Seeks Certification of Class and Four Subclasses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned RICHARD WUEST on behalf of
himself, and all others similarly situated individuals v. MY
PILLOW, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
3:18-cv-03658-WHA (N.D. Cal.), asks the Court to certify a class
of:

     all persons who, at any time during the period from
     December 27, 2017 through February 19, 2018, inclusive,
     called one or more of My Pillow, Inc.'s ("Defendant")
     toll-free telephone numbers using a cellular or cordless
     telephone with a California area code while located within
     the State of California and who was connected to a My Pillow
     representative.

To the extent necessary, Mr. Wuest states that the Class can be
broken up into four subclasses:

   -- The Sales Classes:

      * Sales Cellular Class:

        All persons who, at any time during the period from
        December 27, 2017 through February 19, 2018, inclusive,
        called one or more of Defendant's toll-free telephone
        numbers other than 800-308-1299 using a cellular
        telephone with a California area code while located
        within the State of California and who was connected to a
        My Pillow representative; and

      * Sales Cordless Class:

        All persons who, at any time during the period from
        December 27, 2017 through February 19, 2018, inclusive,
        called one or more of Defendant's toll-free telephone
        numbers other than 800-308-1299 using a cordless
        telephone with a California area code while located
        within the State of California and who was connected to a
        My Pillow representative; and

   -- The Customer Service Classes:

      * Customer Service Cellular Class:

        All persons who, at any time during the period from
        December 27, 2017 through February 19, 2018, inclusive,
        called Defendant's toll-free telephone number
        800-308-1299 using a cellular telephone with a California
        area code while located within the State of California
        and who was connected to a My Pillow representative; and

      * Customer Service Cordless Class:

        All persons who, at any time during the period from
        December 27, 2017 through February 19, 2018, inclusive,
        called Defendant's toll-free telephone number
        800-308-1299 using a cordless telephone with a California
        area code while located within the State of California
        and who was connected to a My Pillow representative.

Mr. Wuest also asks the Court to designate him as Class
Representative and Keller Grover LLP as Class Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on July 11, 2019, at 8:00 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric A. Grover, Esq.
          KELLER GROVER LLP
          1965 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94103
          Telephone: (415) 543-1305
          Facsimile: (415) 543-7861
          E-mail: eagrover@kellergrover.com


NANTKWEST INC: Awaits Final Court Approval in Sudunagunta Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
NantKwest, 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 a final settlement
approval hearing was held in the case entitled, Sudunagunta v.
NantKwest, Inc., et al., and the parties are awaiting the court's
decision.

In March 2016, a putative securities class action complaint
captioned Sudunagunta v. NantKwest, Inc., et al., No.
16‑cv‑01947 was filed in federal district court for the Central
District of California related to the company's restatement of
certain interim financial statements for the periods ended June 30,
2015 and September 30, 2015.

A number of similar putative class actions were filed in federal
and state court in California. The actions originally filed in
state court were removed to federal court, and the various related
actions have been consolidated.

Plaintiffs asserted causes of action for alleged violations of
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b‑5
promulgated thereunder.

Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages, costs and attorneys' fees,
and equitable/injunctive or other relief on behalf of putative
classes of persons who purchased or acquired the company's
securities during various time periods from July 28, 2015 through
March 11, 2016.

In September 2017, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss
the third amended consolidated complaint. On August 13, 2018, the
district court granted plaintiffs' motions for class certification
and to strike plaintiffs’ claims under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b‑5. On August 24, 2018, at the district
court's direction, plaintiffs filed a fourth amended consolidated
complaint. On August 27, 2018, defendants petitioned the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to authorize interlocutory appeal
of the class certification order. On September 7, 2018, defendants
answered the fourth amended consolidated complaint.

On September 21, 2018, the parties informed the Ninth Circuit that
they had reached a settlement in principle, and the parties moved
to stay appellate proceedings. On September 24, 2018, the parties
notified the district court that they had reached a settlement in
principle. On November 9, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed
motion for preliminary approval of the settlement and notice to
class members. On January 9, 2019, the district court granted the
motion for preliminary approval. A final approval hearing was held
on April 29, 2019.

NantKwest, Inc., a clinical-stage immunotherapy company, develops
immunotherapeutic treatments for cancer and viral infectious
diseases in the United States. The company was formerly known as
Conkwest, Inc. and changed its name to NantKwest, Inc. in July
2015. NantKwest, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in
San Diego, California.


NEW YORK: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed in Gulino Racial 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. 19-1238, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Debra Johnson 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


NFL: Assignment Agreements Order in Concussion Suit Partly Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In Re: NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS' CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. *RD Legal Funding, LLC; RD Legal Finance, LLC;*
RD Legal Funding Partners LP; Roni Dersovitz, Appellants.
*(Pursuant to Rule 12(a) Fed. R. App. P.). In Re: NATIONAL FOOTBALL
LEAGUE PLAYERS' CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. **Cash4Cases, Inc.;
*Atlas Legal Funding, LLC; Atlas Legal Funding I, LP; Atlas Legal
Funding II, LP; Atlas Legal Funding III, LP, Appellants. *(Pursuant
to Rule 12(a) Fed. R. App. P.) **(Dismissed pursuant to the Clerk's
Order dated 8/2/18.) In Re: NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS'
CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. *Thrivest Specialty Funding, LLC,
Appellant. *(Pursuant to Rule 12(a), Fed. R. App. P.) THRIVEST
SPECIALTY FUNDING, LLC, Appellant, v. WILLIAM E. WHITE, Case Nos.
18-1040, 18-1482, 18-1639, 18-2184, 18-2582. 18-3005 (3d Cir.),
Judge D. Brooks Smith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part the District Court's
Dec. 8, 2017 order, voiding in their entirety all of the assignment
agreements.

The consolidated appeal involves issues tangential to the expansive
NFL concussion injury litigation.  Following approval of the
settlement agreement in that class action in 2015, various class
members entered into cash advance arrangements with third party
litigation funders.  Under the agreements relevant to the cases on
appeal, the class members purported to assign their rights to a
portion of their settlement proceeds in exchange for receipt of
immediate cash.

In December 2017, Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Anita
Brody, who had presided over the NFL class action and retained
jurisdiction while the settlement was being administered, issued an
order purporting to void in their entirety all of the assignment
agreements.  The District Court explained that its ruling was
necessary to protect vulnerable class members from predatory
funding companies.  Appellants RD, Atlas, and Thrivest, three
groups of litigation funding entities, now appeal that order and
other related orders entered by the District Court.

On appeal, the fundamental question is whether the District Court
had the authority to void the cash advance agreements.  Judge Smith
concludes that the District Court retained broad authority to
administer the settlement.  He commends Judge Brody for her very
able handling throughout this extraordinarily complicated class
action and settlement, and he appreciate her steadfast commitment
to protecting class members' rights.  In this instance, though,
despite having the authority to void prohibited assignments, the
District Court went too far in voiding the cash advance agreements
in their entirety and voiding contractual provisions that went only
to a lender's right to receive funds after the player acquired
them.

Although the District Court had the authority to enforce the clear
terms of the settlement agreement by ordering that any true
assignments are void and unenforceable, the court did not have the
authority to void other obligations under the cash advance
agreements, particularly without affording the lenders notice and a
hearing, or making specific findings that those obligations
violated the Court's prior orders or would impair the Court's
administration of the settlement.  The Judge will therefore reverse
in part the District Court's Dec. 8, 2017 order.  As a result, the
cash advance agreements remain enforceable -- outside of the NFL
claims administration context -- to the extent the litigation
companies retain rights under the agreements after any true
assignments are voided.

The Judge expresses no opinion as to the ultimate enforceability of
any of the cash advance agreements.  He does note, though, that a
court or arbitrator subsequently adjudicating these issues will
need to address whether any individual agreement contains a true
assignment and whether there remain enforceable rights under the
agreement after any true assignment is voided.  He presumes that
the full array of standard contract defenses will also apply in any
subsequent litigation regarding these agreements.  Because many of
the agreements contain arbitration provisions, some of these issues
may ultimately be subject to arbitration. Of course, these are all
questions beyond the scope of the appeal before us, and they should
be litigated (or perhaps arbitrated) on a case-by-case basis in an
appropriate forum.

Finally, it necessarily follows from the Court's rulings limiting
the reach of the Dec. 8, 2017 order that the District Court
exceeded its authority when it (1) enjoined Thrivest from pursuing
arbitration of its rights under the cash advance agreement with
class member White, and (2) dismissed Thrivest's lawsuit attempting
to enforce that agreement.  In entering those orders, the District
Court relied on the fact that it had already invalidated the
Thrivest agreement. But, Thrivest's contract gave it only the right
to receive settlement funds after the funds are disbursed to a
class member, and the District Court's power over the funds and
class ends at that point. Supra Parts I & III.  Even if the parties
had attempted to create a true assignment, we have held that the
District Court did not have the authority to void Thrivest's
agreement with White in its entirety.  Thus it also did not have
the authority to preclude Thrivest from litigating any of its
remaining rights under the agreement.  The Judge therefore will
vacate the District Court's May 22, 2018 order enjoining Thrivest
from pursuing arbitration and the court's order dismissing
Thrivest's complaint in Thrivest v. White, and remand for further
proceedings, as appropriate.

For the reasons given, Judge Smith reversed in part and affirmed in
part the District Court's Dec. 8, 2017 order.  He reversed to the
extent the District Court purported to void the cash advance
agreements in their entirety and void contractual provisions that
went only to a lender's right to receive funds after the player
acquired them.  He affirmed as to the District Court's ruling that
any true assignments -- contractual provisions that permit the
lender to seek funds directly from the Claims Administrator -- are
void.  He vacated the District Court's May 22, 2018 order enjoining
Thrivest from pursuing arbitration and the District Court's order
dismissing Thrivest's complaint in Thrivest v. White, and remand
for further proceedings.  He dismissed the appeals at 18-1639,
18-2582, and 18-1482 for lack of jurisdiction.

Going forward, the litigation funding companies will be able to
pursue, outside of the claims administration process, whatever
rights they may continue to have under their cash advance
agreements with class members.  The Judge offers no opinion as to
the companies' prospects for success in enforcing the funding
agreements.  Indeed, his opinion should in no way suggest that an
individual agreement is enforceable.  Any questions going to the
enforceability of the funding agreements will have to be litigated
or arbitrated in the appropriate fora.

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

TerriAnne Benedetto, Seeger Weiss , 1515 Market Street, Suite 1380,
Philadelphia, PA 19102,

Samuel Issacharoff -- samuel.issacharoff@nyu.edu -- [ARGUED], New
York University Law School, 40 Washington Square South, New York,
NY 10012.

Diogenes P. Kekatos -- dkekatos@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger Weiss, 77
Water Street, 8th Floor, New York, NY 10005.

Christopher A. Seeger -- cseeger@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger Weiss,
55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor, Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660.

Sol H. Weiss -- sweiss@anapolweiss.com -- Anapol Weiss, 130 North
18th Street, One Logan Square, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA 19103,
Counsel for Plaintiff Class.

Lynn B. Bayard -- lbayard@paulweiss.com -- Bruce A. Birenboim, Brad
S. Karp, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison, 1285 Avenue of the
Americas, New York, NY 10019, Counsel for National Football League,
NFL Properties.

Ellen C. Brotman -- ebrotman@ellenbrotmanlaw.com -- Suite 1500, One
South Broad Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107.

Jeffrey M. Hammer -- jhammer@bsfllp.com -- Michael D. Roth
[ARGUED], David K. Willingham, Boies Schiller Flexner, 725 South
Figueroa Street, 31st Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017, Counsel for RD
Legal Funding LLC, RD Legal Finance LLC, RD Legal Funding Partners
LP, Roni Dersovitz.

Bridget C. Giroud, Marissa R. Parker, Stradley Ronon Stevens &
Young, 2005 Market Street, Suite 2600, Philadelphia, PA 19103.

Raul J. Sloezen [ARGUED], 18 Hasbrouck Avenue, Emerson, NJ 07630,
Counsel for Atlas Legal Funding LLC, Atlas Legal Funding I LP,
Atlas Legal Funding II LP, Atlas Legal Funding III LP.

Peter C. Buckley [ARGUED], Eric E. Reed, Fox Rothschild, 2000
Market Street, 20th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Counsel for
Thrivest Specialty Funding LLC.

Michael H. Rosenthal -- michael@rlblawgroup.com -- Rosenthal Lurie
& Broudy, 102 Pickering Way, Suite 310, Exton, PA 19341, Counsel
for Andrew Stewart.

Robert C. Wood -- rcw@herveywood.com -- Law Offices of Robert C.
Wood, 68 North High Street, Building B, Suite 202, New Albany, OH
43054, Counsel for William E. White.


NUTANIX INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
(http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/nutanix-inc/)disclosed that a class
action has been commenced on behalf of purchasers of Nutanix, Inc.
(NASDAQ:NTNX) common stock during the period between March 2, 2018
and February 28, 2019 (the "Class Period"). This action was filed
in the Northern District of California and is captioned Mauter v.
Nutanix, Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-02442.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Nutanix common stock during the Class Period
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on
behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The
lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's
ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent
upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from March
29, 2019. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at
800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. You
can view a copy of the complaint as filed at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/nutanix-inc/

The complaint charges Nutanix and certain of its officers with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Nutanix provides
a leading enterprise cloud platform that powers business
applications and end-user services by providing software solutions
that digitize traditional silos of enterprise computing.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made
false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse
information regarding Nutanix's business and prospects.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that Nutanix had
reallocated lead generation spending to other priorities, which
represented a significant strategy shift from how the Company had
historically conducted its sales efforts, causing a large
disruption in the Company's sales execution, negatively impacting
Nutanix's sales pipeline and slowing the Company's sales growth;
that Nutanix had fallen behind in its sales hiring goals, which was
further impairing the Company's efforts to grow its sales pipeline
development; and that the improvement in the Company's gross
margins was not the result of the changes being made to the
Company's business model, but rather was the result of the
Company's decision to reallocate lead generation spending. As a
result of defendants' false statements and/or omissions, the price
of Nutanix common stock was artificially inflated during the Class
Period to more than $63 per share, which enabled certain of
Nutanix's senior officers to sell their Nutanix stock at
artificially inflated prices.

Then, on the February 28, 2019, defendants announced the Company's
financial results for the second quarter of fiscal 2019, revealing
that imbalances in lead generation spending were impacting the
Company's sales pipeline and that the Company's failure to keep
pace with sales hiring goals had had a negative effect on sales
pipeline development. As a result of these disclosures, the price
of Nutanix common stock dropped $16.39 per share to close at $33.70
per share on March 1, 2019, a decline of over 32%.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Nutanix common stock during the Class Period (the "Class"). The
plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- is a national law firm
representing investors in securities litigation. With 200 lawyers
in 10 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history. For five consecutive
years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked the Firm in
its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law firms in both
the amount recovered for shareholders and the total number of class
action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys have helped shape the
securities laws and recovered tens of billions of dollars on behalf
of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing financial recoveries for
defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also advocates for corporate
governance reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for
investors worldwide. [GN]


OCWEN LOAN: Pantano Suit Moved to District of Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, Cheryl Pantano, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 1977CV00530, was removed from the Essex
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts (Boston) on May 24, 2019. The District of
Massachusetts Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-11178 to the
proceeding. The suit alleges consumer credit-related
violation.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW, L.L.C.
          43 Danbury Road
          Wilton, CT 06897
          Telephone: (203) 653-2250 x 5500
          Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
          E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com

Attorneys for Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC:

          Richard E. Briansky, Esq.
          ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC
          Two International Place, 16th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 342-6824
          Facsimile: (617) 342-6899
          E-mail: rbriansky@eckertseamans.com

ONECOIN LTD: Silver Miller Commences Class Action in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Silver Miller (www.SilverMillerLaw.com) -- the leading
cryptocurrency investor law firm in the country -- has commenced a
new class action lawsuit on behalf of individuals and entities who
contributed cryptocurrency or fiat currency to OneCoin, Ltd., the
reported $4 billion Ponzi scheme founded by Ruja Ignatova,
Sebastian Greenwood, and recently helmed by Ruja's brother
Konstantin Ignatov.  The lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York and is
captioned Grablis, et al. v. OneCoin Ltd., et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-40704 (the "Lawsuit").

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of his/her/its choice or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff in the Lawsuit, however, you must move the
Court no later than July 8, 2019 to appoint you as the lead
plaintiff.  If you wish to discuss the Lawsuit or have any
questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests as
they relate to the Lawsuit, please contact plaintiffs' counsel
David C. Silver of Silver Miller at (954) 516-6000 or
DSilver@SilverMillerLaw.com.

The Complaint alleges that OneCoin Ltd., its related corporate
entities, and the companies' founders and principals fraudulently
promoted cryptocurrency investments and engaged in an unregistered
offering and sale of securities that violated numerous federal
securities laws, including Sections 5, 12(a), 15, and 17(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77e, 77l(a), 77o, and
77q(a).  The Complaint further alleges that OneCoin's principals,
along with Florida-based attorney Mark Scott, laundered hundreds of
millions of dollars of investor funds.  The Lawsuit pleads that the
Court rescind all investments in OneCoin; return to all investors
their funds; require OneCoin to account for all funds raised from
investors; and adjudicate that OneCoin and its principals violated
multiple securities laws through their fraudulent, unregistered
investment scheme.

Silver Miller currently represents cryptocurrency investors in
actions pending against the Coinbase, Kraken, BitConnect, and
Cryptsy exchanges as well as blockchain start-ups Nano and GigaWatt
and cryptocurrency hedge fund Coin Signals. [GN]


ORKIN SERVICES: Sanchez Case Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned ALBERT SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ORKIN SERVICES OF
CALIFORNIA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 19STCV03175 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-03719.

The Complaint asserts causes of action for: (1) Unfair Competition;
(2) Failure to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages; (3) Failure to
Provide Meal Periods; (4) Failure to Provide Rest Periods; (5)
Waiting Time Penalties; and (6) Wage Statement Penalties.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     JEFFREY R. THURRELL, ESQ.
     RYAN D. WHEELER, ESQ.
     FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
     2050 Main Street, Suite 1000
     Irvine, CA 92614
     Phone: (949) 851-2424
     Facsimile: (949) 851-0152
     Email: jthurrell@fisherphillips.com
            rwheeler@fisherphillips.com


ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Dismiss Costas Suit Due July 12
----------------------------------------------------------
Ormat Technologies, 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's motion to
dismiss the class action suit initiated by Mac Costas must be filed
by July 12, 2019.

On June 11, 2018, a putative class action was filed by Mac Costas
on behalf of alleged shareholders that purchased or acquired the
Company's ordinary shares between August 8, 2017 and May 15, 2018
was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer.  

The complaint asserts claim against all defendants pursuant to
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder and against its officers pursuant to Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.

The complaint alleges that the Company's Form 10-K for the years
ended December 31, 2016 and 2017, and Form 10-Qs for each of the
quarters in the nine months ended September 30, 2017 contained
material misstatements or omissions, among other things, with
respect to the Company's tax provisions and the effectiveness of
its internal control over financial reporting, and that, as a
result of such alleged misstatements and omissions, the plaintiffs
suffered damages. Following the Mac Costas filing and in accordance
with the terms of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995 ("PSLRA"), a number of law firms filed applications on behalf
of entities purporting to hold shares in the Company, seeking to be
appointed as lead plaintiff and lead counsel in the action.

On March 12, 2019 the court appointed Phoenix Insurance Company
Ltd. ("Phoenix Insurance") as lead plaintiff and approved their
selection of lead counsel.

Pursuant to a scheduling stipulation entered between the parties,
Phoenix Insurance must file a consolidated amended complaint by May
13, 2019, the Company's motion to dismiss must be filed by July 12,
2019, Phoenix Insurance must file their Opposition by August 26,
2019, and the Company must file their reply by September 25, 2019.


The Company believes that it has valid defenses under law and
intends to defend itself vigorously.

Ormat Technologies, Inc. engages in the geothermal and recovered
energy power business in the United States, Indonesia, Kenya,
Turkey, Chile, Guatemala, New Zealand, and internationally. The
company operates through three segments: Electricity, Product, and
Other. Ormat Technologies, Inc. was founded in 1965 and is based in
Reno, Nevada.


ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Riche Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Ormat Technologies, 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 purported class action suit entitled, Riche v. Pappas,
et al., Case No. 2018-0177.

Following the announcement of the Company's acquisition of U.S.
Geothermal Inc. ("USG"), a number of putative shareholder class
action complaints were initially filed on behalf of USG
shareholders between March 8, 2018 and March 30, 2018 against USG
and the individual members of the USG board of directors.  

All of the purported class action suits filed in Federal Court in
Idaho have been voluntarily dismissed. The single remaining class
action complaint is a purported class action filed in the Delaware
Chancery Court, entitled Riche v. Pappas, et al., Case No.
2018-0177 (Del. Ch., Mar. 12, 2018).

An amended complaint was filed on May 24, 2018 under seal, under a
confidentiality agreement that was executed by plaintiff. The
amended Riche complaint alleges state law claims for breach of
fiduciary duty against former USG directors and seeks post-closing
damages.

The Company believes that it has valid defenses under law and
intends to defend itself vigorously.

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

Ormat Technologies, Inc. engages in the geothermal and recovered
energy power business in the United States, Indonesia, Kenya,
Turkey, Chile, Guatemala, New Zealand, and internationally. The
company operates through three segments: Electricity, Product, and
Other. Ormat Technologies, Inc. was founded in 1965 and is based in
Reno, Nevada.


ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Douvris Class Action Concluded
--------------------------------------------------
Ormat Technologies, 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 claims in the class
action suit initiated by George Douvris and others are dismissed.

On August 5, 2016, George Douvris, Stephanie Douvris, Michael Hale,
Cheryl Cacocci, Hillary E. Wilt and Christina Bryan, acting for
themselves and on behalf of all other similarly situated residents
of the lower Puna District, filed a complaint in the Third Circuit
Court for the State of Hawaii seeking certification of a class
action for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief,
consequential and punitive damages, attorney's fees and statutory
interest against Puna Geothermal Venture ("PGV") and other
presently unknown defendants. Hawaii Electric Light Company (HELCO)
and other parties were later joined as co-defendants.

The Parties have reached an amicable settlement in an immaterial
amount which, on April 4, 2019, was recorded by the Court, and the
claim dismissed.

Ormat Technologies, Inc. engages in the geothermal and recovered
energy power business in the United States, Indonesia, Kenya,
Turkey, Chile, Guatemala, New Zealand, and internationally. The
company operates through three segments: Electricity, Product, and
Other. Ormat Technologies, Inc. was founded in 1965 and is based in
Reno, Nevada.


ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks to Stay Tel Aviv Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Ormat Technologies, 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 has filed
an agreed motion asking the Tel Aviv District Court to stay class
action proceedings in Israel until a final decision in the U.S.
case (Mac Costas) is adjudicated.

On May 21, 2018, a motion to certify a class action was filed in
Tel Aviv District Court against Ormat Technologies, Inc. and 11
officers and directors.  

The alleged class is defined as "All persons who purchased Ormat
shares on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange between August 3, 2017 and
May 13, 2018". The motion alleges that the Company violated
Sections 31(a)(1) and 38C of the Israeli Securities Law because it
allegedly: (1) misled investors by stating in its financial
statements that it maintains effective internal controls over its
accounting policies and procedures, however the Company's internal
controls had material weaknesses which led to erroneous accounting
in its 2017 unaudited quarterly reports that had to be restated,
including adjustments to the Company's net income and shareholders'
equity; and (2) failed to issue an immediate report in Israel until
May 16, 2018, analogous to the report that was released in the
United States on May 11, 2018 stating, inter alia, that the errors
in its financial reports affected its balance sheet and would be
remedied in its 2017 annual report.

The Company filed an agreed motion to the Tel Aviv District Court
to stay the proceedings in Israel until a final decision in the
U.S. case (Mac Costas) is adjudicated.

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

Ormat Technologies, Inc. engages in the geothermal and recovered
energy power business in the United States, Indonesia, Kenya,
Turkey, Chile, Guatemala, New Zealand, and internationally. The
company operates through three segments: Electricity, Product, and
Other. Ormat Technologies, Inc. was founded in 1965 and is based in
Reno, Nevada.


PREMIERE CREDIT: Frazee Sues Over FDCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
William Frazee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Premiere Credit of North America, LLC, an
Indiana limited liability company, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-02080-JPH-MPB (S.D. Ind., May 24, 2019) brought this action
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), for a
finding that Defendant's form debt collection letters violated the
FDCPA, and to recover damages.

Sometime after those debts went into default, they were placed with
Defendant for collection, who began trying to collect upon them by
sending Mr. Frazee two form collection letters, which were both
dated October 8, 2018, and were attempting to collect the same
three debts. Moreover, Defendant's other letter, also dated October
8, 2018, did not include the statement that "Amounts may increase
or decrease due to changes in fees". This would leave a consumer
confused as to which statement is true. Additionally, one of the
letters stated that Plaintiff was "previously notified of account
placed with" Defendant, and that additional accounts, as detailed
on the reverse side of the letter, but the three accounts listed in
both letters are the same. Moreover, Defendant's letter seeks to
collect $414.43 in collection costs, or 33% of the principal
balance, which appears to be excessive and may not be allowed under
the contract creating the debts. Violations of the FDCPA which
would lead a consumer to alter his or her course of action as to
whether to pay a debt, or which would be a factor in the consumer's
decision making process, says the complaint

Plaintiff, William Frazee ("Frazee"), is a citizen of the State of
Indiana, residing in the Southern District of Indiana, from whom
Defendant attempted to collect defaulted consumer debts.

Defendant Premiere operates a defaulted debt collection business
and attempts to collect debts from consumers in the State of
Indiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David J. Philipps, Esq.
     Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
     Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
     Philipps & Philipps, Ltd.
     9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
     Palos Hills, IL 60465
     Phone: (708) 974-2900
     Fax: (708) 974-2907
     Email: davephilipps@aol.com
            mephilipps@aol.com
            angie@philippslegal.com

          - and -

     John T. Steinkamp, Esq.
     Sawin, Shea & Steinkamp, LLC
     5214 S. East Street, Suite D1
     Indianapolis, IN 46227
     Phone: (317) 255-2600
     Fax: (317) 255-2905
     Email: john@sawinlaw.com


PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND, CA: Rare Class Suit Gets Go Signal
--------------------------------------------------------
Brian Higgins, writing for CBC News, reports that the Supreme Court
of Prince Edward Island in Canada has given the go-ahead for a rare
class-action lawsuit against the provincial government.

The case alleges the province discriminated against those with
disabilities caused by mental illness by excluding them from the
Disability Support Program.

Two Islanders, Laura King and Nathan Dawson, are named as
plaintiffs in the class action.

If successful, the case could mean Islanders who were disabled by
mental illness after Oct. 1, 2001 may qualify for compensation.

P.E.I. Supreme Court Justice Gregory Cann issued a ruling on May 21
that the class action can proceed.

"Providing disadvantaged members of society with a more
user-friendly mechanism for recovery ... is a hallmark of class
proceedings. This is, I believe, the very type of situation where
class actions serve an important access-to-justice function," Cann
wrote in his ruling.

Judge calls for legislation

The plaintiffs' motion defines the class as "All persons currently
or formerly resident of Prince Edward Island between Oct. 1, 2001
to the present who claim to suffer, or to have suffered, from a
mental disability."

The province opposed the class-action suit, on the grounds that the
definition of the class was overly broad, among other legal
arguments. The judge ruled the objections were not valid, but noted
the province's concerns "may or may not identify common issues
requiring resolution."

The judge's decision also noted that P.E.I. is the only province
that does not have class-action legislation -- and that it is a
situation that ought to be remedied.

"To be clear, legislation is by far the best way to provide for
class proceedings," wrote Cann. "In the absence of legislation,
this decision is at least a start."

No date has been set for the case.

Resolution of the matter could take years, according to the
plaintiffs' lawyer. [GN]


R.Y. MANAGEMENT: Olsen Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against R.Y. Management Co.
Inc. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. R.Y.
Management Co. Inc. doing business as: Liberty House Condominimums,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04893 (S.D. N.Y., May 24, 2019).

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

RY Management, Co., Inc. is one of the premier property management
companies in the New York metropolitan region.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



REALOGY HOLDINGS: Sitzer, Et Al. Hit Brokers' Fee Price Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The complaint styled as Joshua Sitzer and Amy Winger, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The
National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp.,
Homeservices of America, Inc., Re/Max Holdings, Inc., and Keller
Williams Realty, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00332, (N.D. Ga.,
April 29, 2019), asserts violation of federal antitrust laws and
the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.

Plaintiffs are home sellers who listed their homes for sale on a
national database in a particular geographic region. Defendants are
realtors and/or real estate broker franchisors.

Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants conspired to charge the home
sellers an artificially-inflated broker's fee.

The realtor association requires all brokers to make a blanket,
non-negotiable offer of buyer-broker compensation when listing a
property on their listing that forces home sellers to pay a cost
that should be paid by the buyer. Most buyer brokers allegedly will
not show homes to their clients where the seller is offering a
lower adversary/buyer commission or give priority to those with
higher commission offers.

Their conditions also prohibit buyer brokers from making home
purchase offers contingent on the reduction of the buyer broker
commission. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandon J.B. Boulware, Esq.
      Jeremy M. Suhr, Esq.
      Erin D. Lawrence, Esq.
      BOULWARE LAW LLC
      1600 Genessee, Suite 416
      Kansas City, MO 64102
      Tele: (816) 492-2826
      Fax: (816) 492-2826
      Email: brandon@boulware-law.com
             jeremy@boulware-law.com
             erin@boulware-law.com

             - and -

      Matthew L. Dameron, Esq.
      Eric L. Dirks, Esq.
      Amy R. Jackson, Esq.
      WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
      1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
      Kansas City, MO 64105
      Tel: (816) 945-7110
      Fax: (816) 945-7118
      Email: matt@williamsdirks.com
             dirks@williamsdirks.com
             amy@williamsdirks.com


RICHMOND, CA: Cal. App. Affirms Demurrer in Garbage Levy Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division One,
issued an Opinion affirming the District Court's judgment
sustaining the Demurrer to Each Causes of Action in the case
captioned TOBIAS KAHAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF
RICHMOND, Defendant and Respondent. No. A150866. (Cal. App.).

Before the Court is Plaitniffs’ appeal of the trial court’s
judgment sustaining Demurrer to each causes of action.  

Tobias Kahan purchased property in Richmond, California at a
foreclosure sale. Shortly before the sale, the City of Richmond
(City) had recorded a special assessment lien against the property
for unpaid garbage collection fees, pursuant to a municipal
ordinance. When Kahan later sold the property, he had to pay the
delinquent garbage fees as well as administrative charges and
escrow fees to obtain a release of the City's lien. Kahan filed a
class action lawsuit alleging the City's practice of recording
liens for unpaid garbage collection fees violates and is preempted
by state law.

Kahan contends the City has no authority to levy special
assessments for garbage collection charges that are user fees under
state law, and argues the ordinance purporting to authorize such
assessments violates state laws on lien priority.

He further contends that even if the practice is allowed, the
City's action violated its own ordinance because a garbage lien may
not attach where a bona fide encumbrancer for value has placed a
lien on the property at any time before the garbage lien is
recorded.

The City Was Authorized to Record the Garbage Lien as a Special
Assessment

Kahan contends the trial court erred in sustaining demurrers to
each cause of action in the complaint because charges for garbage
collection services are user fees, which the City cannot
unilaterally convert into assessments.

Kahan also argues state law does not authorize the City to
designate garbage fees as special assessments, as provided in its
ordinance.  

Government Code section 25831 provides, in relevant part, that any
fees authorized pursuant to Section 25830, or pursuant to Section
40059 of the Public Resources Code, that remain unpaid for a period
of 60 or more days after the date upon which they were billed may
be collected thereafter by the county as provided in this section.

Once statutory notice and hearing requirements have been met,
Government Code section 25831, subdivision (d) provides the
delinquent fees shall constitute special assessments against the
respective parcels of land and are a lien on the property for the
amount of the delinquent fees. The lien attaches when it is
recorded, and the assessment may be collected at the same time and
in the same manner as ordinary county ad valorem property taxes are
collected.

Kahan's argument that the fees authorized by these statutes are
only to pay for waste disposal sites is unavailing. As to
Government Code section 25830, Kahan contends the fees authorized
by that statute are to pay only for the acquisition, operation, and
maintenance of county waste disposal sites where such services are
provided and cities do not provide their own sites. While that is
one of the two enumerated purposes of the fees, he ignores the
express language of the statute that the revenue from the fees is
also to be used for financing waste collection, processing,
reclamation, and disposal services.

Where, as here, the statutory language is clear and unambiguous,
our task is at an end, for there is no need for judicial
construction.

The Court finds similarly unpersuasive Kahan's argument, raised for
the first time at oral argument, that Government Code section 25830
allows only fees for acquisition and maintenance of landfills
because the statute is located within article 2, entitled Disposal
Facilities.

First, the Court needs not consider claims not raised in the
parties' briefs.  

Second, his argument fails on the merits. Though the Court may
consider chapter, article, and section headings in construing
statutes, we will not rely on the title of an article where, as
here, the unambiguous express language of the statute dictates its
meaning and application.
In any event, Government Code section 25830's section heading, Fees
for waste disposal sites and services, suggests it authorizes fees
for waste disposal services.

But even if Government Code section 25830 did not apply here, Kahan
does not directly address the fact that Government Code section
25831 also incorporates fees authorized by Public Resources Code
section 40059. Kahan makes a cursory argument in his reply brief
that Public Resources Code section 40059 is a part of the
California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, which was
enacted to address the fact that landfills throughout the state
were nearly filled, and we were figuratively awash in our own
trash.

Despite the clear statutory language authorizing the City to
collect delinquent garbage fees as special assessments, Kahan
contends the definitions of tax, assessment and user fee under the
California Constitution preclude the City from labelling these
charges as special assessments.   

An Assessment' is any levy or charge upon real property by an
agency for a special benefit conferred upon the real property. A
Fee' or charge, on the other hand, is a levy other than an ad
valorem tax, a special tax, or an assessment, imposed by an agency
upon a parcel or upon a person as an incident of property
ownership, including a user fee or charge for a property related
service. Kahan urges us to apply these definitions to determine the
City was prohibited from designating garbage fees as special
assessments.

The Court declines to do so for several reasons.

First, the definitions Kahan relies upon under article XIII D of
the California Constitution relate to procedural requirements and
restrictions on a local government's authority to impose or
increase revenue measures, not methods for collection of delinquent
service charges. Kahan's complaint does not allege violation of any
of those constitutional provisions. Moreover, the definitions,
including those for assessments and fees, are limited to use in
this article.

Second, Kahan relies heavily on Isaac v. County of Los Angeles
(1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 586 (Isaac) to argue the City could not treat
delinquent garbage charges as special assessments, but if anything,
that case supports the City's position under the facts here. In
Isaac, the court considered the validity of an ordinance adopted by
the City of Los Angeles providing for the imposition of special
assessment liens on apartment buildings for the collection of past
due water and electric utility bills. Like the City's ordinance in
this case, the ordinance in Isaac allowed the city to record a lien
securing the assessment against the subject real property, and
provided the lien had priority over other liens and encumbrances
against the property.  

Third, the Court rejects Kahan's argument because even if the
delinquent garbage fees are more appropriately categorized as user
fees than assessments, Kahan cites no authority that these
distinctions apply to the Revenue and Taxation Code provisions
which govern the procedures that must be followed in pursuing a
refund of a tax or assessment. Accordingly, the trial court did not
err in sustaining the demurrers on the basis that Kahan failed to
state a cause of action because he failed to allege compliance with
the procedures of the Revenue and Taxation Code.

Fourth, even if the garbage collection fees are technically user
fees, and even if Kahan is correct that the Revenue and Taxation
Code procedural requirements do not apply, that does not mean the
creation of the lien was unauthorized. Each of the causes of action
in Kahan's complaint is premised on the contention the City's
actions were unlawful and not authorized by Government Code
sections 38790.1 and 25831, subdivision (d). Because we conclude
the recording of a lien for delinquent garbage fees was expressly
authorized by statute regardless of whether those fees are, by
their nature, special assessments or user fees, Kahan has failed to
state a cause of action on any of the theories he asserts.

State Lien Priority Preemption

Kahan also relies on Isaac, supra, 66 Cal.App.4th 586 to argue the
City's characterization of garbage liens conflicts with and is
preempted by state lien priority law. In Isaac, the City of Los
Angeles argued its ordinance was valid because utility service is a
municipal affair and it was within the police power of the city to
legislate with respect to payment of utility charges.

The court rejected that argument, finding lien priorities on real
property a matter of statewide concern because uniformity in lien
priority is essential. It then explained: Because lien priority is
a matter of statewide concern, the City of Los Angeles may not
enact legislation that conflicts or disables the effectiveness of
statutory law.  

Here, Government Code sections 25831 and 38790.1 expressly
authorize the superpriority status accorded the garbage lien in
this case, and thus the City's ordinance was entirely consistent
with statutory lien priority law.

Bona Fide Encumbrancer Exception

Next Kahan argues that even if Government Code sections 25831 and
38790.1 authorize the City to create special assessments for unpaid
garbage fees, the City's application of its ordinance in this case
was unauthorized because those statutory provisions cannot be used
against a property to which a lien of a bona fide encumbrancer has
attached.

Government Code section 25831, subdivision (d) provides, in
relevant part: All laws applicable to the levy, collection, and
enforcement of county ad valorem property taxes shall be applicable
to the assessment, except that if any real property to which the
lien would attach has been transferred or conveyed to a bona fide
purchaser for value, or if a lien of a bona fide encumbrancer for
value has been created and attaches thereon, prior to the date on
which the first installment of the taxes would become delinquent,
then the lien that would otherwise be imposed by this section shall
not attach to the real property and the delinquent fees, as
confirmed, relating to the property shall be transferred to the
unsecured roll for collection.

Kahan's complaint alleges the garbage lien recorded by the City on
January 8, 2014 was recorded after the recordation of one or more
bona fide mortgage encumbrances on the Subject Property. Relying on
Government Code section 25831, subdivision (d) and this allegation,
Kahan contends he is not subject to the lien because a bona fide
encumbrancer placed a lien on the property at some point before the
City recorded its lien.

Kahan's position reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the
bona fide purchaser/bona fide encumbrancer doctrine. A preferential
priority is given to a purchaser or encumbrancer who acquires a
lien or title interest in good faith and for value without
knowledge or notice of a prior interest. Such a party is called a
bona fide purchaser' or a bona fide encumbrancer,' depending on
whether the interest is an estate in the property or a lien on the
property.  

Kahan apparently concedes he is not a bona fide purchaser or
encumbrancer. It is undisputed he purchased the subject property at
a foreclosure sale with notice of the garbage lien, which was
recorded eight days before the sale. Kahan nonetheless contends the
language of the exception in Government Code section 25831,
subdivision (d) must be read to provide the garbage lien cannot be
used against property that is already encumbered. At oral argument,
Kahan's counsel argued the exception applies whenever a mortgage
has been obtained on the property prior to the garbage lien.

As explained above, a bona fide encumbrancer, by definition, is a
subsequent encumbrancer who obtains a lien without notice of a
prior, existing interest. One is not a bona fide encumbrancer in
the abstract, but in relationship to a particular preexisting
interest, here, the garbage lien.

Thus, in order to be a bona fide encumbrancer for value with regard
to the garbage lien in this case, Kahan would have to allege facts
showing the alleged mortgage(s) were obtained after the garbage
lien existed but before it was recorded. Kahan's conclusory
allegation that one or more mortgage interests existed on the
property at some unspecified point before the City recorded the
garbage lien does not suffice to plead those mortgages were
subsequent encumbrances placed after the garbage lien arose without
notice of it. Nor does his legal contention the alleged mortgages
were bona fide mortgage encumbrances" suffice to overcome his
failure to allege material facts supporting a cognizable cause of
action.

In sum, the bona fide encumbrancer exception does not apply here
based on the allegations of Kahan's complaint.

Failure to State a Claim

The trial court's order sustaining the demurrer states, The
demurrer on the basis of immunity to the Third Cause of Action for
Inverse Condemnation and Violation of Due Process and the Fourth
Cause of Action for Negligence is sustained, with leave to amend,
to the extent the complaint goes beyond seeking a refund. Kahan
contends the order must be reversed because the City is not immune
from liability for damages for inverse condemnation or negligence.
As we explained above, however, all four causes of action in
Kahan's complaint, including his causes of action for inverse
condemnation and negligence, depend on his allegation the City's
special assessment lien was unauthorized. Because, as the Court
have explained above, the lien was expressly authorized by statute,
Kahan has failed to state a cognizable cause of action.

Accordingly, the Court needs not reach the question of immunity.
Likewise, the Court need not address whether the County must be
named as a necessary party.

The Court affirms that ruling for the reasons.

The judgment is affirmed. Respondent may recover its costs on
appeal.  

A full-text copy of the Cal. App.'s May 23, 2019 Opinion is
available at  https://tinyurl.com/yxjcyp97 from Leagle.com.

Nelson & Fraenkel, Gretchen M. Nelson -- gnelson@nflawfirm.com --
Law Offices of Gregg A. Rapoport and Gregg A. Rapoport --
gar@garlaw.us -- for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, Michael G. Colantuono, Holly O.
Whatley -- hwhatley@chwlaw.com -- and Jon R. di Cristina, 300 S.
Grand Avenue, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90071-3137, for
Defendant and Respondent.


RICHMOND, VA: Yerby et al. Seek OT Pay for Finance Dept. Staff
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, TYRUS YERBY, ADRIENNE WEBSTER, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF RICHMOND,
VIRGINIA, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00393-REP (E.D. Va., May
24, 2019), seeks payment for overtime work pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, and to correct and remedy the Defendant's
unlawful employment practices.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and similarly situated
persons are or were employed by the Defendant City of Richmond in
the City's Department of Finance. Plaintiffs and putative
Plaintiffs hold or held job titles such as Administrative
Assistant, Administrative Project Analyst, Specialist, Cashier, Tax
Enforcement Officer, Account Specialist, Financial Regulatory
Technician, Customer Service Representative, Customer Care Call
Center Representative, and Tax Representative, amongst other job
titles. The Plaintiffs regularly work or worked more than 40 hours
per workweek for the Defendant without receiving overtime
compensation as required under the FLSA.

The Plaintiffs and similarly situated persons fall into the
category of employees who were required to work "off the clock."
Plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, were employed by the
City’s Department of Finance in positions that were classified as
non-exempt, who were nevertheless suffered or permitted to work
uncompensated overtime hours in violation of the FLSA.

Yerby worked for the City of Richmond Department of Finance as an
Administrative Project Analyst until June 11, 2018. Webster worked
for the City of Richmond Department of Finance as a Tax
Representative until January of 2018.

The Defendant employs over 4,000 individuals in various
departments, agencies and offices. Its Department of Finance, which
employed Plaintiffs, handles personal and business taxes and
licenses, parking tickets, real estate and utility taxes, animal
licenses and various other financial matters.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs:

          Nichole Buck Vanderslice, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE  OF NICHOLE BUCK V ANDERSLICE, PLLC
          9019 Forest Hill Avenue, Suite 2C
          Richmond, VA 23235
          Telephone: 804 272 2920
          E-mail: nvanderslice@nbvlaw.com

               - and -

          Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
          CURWOOD LAW FIRM, PLC
          530 E. Main Street, Suite 710
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 788 0808
          Facsimile: (804) 767 6777
          E-mail: ccurwood@curwoodlaw.com

RUSHMORE LOAN: Wortman Disputes Late/Administrative Charges
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nicole T. Wortman and Shane W. Wortman, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Rushmore Loan
Management Services LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-02860, (N.D.
Ill., April 29, 2019), alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act by the Defendant.

Defendant is a national mortgage servicer based in Irvine,
California.

On March 3, 2006, the Wortmans executed a mortgage in favor of ABN
AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc. for the purchase of their personal
residence located at 24633 Lincolnway Street, Plainfield, Illinois
that was later assigned and transferred to Lasalle Bank Midwest,
N.A. On October 1, 2016, Plaintiffs defaulted on the loan by
failing to make monthly payments pursuant to the terms of the Loan.
Said loan was accelerated and all the payments owing under the loan
were deemed due. Wortman contests Defendants' administrative
expenses in handling late payments considering that the entire
amount is already deemed due in full.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph S. Davidson, Esq.
      Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.
      SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
      2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200
      Lombard, Illinois 60148
      Tel: (630) 575-8181
      Email: jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com
             mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com


SARBANAND FARMS: Court Refuses More Opt-Out Evaluation in Rosas
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, issued an Order denying Plaintiffs' Request
for Additional Time to Evaluate Class Opt-Outs in the case
captioned BARBARO ROSAS and GUADALUPE TAPIA, as individuals and on
behalf of all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v.
SARBANAND FARMS, LLC, et al., Defendants. Case No. C18-0112-JCC.
(W.D. Wash.).

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' class
notification update and request for additional time to evaluate
class opt-outs.  

In February 2019, the Court approved the Plaintiffs' request to
provide class notice via text message, radio advertisement, and
publication on two web platforms, and modified the content of the
proposed notices. Each of the notices informed class members that
they could not be retaliated against for participating in this
action.  The Plaintiffs provided notice to the class members in
accordance with the Court's orders.  

The deadline for class members to opt out of the lawsuit passed on
March 29, 2019. The Plaintiffs request an additional 45 days to
contact class members who opted out from the Celaya region to
attempt to allay any fears about retaliation.

The Plaintiffs also state that Defendant CSI would have an
opportunity to have its Celaya staff communicate with class members
seeking H-2A work in the United States that they will not be
retaliated against, and also to implement a system so workers and
the Plaintiffs' counsel can track whether workers are obtaining
H-2A jobs on a non-discriminatory basis.

The Plaintiffs have not set forth a legal basis for their request
of an extension of the opt-out window. The class notices approved
by the Court expressly informed class members that they could not
be retaliated against for participating in the lawsuit. Defendant
CSI states in a declaration that it has not retaliated against
anyone for participating in the lawsuit, and Plaintiffs have not
provided evidence to the contrary.

Even if a class member started a rumor that misinformed others
about the effect of their participation in this lawsuit, such
conduct does not warrant the Plaintiffs' requested relief because
the class notice unequivocally stated that class members are
protected from retaliation.

Therefore, the Plaintiffs' request for additional time to evaluate
opt-outs is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 20, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yyw927f7 from Leagle.com.

Barbaro Rosas & Guadalupe Tapia, Plaintiffs, represented by Adam J.
Berger -- berger@sgb-law.com -- SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER,
Joachim Morrison, COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES, Andrea L. Schmitt,
COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES, Bonnie A. Linville, COLUMBIA LEGAL
SERVICES, 201200 Palouse St, Wenatchee, WA 98801- 2235, Lindsay
Halm -- halm@sgb-law.com -- SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER, Lori
Isley, COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES & Tony Gonzalez, COLUMBIA LEGAL
SERVICES, 201200 Palouse St, Wenatchee, WA 98801- 2235,

Sarbanand Farms LLC, Munger Bros LLC & Nidia Perez, Defendants,
represented by Theodore William Hoppe -- tad@hoppe-law.com -- HOPPE
LAW GROUP, pro hac vice, Christopher E. Hawk -- chawk@grsm.com --
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI & Derek Allan Bishop --
dbishop@grsm.com -- GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP.

CSI Visa Processing, S.C., Defendant, represented by Adam S.
Belzberg -- adam.belzberg@stoel.com -- STOEL RIVES, Christopher T.
Wall -- christopher.wall@stoel.com -- STOEL RIVES & Ryan R. Jones,
STOEL RIVES.

Washington State Employment Security Department, Interested Party,
represented by Mary Maureen Tennyson, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE.


SEARS HOLDINGS: Torres Sues Over SMS/MMS Ad Blasts
--------------------------------------------------
The action styled as Dionicio Torres, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Sears Holdings
Management Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2019CH05390 (Ill. Cir.,
April 29, 2019) alleges that Sears transmitted unsolicited and
autodialed SMS or MMS text message advertisements, en masse, to
cellular devices of individuals across the country in order to
promote their offers.

The action seeks statutory damages, attorneys' fees, declaratory
judgment, injunctive relief and any other relief under the
consumer-privacy provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
      MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
      55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel: (312) 893-7002
      Fax: (312) 275-7895
      Email: eturin@mcgpc.com


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Mediation Ongoing in Anderson Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
SeaWorld Entertainment, 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 mediation is ongoing in
the class action suit entitled, Marc Anderson, et. al., v. SeaWorld
Parks & Entertainment, Inc. Civil Case No. 15-cv-02172-JSW.

On April 13, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the City and County
of San Francisco against SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc.,
captioned Marc Anderson, et. al., v. SeaWorld Parks &
Entertainment, Inc. Civil Case No. 15-cv-02172-JSW, (the "Anderson
Matter").  

The putative class consisted of all consumers within California
who, within the past four years, purchased tickets to SeaWorld San
Diego. The complaint (as amended) alleges causes of action under
the California False Advertising Law, California Unfair Competition
Law and California CLRA.  

Plaintiffs' claims are based on their allegations that the Company
misrepresented the physical living conditions and care and
treatment of its orcas, resulting in confusion or misunderstanding
among ticket and orca plush purchasers with intent to deceive and
mislead the plaintiffs and purported class members. The complaint
seeks restitution, equitable relief, attorneys' fees and costs.  

Based on plaintiffs' definition of the class, the amount in
controversy could have exceeded $5.0 million assuming the class
became certified. The liability exposure is speculative though. On
May 14, 2015, the Company removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.

The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on October 30, 2017
which the Court granted in part and denied in part. On May 23,
2018, the plaintiffs represented to the Court that they will not
file a motion for class certification. The case is no longer a
class action.  

All three named plaintiffs continue to have claims for individual
restitution in a nominal amount and injunctive relief. Trial is
currently scheduled for October 2019. A court-mandated mediation is
scheduled for May 17, 2019.  

The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and intends
to defend the lawsuit vigorously; however, there can be no
assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits.

SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a theme park and entertainment company in the United
States. The company operates SeaWorld theme parks in Orlando,
Florida; San Antonio, Texas; and San Diego, California, as well as
Busch Gardens theme parks in Tampa, Florida, and Williamsburg,
Virginia. The company was formerly known as SW Holdco, Inc. and
changed its name to SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. in December 2012.
SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. was founded in 1959 and is
headquartered in Orlando, Florida.


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Settlement in EZPay Suit Finally Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SeaWorld Entertainment, 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 a U.S. court has
approved the final settlement in the case, Jason Herman, Joey
Kratt, and Christina Lancaster, as individuals and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc.

On December 3, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Tampa Division against SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment,
Inc.

The case, captioned Jason Herman, Joey Kratt, and Christina
Lancaster, as individuals and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc. case no:
8:14-cv-03028-MSS-JSS, was certified as a class action in 2018.  

The Court certified a class action on two claims for relief, breach
of contract and violation of federal Electronic Funds Transfer Act,
15 U.S.C. section 1693 et seq. on behalf of three individual
plaintiffs and two classes: (i) individuals in the states of
Florida, Texas, Virginia and California who paid for an annual pass
through EZ pay in "less than twelve months," had their passes
automatically renewed and did not use the renewed passes after the
first year or were not issued a full refund of payments made after
the twelfth payment; and (ii) all of these same individuals who
used debit cards.

In April 2018, the Company reached a preliminary agreement in
principle to settle this matter for a payment of $11.5 million into
a common fund, plus certain administrative costs and expenses
associated with the proposed settlement.

On April 29, 2019, the Court entered an order approving the final
settlement.  

The Company has accrued $11.5 million related to this settlement in
other accrued liabilities as of March 31, 2019 and December 31,
2018 on the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated balance
sheet.

SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a theme park and entertainment company in the United
States. The company operates SeaWorld theme parks in Orlando,
Florida; San Antonio, Texas; and San Diego, California, as well as
Busch Gardens theme parks in Tampa, Florida, and Williamsburg,
Virginia. The company was formerly known as SW Holdco, Inc. and
changed its name to SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. in December 2012.
SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. was founded in 1959 and is
headquartered in Orlando, Florida.


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Trial in Baker  Suit Set for Sept. 10
-------------------------------------------------------------
SeaWorld Entertainment, 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 trial in the case,
Baker v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., et al., is currently
scheduled for September 10, 2019.

On September 9, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit
consisting of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the
periods between April 18, 2013 to August 13, 2014, captioned Baker
v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CV-02129-MMA
(KSC), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California against the Company, the Chairman of the
Company's Board, certain of its executive officers and Blackstone.


On February 27, 2015, Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs,
Pensionskassen For Børne- Og Ungdomspædagoger and Arkansas Public
Employees Retirement System, together with additional plaintiffs,
Oklahoma City Employee Retirement System and Pembroke Pines
Firefighters and Police Officers Pension Fund (collectively,
"Plaintiffs"), filed an amended complaint against the Company, the
Chairman of the Company's Board, certain of its executive officers,
Blackstone, and underwriters of the initial public offering and
secondary public offerings.  

The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the
prospectus and registration statements filed contained materially
false and misleading information in violation of the federal
securities laws and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and
other relief.  

Plaintiffs contend that defendants knew or were reckless in not
knowing that Blackfish was impacting SeaWorld's business at the
time of each public statement. On May 29, 2015, the Company and the
other defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On
March 31, 2016, the Court granted the motions to dismiss the
amended complaint, in its entirety, without prejudice.

On May 31, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated
class action complaint ("Second Amended Complaint"), which, among
other things, no longer names the Company's Board or underwriters
as defendants and no longer brings claims based on the prospectuses
and registration statements. On September 30, 2016, the Court
denied the renewed motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.


On May 19, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification,
which the Court granted on November 29, 2017. On December 13, 2017,
Defendants filed a petition for permission to appeal the Court's
class certification order with the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, which was denied on June 28, 2018.

Discovery is now complete and, on April 15, 2019, Defendants filed
a motion for summary judgment. Also on April 15, 2019, Defendants
filed motions to exclude each of Plaintiffs' three expert witnesses
and Plaintiffs filed motions to exclude two of Defendants' expert
witnesses.  

The trial is currently scheduled for September 10, 2019.

The Company believes that the class action lawsuit is without merit
and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously; however, there can be
no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit.

SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a theme park and entertainment company in the United
States. The company operates SeaWorld theme parks in Orlando,
Florida; San Antonio, Texas; and San Diego, California, as well as
Busch Gardens theme parks in Tampa, Florida, and Williamsburg,
Virginia. The company was formerly known as SW Holdco, Inc. and
changed its name to SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. in December 2012.
SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. was founded in 1959 and is
headquartered in Orlando, Florida.


SERVICESOURCE INT'L: Bid to Approve Patton Settlement Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
ServiceSource 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 parties in
the Sarah Patton, et al v. ServiceSource Delaware, Inc. class
action suit are awaiting preliminary court approval of their
settlement.

On August 23, 2016, the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee granted conditional class certification in a
lawsuit originally filed on September 21, 2015 by three former
senior sales representatives.

The lawsuit, Sarah Patton, et al v. ServiceSource Delaware, Inc.,
asserts a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act alleging that
certain non-exempt employees in the company's Nashville location
were not paid for all hours worked and were not properly paid for
overtime hours worked.  

The complaint also asserts claims under Tennessee state law for
breach of contract and unjust enrichment; and, on September 28,
2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the state law breach
of contract and unjust enrichment claims as a class action.  

A settlement of all claims was reached at mediation, and the motion
for required court approval of the settlement was filed on January
24, 2019.  

The Company anticipates Court approval of the settlement and
conclusion of the lawsuit in the coming months.

ServiceSource International, Inc. operates as a digital customer
journey experience company. Its solutions include lead generation,
inside sales, outsourced sales operations, customer onboarding,
customer success management, cross-sell and upsell, warranty
conversion, account-based marketing, and channel recruitment and
enablement, as well as renewals management services, such as the
sale of maintenance and support service contracts for the products
used by its clients' end-users. ServiceSource International, Inc.
was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado.


SETERUS INC: Fisher Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANITA FISHER, on Behalf of Herself and Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. SETERUS, INC. and NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC (as
successor in interest to Seterus, Inc.), Defendants, Case No.
0:19-cv-01382 (D. Minn., May 24, 2019) is a consumer protection
action brought by Plaintiff and on behalf of others similarly
situated to obtain redress from Seterus' systematic use of unlawful
and unfair debt collection practices to collect upon residential
consumer mortgage loans.

Seterus sent borrowers form letters alleging that the borrowers are
in default of their mortgages and that the failure to immediately
make a full and complete payment of all arrearages will result in
immediate acceleration of their loan (hereinafter referred to as
the "Minnesota Final Letter"). However, the false ultimatum
contained in the Minnesota Final Letter contradicts Seterus' actual
policy to never accelerate a loan so long as any payment sufficient
to bring the loan less than 45 days delinquent is made prior to the
expiration date set forth in its Minnesota Final Letter.

The Minnesota Final Letter sent by Seterus to Plaintiff and others
similarly situated is a false and misleading threat of acceleration
and foreclosure designed to intimidate borrowers into making
payments to Seterus that are beyond their means and beyond what is
necessary to avoid acceleration and save their homes from
foreclosure, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Anita Fisher is over the age of the majority and was a
citizen and resident of Washington County, Minnesota.

Seterus is regularly engaged in the business of collecting debts in
the State of Minnesota and Washington County, Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jason S. Kilene, Esq.
     Michelle J. Looby, Esq.
     Ling S. Wang, Esq.
     GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
     Canadian Pacific Plaza
     120 South Sixth Street, Suite2600
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Phone: (612) 333-8844
     Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
     Email: jkilene@gustafsongluek.com
            mlooby@gustafsongluek.com
            lwang@gustafsongluek.com

          - and -

     Scott C. Harris, Esq.
     WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
     900 W. Morgan Street
     Raleigh, NC 27603
     Phone: (919) 600-500
     Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
     Email: scott@wbmllp.com

          - and -

     Edward H. Maginnis, Esq.
     MAGINNIS LAW, PLLC
     4801 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 310
     Raleigh, NC 27612
     Phone: (919) 526-0450
     Facsimile: (919) 882-8763
     Email: emaginnis@maginnislaw.com


SIENTRA INC: $400,000 Paid to Resolve miraDry-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Sientra, 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 legal settlement of
$0.4 million in the miraDry related class action suit has been
paid.

On August 3, 2017, a lawsuit styled as a verified class action on
the part of the former stockholders of miraDry was filed in the
Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware against the former
board of directors of miraDry, or the Defendants, alleging breach
of their fiduciary duties in connection with the Company's
acquisition of miraDry.

On August 30, 2017, the Defendants moved to dismiss the verified
class action complaint for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. On November 11, 2017 the parties notified
the Court that they had reached an agreement to settle the matter
pending completion of confirmatory discovery regarding the fairness
of the settlement and obtaining approval from the court.  

Following a hearing, the Delaware Chancery Court approved the
proposed settlement terms on January 15, 2019, with a modification
to the amount of attorneys' fees awarded to the plaintiffs'
attorneys.

Under the terms of the settlement, in exchange for a full and final
settlement and release of all claims, the Defendants (and/or their
indemnitors and/or insurers) paid a settlement consideration of
$0.4 million.   

The miraDry Merger Agreement contained a holdback amount expected
to be used for the settlement and associated costs of the miraDry
Class Action litigation.

The holdback amount has been used to offset $0.6 million of legal
fees and $0.4 million was included in "legal settlement payable" on
the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2018.

As of March 31, 2019, the legal settlement of $0.4 million was
paid.

Sientra, Inc., a medical aesthetics company, develops and sells
medical aesthetics products to plastic surgeons in the United
States. It operates through two segments, Breast Products and
miraDry. The company was formerly known as Juliet Medical, Inc. and
changed its name to Sientra, Inc. in April 2007. Sientra, Inc. was
incorporated in 2003 and is headquartered in Santa Barbara,
California.


SIERRA ONCOLOGY: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of NY Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Sierra Oncology 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 United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed the district court's
final judgment of dismissal and plaintiffs did not file a notice or
petition for further appellate review.

On November 9, 2016, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and certain of its
executive officers (the New York Lawsuit).

The New York Lawsuit was brought by purported stockholders of the
Company seeking to represent a class consisting of stockholders who
purchased stock between July 15, 2015 and June 6, 2016. The New
York Lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and seeks unspecified damages and other relief.

On March 13, 2018, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss and entered a final judgment dismissing the New York
Lawsuit with prejudice.

Plaintiffs thereafter filed an appeal. On December 3, 2018, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the
district court's final judgment of dismissal.

The plaintiffs did not file a notice or petition for further
appellate review in this matter.

Sierra Oncology, Inc., a clinical stage drug development company,
is advancing targeted therapeutics for the treatment of patients
with unmet medical needs in hematology and oncology. The company
was formerly known as ProNAi Therapeutics, Inc. and changed its
name to Sierra Oncology, Inc. in January 2017. Sierra Oncology,
Inc. was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in Vancouver,
Canada.


SIERRA ONCOLOGY: Parties in California Suits Reach Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sierra Oncology 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 all parties have
reached a mutually acceptable resolution to the California class
action lawsuits by way of a mediated settlement.

On November 18, 2016, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of San Mateo against the Company, certain of its executive
officers and directors, and the underwriters for the Company's
initial public offering of its common stock.

On February 9, 2017, a substantially identical putative class
action suit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Mateo asserting the same claims on
behalf of the same putative class (the two lawsuits together, the
California Lawsuits).

The California Lawsuits were brought by purported stockholders of
the Company seeking to represent a class consisting of stockholders
who purchased stock pursuant to and/or traceable to the Company's
Registration Statement on Form S-1. The lawsuits assert claims
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Exchange Act and seek unspecified
damages and other relief.

On August 1, 2018, all parties reached a mutually acceptable
proposed resolution to the California Lawsuits by way of a mediated
settlement, which is subject to final approval by the court.

Sierra said, "While the Company believes that the claims are
without merit, it believes settlement will reduce the ultimate cost
and distraction of further litigation. The Company does not expect
its portion of the settlement amount to have a material impact on
its condensed consolidated financial statements."

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

Sierra Oncology, Inc., a clinical stage drug development company,
is advancing targeted therapeutics for the treatment of patients
with unmet medical needs in hematology and oncology. The company
was formerly known as ProNAi Therapeutics, Inc. and changed its
name to Sierra Oncology, Inc. in January 2017. Sierra Oncology,
Inc. was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in Vancouver,
Canada.


SMITTY'S SUPPLY: Zornes Files Suit in D. Kansas
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Smitty's Supply, Inc
et al. The case is styled as Terry Zornes, Adam Sevy, on behalf of
self and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Smitty's
Supply, Inc., Orscheln Farm and Home, LLC doing business as:
Orscheln Farm & Home, Tractor Supply Company, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-02257-JAR-TJJ (D. Kan., May 24, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other for Personal Injury.

Enhanced Recovery Company LLC provides business process outsourcing
services that include recovery, outsourcing, and market research
primarily for Fortune 500 companies in the United States and
internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Bryan Turner White, Esq.
     William L. Carr, Esq.
     White Graham Buckley & Carr
     19049 E. Valley View Parkway, Suite C
     Independence, MO 64055
     Phone: (816) 373-9080
     Fax: (816) 373-9319
     Email: bwhite@wagblaw.com
            bcarr@wagblaw.com

          - and -

     Thomas V. Bender, Esq.
     Dirk L. Hubbard, Esq.
     Horn, Aylward & Bandy LLC
     2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1100
     Kansas City, MO 64108
     Phone: (816) 421-0700
     Fax: (816) 421-0899
     Email: tbender@hab-law.com
            Dhubbard@hab-law.com


SNAP INC: Court Issues Protective Order in Securities Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California issued an Order governing the Production, Exchange and
Filing of Confidential Material in the case captioned IN RE SNAP
INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION. This Document Relates To: All Actions.
Case No. 2:17-cv-03679-SVW-AGR. (C.D. Cal.).

Discovery in this Action is likely to involve production of
confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special
protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose
other than prosecuting this Action may be warranted. Accordingly,
Lead Plaintiffs Smilka Melgoza, on behalf of the Smilka Melgoza
Trust U/A DTD 04/08/2014, Rediet Tilahun, Tony Ray Nelson, Rickey
E. Butler, and Alan L. Dukes (Lead Plaintiffs), and additional
named Plaintiffs Donald R. Allen (Allen) and Shawn B. Dandridge
(Dandridge), (Lead Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs), and Defendants Snap
Inc. (Snap), Evan Spiegel, Robert Murphy, Andrew Vollero, and Imran
Khan (Defendants\) (together with Plaintiffs, the Parties) hereby
stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following
Stipulated Protective Order (Order).  

GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT

The Defendants believe that their (or their agents') production of
Disclosure or Discovery Materials in this action is likely to
involve trade secrets and other valuable research, development,
commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary information for
which special protection from public disclosure and from use for
any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted.
Plaintiffs believe that their (or their agents') production of
Disclosure or Discovery Material in this Action is likely to
involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private
information for which special protection from public disclosure and
from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is
warranted.

Accordingly, a protective order for such information is justified
in this matter to: (1) expedite the flow of information, (2)
facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality
of discovery materials (3) adequately protect information the
parties are entitled to keep confidential (4) ensure that the
parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in
preparation for and in the conduct of trial (5) address their
handling at the end of the litigation and (6) serve the ends of
justice. It is the intent of the Parties that information will not
be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing
be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been
maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good
cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 23, 2019 Protective
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yycrvu4w from
Leagle.com.

James Erickson, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Pafiti --
jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Shinu Gupta, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Heikali --
bheikali@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi and Faruqi LLP, Katherine M.
Lenahan -- klenahan@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi and Faruqi LLP, pro hac
vice, Richard W. Gonnello -- rgonnello@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi and
Faruqi LLP, pro hac vice & Sherief Morsy -smorsy@faruqilaw.com --
Faruqi and Faruqi LLP, pro hac vice.

Ariadna Adijashvili & Mary Tam, Movants, represented by Laurence M.
Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm PA.

Joanna Coles, A G Lafley, Mitchell Lasky, Michael Lynton, Stanley
Meresman, Scott D. Miller & Christopher Young, Defendants,
represented by Boris Feldman -- boris.feldman@wsgr.com -- Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati PC & Ignacio E. Salceda --
salceda@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati PC.

Morgan Stanley and Co LLC, Goldman Sachs and Co, J.P. Morgan
Securities LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc, Barclays Capital Inc,
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC & Allen and Company LLC, Consol
Defendants, represented by Jonathan Rosenberg -- jrosenberg@omm.com
-- O Melveny and Myers LLP, pro hac vice & Matthew W. Close --
mclose@omm.com -- OMelveny and Myers LLP.


STATE FARM: 10th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Mischek
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, issued an Order
and Judgment affirming the District Court's Decision granting
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned
PATRICIA MISCHEK, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated; SKUYA CHRISTENSEN, individually and on behalf
of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STATE
FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation,
Defendant-Appellee. No. 18-1156. (10th Cir.).

This is an appeal from two putative class action cases that were
consolidated in the district court.

The Plaintiffs contend that State Farm impermissibly reduced its
insureds' uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits by the amounts
it paid under medical payments coverage.

State Farm sought summary judgment on the ground that the
Plaintiffs had previously settled and/or reached an accord and
satisfaction on their disputed insurance claims against State Farm.


The district court agreed and accordingly granted summary judgment
in favor of State Farm.
The Court reviews the district court's summary judgment order de
novo.  

The Plaintiffs raise two main arguments on appeal: (1) they did not
truly settle their claims with State Farm because they never signed
a written release, and (2) even assuming they reached a settlement
agreement with State Farm, this agreement is unenforceable based on
public policy.   

As for the Plaintiffs' first argument, the Tenth Circuit agrees
with the district court that the facts in this case, even taken in
the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, show that the
Plaintiffs' claims are precluded by the doctrine of accord and
satisfaction.

Contrary to the Plaintiffs' representations, it is immaterial that
they did not sign a written release. Colorado law does not require
a written release to settle claims. Rather, to constitute an accord
and satisfaction, money should be offered in full satisfaction of
the demand, and be accompanied by such acts and declarations as
amount to a condition that the money, if accepted, is accepted in
satisfaction and such that the party to whom it is offered is bound
to understand therefrom that, if he takes it, he takes it subject
to such conditions.

The undisputed facts of this case similarly establish that each
Plaintiff accepted a payment in full satisfaction of her disputed
insurance claim against State Farm. For instance, the record
reflects that Ms. Mischek's attorney engaged in settlement
negotiations with State Farm that resulted in Ms. Mischek receiving
a payment in the amount of $70,531.89 for settlement of her
Underinsured Motorist claim, which State Farm confirmed settles any
and all claims under the Underinsured Motorist Coverage. Ms.
Christensen likewise accepted a $16,000 payment made by State Farm
based on the parties' agreement to settle her underinsured motorist
claim for $16,000, inclusive of all liens.

The Plaintiffs have cited no persuasive reason why their acceptance
of State Farm's settlement checks would not meet the elements of
the doctrine of accord and satisfaction under Colorado law.

The Court therefore affirms the district court's summary judgment
decision.

A full-text copy of the Tenth Circuit's May 23, 2019 Order and
Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6hks55o from
Leagle.com.


STATE TEACHERS: Retired Teachers File Class Suit Over Pension Cuts
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Deeter, writing for Canton Repository, reports that in 2017,
the STRS board effectively eliminated the cost-of-living adjustment
for its beneficiaries indefinitely, lowering the increase rate from
2% to zero.

Dean Dennis and Robert Buerkle spent much of their lives in the
classroom.  Between them, the two have more than 60 years of
teaching experience in Cincinnati Public Schools.

After decades of instructing, grading and mentoring a generation of
students, they expected to join many of their colleagues in
relatively comfortable retirement. Dennis and Buerkle had paid into
the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio (STRS) throughout
their careers.

The State Teachers Retirement System (STRS) is one of the largest
public pension funds in the United States, serving nearly 500,000
active, inactive and retired public educators in Ohio.

Now, however, the two men are plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit
against STRS.

In 2017, the STRS board effectively eliminated the cost-of-living
adjustment for its beneficiaries indefinitely, lowering the
increase rate from 2% to zero.

This means that pension payments for thousands of retired public
educators in Ohio have been locked at the same level with no
increase for nearly two years.

"Teachers generally don't make much compared to others," said
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. -- jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com -- one of
the attorneys representing the plaintiffs. "The pot at the end of
the rainbow for them is their retirement.

"And now, they're not getting the payments they were promised.
Ultimately, if this continues into the future, it's going to be a
problem for them."

The complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio alleges that the board violated Ohio law in
lowering the rate. Dennis and Buerkle are suing for themselves and
on behalf of a class of more than 145,000 other public educators
who would have received the cost-of-living adjustment.

The General Assembly amended the law governing STRS in 2012 to
mandate that the state teachers retirement board increase the
amount of any allowance or benefit by two percent every year after
July 2013.

But the change also gave the board the power to adjust the annual
increase if it is "necessary to preserve the fiscal integrity of
the system." If the board deems such an adjustment necessary, the
law requires that the conclusion be set forth in the annual
actuarial valuation or other evaluations.

The complaint alleges that while the board has the power to adjust
the increase, it did not say in any report that eliminating
cost-of-living adjustments was necessary to preserve the fiscal
integrity of STRS.

"The board has chosen to try to bring stability to the fund on the
backs of retired teachers," Goldenberg said.

Dennis and Buerkle are seeking a ruling that would prevent the
board from continuing to not pay the cost-of-living adjustment.
They also seek damages equivalent to the benefits they have lost as
a result of the increase's elimination.

The teachers retirement system could not be reached for
comment.[GN]


SUNRUN INC: Deal in Consolidated Shareholder Suits Has Final OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sunrun 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 court overseeing the consolidated
cases, Fink, et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Hall, et al. v. Sunrun
Inc., et al., and Sanogo, et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al. suits, has
granted final approval to the parties' settlement.

On May 3, 2017, a purported shareholder class action captioned
Fink, et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-02537, was
filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of
California, against the Company and certain of the Company's
directors and officers.

The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the "Exchange Act") and SEC Rule 10b-5, by making false or
misleading statements in connection with public filings made
between September 15, 2015 and March 8, 2017 regarding the number
of customers who canceled contracts after signing up for the
Company’s home-solar energy system.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, including interest,
attorney's fees, and costs, on behalf of all persons other than the
defendants who purchased the Company's securities between September
16, 2015 and May 2, 2017.

On May 4, 2017, a purported shareholder class action captioned
Hall, et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-02571, was
filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of
California.

On May 18, 2017, a purported shareholder class action captioned
Sanogo, et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-02865, was
filed in the United States District Court, Northern California
District of California.

The Hall and Sanogo complaints are substantially similar to the
Fink complaint, and seek similar relief against similar defendants
on behalf of a substantially similar class.

On August 23, 2017, the Fink, Hall, and Sanogo actions were
consolidated, and on September 25, 2017, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint which alleges the same underlying
violations as the original Fink, Hall and Sanogo complaints (such
consolidated action referred to as the "federal court litigation").


On April 5, 2018, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
without prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on
May 3, 2018. On July 19, 2018, the court again granted defendants'
motion to dismiss without prejudice.

On August 8, 2018, the Company reached an agreement in principle
with plaintiffs to settle all claims asserted in the federal court
litigation against all defendants for $2.5 million, all of which
will be funded by the Company's insurers.

The Company and all defendants have denied, and continue to deny,
the claims alleged in the federal court litigation and the
settlement does not reflect any admission of fault, wrongdoing or
liability as to any defendant.

On November 20, 2018, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement. On March 4, 2019, the court granted final approval of
the settlement and judgment.

Sunrun Inc. engages in the design, development, installation, sale,
ownership, and maintenance of residential solar energy systems in
the United States. It also sells solar energy systems and products,
such as panels and racking, as well as solar leads generated to
customers. The company markets and sells its products through
direct-to-consumer approach across online, retail, mass media,
digital media, canvassing, field marketing, and referral channels,
as well as its partner network. Sunrun Inc. was founded in 2007 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


SUNRUN INC: Slovin TCPA Suit Settlement Has Initial Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
Sunrun 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 court overseeing the case, Slovin et
al. v. Sunrun Inc. and Clean Energy Experts, LLC, Case No.
4:15-cv-05340, has granted preliminary approval of the parties'
settlement.

On November 20, 2015, a putative class action captioned Slovin et
al. v. Sunrun Inc. and Clean Energy Experts, LLC, Case No.
4:15-cv-05340, was filed in the United States District Court,
Northern District of California.

The complaint generally alleged violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA") on behalf of an individual and
putative classes of persons alleged to be similarly situated.

Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on December 2, 2015, and
a Second Amended Complaint on March 25, 2016, also asserting
individual and putative class claims under the TCPA. By Order
entered on April 28, 2016, the Court granted the Company's motion
to strike the class allegations set forth in the Second Amended
Complaint, and granted leave to amend.

Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint on July 12, 2016
asserting individual and putative class claims under the TCPA. On
October 12, 2016, the Court denied the Company's motion to again
strike the class allegations set forth in the Third Amended
Complaint.

On October 3, 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a
Fourth Amended Complaint, seeking to, among other things, revise
the definitions of the classes that plaintiffs seek to represent.

In each iteration of their complaint, plaintiffs seek statutory
damages, equitable and injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and
costs, on behalf of themselves and the absent classes.

On April 12, 2018, the Company and plaintiffs advised the Court
that they reached a settlement in principle, and the Court vacated
all deadlines relating to the motion for class certification.

On September 27, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval to settle all claims against the Company for $5.5 million,
which was accrued as of March 31, 2018.

On November 27, 2018, a hearing was held on Plaintiff's motion for
preliminary approval. The Court requested certain clarifications be
made to the proposed settlement agreement and notice documents.

On January 11, 2019, Plaintiffs filed revised settlement documents
reflecting the changes requested by the Court, and on January 29,
2019, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement.

Sunrun said, "Most, if not all, of the claims asserted in the
lawsuit relate to activities allegedly engaged in by third-party
vendors, for which the Company denies any responsibility. The
vendors are contractually obligated to indemnify the Company for
losses related to the conduct alleged. The Company has denied, and
continues to deny, the claims alleged and the settlement does not
reflect any admission of fault, wrongdoing or liability. The
settlement is subject to definitive documentation, class notice and
court approval."

Sunrun Inc. engages in the design, development, installation, sale,
ownership, and maintenance of residential solar energy systems in
the United States. It also sells solar energy systems and products,
such as panels and racking, as well as solar leads generated to
customers. The company markets and sells its products through
direct-to-consumer approach across online, retail, mass media,
digital media, canvassing, field marketing, and referral channels,
as well as its partner network. Sunrun Inc. was founded in 2007 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


SUPER CARE: Denied Duron Overtime Pay, Meal/Rest Breaks
-------------------------------------------------------
Victor Duron, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Super Care, Inc.
and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants., Case No.
19STCV14798, (Cal. Super., April 29, 2019), seeks damages for
unlawfully withheld wages and missed meal and rest periods suffered
by Defendant's employees.

Defendants hired Plaintiff and classified him as non-exempt
employee. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas Han, Esq.
      Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
      Daniel J. Park, Esq.
      JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
      411 North Central Avenue, Suite 500
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Tel: (818) 230-7502
      Fax: (818) 230-7259


TAILGATE CLOTHING: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tailgate Clothing
Company, Corp. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Tailgate Clothing Company, Corp., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03126
(E.D. N.Y., May 24, 2019).

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

Tailgate Clothing Co. designs and manufactures clothes for sports
fans. It offers T-shirts, sweatshirts, hoodies, track jackets,
jerseys, and pants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



TBI AIRPORT: Felder Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned BARBARA FELDER, an individual, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated and aggrieved, Plaintiff,
v. TBI AIRPORT MANAGEMENT, INC., a Delaware Corporation; TBI US
OPERATIONS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; AIRPORTS WORLDWIDE US
HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV08563 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California in the County of Los
Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on May 24, 2019, and assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-04559.

The Complaint asserts the following causes of action on behalf of
Plaintiff individually and as a representative of "others similarly
situated and aggrieved": (1) failure to provide meal periods; (2)
failure to provide rest breaks; (3) failure to pay overtime wages;
(4) failure to pay minimum wages; (5) failure to furnish timely and
accurate wage statements; (6) failure to pay all wages upon
separation; (7) violation of California's unfair competition law;
(8) and violation of Labor Code, California's Private Attorney
General Act ("PAGA").[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     FRANK C. OLAH, ESQ.
     ANDREA R. SITAR, ESQ.
     FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP
     550 South Hope Street, 22nd Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90071-2627
     Phone: (213) 615-7000
     Fax: (213) 615-7100
     Email: folah@fmglaw.com
            asitar@fmglaw.com


TERRANEA RESORT: Settles Workers' Class Action for $2.15MM
----------------------------------------------------------
David Rosenfeld, writing for Palos Verdes Peninsula, reports that
Terranea Resort has settled a class-action lawsuit and will pay
$2.15 million to its workers, who said the resort underpaid them
and violated other regulations.

The agreement comes amid an ongoing effort to unionize there.

The two sides reached the agreement on Friday, April 26, but Los
Angeles Superior Court Judge Amy D. Hogue still needs to review it
before it is finalized. Still, the three named plaintiffs -- resort
workers Galen Landsberg, Marvin Alvarenga and Alvin Merino -- would
each receive $7,500. Their lawyers could receive up to one-third of
the $2.15 million settlement amount. And the rest would be divided
among those who've worked at the resort since October 2013,
according to the agreement.

There are nearly 3,000 workers identified as part of the
class-action suit, according to Lauren Teukolsky, an attorney
representing the workers.

The resort settled the case to avoid a lengthy legal battle that
would have largely benefited attorneys, Terranea President Terri
Haack said in a statement.

"We are confident that we would have prevailed in court," Haack
said on April 26, "but believe our resources are better spent
delivering exceptional experiences at Terranea that support our
employees, enchant our guests and strengthen our community."

Landsberg, a cook at Mar'sel restaurant, and Alvarenga, a server at
Catalina Kitchen, first filed the class action in June 2017,
arguing the resort required workers to falsely file time cards that
showed they took meal breaks and didn't pay them for overtime. The
resort also failed to pay workers for time spent traveling on
company-required parking shuttles, they argued. That same week,
Unite Here Local 11 -- for which plaintiff attorney Jeremy Blasi
works -- held a rally at the resort, part of its attempts to
organize employees there.

During the discovery phase of the lawsuit, Tuekolsky said, the
plaintiffs' attorneys received more than 30 sworn statements from
Terranea employees making allegations similar to those of Landsberg
and Alvarenga.

But the lawsuit began to change things, Teukolsky said on Tuesday,
April 30.

The resort -- known for its tranquil clifftop views overlooking the
Pacific Ocean -- made several changes to its policies after the
lawsuit was filed. Terranea, for example, now includes a written
policy allowing hourly employees to get reimbursed if they purchase
their own equipment, and the resort has since begun providing more
equipment, such as cooking utensils, Tuekolsky said.

Prior to the lawsuit, Tuekolsky added, employees were required to
monitor radios during meal and rest breaks and to interrupt their
breaks to respond to calls from supervisors.

"Only after we filed this lawsuit," Teukolsky said, "did employees
report that supervisors instructed them to turn off their radios
during breaks, in compliance with the law, which requires duty-free
breaks." [GN]


TOM CLAYTON: Seibert Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cory Seibert On behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. TOM CLAYTON ERECTORS, LLC and TOM CLAYTON,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02174-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio, May 24,
2019) brought this case to challenge the policies and practices of
Defendants that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act "FLSA"), as
well as the statutes of the State of Ohio.

Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours each workweek.
However, instead of compensating Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective
at one and one-half times their regular hourly rates for hours more
than 40 hours per workweek, Defendants paid Plaintiff and the FLSA
Collective their regular, straight time hourly rates for all hours
worked. The Defendants' failure to compensate Plaintiff and the
FLSA Collective for hours worked more than 40 hours per week at
"one and one-half times" the employees' "regular rates" of pay
violates the FLSA, and corresponding Ohio law, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Cory Seibert was employed by Defendants from
approximately November 2015 to May 2019 as an independent
contractor foreman.

Tom Clayton Erectors constructs buildings throughout the country,
primarily in or about New England. Defendant Tom Clayton Erectors
builds 20-25 Dollar General stores per year, and is typically able
to construct a new store within two weeks' time.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
     Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
     Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
     Scott & Winters Law Firm, LLC
     The Caxton Building
     812 Huron Rd. E., Suite 490
     Cleveland, OH 44115
     Phone: (216) 912-2221
     Fax: (216) 350-6313
     Email: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
            rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
            kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com


TOMTOM NORTH: McVetty Files Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TomTom North America,
Inc. The case is styled as Francis McVetty, Jane Doe individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TomTom
North America, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-04908 (S.D. N.Y.,
May 25, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

TomTom North America, Inc. provides digital map data and traffic
information for business and consumer applications.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
     Sheehan & Associates, P.C.
     15 Morris Lane
     Great Neck, NY 11024
     Phone: (516) 236-6456
     Fax: (516) 773-7931
     Email: Spencer@spencersheehan.com


TOYOTA MOTOR: Wash. App. Affirms D. Young's CPA Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Three, issued an
Opinion affirming the trial court's judgment granting Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned DUANE YOUNG, an individual,
and all those similarly situated, Appellant, v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES,
U.S.A., a California corporation, Respondent. No. 35842-9-III.
(Wash. App.).

The Plaintiff appeals dismissal of the CPA claim, challenging the
trial court's legal conclusions.

Duane Young's negligent misrepresentation and Consumer Protection
Act1 (CPA) claims against Toyota Motor Sales were dismissed
following a bench trial.  

In December 2013, several months after purchasing a 2014 model year
Toyota Tacoma truck from a dealer in Burlington, Washington, Duane
Young received a letter from Toyota. The letter stated it had
recently come to Toyota's attention that the Monroney label2 on the
vehicle he purchased might have indicated that an outside
temperature gauge was included in the vehicle's rearview mirror. As
the letter disclosed, that feature was not available on any 2014
model Tacoma. The letter apologized for the mistake and any
confusion it might have caused. It offered to compensate Mr. Young
with a cash reimbursement of $100. In May 2015, Mr. Young filed the
lawsuit below. He sought to pursue it as a class action and
asserted claims of common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation,
and for violation of the CPA.  

In the defense case, Toyota called as a witness its distribution
pricing administrator, who testified that in early September 2013,
an audit of the Monroney label for the 2014 model Tacoma with the
limited package revealed that it erroneously identified the truck's
rearview mirror as including an outside temperature gauge.

Toyota presented evidence that a total of 59 2014 model Tacomas
with the limited package were sold in the state of Washington, and
only three were sold before Toyota realized there was a mistake
with the Monroney label. Of the remaining 56 trucks, 41 were sold
after January 30, 2014 (roughly three months after the mistake had
been corrected) and 31 were sold after May 1, 2014 (roughly six
months after the mistake had been corrected).

Toyota's witnesses testified that letters like the one Mr. Young
received in December 2013 were sent to 147 individuals that it
identified as the only consumers who possibly purchased the limited
package after seeing misleading information. There was no evidence
presented that anyone other than Mr. Young claimed to have been
misled..

The findings and conclusions thereafter presented and entered
incorporated all of the factual findings articulated in the court's
memorandum decision. The Court concluded that Mr. Young failed to
carry his burden of proving multiple elements of both of his
claims. Mr. Young appeals.

In a private cause of action, the CPA requires a plaintiff to prove
five elements: (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice (2)
occurring in trade or commerce (3) affecting the public interest
(4) injury to a person's business or property and (5) causation.
Failure to satisfy even one of the elements is fatal to a CPA
claim.

The trial court concluded that Mr. Young's proof of the CPA claim
fell short of his burden in five respects. It is sufficient on
appeal for the Court to address whether he proved the first and
fifth elements of the claim.

Element One: An unfair or deceptive act or practice

The CPA does not define unfair or deceptive act or practice. To
show a party has engaged in an unfair or deceptive act or practice
a `plaintiff need not show that the act in question was intended to
deceive, but that the alleged act had the capacity to deceive a
substantial portion of the public.

Mr. Young did not present credible evidence that Toyota's error was
material for any nonfinancial reason. Having weighed Mr. Young's
credibility, the court rejected his assertion that he, personally,
was induced by the mistake to buy the limited package. Mr. Young
presented no evidence that the mistake would have been material to
others.

A similar failure to present evidence caused this court to affirm
summary judgment dismissal of a CPA claim in Brummett v. Wash.'s
Lottery, 171 Wn.App. 664, 676, 288 P.3d 48 (2012). Mr. Brummett
sued the Washington Lottery and its outside advertising agency,
contending, among other claims, that the agency's false
advertisement that tickets being offered in a special raffle were
going fast violated the CPA. He alleged that the advertisements
would have induced the public to purchase tickets, but as this
court observed, He did not, however, support this assertion with
evidence that he would produce if he defeated summary judgment and
went to trial.

In affirming dismissal of his CPA claim, this court stated that the
agency's going fast' statements could not be categorized as
misrepresenting something of material importance.

The trial court's findings support its conclusion that Mr. Young
failed to prove Toyota's error was of material importance, and
thereby failed to prove it was deceptive.

Mr. Young relies specifically on RCW 46.70.180(1). It provides that
it is unlawful to disseminate in any manner any statement or
representation with regard to the sale, lease, or financing of a
vehicle which is false, deceptive, or misleading, including a list
of five actionable statements or misrepresentations, all of which
deal with sale, lease, or financing terms.

The trial court construed the language with regard to the sale,
lease, or financing of a vehicle as language of limitation and
concluded that Toyota's temperature gauge error was not a statement
or representation dealing with sale, lease, or financing terms. Mr.
Young argues that this construes the provision too narrowly.

Toyota's mistake was found to be financially immaterial because
purchasers of the limited package were never charged for the $10
temperature gauge. We will not presume that a $10 part for which
the consumer was not charged was material to purchase of the $7,525
model 2014 limited package. The trial court found that Mr. Young
presented no credible evidence that the temperature gauge error was
material to him, and no evidence whatsoever that it was material to
other consumers.

Here again, because Mr. Young failed to prove Toyota's error was of
material importance, he failed to prove that it constituted a
violation of RCW 46.70.180(1).

Element Five: Causation

A CPA plaintiff may only recover for injury to his or her business
or property that was proximately caused by a defendant's unfair or
deceptive practices. The injury need not be great and no monetary
damages need be proven.  

The causation element is satisfied if the plaintiff demonstrates
that a misrepresentation of fact led him to choose the defendant's
product. In his reply brief, Mr. Young argues that this was the
nature of his injury. But after weighing the evidence, the court
could not conclude, more probably than not, that Mr. Young's
reliance on a mistaken website is the proximate cause of his
decision to purchase the Toyota Tacoma Limited Package, and,
therefore, caused him damages. Factual findings of the trial court
that support this conclusion are unchallenged. The Court do not
reweigh the evidence or determine credibility.

During the bench trial, Mr. Young argued that investigative
expenses he incurred also qualify as recoverable injury. Expenses
incurred to pursue a CPA claim do not constitute injury, although
an injury to business or property that is proximately caused by the
deceptive act itself is compensable.  

The trial court made an unchallenged finding that Mr. Young did not
do anything about the missing temperature gauge until he received
the December 2013 letter from Toyota notifying him of its mistake
and offering a $100 cash reimbursement. A further unchallenged
finding was that the conduct the court found credible was much more
consistent with someone who learned that Toyota had made a mistake
and wanted to take advantage of it, than someone who relied upon
that item in good faith. Based on the trial court's findings, which
are supported by the evidence, the investigation performed by Mr.
Young was proximately caused by his receipt of Toyota's truthful
December 2013 letter, not by its earlier mistake.

Mr. Young's failure to prove any injury to business or property
proximately caused by Toyota's mistake provided an additional basis
for the trial court's dismissal of his CPA claim.

A full-text copy of the Wash. App.'s May 23, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y66ohdta from Leagle.com.

Brian Cameron, Attorney at Law, 421 W Riverside Ave Ste 660,
Spokane, WA, 99201-0410, Kirk David Miller, Kirk D. Miller, P.S.,
421 W Riverside Ave Ste 660, Spokane, WA, 99201-0410, Counsel for
Appellant(s).

Robin E. Wechkin, Sidley Austin LLP, 701 5th Ave Ste 4200, Seattle,
WA, 98104-7047, Michael Mallow, Sidley Austin LLP, 555 W Fifth
Avenue Suite 4000, Los Angeles, CA, 90013, Rachel Straus, Sidley
Austin LLP, 555 W Fifth Avenue Suite 4000, Los Angeles, CA, 90013,
David Carpenter, Sidley Austin LLP, 555 W Fifth Avenue Suite 4000,
Los Angeles, CA, 90013, Counsel for Respondent(s).


TRUECAR INC: Milbeck's Bid to Certify Granted; Nov. 5 Trial Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Stephen V. Wilson grants the Lead Plaintiff's motion for
class certification in the lawsuit titled Leon D. Milbeck v.
TrueCar, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-02612-SVW-AGR (C.D. Cal.).

After reviewing the joint stipulation to continue and the
accompanying joint letter, the Court revises the pre-trial and
trial schedule as follows:

   -- Trial will take place on November 5, 2019, at 9:00 a.m.;

   -- A pre-trial conference will be held on October 21, 2019, at
      3:00 p.m.; and

   -- Any dispositive motions must be filed at least 30 days
      before the pre-trial conference.[CC]


TURTLE BEACH: Trial in VTBH Merger-Related Suit Set for November
----------------------------------------------------------------
Turtle Beach Corporation 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 court has set trial
for November 2019 in a class action over a merger deal.

On August 5, 2013, VTB Holdings, Inc. (VTBH) and the Company (f/k/a
Parametric Sound Corporation) announced that they had entered into
the Merger Agreement pursuant to which VTBH would acquire an
approximately 80% ownership interest and existing shareholders
would maintain an approximately 20% ownership interest in the
combined company.

Following the announcement, several shareholders filed class action
lawsuits in California and Nevada seeking to enjoin the Merger.

The plaintiffs in each case alleged that members of the Company's
Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the
shareholders by agreeing to a merger that allegedly undervalued the
Company. VTBH and the Company were named as defendants in these
lawsuits under the theory that they had aided and abetted the
Company's Board of Directors in allegedly violating their fiduciary
duties.

The plaintiffs in both cases sought a preliminary injunction
seeking to enjoin closing of the Merger, which, by agreement, was
heard by the Nevada court with the California plaintiffs invited to
participate. On December 26, 2013, the court in the Nevada case
denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.

Following the closing of the Merger, the Nevada plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint, which made essentially the same
allegations and sought monetary damages as well as an order
rescinding the Merger.

The California plaintiffs dismissed their action without prejudice,
and sought to intervene in the Nevada action, which was granted.

Subsequent to the intervention, the plaintiffs filed a third
amended complaint, which made essentially the same allegations as
prior complaints and sought monetary damages. On June 20, 2014,
VTBH and the Company moved to dismiss the action, but that motion
was denied on August 28, 2014.

On September 14, 2017, a unanimous en banc panel of the Nevada
Supreme Court granted defendants' petition for writ of mandamus and
ordered the trial court to dismiss the complaint but provided a
limited basis upon which plaintiffs could seek to amend their
complaint.

Plaintiffs amended their complaint on December 1, 2017 to assert
the same claims in a derivative capacity on behalf of the Company,
as a well as in a direct capacity, against VTBH, Stripes Group,
LLC, SG VTB Holdings, LLC, and the former members of the Company's
Board of Directors.

All defendants moved to dismiss this amended complaint on January
2, 2018, and those motions were denied on March 13, 2018.
Defendants petitioned the Nevada Supreme Court to reverse this
ruling on April 18, 2018. On June 15, 2018, the Nevada Supreme
Court denied defendants' writ petition without prejudice.

The district court subsequently entered a pretrial schedule and set
trial for November 2019. On January 18, 2019, the district court
certified a class of shareholders of the Company as of January 15,
2014.

Turtle Beach Corporation operates as an audio technology company.
It provides various gaming headset solutions for various platforms,
including video game and entertainment consoles, handheld consoles,
personal computers, and mobile and tablet devices under the Turtle
Beach brand. The company was founded in 1975 and is headquartered
in San Diego, California.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: 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]


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Teamsters Local 456 Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Universal Health Services, 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
filed in the class action suit entitled, Teamsters Local 456
Pension Fund, et al. v. Universal Health Services, Inc. et al.
(Case No. 2:17-CV-02817-LS), is still pending.

In December 2016 a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against the company (UHS) and certain UHS officers alleging
violations of the federal securities laws.

The case was originally filed as Heed v. Universal Health Services,
Inc. et al. (Case No. 2:16-CV-09499-PSG-JC).

The court subsequently appointed Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund
and Teamsters Local 456 Annuity Fund to serve as lead plaintiffs.


The case has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the style of the case has been
changed to Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund, et al. v. Universal
Health Services, Inc. et. al. (Case No. 2:17-CV-02817-LS).

In September, 2017, Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund filed an
amended complaint. The amended class action complaint alleges
violations of federal securities laws relating to disclosures made
in public filings associated with alleged practices and operations
at our behavioral health facilities.  

Plaintiffs seek monetary damages for shareholders during the
defined class period as a result of the decrease in share price
following various public disclosures or reports.

In December 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

Universal Health said, "We deny liability and intend to defend
ourselves vigorously. At this time, we are uncertain as to
potential liability or financial exposure, if any, which may be
associated with this matter."

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

Universal Health Services, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns and
operates acute care hospitals, outpatient facilities, and
behavioral health care facilities. The company operates through
Acute Care Hospital Services, Behavioral Health Care Services, and
Other segments.  Universal Health Services, Inc. founded in 1978
and is headquartered in King Of Prussia, Pennsylvania.


US SOCCER: Gender Bias Case to Have Ramifications for All Women
---------------------------------------------------------------
The USA women football team's gender discrimination lawsuit against
the United States Soccer Federation (USSF) will have ramifications
for all women employed in the United States, their lawyer Jeffrey
Kessler told AFP.

Kessler, speaking at the Sport Resolutions Annual Conference in
London, said he was pessimistic of reaching an agreement before the
US team start the defence of their title at the World Cup in France
which gets underway on June 8.

Kessler, who is co-chair of international law firm Winston and
Strawn's antitrust/competition and sports law practices, said he
had no hesitation in acting for the team, all of whose 28 members
filed a discrimination lawsuit against the USSF in March seeking
equal pay and working conditions to their less successful male
counterparts.

Wider implications

"I embraced it," he said. "Actually to me it is just the type of
case I want to win because of the impact beyond my immediate
clients -- and it is the same reason the women want to do this
case.

"They are not doing it just for themselves but for future
generations as some of them will be retired when the matter is
resolved.

"There is no question there is a larger context.

"There are a lot of implications beyond women's sport."

Kessler has represented among others New England Patriots
quarterback Tom Brady, South African gender-row runner Caster
Semenya and the now notorious double amputee 'Blade Runner' Oscar
Pistorius in legal battles against sporting bodies.

He said the team had been "surprised" to read that USSF President
Carlos Cordeiro had been taken aback that the issue of equal pay
had been raised.

Kessler said the matter pre-dated a 2017 collective bargaining
agreement which set an agreed contract structure, including
guaranteed salary and benefits for the women players.

"The USSF are very well aware they had not dropped their
complaint," the 65-year-old American said.

"They had asked for equal pay in bargaining and the USSF refused.

"The were left with a choice of either accepting the deal for less
equal pay and playing or work stoppage in the sport and they
decided it was more important to play and pursue the legal claim
separately, which is what they did."

'Principle of equality'

Kessler says the facts of the suit speak for themselves.

"It is the clearest case of gender-based discrimination," Kessler
said.

"They have the same employer, exactly the same job.

"The difference is the women indisputably are far more successful
than the men not just in a competitive sense but also an economic
sense.

"There is greater fan support, higher TV ratings the whole package
is more valuable. Really it is not justified on any basis."

Kessler says the women's complaints go far beyond money.

"It is also about working conditions. They have far more games on
artificial turf which is much more dangerous than grass," he said.

"They have not got the same accommodation or travel in the same
class.

"The USSF doesn't expend as much effort and time on the women's
game."

Kessler said the players had been nonplussed by Cordeiro's
insistence that he would love to resolve the matter.

"The players were very interested by that statement of trying to
negotiate a solution," said Kessler.

"They had absolutely tried that, inviting them (USSF) to have talks
but they have yet to make a single settlement offer to the
players.

"It is very difficult to have a settlement without a settlement
offer and so, again, there is a big difference between public
statements and what has actually happened."

All this leads Kessler to conclude that the issue will not be
resolved any time soon and that it could end up in court some time
next year.

However, Kessler believes the USSF could do their image no end of
good by conceding sooner.

"If I was the USSF I would agree to the principle of equality,"
said Kessler, "They have the money to afford it."

"They can embrace the issue and, with the World Cup looming, it
would be very positive for the organisation. But they don't seem to
see it that way." [GN]


US STEEL: Bieryla Sues Over Securities Fraud
--------------------------------------------
HENRY BIERYLA, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, MARIO
LONGHI, DAVID B. BURRITT, AND DAN LESNAK, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00468-CB (W.D. Pa., April 24, 2019) asserts securities
fraud propagated by the Defendants.

The action is lodged pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 on behalf of Plaintiff and all persons other than Defendants
who purchased or otherwise acquired United States Steel Corporation
securities between January 27, 2016 and April 25, 2017.

The Complaint asserts that U.S. Steel's flat-rolled segment
accounted for approximately 70% of its net sales at the time
Defendants' fraud came to light. U.S. Steel supplies customers
throughout the world, primarily in the automotive, consumer,
industrial, and oil country tubular goods markets. The Company has
an annual raw steel production capability of 22 million net tons
(17 tons in the United States and 5 million tons in Europe). After
several unprofitable years, defendant Mario Longhi hired his
long-time trusted advisor, McKinsey & Company, in 2014 to implement
a purported "transformational process" designed to make the Company
profitable again. This process was referred to as the "Carnegie
Way," named after U.S. Steel co-founder Andrew Carnegie. The
Carnegie Way purportedly consisted of three elements: (1) Employee
Engagement, which was intended to get personnel interested in and
engaged with the Carnegie Way program; (2) Reliability Centered
Maintenance ("RCM"), which was purportedly focused on making
proactive improvements to U.S. Steel's manufacturing operations and
facilities; and (3) Operational Excellence, which was related to
process improvements that could save the Company money (e.g.,
cutting costs).

According to confidential witnesses, the Carnegie Way was a sham,
the Complaint states. Although the Carnegie Way purportedly
consisted of three elements, it was widely known throughout the
Company that the only element actually implemented was Operational
Excellence which, according to plaintiff's confidential sources,
was "all about cost cutting at the expense of operations", says the
Complaint.

Plaintiff Henry Bieryla purchased U.S. Steel securities during the
Class Period at artificially inflated prices.

U.S. Steel is an integrated steel producer of flat-rolled and
tubular products headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania with
major production operations in North America and Europe.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Vincent Coppola, Esq.
     513 Court Place
     Pittsburgh, PA 15219

          - and -

     Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
     Nancy A Kulesa, Esq.
     Stephanie A. Bartone, Esq.
     Gregory M. Potrepka, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
     733 Summer Street, Suite 304
     Stamford, CT 06901
     Phone: (203) 992-4523
     Fax: (212) 363-7171
     Email: shopkins@zlk.com


UTZ QUALITY: Settles False Advertising Class Action for $1MM
------------------------------------------------------------
Diane Wilson and Tonya Simpson, writing for ABC11, report that if
potato chips or pretzels are your snacks of choice, you may be owed
some money.

Utz Quality Foods has agreed to pay more than $1 million to settle
claims the company engaged in false advertising. The lawsuit
accused the company of labeling products that contained chemical,
synthetic or processed ingredients "all natural."

Utz denied the allegations, but agreed to pay $1.2 million to
settle the class action suit.

Anyone who purchased certain Utz or Bachman brand products between
2010 and 2019 may be eligible for a refund of $2 per item. Claims
are limited to a maximum of 10 items, and only one claim can be
submitted per household. No proof of purchase is required.

The deadline to submit claims is July 28, 2019. [GN]


VEREIT INC: Pre-Trial in ARCP Litigation Set for August 19
----------------------------------------------------------
Vereit, 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 a pre-trial conference in the
consolidated class action suit entitled, In re American Realty
Capital Properties, Inc. Litigation, No. 15-MC-00040 (AKH), is
scheduled for August 19, 2019.

Between October 30, 2014 and January 20, 2015, the Company and
certain of its former officers and directors, among other
individuals and entities, were named as defendants in ten
securities class action complaints filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The court consolidated these actions under the caption In re
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. Litigation, No.
15-MC-00040 (AKH) (the "SDNY Consolidated Securities Class
Action").

The plaintiffs filed a second amended class action complaint on
December 11, 2015, which asserted claims for violations of Sections
11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On September 8, 2016, the court
issued an order directing plaintiffs to file a third amended
complaint to reflect certain prior rulings by the court in
connection with various motions to dismiss.

The third amended complaint was filed on September 30, 2016 and the
defendants were not required to file new answers. On August 31,
2017, the court issued an order granting plaintiffs' motion for
class certification. Defendants’ petitions seeking leave to
appeal the court's order granting class certification were denied
on January 24, 2018. Fact depositions were concluded at the end of
2018.

At a status conference in April 2019, the court denied the summary
judgment motions filed by the defendants. The court also set a
schedule for expert discovery.

Trial is scheduled for September 9, 2019 and a pre-trial conference
is scheduled for August 19, 2019.

Vereit, Inc. is a full-service real estate operating company which
owns and manages one of the largest portfolios of single-tenant
commercial properties in the U.S. The company is based in Phoenix,
Arizona.


VEREIT INC: Realistic Partners' Class Action Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Vereit, 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
putative class action suit entitled, Realistic Partners v. American
Realty Capital Partners, et al.

In December 2013, Realistic Partners filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the Company and the then-members of its board of
directors in the Supreme Court for the State of New York, captioned
Realistic Partners v. American Realty Capital Partners, et al., No.
654468/2013.

The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the board of the
Company breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the
transactions contemplated under the Cole Merger Agreement (in
connection with the merger between a wholly owned subsidiary of
Cole Credit Property Trust III, Inc. and Cole Holdings Corporation)
and that Cole Credit Property Trust III, Inc. aided and abetted
those breaches.

In January 2014, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding regarding settlement of all claims asserted on behalf
of the alleged class of the Company's stockholders.

The proposed settlement terms required the Company to make certain
additional disclosures related to the Cole Merger, which were
included in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed by the Company with
the SEC on January 17, 2014.

The memorandum of understanding also contemplated that the parties
would enter into a stipulation of settlement, which would be
subject to customary conditions, including confirmatory discovery
and court approval following notice to the Company's stockholders,
and provided that the defendants would not object to a payment of
up to $625,000 for attorneys' fees.

Vereit said, "If the parties enter into a stipulation of
settlement, which has not occurred, a hearing will be scheduled at
which the court will consider the fairness, reasonableness and
adequacy of the settlement. There can be no assurance that the
parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement, that the court
will approve any proposed settlement, or that any eventual
settlement will be under the same terms as those contemplated by
the memorandum of understanding."

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

Vereit, Inc. is a full-service real estate operating company which
owns and manages one of the largest portfolios of single-tenant
commercial properties in the U.S. The company is based in Phoenix,
Arizona.


VETERANS ADMINISTRATION: Ct. Dismisses "Superman" Pro Se Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Fort Myers Division issued an Opinion and Order dismissing
the Complaint in the case captioned JAMAAL ALI BILAL fka John L.
Burton, aka Superman, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES VETERANS
ADMINISTRATION, DENISE ALLEN, FCCC Medical Administrator, REBECCA
KUPUSTA, DCF Secretary, KRISTEN KANNER, DCF Secretary, and DONALD
SAWYER, Defendants. Case No. 2:18-cv-814-FtM-29MRM. (M.D. Fla.)

This matter is before the Court on consideration of the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Court take
judicial notice of the Northern District of Florida injunction.

The Plaintiff was ordered to comply with the terms of the
injunction, and that plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District
Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs to proceed in forma pauperis
be denied. Plaintiff filed a Handwritten Motion for Relief of Order
and Amended Motion for Clarification/Motion for Appointment and/or
Recruitment of Counsel to Handle Class Action Allegations/Partial
Response to Report & Recommendation.

After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and
recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify the
magistrate judge's report and recommendation.  
The Plaintiff objects that his Second Amended Complaint was not
considered, and seeks confirmation that the Court received and
considered the correct document. The docket reflects the filing,
and the Report and Recommendation specifically referenced the
Second Amended Federal Tort Claim (FTCA) Complaint.

This objection is overruled.

The Plaintiff objects that the Magistrate Judge erred by failing to
find that the failure to transport plaintiff to his VA appointments
violates the FTCA. Plaintiff disagrees with the assessment that
since he is receiving medical attention at the FCCC, travel outside
to the VA is not required. The cases cited by plaintiff do not
support his position or his arguments as he is well aware.

The Plaintiff also takes issue with the denial of an appointment of
counsel because he is trying to represent a class of veterans.
Although the plaintiff asserts that over 200 veterans are at the
FCCC, this does not mean that any of them wish to join the lawsuit.
The Plaintiff seeks an appointment of counsel because he is not
qualified to represent a class. The case has no merit, and
therefore an appointment of counsel would not be appropriate.

The objection is overruled.

The Plaintiff attached a Fact Sheet for Examinations for
Incarcerated Veterans, however plaintiff is not incarcerated.
Plaintiff was civilly committed.

The objection is overruled.

Lastly, the plaintiff objects that the Magistrate Judge erred in
relying on the injunction against filing imposed by the Northern
District of Florida. Plaintiff argues that the Eleventh Circuit
vacated the application of the injunction in another case because
the injunction could not reasonably be interpreted to broadly
encompass to a Middle District case.   

However, on April 25, 2019, upon reconsideration, the Eleventh
Circuit granted reconsideration finding a meritorious request to
proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The Court finds that the
injunction has not been independently reviewed for application
within the Middle District of Florida, and therefore application to
this case was inappropriate. The objection to its application will
be sustained.

Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is adopted to the extent
that the Court agrees that plaintiff failed to state a claim, and
the Second Amended Federal Tort Claim (FTCA) Complaint is dismissed
without prejudice. The Magistrate Judge's Application of the
injunction from the Northern District of Florida is rejected.

The Plaintiff's Handwritten Motion for Relief of Order and Amended
Motion for Clarification/Motion for Appointment and/or Recruitment
of Counsel to Handle Class Action Allegations/Partial Response to
Report & Recommendation, construed as objections to the Report and
Recommendation are overruled except as to the injunction, which
objection is sustained.

The Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court Without
Prepaying Fees or Costs  to proceed in forma pauperis is denied.
The Clerk shall enter judgment dismissing the case without
prejudice, terminate all deadlines and motions, and close the
file.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 20, 2019 Opinion and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6cfw56t from
Leagle.com.

Jamaal Ali Bilal, formerly known as Superman, Plaintiff, pro se.


VM MORRISON: Hunton Andrews Discusses UK Appeal Court Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that on
October 22, 2018, the UK Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's
decision that VM Morrison Supermarkets PLC ("Morrisons") was
vicariously liable for a data breach caused by a disgruntled former
employee, despite Morrisons being cleared of any wrongdoing (VM
Morrison Supermarkets PLC v Various Claimants). The case is
important, given its potential "floodgate" effect on data breach
class action claims in the UK. The Supreme Court has granted
Morrisons permission to appeal the judgment on all grounds.

Background

The case is the first UK class action brought in response to a data
breach. In 2014, while employed as a Morrisons Senior IT Auditor,
Andrew Skelton copied the payroll data of almost 100,000 Morrisons
employees onto a personal USB and posted them to a file sharing
website. He also anonymously reported the breach to three
newspapers. Ultimately, Skelton was jailed for eight years for
various offenses, including under the Fraud Act 2006 and the Data
Protection Act 1998 (the "DPA").

Following the breach, 5,518 affected employees brought a class
action against Morrisons alleging both primary (direct) and
vicarious liability for: (1) breach of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th and
7th principles of the DPA (relating to fair and lawful processing,
purpose limitation, minimization, retention and security); (2) the
tort of misuse of private information; and (3) breach of
confidence.

High Court Decision

In December 2017, the High Court rejected all claims of primary
liability against Morrisons under the DPA, with one exception
irrelevant to the data breach. The Court concluded that Skelton
acted independently from Morrisons in deciding to use the payroll
data and, as such, he became the data controller in respect of the
relevant processing. Therefore, it was Skelton, as a third-party
data controller, who breached the DPA, not Morrisons.

With respect to vicarious liability, however, the High Court ruled
that Morrisons was vicariously liable for Skelton's actions in
disclosing the payroll data – despite the DPA not expressly
providing for vicarious liability. The Court also rejected
Morrisons' argument that Skelton was not acting in the course of
his employment when he stole and disclosed the payroll data,
pointing to what it considered persuasive factual findings:

   * There was an unbroken thread linking Skelton's work to the
disclosure, including that when Skelton received the data, though
covertly intending to copy it for misuse, he was acting as an
employee.

   * Morrisons deliberately entrusted Skelton with the payroll
data, and took the risk it might be wrong in placing such trust in
him.

   * Skelton's authorized work was to receive, store, and disclose
to a third party the payroll data. His unauthorized disclosure was
closely related to what he was tasked to do.
Morrisons appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal.

Court of Appeal Decision

On appeal, Morrisons argued that the DPA is a comprehensive code
that necessarily excludes other causes of action and remedies in
this context, including vicarious liability and common law causes
of action. Morrisons also argued the lower court erred in
concluding that the rogue employee's wrongful act occurred during
the course of his employment. In October 2018, the Court of Appeal
unanimously dismissed Morrisons' appeal.

Future Supreme Court Appeal

On appeal, the Supreme Court will consider, among other questions,
(1) whether vicarious liability is available under the DPA in this
context and (2) if the Court of Appeal's conclusion that Skelton
was acting in the course of his employment when he leaked the data
was incorrect.

It is not yet clear when the appeal will be heard. [GN]


VOYA FINANCIAL: Advance Trust's COI Class Suit in Colorado Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Voya Financial, 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 litigation over cost of insurance entitled, Advance Trust
& Life Escrow Services, LTA v. Security Life of Denver.

Cost of insurance litigation for the Company includes Advance Trust
& Life Escrow Services, LTA v. Security Life of Denver (USDC
District of Colorado, No. 1:18-cv-01897) (filed July 26, 2018), a
putative class action in which Plaintiff alleges that two specific
types of universal life insurance policies only permitted the
Company to rely upon the policyholder's expected future mortality
experience to establish and increase the cost of insurance, but the
Company instead relied upon other, non-disclosed factors not only
in the administration of the policies over time, but also in the
decision to increase insurance costs beginning in approximately
October 2015. Plaintiff alleges a breach of contract and seeks
class certification.

The Company denies the allegations in the complaint, believes the
complaint to be without merit, and intends to defend the lawsuit
vigorously.

On August 28, 2018, the Company filed its answer to the complaint
with affirmative defenses.

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

Voya Financial, Inc. operates as a retirement, investment, and
employee benefits company in the United States. It operates through
four segments: Retirement, Investment Management, Employee
Benefits, and Individual Life. The company was formerly known as
ING U.S., Inc. and changed its name to Voya Financial, Inc. in
April 2014. Voya Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is
based in New York, New York.


VOYA FINANCIAL: Advance Trust's COI Class Suit in Minn. Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Voya Financial, 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 putative class action styled, Advance Trust & Life
Escrow Services, LTA v. ReliaStar Life Insurance Company.

On October 6, 2018, the Company received Advance Trust & Life
Escrow Services, LTA v. ReliaStar Life Insurance Company (USDC
District of Minnesota, No. 1:18-cv-02863) (filed October 5, 2018),
a putative class action in which Plaintiff alleges that the
Company's universal life insurance policies only permitted the
Company to rely upon the policyholders' expected future mortality
experience to establish the cost of insurance, and that as
projected mortality experience improved, the policy language
required the Company to decrease the cost of insurance.

Plaintiff alleges that the Company did not decrease the cost of
insurance as required, thereby breaching its contract with the
policyholders, and seeks class certification.

The Company denies the allegations in the complaint, believes the
complaint to be without merit, and will defend the lawsuit
vigorously.

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

Voya Financial, Inc. operates as a retirement, investment, and
employee benefits company in the United States. It operates through
four segments: Retirement, Investment Management, Employee
Benefits, and Individual Life. The company was formerly known as
ING U.S., Inc. and changed its name to Voya Financial, Inc. in
April 2014. Voya Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is
based in New York, New York.


VOYA FINANCIAL: Barnes COI Litigation Ongoing
---------------------------------------------
Voya Financial, 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 cost of insurance
(COI) suit entitled, Barnes v. Security Life of Denver, is still
ongoing.

Cost of insurance litigation also includes Barnes v. Security Life
of Denver (USDC District of Colorado, No. 1:18-cv-00718) (filed
March 27, 2018), a putative class action in which the plaintiff
alleges that his insurance policy only permitted the Company to
rely upon his expected future mortality experience to establish and
increase his cost of insurance, but the Company instead relied upon
other, non-disclosed factors to do so.

Plaintiff alleges breach of contract and conversion claims against
the Company and also seeks declaratory relief.

The Company denies the allegations in the complaint, believes the
complaint to be without merit, and intends to defend the matter
vigorously.

Voya Financial, Inc. operates as a retirement, investment, and
employee benefits company in the United States. It operates through
four segments: Retirement, Investment Management, Employee
Benefits, and Individual Life. The company was formerly known as
ING U.S., Inc. and changed its name to Voya Financial, Inc. in
April 2014. Voya Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is
based in New York, New York.


VOYA FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss Goetz Class Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Voya Financial, 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 amended complaint filed in the case, Goetz v. Voya Financial
and Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company, is still
pending.

Goetz v. Voya Financial and Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity
Company (USDC District of Delaware, No. 1:17-cv-1289) (filed
September 8, 2017), a putative class action in which plaintiff, a
participant in a 401(k) plan, seeks to represent other participants
in the plan as well as a class of similarly situated plans that
"contract with [Voya] for recordkeeping and other services."

Plaintiff alleges that "Voya" breached its fiduciary duty to the
plan and other plan participants by charging unreasonable and
excessive recordkeeping fees, and that "Voya" distributed
materially false and misleading 404a-5 administrative and fund fee
disclosures to conceal its excessive fees.

The Company denies the allegations, which it believes are without
merit, and intends to defend the case vigorously. Plaintiff filed
an amended complaint on January 4, 2018, and the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint on February 8, 2018.

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

Voya Financial, Inc. operates as a retirement, investment, and
employee benefits company in the United States. It operates through
four segments: Retirement, Investment Management, Employee
Benefits, and Individual Life. The company was formerly known as
ING U.S., Inc. and changed its name to Voya Financial, Inc. in
April 2014. Voya Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is
based in New York, New York.


VOYA FINANCIAL: Cutler COI Litigation Ongoing
---------------------------------------------
Voya Financial, 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 cost of insurance
litigation (COI) entitled, Cutler v. Voya Financial, Inc. and
ReliaStar Life Insurance Company, is ongoing.

Cost of insurance litigation for the Company includes Cutler v.
Voya Financial, Inc. and ReliaStar Life Insurance Company (USDC
S.D. Florida, No. 1:18-cv-20723) (filed February 23, 2018), in
which the plaintiff alleges that his insurance policy only
permitted the Company to rely upon his expected future mortality
experience to establish and increase his cost of insurance, but the
Company instead relied upon other, non-disclosed factors to do so.


Plaintiff alleges breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion
and fraud claims against the Company.

The Company denies the allegations in the complaint, believes the
complaint to be without merit, and intends to defend the matter
vigorously.

Voya Financial, Inc. operates as a retirement, investment, and
employee benefits company in the United States. It operates through
four segments: Retirement, Investment Management, Employee
Benefits, and Individual Life. The company was formerly known as
ING U.S., Inc. and changed its name to Voya Financial, Inc. in
April 2014. Voya Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is
based in New York, New York.


WAH LUNG: Wang Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------
Jian Xing Wang, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Wah Lung Chinese Food 1932
Inc., Wah Lung Chinese Food NY Inc., Jin Guang Zheng, and Tuen Hung
Chiu, the  Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03122-ERK-VMS (E.D.N.Y.,
May 24, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid wages from Defendants for
work performed by Plaintiff for which he received no compensation
at all or less compensation then required by minimum wage law;
unpaid wages for overtime work for which he did not receive
overtime premium pay, as required by law; and liquidated damages,
declaratory relief, costs, interest and attorney fees pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, WAH LUNG 1932 and/or WAH LUNG NY is a
restaurant. The Plaintiff was employed primarily as a delivery
person for Defendants, but was also required to perform other tasks
such as cleaning the restaurant, deshelling shrimp, prep work and
cleaning the basement. The Plaintiff's work was performed in the
normal course of defendants' business and was integrated into the
business of defendants, and did not involve executive or
administrative responsibilities.

The Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff minimum wage, overtime
compensation, and spread of hours compensation required by both the
FLSA and New York Labor Law. The Defendants' failure to pay the
Plaintiff an amount at least equal to the Federal or New York State
minimum wages in effect during all relevant time periods was
willful, and lacked a good faith basis, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the the Plaintiff:

          Vincent S. Wong. Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT S. WONG
          39 East Broadway, Suite 306
          New York, NY 10002
          Telephone: (212) 349-6099
          Facsimile: (212) 349-6599

WELBILT INC: Still Faces Schlimm Class Suit in Florida
------------------------------------------------------
Welbilt, 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 purported securities class action suit entitled,
Schlimm v. Welbilt, Inc., et al.

On December 13, 2018, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida against the company and certain of its former executive
officers.

The lawsuit is captioned Schlimm v. Welbilt, Inc., et al., and
alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by making material misstatements or
omissions in certain of the company's periodic reports filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to, among other
things, the company's business operations and the effectiveness of
its internal control over financial reporting.

The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of damages and an award of
attorney's fees, in addition to other relief.

On March 15, 2019, a purported shareholder derivative action was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
against certain of the company's current and former executive
officers and directors, and the the company was named as a nominal
defendant.

The lawsuit is captioned Quinney v. Muehlhaeuser, et al., and
alleges violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and breach of fiduciary duty, among other claims, based
upon similar underlying allegations as those in the Schlimm
lawsuit.

The Quinney lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of damages and an
award of attorney's fees, in addition to other relief.

Welbilt said, "We intend to defend against these lawsuits
vigorously. However, litigation is inherently uncertain, and we are
unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits and are unable to
estimate the range of loss, if any, that could result from an
unfavorable outcome. We also cannot provide any assurance that the
ultimate resolution of these lawsuits will not have a material
adverse effect on our reputation, business, prospects, results of
operations or financial condition."

Welbilt, Inc., a foodservice equipment company, designs,
manufactures, supply, and services food and beverage equipment for
commercial foodservice market worldwide. The company was formerly
known as Manitowoc Foodservice, Inc. and changed its name to
Welbilt, Inc. in February 2017. Welbilt, Inc. was founded in 1902
and is headquartered in New Port Richey, Florida.


WERNER ENTERPRISES: Post-Verdict Awards under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------
Werner Enterprises, 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 plaintiffs in the
Nebraska drivers wage and hour class suit have taken an appeal from
post-verdict amounts awarded by the trial court for fees, costs and
liquidated damages.

The company is involved in class action litigation in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nebraska, in which the
plaintiffs allege that the company owes drivers for unpaid wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Nebraska Wage
Payment and Collection Act and that the company failed to pay
minimum wage per hour for drivers in its student driver training
program, related to short break time and sleeper berth time.

The period covered by this class action suit is August 2008 through
March 2014. The case was tried to a jury in May 2017, resulting in
a verdict of $0.8 million in plaintiffs' favor on the short break
matter and a verdict in our favor on the sleeper berth matter.

As a result of various post-trial motions, the court has awarded
$0.5 million to the plaintiffs for attorney fees and costs.

Werner said, "As of March 31, 2019, we had accrued for the jury's
award, attorney fees and costs in the short break matter and had
not accrued for the sleeper berth matter. Plaintiffs have appealed
the post-verdict amounts awarded by the trial court for fees, costs
and liquidated damages.

Werner Enterprises, Inc., a transportation and logistics company,
engages in transporting truckload shipments of general commodities
in interstate and intrastate commerce in the United States, Mexico,
Canada, and China. It operates in two segments, Truckload
Transportation Services and Werner Logistics. Werner Enterprises,
Inc. was founded in 1956 and is headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska.


WRIGHT MEDICAL: Discloses 72 Pending Suits Over PROFEMUR
--------------------------------------------------------
Wright Medical Group N.V. 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 is facing
72 pending lawsuits over PROFEMUR(R).

Wright Medical said, "We have received claims for personal injury
against us associated with fractures of the PROFEMUR(R) titanium
modular neck product (PROFEMUR(R) Claims).

As of March 31, 2019, there were approximately 17 unresolved
pending U.S. lawsuits and approximately 55 unresolved pending
non-U.S. lawsuits alleging such claims (44 of which are part of a
single consolidated class action lawsuit in Canada).

The overall fracture rate for the product is low and the fractures
appear, at least in part, to relate to patient demographics.
Beginning in 2009, the company began offering a cobalt-chrome
version of the PROFEMUR(R) modular neck, which has greater strength
characteristics than the alternative titanium version.

However, during the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2011, as a
result of an increase in the number and monetary amount of these
claims, management estimated the company's liability to patients in
the United States and Canada who have previously required a
revision following a fracture of a PROFEMUR(R) titanium modular
neck, or who may require a revision in the future. Management has
estimated that this aggregate liability is $17.4 million as of
March 31, 2019.

Wright Medical said, "We have classified $10.8 million of this
liability in "Accrued expenses and other current liabilities," as
we expect to pay such claims within the next twelve months, and
$6.6 million as non-current in "Other liabilities" on our
consolidated balance sheet. We expect to pay the majority of these
claims within the next two years. Any claims associated with this
product outside of the United States and Canada, or for any other
products, will be managed as part of our standard product liability
accrual methodology on a case-by-case basis."

Wright Medical Group N.V., a medical device company, designs,
manufactures, markets, and sells upper and lower extremities, and
biologics products in the United States, Europe, the Middle East,
Africa, Canada, Asia, Australia, and Latin America. The company was
founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Amsterdam, the
Netherlands.


YRC WORLDWIDE: Pomerantz and Kaplan Fox to Lead Case
----------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter approved a stipulation and
order appointing City of Warwick Retirement Fund and Peter Szabo as
Co-Lead Plaintiffs, and Pomerantz LLP and Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer
LLP as Co-Lead Counsel in Christina Lewis v. YRC Worldwide Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00001 (N.D.N.Y.).

YRC Worldwide Technologies 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 in January 2019, a
purported class action lawsuit captioned Christina Lewis v. YRC
Worldwide Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00001, was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of New York
against the Company and certain of its current and former officers.


The complaint was filed on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities between
March 10, 2014 and December 14, 2018.

The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
making false and misleading statements relating to its freight
billing practices as alleged in the Department of Defense
complaint.

The action includes claims for damages, including interest, and an
award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees. Management believes
it has meritorious defenses and will vigorously defend this action.


YRC Worldwide said, "Given the early stage of the proceedings at
this time, we are not in a position to assess the likelihood of any
potential loss or adverse effect on our financial condition or to
estimate the range of potential loss, if any."

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

YRC Worldwide Technologies Inc. provides information technology
solutions to transportation service industry. The Company offers
pricing and activity management systems, data analysis, database
administration, application maintenance, and other technology
solutions. YRC Worldwide Technologies operates worldwide. YRC
Worldwide Inc. was founded in 1924 and is headquartered in Overland
Park, Kansas.


ZENNI OPTICAL: Reid Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------
VALENTIN REID, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. ZENNI OPTICAL, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-04846 (S.D. N.Y., May 24, 2019) brings this civil rights
action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

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.zennioptical.com (the "Website"), is not equally accessible to
blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA.
Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint.

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

Defendant is a glasses and sunglass retailer, offering affordable
glasses, clip-ons, goggles, accessories and gift cards.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Force, Esq.
     STEIN SAKS, PLLC
     285 Passaic Street
     Hackensack, NJ 07601
     Phone: (201) 282-6500
     Fax: (201) 282-6501
     Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com


ZILLOW: Class Action Over Co-Marketing Program Moves Forward
------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth R. Harney, writing for The Washington Post, reports that
Zillow is back in hot water: A class-action suit against the online
real estate giant is moving forward after insider whistleblowers
alleged that the company designed its controversial "co-marketing"
program to violate federal anti-kickback laws.

Zillow termed the charges "without merit" and says it intends to
"vigorously defend" itself.

Best known to the general public for its Zestimates
property-valuation feature, Zillow is a multibillion dollar,
publicly traded behemoth whose principal revenues come from
advertising placed by real estate agents. "Premier" agents and
brokers, who receive prominent placement on Zillow-listed home
sites, pay hundreds or thousands of dollars a month in advertising
fees to the company. Premier agents need not be the highest volume
or most successful agents in their area; they simply need to pay
for the label. According to the company's latest Securities and
Exchange Commission filing, it earned nearly $900 million --
two-thirds of its corporate revenue -- in fees from agents paying
for ads last year.

In 2013, Zillow rolled out a program whereby real estate agents
could have large portions of their advertising fees paid for by
lenders who share advertising costs with them. Buyers interested in
a particular property could then contact not only an agent but a
lender to shepherd them through the financing process. The idea
proved wildly popular among agents and lenders. For paying part of
an agent's Zillow advertising fees — initially up to a maximum of
90 percent, later revised to 50 percent — a lender could get hot
leads directly to active buyers. For agents, the attraction was
obvious. Hey, why not? Lenders will subsidize my costs.

But a federal law known as RESPA -- the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act -- prohibits payment of fees for business referrals
among realty, mortgage and title industry providers that are not
for services actually rendered. In April 2017, the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau informed Zillow that it was
investigating whether its co-marketing program violated the law's
prohibition against kickbacks. Zillow negotiated with the CFPB, but
last year, after the Trump administration appointed a new CFPB
director, the agency abruptly dropped the case.

Meanwhile, investors who said they bought Zillow stock at inflated
prices relying on company executives' statements that its
co-marketing concept did not violate federal law filed a
class-action suit alleging securities fraud. A district court judge
later dismissed portions of the suit but allowed the plaintiffs to
file an amended complaint if they presented conclusive evidence
that the co-marketing scheme violated RESPA.

They appear to have done so successfully -- at least enough to
convince a federal district court judge to put the case back on
track. Last November, the plaintiffs filed their amended complaint,
bolstered by testimony from two unnamed Zillow insiders. The first:
a regional sales manager for the company who alleged that lenders
participated in the program because they "expected real estate
agents to refer business." The second: a sales and operations
trainer who alleged that "every agent and lender knew that the
co-marketing program was for the lender to get leads and referrals.
.  .  . It was understood that lenders were paying for
referrals." Whenever the second insider "spoke to Zillow about
potential concerns with the co-marketing program," she was told
"not to ask questions," according to the court. She also alleged
that she knew of a lender who had been paying 100 percent of a
realty agent's fees for 2-1/2 years. Both whistleblowers provided
"consistent testimony regarding how agents and lenders used the
[program] to provide mortgage referrals in exchange for advertising
payments," according to the court.

In his decision, which was handed down April 19, Judge John C.
Coughenour of the U.S. District Court in Seattle said "the court
can draw a reasonable inference that Zillow designed the
co-marketing program to allow agents to provide referrals to
lenders in violation of RESPA."

Asked for his take on the case, Marx Sterbcow, a nationally known
RESPA lawyer based in New Orleans, told me "the court certainly
seems to suggest there is a lot of smoke involving the legality of
Zillow's" program. If the whistleblowers' allegations are correct,
he said, "it could cause [mortgage companies] and banks to pull
completely out" of the program, for fear of violating RESPA
themselves, and being exposed to major legal jeopardy.

The significance for buyers, sellers and owners? The case is still
out on the alleged federal law violations, but when you see
"premier" agents linked up in marketing efforts with lenders, you
have a better idea about what's really going on. [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 ***