CAR_Public/190611.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, June 11, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 116

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Removes Johnston Suit over Defective CAEv2 to D. Minn.
3M COMPANY: Thomas Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
3M COMPANY: Wright Faulty Earplug Row Transferred to N.D. Fla.
A10 NETWORKS: Appeal in Shah Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
ABBVIE INC: Welfare Plan Suit Alleges Sherman Act Violation

ACE AMERICAN: Mayfield Suit Moved to Northern District of Georgia
ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Iverson Moves to Certify 2 Classes Under TCPA
AFFORDABLE SERVICES: Turano Seeks Overtime Pay for Technicians
ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Vandehey Seeks Final Nod of $23K Accord
ALLIED STAFF: Thompson Seeks to Certify Class Action

AMERICAN FINANCE: Faces Bracken Class Action in New York
AMERICAN FINANCE: Terry Hibbard Class Action Remains Stayed
AMERICAN HONDA: MacDougall Moves for Certification of 4 Classes
AMERICAN INCOME: Golz Seeks Certification of Two Employee Classes
APPLE INC: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Class Suit

APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Discovery in Abouzied Suit Underway
APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Still Defends Consolidated Suit in Texas
ARIZONA: Class Action Over Foster Care System Can Proceed
ARROWHEAD PHARMA: Appeal in Research Program-Related Suit Ongoing
ARROWHEAD PHARMA: Suit over Hepatitis B Drug Research Ongoing

ASSERTIO THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Huang Class Suit
ATMOS ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Rosie Skunk Campaign
AXLEHIRE INC: Arbitration of Davis' Claims in J. King Suit Ordered
BANC OF CALIFORNIA: Trial in Consolidated Suit Set for Feb. 2020
BANK OF NEW YORK: Agreement Reached in Depositary Receipt Suits

BARTACO: Appeals Hepatitis A Exposure Class Action Ruling
BBVA COMPASS: Chattopadhyay Class Action Underway
BBVA COMPASS: St. Lucie Firefighters' Suit Still Ongoing
BECTON DICKINSON: Defending Against 6,755 Hernia Product Claims
BECTON DICKINSON: Resolves 15,160 Women's Health Product Claims

BECTON DICKINSON: Still Defends 6,960 Filter Product Claims
BEDFORD, OH: Ordered to Pay Restitution Over Inspection Laws
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces Class Action Over Combivent Inhaler
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: June 24 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
CALIFORNIA SOLAR: Hicke Suit Alleges TCPA Violation

CENIKOR FOUNDATION: Aleem Moves Certify Workers Class Under FLSA
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Vectren Merger-Related Suit Ongoing
CHECKERS DRIVE-IN: Court Preliminarily Certifies Class
CHERRY CREEK: Montana Affirms Summary Judgment in Somers Suit
CHINA GRILL: $407K Attorneys' Fees Awarded in James Labor Suit

CICERO HOSPITALITY: Shaikh Hits Biometrics Data Sharing
CITIBANK NA: Acevado Appeals Order and Judgment to Second Circuit
COALINGA, CA: Court Dismisses Inmates' Suit Over Valley Fever
COMSCORE INC: Bratusov Class Action Suit Ongoing
COMSCORE INC: Privacy Class Action Ongoing

CONCENTRA INC: Pascal Sues over Automated Text Messages
CONNECTICUT WATER: Settlement Reached in Paskowitz & Assad Suits
CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Melucci Class Action in California Ongoing
CORECENTRIC SOLUTIONS: Toor Sues over Stored Biometric Data
CORECIVIC INC: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Grae Suit

CREATIVE REALITIES: Rodgers Seeks to Certify NOC Technicians Class
DELOITTE: Fails to Strike Out Claims in Shareholder Class Actions
DIAL CORP: DOJ Opposes $3.8MM in Legal Fees
DOLLAR TREE: 9th Cir. Affirms Verdict in Guillen Suit
DONALD TRUMP: Johnson Seeks Class Certification Under EPA

DYNAGAS LNG: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Suit
EAST CAPITOL: Court Grants Final Certification of Settlement Class
EMINENT INC: Balaguer Sues Over Denied Overtime Pay, Breaks
ESKOM: De Beer Attorneys Preparing Load Shedding Class Action
ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss Bailey Class Suit Granted

EZCORP INC: Appeal on Class Certification Ruling Underway
FISHER-PRICE INC: Nabong Sues Over Baby Sleeper Hazard
FITBIT INC: Filing of Consolidated Amended Lopes Suit Due June 24
FLOOR & DECOR: Rosen Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
FLOOR & DECOR: Timothy L. Miles Files Securities Class Action Suit

FLOWERS BAKING: Court Denies Class Certifaction in Button Suit
FLOWERS FOODS: Securities Suit Stayed Due to Settlement Talks
FLYWHEEL SPECIALTY: Bonilla Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
FRESNO COUNTY, CA: Court Extends Time to Respond in Campos Suit
GILEAD SCIENCES: Product Liability Class Suit in California Ongoing

GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT: Torres Sues over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
HCA HEALTHCARE: ER Patients Sue Over Excess Charges
HELENA AGRI-ENTERPRISES: Proctor Remanded to Cal. Superior Court
HH FRANCHISING: Geiger Moves for Certification of Caregivers Class
HILAIRE MCGRIFF: Sued Over Denied Commissions, Health Insurance

HONEYWELL INT'L: Wayne Cty. Employees' Fund Hits Share Price Drop
HURLEY INTERNATIONAL: Tincher Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
IAM: UAL Worker Files Class Suit Over Union Opt-Out Requirement
INPAX SHIPPING: Shortchanges Drivers' Wages, Suit Says
INTERSECT ENT: Yaron Hits Share Price Drop

IVERIC BIO: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated NY Class Suit Underway
JAB HOLDING: Waddell Files Statement of Good Cause
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Fell Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Fernandez Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Fimbres Suit Moved to C.D. California

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Gehlke Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Natalie Garcia Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Neilson Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Nguyen Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Callahan Suit to C.D. California

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sasaki Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sullivan Sues over Deceptive Labels of Products
JUMIA TECHNOLOGIES: Hagens Berman Files Securities Fraud Suit
JUUL LABS: Faces Deceptive Marketing Class Action in Florida
KUSHCO HOLDINGS: Rosen Files Securities Fraud Class Suit

LADENBURG THALMANN: Appeal in Plains All American Suit Ongoing
LAREDO PETROLEUM: Rivera Moves to Certify Oilfield Workers Class
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Faces Plouffe Class Action in Florida
LIVENT CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Suit
LOGISTICARE SOLUTION: Adams Suit Alleges FLSA Violations

LYNEER STAFFING: Trejo's Labor Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
MARCUS HOTELS: West Claims Website not Blind-friendly
MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Colorado Class Suit
MAXIMUS INC: Appeal in Virginia Class Action Still Pending
MDL 2445: Suboxone Antitrust Suit Underway in E.D. Pennsylvania

MDL 2741: Young-Beverly v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MICHAEL KOEHN: Long Seeks Final Approval of $5K Class Settlement
MONSANTO CO: Dubourg Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
MONSANTO CO: Thompson Sues Over Herbicide Side Effects
MONSANTO COMPANY: Hong Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Jones-Basler et al. Sue over Sale of Herbicide
MONSANTO COMPANY: Kusnetzs Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Mason Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Terhunes Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MR COOPER GROUP: $17MM Settlement in Jordan Case Approved

MYRIAD GENETICS: Kessman Class Action Concluded
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Sued in Kansas Over Broker Commissions
NATUS MEDICAL: Badger Class Action Dismissed
NAVAJO MANUFACTURING: Whitehouse Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
NCI BUILDING: Amended Complaint Filed in Voigt Class Action

NEWELL BRANDS: Continues to Defend Oklahoma Firefighters Suit
NEWELL BRANDS: New Jersey Securities Litigation Still Ongoing
NEXSTAR MEDIA: Defending against TV Ads Antitrust Suit in Illinois
NFL: In Dispute with Insurance Carriers Over Settlement
NHL: Faces New Lawsuit Over Dismissal of CTE Risks

NIO INC: Tarapara Sues over False Registration Statement
NOKIA CORP: Rosen Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
NUTANIX INC: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
OGLETREE DEAKIN: 3 Added to Sex Bias Class Action Suit
ONECOIN: Former Investor Files Fraud Class Action

OPKO HEALTH: Bid to Combine Kerznowski & Steinberg Suit Pending
OREGON: Timber Suit Sent to Mediation
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Faces ADA-Related Class Suit in New York
PAPA MURPHY'S: Final Order and Release Issued in Lennartson Suit
PAYCRON INC: Autodialed Class Certified in Jackson TCPA Suit

PET SUPERMARKET: Eldridge Seeks Certification of Class Under TCPA
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Court Dismisses L. Smith's FDCPA Suit
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Court Dismisses Pozzuolo Class Action Plaintiff
PRECISION CASTPARTS: Neighbors Hope to Expand Pollution Lawsuit
PRICESMART INC: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Fraud Class Suit

RADIANT LOGISTICS: Wins Dismissal of Barahona Suit
REALNETWORKS INC: Claims Period in Napster Case Ends Dec. 31
RESOURCE MARKETING: Baudin Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
REVLON INC: Rosen Files Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
RGS FINANCIAL: Tataru Seeks Class Certification Under FDCPA

SACHS ELECTRIC: Bid for Class Certification Terminated as moot
SAMYANG FOODS: July 15 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
SAN JOSE, CA: Hernandez, et al., Seek to Certify Class
SARASOTA COUNTY, FL: Eleventh Cir. Appeal Filed in Leo FLSA Suit
SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: $85 Million Bird Food Case Settlement Underway

SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Scotts EZ Seed Litigation Settled
SEDGEWICK CLAIMS: Robinson Labor Suit Removed to M.D. Fla.
SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Court Amends Briefing Schedule in Hamidi
SHAMROCK FOODS: Arreola's Labor Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Gentry Homes Class Action Ongoing

SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Kaneshiro Class Action Ongoing
SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Vitale Suit v. D.R. Horton Ongoing
SKECHERS USA: Wilk Moves to Certify Class of Non-Exempt Employees
SPRINT CORP: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Unit Still Defends Ferguson ERISA Class Suit

ST JUDE MEDICAL: Canada Defibrillator Class Action Certified
STATE FARM: Court Limits Brief to 16 Pages in B. Durant's Suit
STEINHOFF INT'L: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Germany
SUBURBAN PROPANE: Continues to Defend NY & Pennsylvania Suits
SUNCOKE ENERGY: Wheby Says Registration Statement Misleading

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Valiente Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
TAMPA BAY: Faces $300MM Class Action Over TCPA Violations
TARGET CORP: Rigney Hits Lack of Notice Over Health Plan
TELLURIAN INC: Andrews & Springer Probes Securities Claims
TETRAPHASE PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Transfer IGNITE3 Suit Pending

THURS TRUCKING: Conditional Certification of Zettler Class Denied
TICKETMASTER LLC: Ameri Ticket Pricing Row Removed to N.D. Cal.
TIER REIT: Faces Cousins-Merger Related Suits
TYSOON FOODS: Says Cattle Price Fixing Class Action Baseless
UBER TECH: Court Sustains Demurrer Over Smythe Amended Complaint

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Maurice Blackburn Files Class Action
UGI CORP: Suits over Underfilled Propane Cylinders Ongoing
UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Wants Mental Health Class Action Dismissed
UNITED STATES: Bid to Enforce Prelim Injunction in Abdi Granted
UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Faces Class Action Over Copyright Grants

UNIVERSAL PARKS: Yozze Sues over Collection of Biometric Identifier
UTAH: Settlement Class Certification Sought in Christensen Suit
VIRGINIA.: Court Denies Bid for Appointment of Counsel
VIRTUSA CORP: New Jersey Court Dismisses 1st Amended Sugg Suit
WAITR HOLDING: Court Dismisses Montgomery FLSA Suit

WAL-MART STORES: Jenkins Sues Over Discriminatory Practices
WELLCARE HEALTH: Seabaugh Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
WHITESTONE REIT: Continues to Defend Clark Class Action
WHITESTONE REIT: Pomerantz Alerts Investors to Class Suit
WOOD-MODE INC: Swede Seeks Unpaid Wages & Benefits Under WARN Act

ZOGENIX INC: Hagens Berman Files Securities Fraud Class Suit

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Removes Johnston Suit over Defective CAEv2 to D. Minn.
------------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company removed the case, KENNETH JOHNSTON, 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-01357 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: Thomas Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, DANNY L. THOMAS, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, AEARO
HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE, LLC, AEARO, LLC and AEARO
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01546-MCR-GRJ
(N.D. Fla., May 28, 2019), seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing loss
or damage Plaintiff allegedly suffered while serving variously in
the U.S. military, including during foreign conflicts. The
Plaintiff contends that Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2
("CAEv2") manufactured and sold by Aearo were defectively designed
and failed to provide adequate hearing protection. 3M denies these
allegations.

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

3M COMPANY: Wright Faulty Earplug Row Transferred to N.D. Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Antonio J. Wright, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. 3M Company,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01908 (N.D. Ga., April 29, 2019), was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Florida on May 15, 2019 under Case No. 19-cv-01481.

Wright seeks to recover actual, compensatory, consequential,
incidental and punitive damages, attorneys' fees, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, legal and equitable relief resulting from
negligence and for breach of implied and express warranty over 3M's
dual-ended Combat Arms Earplugs used as hearing protection for
military personnel against loud impulse noises. Wright claims that
it dislodges from the ear. 3M settled a False Claims Act lawsuit
with the United States Government for over $9 million but has yet
to remedy the harm it caused to the tens of thousands of service
members, including Wright.

3M Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in St. Paul, Minnesota. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew F. Banks, Esq.
      Joseph Parker Miller, Esq.
      Rhon E. Jones, Esq.
      BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
      218 Commerce Street
      Montgomery, AL 36104
      Tel: (334) 269-2343
      E-mail: parker.miller@beasleyallen.com


A10 NETWORKS: Appeal in Shah Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
A10 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 appellants in Shah
v. A10 Networks, Inc. et al., moved to voluntarily dismiss the
appeal without prejudice, and that motion was granted

On March 22, 2018, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, its
Chief Financial Officer, and certain former officers, were named as
defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
captioned Shah v. A10 Networks, Inc. et al., 3:18-cv-01772-VC (the
"Securities Action").

On August 31, 2018, the court appointed a lead plaintiff. On
October 5, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The
amended complaint names the same defendants as the initial
complaint, in addition to one of the Company's former executive
vice presidents.

The amended complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The amended complaint named the same defendants as the
initial complaint, in addition to one of the Company's former
executive vice presidents. The Company and individual defendants
filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint.

On February 21, 2019, the court granted the motions to dismiss with
leave to amend within 21 days. The lead plaintiff did not file an
amended complaint by the Court-ordered deadline.

Instead, on March 21, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
On April 5, 2019, the clerk of court suspended briefing on the
appeal and ordered that, by April 26, 2019, appellants shall either
move for voluntary dismissal or show cause why the appeal should
not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

On April 25, 2019, appellants moved to voluntarily dismiss the
appeal without prejudice, and that motion was granted on May 1,
2019.

Prior to moving to voluntarily dismiss the appeal, the lead
plaintiff requested entry of final judgment in the district court.
On April 30, 2019, the district court ordered a response to that
request by May 14, 2019, with a reply by lead plaintiff due by May
21, 2019.

A10 Networks, Inc. provides software and hardware solutions in the
United States, Japan, other Asia Pacific and EMEA countries, and
Latin America. A10 Networks, Inc. was incorporated in 2004 and is
headquartered in San Jose, California.


ABBVIE INC: Welfare Plan Suit Alleges Sherman Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Welfare Plan of the International Union of Operating Engineers
Locals 137, 137A, 137B, 137C, 137R, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. AbbVie Inc., AbbVie Biotechnology
Ltd., and Amgen Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-02226 (N.D. Ill., April 01,
2019), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the
Sherman Act and Clayton Act.

Adalimumab, first launched by AbbVie in 2003 under the brand name
"Humira," has been the best-selling pharmaceutical product in the
United States for the past six years. The original patent on
Humira, a biologic drug approved by the Federal Drug Administration
in December 2002, was to expire in late 2016, subjecting AbbVie to
competition for Humira prescriptions from manufacturers of
biosimilar drugs.

In order to avoid the loss in market share that would inevitably
follow the expiration of the Humira patent, AbbVie engaged in a
two-part scheme to keep Humira competition at bay. First, AbbVie
constructed a patent thicket to deter any potential competitor.
Second, AbbVie paid its would-be competitors to further delay
entry. At least nine companies have indicated an intent to market
biosimilars to compete with Humira, three of which currently have
approval from the FDA to date, none have launched. Instead, AbbVie
has entered into deals with at least two manufacturers to delay
their entry until various dates in 2023.

The Plaintiff is a labor union with a principal address of 1360
Pleasantville Road, Briarcliff Manor, New York 10510. The Plaintiff
provides health benefit, including prescription drug benefits, to
its members, plus their spouses and dependents. Plaintiff has paid
all or part of the cost of its participants’ purchases of the
product Humira.

The Defendant AbbVie Inc. is engaged in the development, sale, and
distribution of a broad range of pharmaceutical and biologic drugs.
Defendant is the holder of BLA No. 125057 for Humira, whose active
pharmaceutical ingredient is the antibody adalimumab. Its corporate
headquarters is at 1 North Waukegan Road, North Chicago, Illinois
60064. Defendant AbbVie Inc. owns Defendant AbbVie Biotechnology
Ltd. Defendant AbbVie Inc. and Defendant AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd.
AbbVie Inc.

The Defendant Amgen is engaged in the development, sale, and
distribution of a broad range of pharmaceutical and biologic drugs.
Its corporate headquarters at One Amgen Center Drive, Thousand
Oaks, California, 91320-1799. The Defendant is the holder of
Abbreviated Biologic License Application No. 761204 for Amjevita,
whose active pharmaceutical ingredient is the antibody
adalimumab-atto. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carol V. Gilden, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      190 S LaSalle St # 1705
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: (312) 629-3737
      Fax: (312) 357-0369
      Email: cgilden@cohenmilstein.com


ACE AMERICAN: Mayfield Suit Moved to Northern District of Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, MICHAEL MAYFIELD, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01695 (Filed Nov. 26,
2018),  was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington at Seattle, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) on May 28,
2019. The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:19-cv-02425-CAP  to the proceeding. The suit alleges Employee
Retirement Income Security Act violation. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr.

According to the complaint, Ms. Mayfield was an insured under a
"Group Accident" insurance policy issued by Defendant ACE for Delta
Airlines, Inc. under policy number ADD NO4983233. The Policy
provided insurance coverage benefits to employees of Delta, as part
of a benefit plan authorized under the federal ERISA. The Delta
employees eligible for coverage under the Policy include pilots,
flight attendants, ground crew members, and office and clerical
staff in the United States, Puerto Rico, Canada, the United
Kingdom, the Bahamas, and Bermuda. The Policy provided Mr. Mayfield
coverage if Mr. Mayfield or his wife, Ms. Mayfield suffered a
"Covered Loss." One of the Covered Losses under the Policy was the
accidental loss of life.

ACE American Insurance Company provides fire and casualty insurance
products. The company was formerly known as Cigna Insurance Company
and changed its name to ACE American Insurance Company in November,
1999.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Lindsay L. Halm, Esq.
          Adam J. Berger, Esq.
          SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER
          810 Third Avenue, Suite 500
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 622-8000
          E-mail: berger@sgb-law.com
                  halm@sgb-law.com

               - and -

          Matthew N. Menzer, Esq.
          JohnDavid Toren, Esq.
          MENZER LAW FIRM, PLLC
          705 Second Avenue, Suite 800
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 903-1818
          E-mail: mnm@menzerlawfirm.com
                  johndavid@menzerlawfirm.com


ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Iverson Moves to Certify 2 Classes Under TCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled JED B. IVERSON, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL SIMILARLY SITUATED INDIVIDUALS v. ADVANCED
DISPOSAL SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00867-BJD-JBT
(M.D. Fla.), conditionally moves for entry of an order allowing the
action against the Defendant under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act to proceed on behalf of two classes:

   (a) all persons to whom ADS made a debt collection call using
       a pre-recorded voice message after acquiring the person's
       number from a third party ("Third Party Class"); and

   (b) all persons whose cell phone numbers ADS made a debt
       collection call to using a pre-recorded voice message
       after ADS noted in its records that the person had asked
       ADS to stop calling ("Stop Class").

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint his attorneys as class
counsel.

Mr. Iverson informs the Court that he is filing this Motion now
because the current due date for seeking class certification is
now.  However, on April 24, 2019, Plaintiff filed an unopposed
motion to extend the due date of his class certification motion
because he does not yet have a ruling on his pending motion to
compel the Defendants to produce class-related discovery he needs
to fully support his class motion.  If the pending motion to compel
and motion for extension of time are granted, then he will withdraw
this Motion and file an amended class motion incorporating the
class discovery he receives.  Accordingly, the instant Motion is
conditioned on the outcome of the Plaintiff's unopposed pending
motion to extend time and his pending motion to compel
class-related discovery.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          Michael S. Hilicki, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD.
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 726-1092
          Facsimile: (312) 726-1093
          E-mail: Keith@KeoghLaw.com
                  mhilicki@keoghlaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher P. Martineau, Esq.
          Christopher A. Johnston, Esq.
          JOHNSTON MARTINEAU, P.L.L.P.
          2233 Hamline Avenue North, Suite 102
          Roseville, MN 55113
          Telephone: (612) 767-7790
          Facsimile: (612) 379-0480
          E-mail: cmartineau@jmlegal.com
                  cjohnston@jmlegal.com

               - and -

          Max Story, Esq.
          MAX STORY LAW
          328 2nd Avenue N., Suite 100
          Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250
          Telephone: (904) 372-4109
          E-mail: max@storylawgroup.com


AFFORDABLE SERVICES: Turano Seeks Overtime Pay for Technicians
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Affordable Services
Corp. and Walter Scott Spencer for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and the Colorado Minimum Wage Order. The case
is captioned BRYAN TURANO, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AFFORDABLE SERVICES CORP.; and
WALTER SCOTT SPENCER, Case No. 1:19-cv-01373 (D. Colo., May 13,
2019).

Plaintiff Bryan Turano asserts that Affordable Services does not
pay service technicians overtime compensation for all hours worked
over 40 in any workweek. He also claims that Affordable Services
has in place inadequate timekeeping method for tracking and
recording the time its service technicians spend working.

Affordable Services is a Colorado corporation maintaining its
principal place of business in Colorado Springs, Colorado. It has
locations in at least Colorado, Washington, Florida, and Wyoming.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Paul F. Lewis, Esq.
     Michael D. Kuhn, Esq.
     Andrew E. Swan, Esq.
     LEWIS | KUHN | SWAN PC
     620 North Tejon Street, Suite 101
     Colorado Springs, CO 80903
     Telephone: (719) 694-3000
     Facsimile: (866) 515-8628
     E-mail: plewis@lks.law
             mkuhn@lks.law aswan@lks.law


ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Vandehey Seeks Final Nod of $23K Accord
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned JACQUELYN A. VANDEHEY on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ALLIANCEONE
RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT, INC., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00481-WCG
(E.D. Wisc.), files with the Court her unopposed motion for final
approval of class settlement agreement.

The Court has preliminarily defined the settlement class as:

     All persons to whom AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc.
     mailed an initial written to an address in the State of
     Wisconsin, between March 27, 2017 and April 17, 2018, which
     sought to collect a defaulted debt whose balance had been
     charged-off, and which: (i) listed "Interest" and or
     "Non-Interest Charges/Fees" as $0.00; (ii) conveyed an
     "offer" for a reduced amount if paid "within 40 days of
     receiving [the letter];" and (iii) stated AllianceOne "will
     notify our client that you have paid your account."

The Complaint alleges that AllianceOne violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act by mailing consumers collection letters to
collect defaulted credit card debts, which had been charged-off by
the creditor, and which: (i) falsely implied the Plaintiff's debt
may increase due to interest, late charges, and other charges when,
in fact, the debt is static and neither AllianceOne nor the
creditor may impose such interest/charges; and (ii) made false
representations that the settlement "offer" is a
one-time-take-it-or-leave-it offer that will vanish forever if not
accepted and payment made "within 40 days of receiving [the
letter]."

The Settlement provides that AllianceOne will create a class
settlement fund of $23,070 ("Class Recovery"), which a Third-Party
Settlement Administrator will distribute to each Class Member whose
Class Notice is not returned as undeliverable and does not exclude
him/herself from the Settlement.  Each Class Member whose Class
Notice is not returned as undeliverable and does not exclude
him/herself from the Settlement will be sent a check in the amount
of $30, which will be void sixty (60) days from the date of
issuance.

Subject to Court approval, AllianceOne shall pay $1,500 to the
Plaintiff for her statutory damages, which also considers her
services to the Settlement Class.

In connection with Class Counsel's application for approval of
attorney's fees and costs, the Parties stipulate that, if the Court
grants the Final Order, then the Litigation is a "successful
action" even though AllianceOne does not admit liability.  As such,
and subject to Court approval, AllianceOne agrees Class Counsel
shall be entitled to receive $30,000, which covers all fees and all
expenses arising out of the Litigation.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Springfield, NJ 07081
          Telephone: (973) 379-7500
          E-mail: Philip@SternThomasson.com
                  Andrew@SternThomasson.com
                  Francis@SternThomasson.com


ALLIED STAFF: Thompson Seeks to Certify Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit JACK THOMPSON, Individually and for
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ALLIED STAFF
AUGMENTATION PARTNERS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00127
(W.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order on May 28,
2019:

   1. conditionally certifying the action for purposes of
      notice and discovery;

   2. directing that judicial notice be sent to all putative
      class members ("Straight Time for Overtime Workers");

   3. approving the notice and consent form;

   4. directing Defendant mailing and e-mailing of the
      notice, along with a reminder notice;

   5. permiting Class Counsel to contact Straight Time for
      Overtime Workers by telephone/text or through a
      reminder postcard, if they are former employees, or the
      mailed or emailed Notice and Consent Forms are returned
      as undeliverable;

   6. directing ASAP Defendant to produce to Class Counsel
      the contact information for each of the Day Rate
      Workers within 10 days of the Court's order; and

   7. authorizing 60-day notice period for the Day Rate
      Workers to join the case.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: 713 352-1100
          Facsimile: 713-352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  rschreiber@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, Texas 77046
          Telephone: 713-877-8788
          Facsimile: 713-877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

               - and -

          Christopher Strianese, Esq.
          Tamara Huckert, Esq.
          3501 Monroe Rd.
          Charlotte, NC 28205
          Telephone: 704-966-2101
          E-mail: chris@strilaw.com
          tamara@strilaw.com

AMERICAN FINANCE: Faces Bracken Class Action in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
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 is
defending against a class action suit initiated by Susan Bracken,
Michael P. Miller and Jamie Beckett.

On March 6, 2019, Susan Bracken, Michael P. Miller and Jamie
Beckett, purported stockholders of the Company, filed a putative
class action complaint in New York State Supreme Court, New York
County, on behalf of themselves and others who purchased shares of
common stock through the Pre-Listing DRIP, 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 April and December 2016 registration
statements pursuant to which class members purchased shares
contained materially incomplete and misleading information.

The complaint asserts violations of Section 11 of the Securities
Act against 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 against the
Advisor, AR Global, and Messrs. Schorsch and Kahane under Section
15 of the Securities Act.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and either rescission of
the Company's sale of stock or rescissory damages.

The Company believes the complaint is without merit and intends to
defend vigorously.

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: Terry Hibbard Class Action Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
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 class action suit
initiated by Terry Hibbard has been stayed pending a decision on
the motion to dismiss in the Carolyn St. Clair-Hibbard.

On October 26, 2018, Terry Hibbard, 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 RCA shareholders 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 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
against the Advisor, AR Global, and Messrs. Schorsch and Kahane
under Section 15 of the Securities Act.  

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and rescission of the
Company's sale of stock pursuant to the registration statement. The
Company believes the complaint is without merit and intends to
defend vigorously.  

The case has been stayed pending a decision on the motion to
dismiss in the Carolyn St. Clair-Hibbard.

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 HONDA: MacDougall Moves for Certification of 4 Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled DENNIS MACDOUGALL, et al. v.
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., et al., Case No.
8:17-cv-01079-AG-DFM (C.D. Cal.), move the Court for an order
certifying these Classes and naming indicated class
representatives:

   1. California Class:

      All persons or entities who purchased or leased a model
      year 2012 Touring and Touring Elite Honda Odysseys with
      VINs in the range 5FNRL5H . . . CB053446 through
      5FNRL5H . . . CB148157, model year 2013 Touring and Touring
      Elite Honda Odysseys, and model year 2014-16 Honda Odysseys
      ("Class Vehicle") in California from American Honda Motor
      Company or through an American Honda Motor Company
      dealership ("California Class").

      The California Class seeks class certification of claims
      for:

      (a) violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ.
          Code Section 1750, et seq;

      (b) violation of the Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. &
          Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq;

      (c) breach of the California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty
          Act;

      (d) breach of implied warranty under state law;

      (e) breach of express warranty under state law;

      (f) unjust enrichment under state law; and

      (g) injunctive and declaratory relief under the Declaratory
          Judgment Act and state law.

      The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Ray Seow and
      Bryan Lentz as the class representatives for the California
      Class;

   2. Pennsylvania Class:

      All persons or entities who purchased or leased a Class
      Vehicle in Pennsylvania from American Honda Motor Company
      or through an American Honda Motor Company dealership
      ("Pennsylvania Class").

      The Pennsylvania Class seeks class certification of claims
      for:

      (a) breach of implied warranty under state law;

      (b) breach of express warranty under state law;

      (c) unjust enrichment under state law; and

      (d) injunctive and declaratory relief under the Declaratory
          Judgment Act and state law.

      The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Dennis
      MacDougall as the class representative for the Pennsylvania
      Class;

   3. New Jersey Class:

      All persons or entities who purchased or leased a Class
      Vehicle in New Jersey from American Honda Motor Company or
      through an American Honda Motor Company dealership ("New
      Jersey Class").

      The New Jersey Class seeks class certification of claims
      for:

      (a) violation of New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act ("CFA"),
          N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to -20;

      (b) breach of implied warranty under state law;

      (c) breach of express warranty under state law;

      (d) unjust enrichment under state law; and (e) injunctive
          and declaratory relief under the Declaratory Judgment
          Act and state law.

      The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Prabhanjan
      Kavuri as the class representative for the New Jersey
      Class; and

   4. Florida Class:

      All persons or entities who purchased or leased a Class
      Vehicle in Florida from American Honda Motor Company or
      through an American Honda Motor Company dealership
      ("Florida Class").

      The Florida Class seeks class certification of claims for:

      (a) violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Practices
          Act ("FDUPA"), Fla. Stat. Sections 501.201-501.23
          (2016);

      (b) breach of implied warranty under state law;

      (c) breach of express warranty under state law;

      (d) unjust enrichment under state law; and

      (e) injunctive and declaratory relief under the Declaratory
          Judgment Act and state law.


      The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Joseph Ryan
      Parker as the class representative for the Florida Class.

The Plaintiffs also move for the appointment of these firms as
Class Counsel for all certified classes: Whitfield Bryson & Mason
LLP; Berger & Montague P.C.; and Bronstein Gewirtz & Grossman.

The Court will commence a hearing on August 5, 2019, at 10:00 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shimon Yiftach, Esq.
          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 1990
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (424) 322-0322
          Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
          E-mail: shimony@bgandg.com
                  peretz@bgandg.com

               - and -

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP
          5101 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 305
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 429-2290
          Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
          E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Lawrence Deutsch, Esq.
          Jeffrey Osterwise, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1818 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3062
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: ldeutsch@bm.net
                  josterwise@bm.net


AMERICAN INCOME: Golz Seeks Certification of Two Employee Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned ALISA GOLZ, an individual,
on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
AMERICAN INCOME LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Indiana corporation;
TORCHMARK CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:18-cv-09879-R-SS (C.D. Cal.), seeks an order certifying these
classes:

   (1) Training Time Class:

       all individuals who participated in AIL's training program
       through any of its SGAs in the State of California from
       October 18, 2014, through and including the date judgment
       is rendered in this matter; and

   (2) Misclassification Class:

       all individuals employed by Defendants who held the job
       title of "Contracted Agent", or "Trainee" from October 18,
       2014, through and including the date judgment is rendered
       in this matter.

Ms. Golz also asks the Court to:

   -- permit Charles Small, Adrian Sosa, Natalie Bell, Victoria
      Roberts, Clarence Mackey, Charles Moreno, Christopher
      Raven, Byron Hammond, Trevor Garza, Ashly Rai and Charles
      Barnes to intervene in this litigation;

   -- appoint Charles Small, Adrian Sosa, Natalie Bell, Victoria
      Roberts, Clarence Mackey, Charles Moreno, Christopher
      Raven, Byron Hammond, Trevor Garza, Ashly Rai and Charles
      Barnes as class representatives for the Training Class;

   -- appoint Alisa Golz as a Class Representative for the
      Training Time Class as to UCL claims;

   -- appoint Adrian Sosa as class representatives for the
      Misclassification Class;

   -- appoint Bradley/Grombacher LLP as class counsel for all of
      the proposed classes; and

   -- order the parties to meet and confer regarding the
      dissemination of and substance of class notices and submit
      final agreed upon notices to this Court within fourteen
      (14) days of the date this Court issues an Order Granting
      Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification Pursuant to FRCP
      23(b)(3), if the Court is inclined to do so.

The Court will commence a hearing on June 17, 2019, at 10:00 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
          Taylor L. Emerson, Esq.
          BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
          2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (805) 270-7100
          Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
          E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
                  kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
                  temerson@bradleygrombacher.com


APPLE INC: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Apple Inc.
(NASDAQ: AAPL) for violations of Sec. 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares between November 2,
2018 and January 2, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before June 17, 2019.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Both demand for Apple's iPhones and its
pricing power in greater China were negatively impacted by the
U.S.-China trade war. Because Apple discounted the price of
replacement batteries for certain iPhone models, a decision made
due to the revelation that the Company was purposefully degrading
the battery performance of these products, customers were replacing
their batteries instead of purchasing a new iPhone, impacting sales
growth. Apple slashed production of 2018 iPhone models and cut
prices to reduce its current inventory. The Company also withheld
unit sales for iPhones and other products, a metric long used by
investors to judge the Company's performance, in order to mask the
decline in sales of the iPhone, Apple's most prominent product.
Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false
and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the
market learned the truth about Apple, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

Contact:

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


APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Discovery in Abouzied Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the class action suit
entitled, Mona Abouzied v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.,
Chih-Hsiang (Thompson) Lin, and Stefan J. Murry, et al., is now
entering the early stages of discovery.

On August 5, 2017, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas against the Company and two of
its officers in Mona Abouzied v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.,
Chih-Hsiang (Thompson) Lin, and Stefan J. Murry, et al., Case No.
4:17-cv-02399.

The complaint in this matter seeks class action status on behalf of
the Company's shareholders, alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company, its chief
executive officer, and its chief financial officer, arising out of
its announcement on August 3, 2017 that "we see softer than
expected demand for our 40G solutions with one of our large
customers that will offset the sequential growth and increased
demand we expect in 100G."

A second, related action was filed by Plaintiff Chad Ludwig on
August 16, 2017 (Case No. 4:17-cv-02512) in the Southern District
of Texas. The two cases were consolidated before Judge Vanessa D.
Gilmore.

On January 22, 2018, the court appointed Lawrence Rougier as Lead
Plaintiff and Levi & Korinsky LLP as Lead Counsel. Lead Plaintiff
filed an amended consolidated class action complaint on March 6,
2018. The amended complaint requests unspecified damages and other
relief.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss on April 4, 2018, which was
denied on March 28, 2019. The Company disputes the allegations, and
intends to continue to vigorously defend against these claims.  

Applied Optoelectronics said, "The case is now entering the early
stages of discovery. At this early stage, we are not yet able to
determine the likelihood of loss, if any, arising from this
matter."

Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells
various fiber-optic networking products worldwide. It offers
optical modules, lasers, transmitters and transceivers, and
turn-key equipment, as well as headend, node, and distribution
equipment. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is
headquartered in Sugar Land, Texas.


APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Still Defends Consolidated Suit in Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a consolidated class action suit in Texas.

On October 1, 2018, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas against the company and two of
its officers in Gaurav Taneja v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.,
Thompson Lin, and Stefan Murry, Case No. 4:18-cv-03544.

The complaint in this matter seeks class action status on behalf of
the Company's shareholders, alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company, its chief
executive officer, and its chief financial officer, arising out of
the company's announcement on September 28, 2018 that it ise
revising its third quarter revenue guidance due to "an issue with a
small percentage of 25G lasers within a specific customer
environment."

This case was consolidated with two identical cases styled Davin
Pokoik v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc., Chih-Hsiang Lin, and
Stefan J. Murry, Case No. 4:18-cv-3722 and Stephen McGrath v.
Applied Optoelectronics, Inc., Chih-Hsiang Lin, and Stefan J.
Murry.  

Mark Naglich was appointed as Lead Plaintiff on the consolidated
matter on January 4, 2019.

Lead Plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint on March 5,
2019, and the deadline for the company's motion to dismiss is May
6, 2019.  

Applied Optoelectronics said, "We dispute the allegations and
intends to vigorously contest the matter."

Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells
various fiber-optic networking products worldwide. It offers
optical modules, lasers, transmitters and transceivers, and
turn-key equipment, as well as headend, node, and distribution
equipment. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is
headquartered in Sugar Land, Texas.


ARIZONA: Class Action Over Foster Care System Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------
Christie Renick, writing for The Chronicle of Social Change,
reports that a ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will
allow a class-action lawsuit to go forward against the Arizona
child protection and public health care agencies on behalf of all
children in foster care.

The suit, filed in 2015 by Children's Rights, the Arizona Center
for Law in the Public Interest and law firm Perkins Coie, is based
on allegations that the state's Department of Child Safety (DCS)
fails to meet the behavioral and mental health needs of children in
state custody, among other shortfalls.

The Ninth Circuit backs up a 2017 ruling by U. S. District Court
Judge Roslyn Silver that B.K. v McKay could proceed as a
class-action lawsuit. Silver had identified the plaintiffs'
allegations as a valid basis for challenging "statewide practices
affecting the proposed General Class."

The lawsuit's specific allegations include:

   -- Failure to provide timely access to health care, including
comprehensive evaluations, timely annual visits, semi-annual
preventative dental health care, adequate health assessments and
immunizations
   -- Failure to coordinate physical and dental care service
delivery
   -- Overuse of congregate care for children with unmet mental
health needs
   -- Excessive caseworker caseloads
   -- Failure to close investigations in a timely fashion

The Ninth Circuit did not approve one of the sub-class groups in
the lawsuit, which included all children who were eligible for
Medicaid services. While the risk of harm to specific children in
the lawsuit from a lack of timely Medicaid services was evident,
the panel said the lower court had not established that this could
be the basis for a wider claim.

"The district court failed to make a factual finding that every
subclass member was subject to an identical significant risk of a
future Medicaid violation that would support injunctive relief,"
the decision said.

This portion of the lawsuit was sent back to the district court for
further consideration.

"We are very pleased that the court's decision affirms our ability
to proceed as a class action," said Anne Ronan, an attorney at the
Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest, in a press release.
"With this decision, we can now move forward seeking relief for all
children in Arizona foster care.

There are about 14,000 children and youth in foster care in
Arizona, according to the state's March 2019 semi-annual report.
DCS' budget for 2018 was a little over $977 million. The agency
received more than 47,000 reports of abuse or neglect that year and
removed about 9,000 children and youth from their homes. [GN]


ARROWHEAD PHARMA: Appeal in Research Program-Related Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arrowhead 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 plaintiffs in the
consolidated class action suit appealed the dismissal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  

The Company and certain executive officers were named as defendants
in a putative consolidated class action in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California regarding
certain public statements in connection with the Company's drug
research programs.  

The consolidated class action, initially filed as Meller v.
Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-08505 (C.D.
Cal, filed Nov. 15, 2016 ), Siegel v. Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-8954 (C.D. Cal., filed Dec. 2, 2016), and
Unz v. Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No.2:17-cv-00310
(C.D. Cal., filed Jan. 13, 2017) asserts claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 regarding
certain public statements in connection with the Company's drug
research programs and seek damages in an unspecified amount.  

Additionally, a putative stockholder derivative action captioned
Johnson v. Anzalone, et al., (Los Angeles County Superior Court,
filed January 19, 2017) asserting substantially similar claims is
pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court and is stayed pending
the related consolidated class action.

Two additional putative stockholder derivative actions, captioned
Lucas v. Anzalone, et al., No. 2:17-cv-03207 (C.D. Cal., filed
April 28, 2017), and Singh v. Anzalone, et al., No. 2:17-cv-03160
(C.D. Cal., filed April 27, 2017), alleging breach of fiduciary
duty by the Company's Board of Directors in connection with the
alleged facts underlying the securities claims, are pending in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California.  

The Lucas and Singh actions have been consolidated. On December 21,
2017, the federal district court dismissed the consolidated class
action with prejudice.  

On December 27, 2017 the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  

The Lucas and Singh actions are stayed pending resolution of the
Ninth Circuit appeal.  

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to
vigorously defend itself in these matters.  

Arrowhead  said, "The Company makes provisions for liabilities when
it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the
amount can be reasonably estimated.  No such liability has been
recorded related to these matters. The Company cannot predict the
ultimate outcome of this matter and cannot accurately estimate any
potential liability the Company may incur or the impact of the
results of this matter on the Company."

Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. develops medicines for the
treatment of intractable diseases in the United States. The company
was formerly known as Arrowhead Research Corporation and changed
its name to Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in April 2016.
Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was incorporated in 1989 and is
headquartered in Pasadena, California.


ARROWHEAD PHARMA: Suit over Hepatitis B Drug Research Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Arrowhead 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 putative consolidated class action suit regarding the
company's public statements in connection with its hepatitis B drug
research.

The Company and certain of its officers and directors were named as
defendants in a putative consolidated class action in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
regarding certain public statements in connection with the
Company's hepatitis B drug research.  

The consolidated class action, initially filed as Wang v. Arrowhead
Research Corp., et al., No. 2:14-cv-07890 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct.
10, 2014), and Eskinazi v. Arrowhead Research Corp., et al., No.
2:14-cv-07911 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 13, 2014), asserted claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and sought damages in an unspecified amount.  

Additionally, three putative stockholder derivative actions
captioned Weisman v. Anzalone et al., No. 2:14-cv-08982 (C.D. Cal.,
filed Nov. 20, 2014), Bernstein (Backus) v. Anzalone, et al., No.
2:14-cv-09247 (C.D. Cal., filed Dec. 2, 2014); and Johnson v.
Anzalone, et al., No. 2:15-cv-00446 (C.D. Cal., filed Jan. 22,
2015), were filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, alleging breach of fiduciary duty
by the Company’s Board of Directors in connection with the
alleged facts underlying the securities claims.  

An additional consolidated derivative action asserting similar
claims was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, initially
filed as Bacchus v. Anzalone, et al., (L.A. Super., filed Mar. 5,
2015); and Jackson v. Anzalone, et al. (L.A. Super., filed Mar. 16,
2015).  

Each of these suits seeks damages in unspecified amounts and some
seek various forms of injunctive relief.  

On October 7, 2016, the federal district court dismissed the
consolidated class action with prejudice. Following the dismissal
of the consolidated class action, the parties for the Weisman and
Johnson actions jointly stipulated to dismiss the actions, with the
parties bearing their own fees and costs.  

The parties to the Bernstein and consolidated derivative action
agreed to stay the matters pending the resolution of the Ninth
Circuit appeal of the dismissal of the consolidated class action.
On February 15, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued a memorandum
affirming the district court's dismissal of all claims.  

Plaintiffs in the consolidated derivative action voluntarily
dismissed their case. The parties to the Bernstein action filed a
stipulation to continue the stay of the action pending resolution
of the Ninth Circuit appeal in Meller v. Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-08505 (C.D. Cal.).  

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to
vigorously defend itself in each of these matters.  

Arrowhead said, "The Company makes provisions for liabilities when
it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the
amount can be reasonably estimated.  No such liability has been
recorded related to these matters. The Company does not expect
these matters to have a material effect on its Consolidated
Financial Statements."

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

Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. develops medicines for the
treatment of intractable diseases in the United States. The company
was formerly known as Arrowhead Research Corporation and changed
its name to Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in April 2016.
Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was incorporated in 1989 and is
headquartered in Pasadena, California.


ASSERTIO THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Huang Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Assertio Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the second amended
compliant in Huang v. Depomed et al., asserted the same claims
arising out of the same and similar disclosures against the Company
and the same individuals as were involved in the original
complaint.

On August 23, 2017, the Company, its current chief executive
officer and president, its former chief executive officer and
president, and its former chief financial officer were named as
defendants in a purported federal securities law class action filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California (the District Court).

The action (Huang v. Depomed et al., No. 3:17-cv-4830-JST, N.D.
Cal.) alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
relating to certain prior disclosures of the Company about its
business, compliance, and operational policies and practices
concerning the sales and marketing of its opioid products and
contends that the conduct supporting the alleged violations
affected the value of Company common stock and is seeking damages
and other relief.

In an amended complaint filed on February 6, 2018, the lead
plaintiff (referred to in its pleadings as the Depomed Investor
Group), which seeks to represent a class consisting of all
purchasers of Company common stock between July 29, 2015 and August
6, 2017, asserted the same claims arising out of the same and
similar disclosures against the Company and the same individuals as
were involved in the original complaint.

The Company and the individuals filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on April 9, 2018. The lead plaintiff filed an
opposition to the motion on June 8, 2018. The Company and the
individuals filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss on
July 23, 2018. Oral arguments took place on December 13, 2018.

On March 18, 2019, the District Court granted the Company's motion
to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended complaint. The dismissal was
without prejudice, and the plaintiffs filed a second amended
compliant on May 2, 2019.

The second amended compliant asserted the same claims arising out
of the same and similar disclosures against the Company and the
same individuals as were involved in the original complaint.

Company believes that the action is without merit and intends to
contest it vigorously.

Assertio Therapeutics, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company,
provides medicines in neurology, orphan, and specialty areas in the
United States. The company was formerly known as Depomed Inc. and
changed its name to Assertio Therapeutics, Inc. in August 2018.
Assertio Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is
headquartered in Lake Forest, Illinois.


ATMOS ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Rosie Skunk Campaign
----------------------------------------------------------
Ginger Allen, writing for CBSDFW.COM, reports that Atmos Energy
Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit on behalf of all
Texans claiming it is not doing enough to warn customers of a
danger that could be in your home.

The gas company uses a cartoon character named Rosie the Skunk to
teach customers, "If you smell gas? Act Fast." In educational
campaigns, you hear her say, "Hello this is Rosie the Skunk for
Atmos Energy. You might think I make a bad smell but it's nothing
compared to the rotten egg smell of a gas leak."

But now on behalf of more than 1.6 million Texans, Texas burn
survivor Russell McElyea filed a lawsuit claiming the campaign (and
Atmos) gives customers a "false sense of security."

He and many other house explosion survivors say they never smelled
that rotten egg smell.

"They're awareness campaign is called smell gas act fast but in
reality, you might not smell the gas!" says Attorney Dean Gresham
who represents McElyea and the family of the 57-yearold Navy
veteran Raul Pedroza.

In May of 2017, Pedroza lit his stove in Stephenville to cook lunch
just seconds before he was engulfed in a ball of flame. McElyea
carried Pedraza out of the house before it exploded.

Pedroza died 15 months later, but not before he and McElyea say
they never smelled that rotten egg odorant which is injected into
gas before it reaches your home.

In an ongoing investigation, the I-Team learned that odor can fade
or lose its smell as it travels through pipes or soil.

"When they admit the infrastructure is outdated, they admit that
odor fade can occur…" says Gresham.

Following our I-Team reports, Atmos just added this warning to its
mailers: "The odor intensity can be diminished…such as when gas
passes through certain soil conditions."

The energy company is also advising customers about natural gas
detectors, but victims say the warning is in too fine of print and
not enough.

Waving the pamphlet, Gresham says, "To me, this warning is not a
warning"

And McElyea says the more well-known warning, such as the Rosie the
Skunk campaign, was not enough in May of 2017.

The class action lawsuit is not seeking money but rather asking
Atmos to provide all of its customers with a natural detector for
their homes.

Atmos Energy Corporation sent the I-Team this statement:

"We are aware of the lawsuit but disagree with its claims.

"We are committed to an ongoing public awareness program to
educate, communicate, and provide outreach efforts about natural
gas pipeline safety with our customers, the public, local
officials, and first responders in the communities we operate. Our
program follows the guidance provided by the American Petroleum
Institute Recommended Practice 1162, "Public Awareness Programs for
Pipeline Operators," as adopted by federal regulations."

"To recognize a gas leak, we encourage our customers to rely upon
all of their senses to detect the presence of natural gas, and we
continue to take precise steps to ensure that the odorant levels
within our natural gas are readily detectable by a person with a
normal sense of smell. We also make our customers aware of
situations where odor intensity can be diminished by physical
and/or chemical process, such as when gas passes through certain
soil conditions. For more information, the public can go to our
website.

"Anyone who thinks they smell natural gas inside their home or
business should Act Fast! Leave the area immediately and call 911
and the Atmos Energy emergency line at 1.866.322.8667." [GN]


AXLEHIRE INC: Arbitration of Davis' Claims in J. King Suit Ordered
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES KING, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AXLEHIRE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-01621-JD (N.D. Cal.), Judge James Donato
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
granted the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration of Plaintiff
Derion Davis' claims.

As alleged in the complaints, Davis has worked periodically as a
driver for AxleHire since October 2016. He and the other named
Plaintiffs have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class
of AxleHire drivers under the California Labor Code and the Fair
Labor Standards Act for misclassification as independent
contractors, unpaid wages, and failure to provide meal and rest
breaks, among other claims.  They also allege racial discrimination
under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Davis was a later addition as a Plaintiff.  He first appeared in an
amended complaint filed with one of the original Plaintiffs,
Shemicka Johnson.  Two other original Plaintiffs, King and Barrera,
went to arbitration on an individual basis only.  AxleHire has not
sought to arbitrate Johnson's claims.

For the pending motion, AxleHire has proffered a copy of an
"Independent Contractor Agreement" that it says Davis agreed to
when he started driving for the company.  The Agreement contains an
arbitration clause in which the parties agreed to final and binding
arbitration for any disputes, claims, or causes of actions arising
out of or relating to contractor's relationship with company,
including disputes related to allegations of contractor
misclassification and discrimination.  The arbitration is to be
administered under JAMS procedures, and the Agreement is governed
by the Federal Arbitration Act.

AxleHire submits as additional evidence a declaration stating that
Davis, like all new AxleHire drivers, had to complete the following
steps at sign-up: (1) create an account and password, (2) scroll
through the agreement, (3) press "I ACCEPT," (4) type his name into
the Agreement, and (5) press "E-SIGN."  Davis confirms that the
Agreement was provided to him on or around Oct. 20, 2016.

Based on the evidence presented with the motion, which Davis does
not meaningfully challenge, Judge Donato holds that there is no
doubt that the parties entered into the Agreement.  Davis claims
that he never signed or otherwise agreed to the Agreement, but he
proffers no facts, declaration, or any other evidence in support of
this contention.  Instead, he faults AxleHire for having no record
of his signature.  That is his main reason for opposing
arbitration.

AxleHire does not disagree that Davis' signature is missing, but
the omission is of no moment for the formation question.  That is
because AxleHire has presented an abundance of evidence showing
that Davis did, in fact, agree to the Agreement.  Davis' reference
to the contract being "unfair" or "inequitable" is also completely
undeveloped and not tied in any meaningful way to the formation
dispute.  His mention of a proposed California Assembly bill is no
basis for finding that a contract was not formed between the
parties.

For these reasons, Judge Donato granted the motion to compel.  Any
issues of validity and enforceability with respect to the Agreement
are delegated to the arbitrator.  The parties are directed to
provide the Court with joint status updates on the arbitration
proceedings every 90 days from the date of thie Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 30, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/o8YRxY from Leagle.com.

James King, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Krisia Barrera, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Shemicka Johnson, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated & Derion Davis, Plaintiffs,
represented by Anthony James Nunes -- tony@nunesworkerrightslaw.com
-- Nunes Worker Rights Law, APC.

Axlehire, Inc., a California corporation, Defendant, represented by
Andrew Michael Spurchise -- aspurchise@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, P.C., Amanda Michelle Osowski, Littler Mendelson, P.C.,
Gal Gressel -- ggressel@littler.com -- & Sophia Behnia --
sbehnia@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C.


BANC OF CALIFORNIA: Trial in Consolidated Suit Set for Feb. 2020
----------------------------------------------------------------
Banc of California, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the trial in the
consolidated class action suit pending before the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California is currently set for
February 18, 2020.

The Company was named as a defendant in several complaints filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California in January 2017 alleging violations of sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaints were brought as purported class actions on behalf of
stockholders who purchased shares of the Company's common stock
between varying dates, inclusive of August 7, 2015 through January
23, 2017.

Those actions were consolidated, a lead plaintiff was appointed,
and the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on
May 31, 2017. The defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Amended Complaint.

On September 18, 2017, the district court granted in part and
denied in part Defendants' motions to dismiss.

Specifically, the court denied the defendants' motions as to the
Company's April 15, 2016 Proxy Statement which listed the positions
held by Steven A. Sugarman (the Company’s then (now former)
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer) with COR
Securities Holdings Inc., COR Clearing LLC, and COR Capital LLC
while omitting their alleged connections with Jason Galanis.

On May 31, 2018, the court certified a class of shareholders who
purchased Company stock between April 15, 2016 and January 20,
2017.

Trial is currently set for February 18, 2020.

The Company believes that the action is without merit and intends
to vigorously contest it.

Banc of California, Inc. operates as the bank holding company for
Banc of California, National Association that provides banking
products and services in the United States. The company offers
deposit products, including checking, savings, money market,
retirement, and interest and noninterest-bearing demand accounts,
as well as certificates of deposit. The company was formerly known
as First PacTrust Bancorp, Inc. and changed its name to Banc of
California, Inc. in July 2013. Banc of California, Inc. was founded
in 1941 and is headquartered in Santa Ana, California.


BANK OF NEW YORK: Agreement Reached in Depositary Receipt Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Bank of New York Mellon 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
parties in the lawsuits over depositary receipts have entered into
settlement agreements to resolve the cases.

Between late December 2015 and February 2016, four putative class
action lawsuits were filed against BNY Mellon asserting claims
relating to BNY Mellon's foreign exchange pricing when converting
dividends and other distributions from non-U.S. companies in its
role as depositary bank to Depositary Receipt issuers.

The claims are for breach of contract and violations of ERISA. The
lawsuits have been consolidated into two suits that are pending in
federal court in the Southern District of New York.

The parties in the lawsuits have entered into settlement agreements
to resolve the suits, which are subject to court approval.

The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation provides a range of
financial products and services to institutions, corporations, and
high net worth individuals in the United States and
internationally. The company operates through two segments,
Investment Management and Investment Services. The Bank of New York
Mellon Corporation was founded in 1784 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.


BARTACO: Appeals Hepatitis A Exposure Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
David Robinson, Rockland/Westchester Journal News, reports that
Bartaco, a Westchester County eatery under fire for a Hepatitis A
exposure, is appealing a court order that allows a class-action
lawsuit to proceed in connection to the outbreak.

The pending appeal comes after several patrons suing the restaurant
on Port Chester's waterfront asked the court to mail notifications
related to the hepatitis exposure that happened between Oct. 12 and
23 last year.

The mailings would seek to contact more than 3,000 people who
received hepatitis vaccines after a public-health warning about the
outbreak involving food or beverages served at bartaco during that
time period, court records show. The county health department
issued the warning after four people contracted hepatitis in
connection to an infected bartaco worker.

The case has implications for other hepatitis A exposures, such as
one at Winston restaurant in Mount Kisco disclosed recently. That
exposure affected anyone who ate or drank at the restaurant between
April 17 to May 1, authorities said.

Meanwhile, bartaco's attorneys contend the class-action order
should be overturned for several reasons, including that the
eatery's voluntary payments to patrons affected by the exposure are
superior to the direct mailings.

Bartaco's attorneys also argued that a patron in the case wasn't
served by the infected employee, according to the notice of appeal
filed April 10. They had previously asked the court to deny the
class-action status for similar reasons.

State Supreme Justice Gerald Loehr, however, disagreed with
bartaco's arguments in issuing the order to uphold the class-action
status, which potentially increases the restaurant's payout to
affected patrons.

The class action is based on people consuming food deemed
adulterated and unsafe under Health Department regulations due to
the presence of a hepatitis A infected worker, so the fact the
patron "had not been served directly by the infected employee is
irrelevant," Loehr wrote.

Attorneys for the patrons previously argued the direct mailings are
the best means to notify people they're eligible to join the
class-action lawsuit, a stance supported by Loehr's order in
February.

The case, which has yet to set future court proceedings regarding
the appeal, may result in payouts to thousands of bartaco patrons.

The average payment has been about $200 to $300 per patron in
similar outbreak cases historically, according to Bill Marler, the
food-safety attorney for several people suing bartaco. That means
bartaco could be paying up to $900,000 overall for the outbreak.

Bartaco, however, has already been making voluntary payments to
patrons affected by the incident. It hired an independent company
to set up and publicize a hotline to handle the situation.

The phone number directed bartaco customers to vaccination and
testing clinics. It previously reimbursed customers a total of
about $74,000 for vaccinations, testing, medical treatment, meals
at the restaurant, travel and lost earnings. [GN]


BBVA COMPASS: Chattopadhyay Class Action Underway
-------------------------------------------------
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 remains a
defendant in the class action suit entitled, Amitahbo Chattopadhyay
v. BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc., et al.

In March 2019, the Company and its subsidiary, Simple Finance
Technology Corp., were named as defendants in a putative class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, Amitahbo Chattopadhyay v. BBVA
Compass Bancshares, Inc., et al.

Plaintiff claims that Simple and the Company only permit United
States citizens to open Simple accounts (which are exclusively
originated through online channels).

Plaintiff alleges that this constitutes alienage discrimination and
violations of California's Unruh Act.

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

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: St. Lucie Firefighters' Suit Still 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 BBVA Securities Inc.
continues to defend itself in a putative class action suit
entitled, St. Lucie County Fire District Firefighters' Pension
Trust, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Southwestern Energy Company, et al.

In October 2016, BBVA Securities Inc. (BSI) was named as a
defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the District
Court of Harris County, Texas, St. Lucie County Fire District
Firefighters' Pension Trust, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Southwestern Energy Company, et al.,
wherein the plaintiffs allege that Southwestern Energy Company, its
officers and directors, and the underwriting defendants (including
BSI) made inaccurate and misleading statements in the registration
statement and prospectus related to a securities offering.

The plaintiffs seek 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: Defending Against 6,755 Hernia Product Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that as of March 31, 2019,
the Company is defending itself against approximately 6,755 product
liability claims involving the Company's line of hernia repair
devices (collectively, the "Hernia Product Claims").

The majority of those claims are currently pending in a coordinated
proceeding in Rhode Island State Court, but claims are also pending
in other state and/or federal court jurisdictions.

In addition, those claims include multiple putative class actions
in Canada. Generally, the Hernia Product Claims seek damages for
personal injury allegedly resulting from use of the products.

From time to time, the Company engages in resolution discussions
with plaintiffs' law firms regarding certain of the Hernia Product
Claims, but the Company also intends to vigorously defend Hernia
Product Claims that do not settle, including through litigation.
Trials are scheduled throughout 2019 in various state and/or
federal courts.

The Company expects additional trials of Hernia Product Claims to
take place over the next 12 months.

In August 2018, a new hernia multi-district litigation ("MDL") was
ordered to be established in the Southern District of Ohio.

The Company cannot give any assurances that the resolution of the
Hernia Product Claims that have not settled, including asserted and
unasserted claims and the putative class action lawsuits, will not
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results
of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.

Becton, Dickinson and Company develops, manufactures, and sells
medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment, and diagnostic
products worldwide. Becton, Dickinson and Company was founded in
1897 and is based in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey.


BECTON DICKINSON: Resolves 15,160 Women's Health Product Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the Company has reached
agreements or agreements in principle with various plaintiffs' law
firms to settle their respective inventories of cases totaling
approximately 15,160 of Women's Health Product Claims.

As of March 31, 2019, the Company is defending approximately 1,050
product liability claims involving the Company's line of pelvic
mesh devices.

The majority of those claims are currently pending in either the
federal MDL in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, or a coordinated proceeding in New
Jersey State Court, but claims are also pending in other state
and/or federal court jurisdictions.

In addition, those claims include putative class actions filed in
the United States. Not included in the figures above are
approximately 1,015 filed and unfiled claims that have been
asserted or threatened against the Company but lack sufficient
information to determine whether a pelvic mesh device of the
Company is actually at issue.

The claims identified above also include products manufactured by
both the Company and two subsidiaries of Medtronic plc (as
successor in interest to Covidien plc) ("Medtronic"), each a
supplier of the Company. Medtronic has an obligation to defend and
indemnify the Company with respect to any product defect liability
relating to products its subsidiaries had manufactured.

As described below, in July 2015 the Company reached an agreement
with Medtronic (which was amended in June 2017) regarding certain
aspects of Medtronic's indemnification obligation. The foregoing
lawsuits, unfiled claims, putative class actions, and other claims,
together with claims that have settled or are the subject of
agreements or agreements in principle to settle, are referred to
collectively as the "Women's Health Product Claims."

The Women's Health Product Claims generally seek damages for
personal injury allegedly resulting from use of the products.

As of March 31, 2019, the Company has reached agreements or
agreements in principle with various plaintiffs' law firms to
settle their respective inventories of cases totaling approximately
15,160 of the Women's Health Product Claims. The Company believes
that these Women's Health Product Claims are not the subject of
Medtronic's indemnification obligation.

These settlement agreements and agreements in principle include
unfiled and previously unknown claims held by various plaintiffs'
law firms, which are not included in the approximate number of
lawsuits set forth in the first paragraph of this section.

Each agreement is subject to certain conditions, including
requirements for participation in the proposed settlements by a
certain minimum number of plaintiffs. The Company continues to
engage in discussions with other plaintiffs' law firms regarding
potential resolution of unsettled Women's Health Product Claims,
which may include additional inventory settlements.

Starting in 2014 in the MDL, the court entered certain pre-trial
orders requiring trial work up and remand of a significant number
of Women's Health Product Claims, including an order entered in the
MDL on January 30, 2018, that requires the work up and remand of
all remaining unsettled cases (the "WHP Pre-Trial Orders").

The WHP Pre-Trial Orders may result in material additional costs or
trial verdicts in future periods in defending Women's Health
Product Claims. Trials are anticipated throughout 2019 in state
courts. A trial in the New Jersey coordinated proceeding began in
March 2018, and in April 2018 a jury entered a verdict against the
Company in the total amount of $68 million ($33 million
compensatory; $35 million punitive).

The Company is in the process of appealing that verdict. A
consolidated trial involving two plaintiffs is scheduled to begin
in September 2019 in the New Jersey coordinated proceeding. The
Company expects additional trials of Women's Health Product Claims
to take place over the next 12 months, which may potentially
include consolidated trials.

In July 2015, as part of the agreement with Medtronic noted above,
Medtronic agreed to take responsibility for pursuing settlement of
certain of the Women's Health Product Claims that relate to
products distributed by the Company under supply agreements with
Medtronic, and the Company has paid Medtronic $121 million towards
these potential settlements.

In June 2017, the Company amended the agreement with Medtronic to
transfer responsibility for settlement of additional Women's Health
Product Claims to Medtronic on terms similar to the July 2015
agreement, including with respect to the obligation to make
payments to Medtronic towards these potential settlements. The
Company also may, in its sole discretion, transfer responsibility
for settlement of additional Women's Health Product Claims to
Medtronic on similar terms.

The agreements do not resolve the dispute between the Company and
Medtronic with respect to Women's Health Product Claims that do not
settle, if any.

During the course of engaging in settlement discussions with
plaintiffs' law firms, the Company has learned, and may in future
periods learn, additional information regarding these and other
unfiled claims, or other lawsuits, which could materially impact
the Company's estimate of the number of claims or lawsuits against
the Company.

Becton, Dickinson and Company develops, manufactures, and sells
medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment, and diagnostic
products worldwide. Becton, Dickinson and Company was founded in
1897 and is based in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey.


BECTON DICKINSON: Still Defends 6,960 Filter Product Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that as of March 31, 2019,
the Company is defending itself against approximately 6,960 product
liability claims involving the Company's line of inferior vena cava
filters (collectively, the "Filter Product Claims").

The majority of those claims are currently pending in an MDL in the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona, but
claims are also pending in other state and/or federal court
jurisdictions, including a coordinated proceeding in Arizona State
Court.

In addition, those claims include putative class actions filed in
the United States and Canada. The Filter Product Claims generally
seek damages for personal injury allegedly resulting from use of
the products.

The Company has limited information regarding the nature and
quantity of certain of the Filter Product Claims. The Company
continues to receive claims and lawsuits and may in future periods
learn additional information regarding other unfiled or unknown
claims, or other lawsuits, which could materially impact the
Company's estimate of the number of claims or lawsuits against the
Company. Trials are scheduled throughout 2019 in the MDL and state
courts.

On March 30, 2018, a jury in the first MDL trial found the Company
liable for negligent failure to warn and entered a verdict in favor
of plaintiffs.

The jury found the Company was not liable for (a) strict liability
design defect; (b) strict liability failure to warn; and (c)
negligent design. The Company has appealed that verdict.

On June 1, 2018, a jury in the second MDL trial unanimously found
in favor of the Company on all claims. On August 17, 2018, the
Court entered summary judgment in favor of the Company on all
claims in the third MDL trial.

On October 5, 2018, a jury in the fourth MDL trial unanimously
found in favor of the Company on all claims. The final MDL
bellwether trial is scheduled to begin in May 2019.

The MDL Court has indicated that as of May 31, 2019, it will no
longer accept direct filings or transfers of cases into the Filter
Product Claims MDL.

The Company expects additional trials of Filter Product Claims may
take place over the next 12 months.

Becton, Dickinson and Company develops, manufactures, and sells
medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment, and diagnostic
products worldwide. Becton, Dickinson and Company was founded in
1897 and is based in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey.


BEDFORD, OH: Ordered to Pay Restitution Over Inspection Laws
------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Heisig, writing for Cleveland.com, reports that a federal
judge ordered the city of Bedford pay $40,667 for a class-action
lawsuit residents filed over home inspection ordinances that
allowed the city to perform warrantless searches.

The restitution U.S. District Judge Benita Pearson ordered on My 8
is designed to reimburse 563 people for 1,208 inspections that were
unlawful, according to Pearson's order and other court filings.

Pearson, whose courtroom is in Youngstown, ruled in September that
laws the suburban city previously had on the books were
unconstitutional.

The city's point-of-sale inspection ordinance required homeowners
to obtain a certificate prior to selling. To obtain this, the city
required homeowners to give building officials access to their
houses at any reasonable time, and to pay inspection fees ranging
from $50 to $200, Pearson wrote.

Its rental inspection ordinance required landlords to similarly
schedule inspections of their units every two years or each time
they rented to a new tenant, and to pay $20 to $50 in inspection
fees per unit, according to the judge.

Homeowners and landlords who did not comply with these laws could
be found guilty of a misdemeanor and face fines and jail time.

Four Bedford residents sued over the point-of-sale ordinance in
2016, and Pearson enjoined the city from enforcing what were
essentially warrantless searches and from prosecuting people based
on the ordinance. The city later amended that ordinance by
including an administrative warrant process and removing criminal
penalties for not consenting to an inspection.

The residents later brought claims regarding the rental inspection
ordinance and the city amended the law in 2017, according to the
judge's order.[GN]


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces Class Action Over Combivent Inhaler
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Storace, writing for Connecticut Law Tribune, reports that a
prospective class action lawsuit has been filed against Boehringer
Ingelheim Pharmaceutical Inc., alleging the Big Pharma company made
false and misleading statements regarding its Combivent Respimat
asthma inhaler.

The 24-page federal lawsuit in Connecticut accuses the
international company of conducting "an extensive, widespread,
comprehensive and uniform nationwide marketing campaign" that
misrepresented the dosage of its Combivent inhalers. It claims the
company offered metered-dose inhalers that were supposed to provide
a set number of constant puffs, but which fell far short.

The suit states, "Defendant's product does not actually live up to
these advertised promises."
One inhaler can cost upwards of $450, although most insurance plans
provide coverage.

Combivent is a bronchodilator designed to treat chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease, or COPD. Each inhaler is supposed to provide
"120 metered doses of relief from lung constriction," but sometimes
contains half that amount, according to the lawsuit.

"Those representations are false, deceptive and unfair," states the
complaint by Hollywood, Florida, resident and named plaintiff Carl
Ignacuinos, who said he took a running count of doses from several
Boehringer inhalers.

As of May 7, the company has not assigned an attorney to the
matter. Sheila Denton, the company's general counsel and senior
vice president, did not respond to a request for comment. And Chris
Wahlers, associate director of public relations for Boehringer
Ingelheim, said the company was reviewing the complaint and would
"respond to the complaint in due course."

"Patient safety and product integrity are our top priorities,"
Wahlers said. "We diligently work to ensure all of our medicines
are manufactured in accordance to FDA-approved labeling, and we are
confident that our inhaler delivers the correct doses of the
medicine."

Wahlers also said the Food and Drug Administration has approved
Combivent Respimat for COPD, but not as an asthma treatment.

While the plaintiff lives in south Florida, he filed suit in
Connecticut, where Boehringer Ingelheim bases its U.S. operations.
He said the damage he suffered goes beyond finances.

"Ignacuinos was additionally injured when he was required to
restrict his activities because his Combivent had run out
prematurely," the lawsuit said. "Since he would no longer have a
means of relieving his breathing obstructions at this point, he
often was required to stay indoors in order to minimize the chances
of a COPD attack, against which he would be helpless. This was a
source of considerable mental anguish."

The plaintiff and class, the lawsuit states, "were also injured
physically and emotionally, since they were subjected to asthma
attacks they could not control and had to live with the anxious
knowledge of this risk, restricting their activities."

Representing the plaintiff are attorneys Stephen Bourtin of
Stamford-based The Boyd Law Group, and C.K. Lee of New York
City-based Lee Litigation Group. Neither attorney responded to a
request for comment on May 7.

The lawsuit seeks certification as a class, restitution to the
class, declaratory relief, statutory pre- and post-judgment
interest on any amounts awarded, and attorney fees and costs.

The four-count complaint alleges violation of the Connecticut
Unfair Trade Practices Act, breach of express warranties,
common-law fraud and violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act, brought on behalf of the Florida class.

Judge Stefan Underhill is scheduled to hear the case. [GN]


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: June 24 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investors rights
law firm, on May 6 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of investors that acquired Boston Scientific
Corporation ("Boston Scientific" or the "Company") (NYSE: BSX )
securities between February 26, 2015 and April 16, 2019, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Boston Scientific investors have until June
24, 2019 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy,
Esquire, at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com

On April 16, 2019, the Company was ordered by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration ("FDA") to stop selling and distributing its
surgical mesh products. According to the FDA, the Company had "not
demonstrated a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for
these devices."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.90 per share, more
than 7%, over the following two trading sessions to close at $34.91
per share on April 17, 2019, thereby injuring investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) Boston Scientific's surgical mesh products indicated
for the transvaginal repair of POP were unsafe; (2) accordingly,
Boston Scientific's continued marketing and sales of these devices
in the United States was unlikely to be sustainable; (3)
separately, the Company had sold vaginal mesh implants containing
counterfeit or adulterated resin products imported from China; (4)
the foregoing conduct subjected the Company to a heightened risk of
regulatory scrutiny and/or government investigations; and (5) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

If you purchased shares of Boston Scientific during the Class
Period you may move the Court no later than  June 24, 2019  to ask
the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the
Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain
counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent
member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action,
or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact
Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite
2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our
website at www.glancylaw.com  If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased. [GN]


CALIFORNIA SOLAR: Hicke Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Tom Hicke, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. California Solar Electric Company, and Does 1 through
10 Case No. 3:19-cv-00602 (C.D. Calif., April 1, 2019), is brought
against the Defendants for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants negligently, knowingly and
willingly contacted his cellular telephone using automatic
telephone dialing system without express consent, which is in
violation of the TCPA and related regulations specifically the
National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby invading the Plaintiff's
privacy.

The Plaintiff is a natural person residing in San Diego, California
and is one of the persons contacted by the Defendant through
automatic telephone dialing system, in an attempt to solicit
purchase of their services.

The Defendant Solar Electric is a solar installation company and
used an automatic telephone dialing system to place calls to
solicit its services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CENIKOR FOUNDATION: Aleem Moves Certify Workers Class Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned MALIK ALEEM v. CENIKOR
FOUNDATION, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-00268-JWD-RLB (M.D. La.), moves
for conditional collective certification and court-authorized
notice pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The class is defined as:

     All individuals who resided at the Cenikor Foundation, Inc.
     facility in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, within the three years
     prior to the filing of this Complaint, and who were assigned
     by Cenikor to work at third-party facilities but whose
     earnings were kept, in whole or in part, by Cenikor.

Malik Aleem alleges that Defendant Cenikor Foundation, Inc., has
violated the FLSA by requiring the Plaintiff, and other similarly
situated individuals, to work outside jobs for third-party
companies without paying any compensation whatsoever.  This is a
common unlawful policy that affects not only the Plaintiff, but
many other employees and former Cenikor residents in Baton Rouge,
the Plaintiff contends.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles J. Stiegler, Esq.
          STIEGLER LAW FIRM LLC
          318 Harrison Ave., Suite 104
          New Orleans, LA 70124
          Telephone: (504) 267-0777
          Facsimile: (504) 513-3084
          E-mail: Charles@StieglerLawFirm.com

               - and -

          Justin Chopin, Esq.
          CHOPIN LAW FIRM LLC
          650 Poydras St., Suite 1550
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 229-6681
          Facsimile: (504) 324-0640
          E-mail: Justin@ChopinLawFirm.com

               - and -

          Collin Melancon, Esq.
          Scott Mansfield, Esq.
          CRANMER & DICK LLC
          318 Harrison Ave., Suite 107
          New Orleans, LA 70124
          Telephone: (504) 500-1108
          Facsimile: (504) 208-3427
          E-mail: Collin@MansfieldMelancon.com
                  Scott@MansfieldMelancon.com

               - and -

          Kelley R. Dick, Jr., Esq.
          Brad W. Cranmer, Esq.
          CRANMER & DICK LLC
          2133 Silverside Drive, Suite B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70808
          Telephone: (225) 612-0800
          Facsimile: (504) 208-3427
          E-mail: Kelley@MansfieldMelancon.Com
                  Brad@MansfieldMelancon.Com


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Vectren Merger-Related Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated class action suit related to its
merger with Vectren Corporation (Vectren).

On February 1, 2019, pursuant to the Merger Agreement, CenterPoint
Energy consummated the previously announced Merger and acquired
Vectren for approximately $6 billion in cash. On the Merger Date,
Vectren became a wholly-owned subsidiary of CenterPoint Energy.

With respect to the Merger, in July 2018, seven separate lawsuits
were filed against Vectren and the individual directors of
Vectren's Board of Directors in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana.

These lawsuits allege violations of Sections 14(a) of the Exchange
Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 on the grounds that the Vectren Proxy
Statement filed on June 18, 2018 was materially incomplete because
it omitted material information concerning the Merger. The lawsuits
also seek certification as class actions.

In August 2018, the seven lawsuits were consolidated, and the Court
denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction. The
plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint
in October 2018, which the defendants have moved to dismiss and
which motion remains pending.

The plaintiffs filed their response in opposition to the motion to
dismiss in January 2019, and Vectren filed its reply in support of
the motion to dismiss in February 2019.

In December 2018, two plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their
lawsuits, for which the Court entered an order approving the
voluntary dismissal and dismissed without prejudice in January
2019.

The defendants believe that the allegations asserted are without
merit and intend to vigorously defend themselves against the claims
raised.

CenterPoint Energy does not expect the ultimate outcome of this
matter to have a material adverse effect on its financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.

CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. wholesales natural gas and
energy products. The Company gathers, processes, and treats natural
gas and electricity, as well as provides administrative support.
CenterPoint Energy Resources operates in the United States. The
company is based in Houston, Texas.


CHECKERS DRIVE-IN: Court Preliminarily Certifies Class
------------------------------------------------------
In a class action lawsuit JOEL MEDGEBOW, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CHECKERS
DRIVE-IN RESTAURANCTS, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-80090-BLOOM/Reinhart, Case No. 9:19-cv-80090-BB (S.D. Fla.),
the Court entered an order:  

   1. preliminarily certifying a class of:

     "all persons in the United States (i) identified in the
     Settlement Class List (ii) who between January 28, 2018
     and [the date of preliminary approval], attempted to
     unsubscribe from receiving text messages from Checkers'
     short code 88001, by texting "stop," "cancel,"
     "unsubscribe," "end," "quit," "optout," "opt out,"
     "remove," "cancelar," "arret," or "arrette" (or any
     variation thereof) and were subsequently sent text
     message advertisements or promotions from Checkers to
     their cellular telephone and did not re-subscribe to
     receive text messages";

   2. preliminarily appointing Joel Medgebow as Class
     Representative for settlement purposes only;

   3. appointing Plaintiff's counsel as Class Counsel for the
     Settlement Class;

   4. appoving Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC as the
      designated Settlement Administrator;

The class specifically excludes persons in the following
categories: (A) individuals who are or were during the Class Period
officers or directors of Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc.
("Checkers") or any of its respective affiliates; (B) the district
judge and magistrate judge presiding over this case, the judges of
the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, their
spouses, and persons within the third degree of relationship to
either of them; and (C) all persons who file a timely and proper
request to be excluded from the Settlement Class in accordance with
Section III(D) of the Agreement.

The Court recognizes that Checkers reserves all of its defenses and
objections against and rights to oppose any request for class
certification in the event that the proposed Settlement does not
become Final for any reason. The Parties reserve and retain all of
their rights in the event the Settlement does not become Final for
any reason.

The Settlement Class Notice Program shall be effectuated as
follows:

   a. Within 10 days of the entry of this Order, the Parties
      shall provide to the Settlement Administrator the
      Settlement Class List with sufficient records
      identifying the telephone numbers of the Persons to
      which the text messages were sent by or on behalf of
      Checkers. The Settlement Administrator shall use these
      telephone numbers to determine the mailing addresses
      for the Settlement Class Members.

   b. No later than 42 Days after the entry of the Order, the
      Settlement Administrator will mail (and e-mail where
      applicable) the Notice to all the members of the
      Settlement Class.

   c. The Settlement Administrator will maintain the
      Settlement Website in accordance with the Agreement.

   d. The Settlement Administrator will file proof of
      compliance with the Settlement Class Notice Program
      at or before the Fairness Hearing.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Class:

          Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
          EDWARDS POTTINGER, LLC
          425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

               - and -

          Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
          Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.
          EGGNATZ | PASCUCCI
          7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
          Davie, FL 33314

CHERRY CREEK: Montana Affirms Summary Judgment in Somers Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ADAM SOMERS and BREEA SOMERS, Plaintiffs and
Appellants, v. CHERRY CREEK DEVELOPMENT, INC. and RJC INVESTMENT,
INC., Defendants and Appellees, Case No. DA 18-0382 (Mont.), Judge
Ingrid Gustafson of the Supreme Court of Montana affirmed the order
of the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County,
granting summary judgment to the Defendants.

On Aug. 13, 2010, the Somers purchased a mobile home for $54,300
from Cherry Creek in Billings, Montana.  The Somers paid $4,344
down and financed the remainder through an installment contract
assigned to RJC Investment.  The installment contract required the
Somers to make monthly payments of $552 over a 15-year period and
to pay a $50 late fee for any late payments.

Prior to any default action filed against them, the Somers filed a
putative class action in District Court seeking a declaratory
judgment for themselves and all others similarly situated that the
Montana Retail Installment Sales Act ("RISA"), Section 31-1-201, et
seq., MCA (2009), barred Cherry Creek and RJC Investment from
recovery of any interest, finance charges, or late charges on
installment contracts for the purchase of a manufactured home.
Cherry Creek and RJC Investment answered and counterclaimed
alleging the Somers defaulted on the installment contract.  Cherry
Creek and RJC Investment and the Somers filed cross-motions for
summary judgment.  On May 16, 2017, the District Court granted
summary judgment to Cherry Creek and RJC Investment on the basis
that RISA did not confer a private cause of action, but did not
rule on Cherry Creek and RJC Investment's counterclaim.

On June 20, 2017, the Somers filed a M. R. Civ. P. 59 motion to
alter or amend the judgment, which the District Court denied on the
basis that no unresolved claims existed and RISA did not confer a
private cause of action.  On Oct. 19, 2017, Cherry Creek and RJC
Investment and the Somers filed a joint motion to dismiss Cherry
Creek and RJC Investment's counterclaim against the Somers.  The
Somers had become current on their payments to Cherry Creek and RJC
Investment and were no longer in default.  However, Cherry Creek
and RJC Investment reserved the right to pursue new litigation
against the Somers should they default in the future.  The parties
further requested that the District Court delay entry of judgment
two months for the parties to discuss potential resolution.  The
parties did not resolve the matter, and on June 18, 2018, the
District Court entered a final judgment granting summary judgment
to Cherry Creek and RJC Investment.

The Somers appeal.  They assert six violations of Sections 31-1-231
through -243, MCA, by Cherry Creek and RJC Investment, including
that Cherry Creek and RJC Investment: (1) failed to disclose the
finance charge; (2) failed to disclose the total amount of the time
balance, stated as one sum in dollars and cents; (3) prematurely
assessed late fees; (4) charged excessive late fees; (5) failed to
disclose the number of payments; and (6) did not contain the
required notice in the installment contract.  

The Somers argue they have a private cause of action under RISA,
Section 31-1-203, MCA (2009), barring Cherry Creek and RJC
Investment from recovery of any finance, delinquency, or collection
charge on the installment contract.  In the alternative, they argue
for the first time on appeal that it is not necessary to find a
private right of action under RISA, because the Uniform Declaratory
Judgment Act, Section 27-8-102, MCA, provides a private cause of
action for determination of rights under a contract.

Judge Gustafson holds that the Somers are not entitled to obtain
private enforcement of RISA because a plain reading of RISA
supports the conclusion that the Legislature did not intend RISA to
be enforceable by private parties.  Rather, the Legislature
intended the statute to be enforced administratively by the
Department.  Because she agrees that no genuine issue of material
fact exists and Cherry Creek and RJC Investment are entitled to
judgment as a matter of law, the Judge holds that the District
Court did not err in granting summary judgment to Cherry Creek and
RJC Investment.

Moreover, the Judge will not address the propriety of whether a
declaratory judgment action may be used to determine the existence
of a potential contract defense.  This issue was not raised below
and the District Court had no opportunity to address the issue.
She declines to address a new legal theory raised for the first
time on appeal.

In the District Court, the Somers filed a putative class action
seeking a declaratory judgment for themselves and all others
similarly situated that RISA barred Cherry Creek and RJC Investment
from recovery of any interest, finance charges, or late charges on
the installment contract.  They argued that RISA conferred a
private cause of action and Cherry Creek and RJC Investment
violated provisions of RISA.  Accordingly, the District Court
addressed those arguments.  The Somers now argue on appeal that the
Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, Section 27-8-102, MCA, entitles
them to a declaratory judgment assessing the validity of a defense
even before an affirmative action has been filed.  This argument
was not raised below and will not be addressed.  In the appeal, the
Judge declines to opine regarding the validity of potential
defenses available to the Somers in separate contract actions
alleging default by the Somers on the installment contract.

Judge Gustafson concludes that the 2009 version of RISA controls in
the case and does not confer a private cause of action.
Accordingly, she affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 30, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/UCjcPT from Leagle.com.

D. Michael Eakin -- eakin.406law@gmail.com -- Eakin, Berry &
Bryciel, PLLC, Billings, Montana, for Appellants.

Christopher T. Sweeney -- Christopher.Sweeney@moultonbellingham.com
-- Peter M. Damrow , Moulton Bellingham, PC, Billings, Montana, for
Appellees.


CHINA GRILL: $407K Attorneys' Fees Awarded in James Labor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRYAN JAMES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHINA GRILL
MANAGEMENT, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 18 Civ. 455 (LGS)
(S.D. N.Y.), Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York granted the Class Counsel
motion for attorneys' fees, reimbursement of litigation expenses,
settlement administration expenses and incentive awards for the
named Plaintiffs.

The case is a class and collective action alleging violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law
Section 190 et seq. ("NYLL").  On April 29, 2019, the Court granted
final approval of the parties' settlement agreement, which creates
a settlement fund of $1.22 million.

The Class Counsel moves for (i) attorneys' fees in the amount of
$406,666.66 -- equivalent to one-third of the Settlement Fund; (ii)
reimbursement of litigation expenses in the amount of $3,167.12;
(iii) settlement administration expenses in the amount of $37,080;
and (iv) incentive awards of $10,000 for each of the four named
Plaintiffs.

As to attorneys' fees, Judge Schofield finds that (i) a reasonable
baseline fee for a FLSA case of this size is 30%; (ii) there is no
evidence that the risks in the action were significantly greater
than those in cases of a similar size, complexity and subject
matter; and (iii) a fee award equivalent to 30% of the settlement
fund is reasonable given the case's size and complexity.

Regarding the requested reimbursement of $3,167.12 ($400 filing
fees and $2,767.12 mediation fees) in litigation expenses incurred
in connection with the action, the Judge finds that these amounts
are reasonable, and courts routinely award such costs.  Likewise,
the Class Counsel's request for $37,080 to be paid to the
Settlement Administrator will be granted as reasonable.

Finally, although the affidavits state that the named Plaintiffs
provided various documents and information, communicated with the
counsel and participated in mediation, the Judge finds it
insufficient to warrant $10,000 incentive awards.  Nevertheless, in
recognition of the risks involved in being a named Plaintiff in a
wage and hour class action, she authorizes incentive awards of
$5,000 for each of the named Plaintiffs, which is consistent with
incentive awards authorized in similar cases in the Circuit.

For these reasons, Judge Schofield awarded the Class Counsel
attorneys' fees of $366,000, which is equivalent to 30% of the
Settlement Fund.  She also awarded $3,167.12 in litigation
expenses, $37,080 in settlement administration expenses and $5,000
incentive awards for each of the named Plaintiffs.  Funds for
litigation expenses and settlement administration expenses may be
disbursed immediately.  The attorneys' fees award and incentive
awards will be disbursed when the distribution of the Settlement
Fund to the Class has been substantially completed.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motions at
Docket Nos. 98, 101 and 103.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 30, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/pAymvC from Leagle.com.

Bryan James, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class, Miguel Ballinas, on behalf of themselves, FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Kim Kramer, on behalf of
themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Christopher
Rosado, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the
Class, JClass Counsel moves for attorneys' fees, reimbursement of
litigation expenses, settlement administration expenses and
incentive awards for the named plaintiffs.onathan Gagne, on behalf
of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class & Michelle
Alvord, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the
Class, Plaintiffs, represented by Angela Saeyun Kwon --
angela@leelitigation.com -- Lee Litigation Group, PLLC, Anne
Melissa Seelig -- anne@leelitigation.com -- Lee Litigation Group,
PLLC, Taimur Alamgir -- taimur@leelitigation.com -- Lee Litigation
Group, PLLC & C.K. Lee -- cklee@leelitigation.com -- Lee Litigation
Group, PLLC.

China Grill Management, Inc., CGM-LLNR LLC, doing business as Asia
de Cuba, China Grill, Inc., doing business as China Grill, CGM EMP
LLC, doing business as Ed's Chowderhouse, CGM EMP RTP LLC, doing
business as Empire Hotel Rooftop, CGM-GH LLC, CGM 13 LLC, CGM Yotel
NYC LLC, doing business as East and West, China Grill Management 12
E 22 LLC, doing business as Almond, RF Hudson LLC, doing business
as Redfarm, RF Broadway LLC, doing business as Redfarm, CG
Brickell, LLC, doing business as Komodo, China Grill FTL, LLC,
doing business as China Grill Fort Lauderdale, Jeffrey Chodorow,
Linda Chodorow, Zach Chodorow, Max Chodorow, Neil Faggen & John
Michael Polsenberg, Defendants, represented by Carolyn Diane
Richmond -- crichmond@foxrothschild.com -- Fox Rothschild, LLP &
Glenn Sklaire Grindlinger -- ggrindlinger@foxrothschild.com -- Fox
Rothschild, LLP.


CICERO HOSPITALITY: Shaikh Hits Biometrics Data Sharing
-------------------------------------------------------
Mohammad Shaikh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Cicero Hospitality Group, Case No.
2019CH06034 (Ill. Cir., May 15, 2019), seeks an injunction
requiring Defendants to cease all unlawful activity related to the
capture, collection, storage and use of biometrics; and statutory
damages together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees for
violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Cicero manages the Double Tree hotel in Downers Grove, Illinois
where Shaikh worked. He was required to "clock-in" and "clock-out"
using a timeclock that scanned fingerprints. Shaikh alleges that
Cicero improperly disclosed employees' fingerprint data without
informed consent. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Fish, Esq.
      John Kunze, Esq.
      THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
      200 E. 5th Ave., Suite 123
      Naperville, IL 60563
      Tel: (630) 355-7590
      Fax: (630) 778-0400
      Email: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
             jkunze@fishlawfirm.com

             - and -

      J. Eli Wade-Scott, Esq.
      Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Tel: 312.589.6370
      Fax: 312.589.6378
      Email: ewadescott@edelson.com
             brichman@edelson.com


CITIBANK NA: Acevado Appeals Order and Judgment to Second Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Celinda Acevado and Jacqueline Lopez filed an appeal
from the District Court's memorandum opinion and order and
judgment, both issued on March 31, 2019, in their lawsuit entitled
Acevado, et al. v. Citibank, N.A., Case No. 10-cv-8030, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiffs
Celinda Acevado and Jacqueline Lopez each received a notice from
Citibank stating that their bank account had been frozen because of
a restraining notice and/or levy served on Citibank by judgment
creditors.  Ms. Acevado had approximately $2,000 in her account and
Ms. Lopez approximately $3,000.

Both claim that they could not access any of the funds in their
account and did not receive a disclosure that a portion of their
money is exempt from restraint, as required by Exempt Income
Protection Act.  The plaintiffs sought to bring the action on
behalf of all Citibank account owners who had their accounts
restrained and/or were charged a restraining fee since January 1,
2009.

The appellate case is captioned as Acevado, et al. v. Citibank,
N.A., Case No. 19-1264, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Celinda Acevado, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, and Jacqueline Lopez,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Oliver Koppell, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF G. OLIVER KOPPELL & ASSOCIATES
          99 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 867-3838
          E-mail: okoppell@koppellaw.com

Defendant-Appellee Citibank, N.A., is represented by:

          Stuart Alan Krause, Esq.
          ZEICHNER ELLMAN & KRAUSE LLP
          1211 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 223-0400
          E-mail: skrause@zeklaw.com


COALINGA, CA: Court Dismisses Inmates' Suit Over Valley Fever
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order granting Defendants' motion for judgment
on the pleadings in the case captioned ARTHUR DUANE JACKSON, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. EDMUND G. BROWN, et al., Defendants. No.
1:13-cv-1055-LJO-SAB. (E.D. Cal.).

The Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c).

The Plaintiffs are current and former inmates who contracted Valley
Fever while incarcerated at Pleasant Valley State Prison (PVSP), in
Coalinga, a city in Fresno County, and Avenal State Prison (ASP),
in Avenal, a city in Kings County. The Plaintiffs, who contracted
Valley Fever while incarcerated at either PVSP or ASP, bring this
class action against various state official Defendants for: (1) 42
U.S.C. Section 1983 claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment (2)
Section 1983 claim for deprivation of equal protection (3) claims
under Sections 1983 and 1981 for racial discrimination and (4)
state-law negligence.  

The Court adopted the Findings and Recommendations, holding that
the Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity against the
inmates' Eighth Amendment claim. The inmates did not appeal that
decision. The Court also held that the officials were not entitled
on qualified immunity on the 14th Amendment claims brought by a
subgroup of African-American inmates. Defendants appealed that
decision, and the Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that the
officials are entitled to qualified immunity.  

Having previously granted the Defendants' motion for judgment on
the pleadings on the SAC's Eighth Amendment claims, the Court now
grants without leave to amend the Defendants' motion for judgment
on the pleading as to the Plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment claims
because the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on those
claims as well.

The Court granted the Defendants' judgment on the pleadings as to
the state-law negligence claims without prejudice. Because they are
the only potential claims from the SAC remaining in this case, the
Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

Accordingly, the Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings
as to the SAC's Second, Third, and Fourth claims is granted without
leave to amend.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 23, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y5x2mh3o from Leagle.com.

Arthur Duane Jackson, Leonard M. Lujan, Marcus Jackson, Rodney
Taylor, Lacedric Johnson, L.T. Belton & Norman Johnson, Plaintiffs,
represented by Brian M. Bush -- bush@boucher.la -- Boucher LLP,
Hermez Moreno -- moreno@boucher.la -- Boucher LLP, J. Paul Gignac,
ARIAS, OZZELLO & GIGNAC, LLP, 115 South La Cumbre, Lane 300, Santa
Barbara, CA 93105, Mark Alan Ozzello --
mark.ozzello@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law, APC, Mike
Montalban Arias -- mike@aswtlawyers.com -- Arias Sanguinetti Stahle
& Torrijos, LLP, Raymond Paul Boucher -- ray@boucher.la -- Boucher,
LLP, Suzy E. Lee -- slee@fisherphillips.com -- FISHER & PHILLIPS
LLP, Ian Michael Wallach -- iwallach@wallachlegal.com -- The Law
Offices of Ian Wallach, PC & Jason K. Feldman -- jason@jkflegal.com
--  The Law Office of Jason K. Feldman, PC.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Governor, Matthew Cate, Secretary, California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Jeffrey Beard,
Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,
P.D. Brazelton, Warden, Pleasant Valley State Prison & James D.
Hartley, Warden, Avenal State Prison, Defendants, represented by
Christine Marie Ciccotti, Office of the Attorney General, Jon S.
Allin, California Department of Justice Office of the Attorney
General, Maureen C. Onyeagbako, Department of Justice, Office of
The Attorney General & Michelle L. Angus, Attorney General's Office
of the State of California.


COMSCORE INC: Bratusov Class Action Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------
comScore, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit initiated by Sergii Bratusov.

On April 10, 2019, Sergii Bratusov, a purported shareholder of the
Company, filed a putative class action complaint against the
Company on behalf of all persons and entities that acquired
securities of the Company between November 9, 2018 and March 29,
2019.

The case, captioned Bratusov v. comScore, Inc., et al., Case No. 19
Civ. 03210, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York and also names the Company's Chief Financial
Officer, Gregory Fink, and the Company's former Chief Executive
Officer, Bryan Wiener, as defendants.

The complaint alleges that the Company, Mr. Wiener, and Mr. Fink
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by allegedly failing to disclose in public
statements between November 2018 and March 2019 material
information concerning unspecified difficulties implementing the
Company's business strategy and the impact of these alleged
difficulties on the Company's financial results.

The complaint also alleges that Mr. Wiener and Mr. Fink, acting as
control persons of the Company, violated Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act in connection with the Company's alleged failure to
disclose material information.

The complaint seeks a determination of the propriety of the class,
compensatory damages and the award of reasonable costs and expenses
incurred in the action.

The defendants deny any wrongdoing or liability and intend to
vigorously defend against these claims.

comScore said, "Although the ultimate outcome of this matter is
unknown, the Company believes that a material loss was not probable
or estimable as of March 31, 2019."

comScore, Inc. operates as an information and analytics company
that measures audiences, consumer behavior, and advertising across
media platforms worldwide. The company was founded in 1999 and is
headquartered in Reston, Virginia.



COMSCORE INC: Privacy Class Action Ongoing
------------------------------------------
comScore, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend against the Privacy Class Action Litigation.

On September 11, 2017, the Company and a wholly-owned subsidiary,
Full Circle Studies, Inc., ("Full Circle"), received demand letters
on behalf of named plaintiffs and all others similarly situated
alleging that the Company and Full Circle collected personal
information from users under the age of 13 without verifiable
parental consent in violation of Massachusetts law and the federal
Children's Online Privacy Protection Act.

The letters alleged that the Company and Full Circle collected such
personal information by embedding advertising software development
kits ("SDKs") in applications created or developed by Disney.

The letters sought monetary damages, attorneys' fees and damages
under Massachusetts law.

On June 4, 2018, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints adding the
Company and Full Circle as defendants in a purported class action
against Disney, Twitter and other defendants, alleging violations
of California's constitutional right to privacy and intrusion upon
seclusion law, New York's deceptive trade practices statute, and
Massachusetts' deceptive trade practices and right to privacy
statutes.

The complaints allege damages in excess of $5 million, with any
award to be apportioned among the defendants.

The Company and Full Circle deny any wrongdoing or liability and
intend to vigorously defend against these claims.

comScore said, "Although the ultimate outcome of this matter is
unknown, the Company believes that a material loss was not probable
or estimable as of March 31, 2019."

comScore, Inc. operates as an information and analytics company
that measures audiences, consumer behavior, and advertising across
media platforms worldwide. The company was founded in 1999 and is
headquartered in Reston, Virginia.


CONCENTRA INC: Pascal Sues over Automated Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Jason Arms d/ba/a I
Buy 901 Homes and Concentra, Inc. for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act. The case is captioned LAWRENCE PASCAL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Plaintiff, v. JASON ARMS, an individual, d/b/a I BUY 901 HOMES,
CONCENTRA, INC., a Delaware corporation Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-02559 (N.D. Cal., May 13, 2019). Plaintiff Lawrence Pascal
alleges that the Defendants are engaged in illegal practice of
sending automated text messages to consumers' cell phones without
their consent. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks redress for all persons
injured by the Defendants' conduct.

Concentra, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business
at 5080 Spectrum Drive, Suite 1200 West Addison, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CONNECTICUT WATER: Settlement Reached in Paskowitz & Assad Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 parties in
Paskowitz v. Connecticut Water Service, et al. and Assad v.
Connecticut Water Service, et al., have entered into an agreement
in principle to settle and release all the claims.

On October 5, 2018, a putative class action complaint and a direct
action complaint were filed against the Company and the members of
the Board of Directors in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut under the captions Paskowitz v. Connecticut
Water Service, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-01663 (D. Conn.) and Assad
v. Connecticut Water Service, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-01664 (D.
Conn.), respectively.

The nearly identical complaints allege that the defendants violated
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
causing certain supposed misstatements or omissions to be included
in the October 2, 2018 definitive proxy statement filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission in respect of the special
meeting of its shareholders held on November 16, 2018 in connection
with the Merger.

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.

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

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.


CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Melucci Class Action in California Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a purported securities class action suit
initiated by Nicholas Melucci.

On March 14, 2019, a purported securities class action complaint
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California by Nicholas Melucci (Melucci v. Corcept Therapeutics
Incorporated, et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-01372-LHK).  

The complaint named the Company and certain of its executive
officers as defendants asserting violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
alleges that the defendants made false and materially misleading
statements and failed to disclose adverse facts about the company's
business, operations, and prospects.

The complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from August
2, 2017 to February 5, 2019 and seeks unspecified monetary relief,
interest and attorneys' fees.  

Motions for lead plaintiff are due on May 13, 2019.

Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated discovers, develops, and
commercializes drugs for the treatment of severe metabolic,
oncologic, and psychiatric disorders in the United States. Corcept
Therapeutics Incorporated was founded in 1998 and is headquartered
in Menlo Park, California.



CORECENTRIC SOLUTIONS: Toor Sues over Stored Biometric Data
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against CoreCentric
Solutions, Inc. for violations of Illinois' Biometric Information
Privacy Act (BIPA). The case is captioned SAMINA TOOR,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. CORECENTRIC SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2019CH05914 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., May 13, 2019). Plaintiff Samina
Toor alleges that the Defendant is engaged in unlawful collection,
use, storage, and disclosure of her sensitive biometric data.
Defendant's BIPA violations include its failure to properly inform
Plaintiff and others similarly situated in writing of the specific
purpose and length of time for which their fingerprints were being
collected, stored, and used.

CoreCentric Solutions, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the state of Illinois. The company is engaged in
the recovery, repair and remanufacture of appliances and appliance
parts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CORECIVIC INC: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Grae Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
CoreCivic  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019, that the company's petition to the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals for permission to appeal the District
Court's certification of the class in Grae v. Corrections
Corporation of America et al., is pending.

In a memorandum to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) dated August
18, 2016, the Department of Justice (DOJ) directed that, as each
contract with privately operated prisons reaches the end of its
term, the BOP should either decline to renew that contract or
substantially reduce its scope in a manner consistent with law and
the overall decline of the BOP's inmate population.  

In addition to the decline in the BOP's inmate population, the DOJ
memorandum cites purported operational, programming, and cost
efficiency factors as reasons for the DOJ directive. On February
21, 2017, the newly appointed U.S. Attorney General issued a
memorandum rescinding the DOJ's prior directive stating the
memorandum changed long-standing policy and practice and impaired
the BOP's ability to meet the future needs of the federal
correctional system.

Following the release of the August 18, 2016 DOJ memorandum, a
purported securities class action lawsuit was filed against the
company and certain of the company's current and former officers in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee, or the District Court, captioned Grae v. Corrections
Corporation of America et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-02267.  

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a putative class of
shareholders who purchased or acquired the company's securities
between February 27, 2012 and August 17, 2016.  In general, the
lawsuit alleges that, during this timeframe, the company's public
statements were false and/or misleading regarding the purported
operational, programming, and cost efficiency factors cited in the
DOJ memorandum and, as a result, the company's stock price was
artificially inflated.  

The lawsuit alleges that the publication of the DOJ memorandum on
August 18, 2016 revealed the alleged fraud, causing the per share
price of our stock to decline, thereby causing harm to the putative
class of shareholders.  

On December 18, 2017, the District Court denied the company's
motion to dismiss. On January 18, 2019, the District Court denied
plaintiffs' motion to certify the matter as a class action.
Plaintiffs timely moved the court to reconsider that ruling,
simultaneously initiating the process to seek permission to appeal
to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals should the court deny their
motion.  

On March 26, 2019, the District Court granted plaintiffs'
reconsideration motion and certified a class proposed by the
plaintiff. On April 9, 2019, the company timely petitioned the
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals for permission to appeal the
District Court's certification of the class, and that petition is
pending.

We believe the lawsuit is entirely without merit and intend to
vigorously defend against it. In addition, we maintain insurance,
with certain self-insured retention amounts, to cover the alleged
claims which may mitigate the risk that such litigation would have
a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of
operations, or cash flows.  

CoreCivic is a diversified government solutions company with the
scale and experience needed to solve tough government challenges in
flexible, cost-effective ways. The company is based in Nashville,
Tennessee.


CREATIVE REALITIES: Rodgers Seeks to Certify NOC Technicians Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled BRANDON KYLE RODGERS and
ELAINE KORFF, On Behalf of THEMSELVES and All Others Similarly
Situated v. CREATIVE REALITIES, INC., and CONEXUS WORLD GLOBAL,
LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-00244-JHM-RSE (W.D. Ky.), ask the Court to
conditionally certify a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action
consisting of these potential Opt-In Plaintiffs:

     All NOC technicians currently or formerly employed by
     Defendants at any time since April 2, 2016 who have been
     required to work outside of business hours at least once.

Brandon Kyle Rodgers and Elaine Korff bring the action against the
Defendants, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated
employees of the Defendants, who worked as network operations
center ("NOC") technicians.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to authorize the issuance of
notice via U.S. Mail and e-mail to potential Opt-In Plaintiffs
informing them of this action and of their right to join it by
filing a consent form in accordance with 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b).[CC]

The Plaintiffs represented by:

          David W. Garrison, Esq.
          Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
          Bank of America Plaza
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-2202
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
          E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
                  jfrank@barrettjohnston.com

               - and -

          J. Chris Sanders, Esq.
          CHRIS SANDERS LAW PLLC
          517 West Ormsby Avenue
          Louisville, KY 40203
          Telephone: (502) 814-0094
          E-mail: csanders@chrissanderslaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kenneth A. Bohnert, Esq.
          Edward L. Lasley, Esq.
          Edward F. Busch, Esq.
          CONLIFFE, SANDMANN & SULLIVAN, PLLC
          2000 Waterfront Plaza
          325 West Main Street
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 587-7711
          E-mail: kbohnert@cssattorneys.com
                  tlasley@cssattorneys.com
                  ebusch@cssattorneys.com


DELOITTE: Fails to Strike Out Claims in Shareholder Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Edmund Tadros, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports
that Deloitte must supply a further laptop containing data of its
audits of failed retailer Dick Smith after failing to strike out
claims made in two shareholder class actions that allege the firm's
accounting work on the retailer was negligent.

The order over the laptop, issued on April 24, came after the court
ruled against the firm's application earlier in the month to strike
out the claims, saying they did not have "sufficient specificity"
and did not outline what the firm should have done.

The class actions allege that had Dick Smith's "financial
statements been corrected or a qualified audit opinion issued in
respect of them, [the retailer] would not have floated and been
listed on the ASX and [the class action shareholders] would not
have acquired their shares", according to the judgment of the
strike-out application by NSW Supreme Court Justice Michael Ball.

The shareholders, who have also made claims against the liquidated
Dick Smith entity, ex-CEO Nick Abboud and ex-CFO Michael Potts,
allege that Dick Smith did not correctly account for its inventory,
meaning that the retailer's financial statements did not give a
true and fair view of its financial position in the 2013, 2014 and
2015 financial years.

Deloitte's failure to identify these inventory issues during its
audits of the company meant the firm failed to conduct its audits
according to the required auditing standards, did not exercise
reasonable skill and care, and engaged in misleading and deceptive
conduct, according to the class actions.

Dick Smith was floated by Anchorage Capital Partners in December
2013 for $520 million but went into voluntary administration in
January 2016 and was placed into liquidation in July 2016. The
collapse was caused by factors that included a rebate-driven
culture that led to excessive inventory, according to Dick Smith
administrator McGrathNicol.

Inventories at the retailer increased from $171 million to $293
million between June 2013 and June 2015. Dick Smith also wrote down
$60 million of inventory in late 2015.

Deloitte had asked the court to strike out certain allegations
against the firm because they did not have "sufficient specificity"
and did "not identify what it is Deloitte ought to have done",
according to the judgment by Justice Ball.

'Obvious from the pleading'
Justice Ball dismissed the strike-out application because the case
the firm must fight "emerges sufficiently from the pleading so that
it will not be caught by surprise".

He added: "Deloitte knows that it needs to consider the
requirements of the Auditing Standards that have been identified by
the plaintiffs [those bringing the class actions] and consider the
question whether any testing it did in relation to [inventory]
provisioning met those standards."

Justice Ball wrote: "It is not necessary for Deloitte to know what
provision the plaintiffs say ought to have been made. It is
sufficient that they know (which is obvious from the pleading) that
the provision would have been sufficiently large to cause the
accounts to be corrected or qualified because the misstatement was
material."

Deloitte is preparing its defence to the allegations, which is due
to be filed on Friday, May 10.

"Deloitte stands behind its engagements and audit/review work for
the Dick Smith group of companies and is vigorously defending the
proceedings brought against it as a result of the group's collapse
in early 2016," a firm spokesman said.

Multiple claims and cross-claims
The Findlay shareholder class action is being funded by Vannin
Capital and run by Corrs Chambers Westgarth. The Mastoris
shareholder class action is being funded by Investor Claim Partners
and run by Johnson Winter & Slattery.

There are two further claims over the collapsed retailer, by the
receivers against the retailer's former CEO, Mr Abboud, and former
CFO, Mr Potts, and non-executive directors; and by NAB and HSBC
against Mr Abboud and Mr Potts.

The four claims are scheduled to be heard together in February. The
defendants in each of the four proceedings have also filed
cross-claims against Deloitte. [GN]


DIAL CORP: DOJ Opposes $3.8MM in Legal Fees
-------------------------------------------
Nate Robson and Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, report that
the U.S. Justice Department in May announced it is opposing a class
action settlement in New Hampshire federal court that grants a $3.8
million legal-fee award to plaintiffs' lawyers who alleged Dial
overstated the ability of its antibacterial soap to kill germs.

The government said in a prepared statement that the fee award
"would afford little value to consumers while handsomely
compensating attorneys." The department's opposition to the class
action settlement was filed as a statement of interest by trial
attorneys in the consumer protection branch, a component of the
civil division. The government argued that the settlement fund of
$7.4 million fails to adequately compensate consumers and that the
injunctive relief, in the form of changes to the soap's
ingredients, is "virtually worthless."

"A class action settlement that affords little meaningful consumer
benefit while rewarding attorneys with sizable fees is
inappropriate," said Assistant Attorney General Jody Hunt for the
Department of Justice's Civil Division. "Congress intended to
prevent these types of unbalanced settlements with the Class Action
Fairness Act."

Plaintiffs attorney, Lucy Karl, Esq. -- lkarl@shaheengordon.com --
of Shaheen & Gordon and Robert Miller, Esq. -- rmiller@sheehan.com
-- of Sheehan Phinney, who represents Dial, did not respond to
requests for comment. Both are in New Hampshire.

The Trump-era Justice Department has ramped up efforts to weigh in
on pending class actions under the Class Action Fairness Act. In a
separate class action settlement with Lenny & Larry's, the
department in February criticized the purported $3.5 million
settlement, preliminarily approved Nov. 1, for giving $1.1 million
in legal fees to plaintiffs attorneys, while class members received
up to $50 in cash or $30 worth of cookies.

Separately, the DOJ also filed a Feb. 4 amicus brief challenging a
settlement over allegedly defective Tristar pressure cookers that
gave $2.3 million to plaintiffs attorneys and discount coupons to
class members. The Arizona Attorney General's Office, joined by 17
other states, has petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit to unravel that deal.

Plaintiffs in the soap case, In re: Dial Complete Marketing & Sales
Practices Litig., alleged that The Dial Corp. falsely advertised
its "Dial Complete" hand soaps containing triclosan as more
effective at killing germs over other brands' soap. Under a
proposed settlement reached between the parties, Dial would pay
$2.32 million to class members, with most class members receiving
up to $8.10 in compensation for previous purchases of certain soap
products, according to the statement of interest. The settlement
also provides for injunctive relief that would require Dial to
refrain from using triclosan or claiming that its hand wash product
"Kills 99% of Germs."

Under the agreement, class counsel would seek a total of $3.825
million in attorney's fees without opposition from Dial, including
$1.9 million in fees specifically tied to obtaining the injunctive
relief. In its Statement of Interest, the United States argues that
the injunction would provide no benefit to consumers, given that
Dial years ago voluntarily made the same changes to its soap
products that are required by the proposed injunctive relief.
Moreover, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration banned the use of
triclosan in such products in 2016. The case is pending in U.S.
District Court for the District of New Hampshire, which must
approve any settlement.

The government also complained about the use of cy pres in the
settlement. Under the deal, any unclaimed funds would go to the
Ronald McDonald House Charities or Children's Health Fund. A
footnote in the Statement of Interest said a cy pres distribution
is "very unlikely," given the government's communication with the
parties.

The settlement had no objectors.

The case got attention in 2017 when Dial appealed class
certification based on the plaintiffs' inability to identify class
members, particularly in cases where people don't keep receipts,
like consumer products. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit refused to take up the interlocutory appeal, but, in a
dissent, Judge William Kayatta warned his colleagues that the
court's recent precedent over how class members could be identified
was destined to result in "further mischief" that could challenge
the constitutional rights of defendants. [GN]


DOLLAR TREE: 9th Cir. Affirms Verdict in Guillen Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, FRANCISCA GUILLEN, an individual, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DOLLAR
TREE STORES, INC., a Virginia corporation; DOES, 1-100, inclusive,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 17-56779 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the the district court's
(i) refusal to give Guillen the requested jury instruction, (ii)
refusal to permit evidence of other employers' wage statement
practices, and (iii) refusal to permit amendment of her complaint.

Guillen brought the class action against her employer,
Defendant-Appellee Dollar Tree, claiming violations of California's
statutory requirement that employers provide wage statements to
their employees.  At trial, the jury returned a verdict for Dollar
Tree.  Guillen challenges the district court's refusal to give her
requested jury instruction, refusal to permit evidence of other
employers' wage statement practices, and refusal to permit
amendment of her complaint.

Because Guillen's requested instruction lacked legal basis, the
Court holds that the district court did not abuse its discretion.
Section 226(a) of the California Labor Code establishes
requirements for employers furnishing and retaining copies of wage
statements, but imposes no requirement governing how employees may
access retained copies of past wage statements.  Those requirements
are contained in separate provisions in section 226(b) and (c),
violations of which were not claimed in the case.  The 2006 Opinion
Letter issued by California's Division of Labor Standards
Enforcement, on which Guillen relies, similarly makes clear that
section 226(a) imposes no such requirement on employers.

Guillen also challenges the district court's preclusion of evidence
of the methods used by similar employers to deliver wage statements
to their employees.  The Court holds that there is no legal
authority requiring Dollar Tree to make its wage statements as
accessible as similar businesses do, and the concern of the
district court regarding jury confusion was well-founded.  The
district court's exclusion of that evidence thus was not an abuse
of discretion.

Finally, Guillen argues that the district court abused its
discretion by denying her leave to amend the complaint to allow her
to be substituted as class representative for the claimed violation
of California's Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA").  The Court
finds that the court-ordered deadline to add parties or amend
pleadings was Dec. 14, 2015.  Guillen did not initiate her PAGA
pre-filing administrative notice requirement until Oct. 26, 2016,
and did not seek leave to file her Third Amended Complaint until
February 2017.  Given the passage of time and absence of any good
cause explanation from Guillen for the delay, the district court
did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend.

Based on the foregoing, the Court affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's April 30, 2019 Memorandum
is available at https://is.gd/xKdBfe from Leagle.com.


DONALD TRUMP: Johnson Seeks Class Certification Under EPA
---------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned ALVA JOHNSON, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. DONALD J. TRUMP,
In his Individual Capacity and DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC.,
Case No. 8:19-cv-00475-WFJ-SPF (M.D. Fla.), asks the Court to enter
an order conditionally certifying a collective action for alleged
violations of the Equal Pay Act, and permitting, under court
supervision, notice to:

     All women employed by Defendant Donald J. Trump for
     President, Inc. from May 13, 2016 to the present.

Ms. Johnson also asks the Court to:

   a. require Defendant DJTFP to identify all putative members of
      the proposed collective by providing a list of their names,
      last known addresses, dates of employment, cell phone
      numbers, and e-mail addresses in electronic and importable
      format, e.g., a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, within 14 days
      of the entry of an order;

   b. permit the Plaintiff's counsel to send Court-approved
      notice of this action to the putative collective members
      via U.S. Mail, e-mail, phone call, and text message.
      Plaintiff's proposed Notice to the putative collective and
      proposed Consent to Become an Opt-In Plaintiff form are
      attached as EXHIBITS A and B, respectively;

   c. permit the Plaintiff's counsel to send a reminder notice to
      putative collective members via email and text message at
      the halfway point of the notice period;

   d. approve a 60-day opt-in period from the date the
      Court-approved notice is sent, during which the putative
      collective members may join this case by returning their
      written consents; and

   e. allow putative collective members to electronically sign
      and return Consent to Become an Opt-In Plaintiff forms.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 417-3667
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
                  kaizpuru@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Tanya S. Koshy, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 250-3298
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: tkoshy@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Janet Varnell, Esq.
          Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
          VARNELL & WARWICK, PA
          P.O. Box 1870
          Lady Lake, FL 32158-1870
          Telephone: (352) 753-8600
          Facsimile: (352) 503-3301
          E-mail: jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com
                  bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com

               - and -

          F. Paul Bland, Esq.
          Karla Gilbride, Esq.
          PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C.
          1620 L Street NW, Suite 630
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 797-8600
          E-mail: pbland@publicjustice.net

               - and -

          Jennifer Bennett, Esq.
          PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C.
          475 14th Street, Suite 610
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 622-8150
          E-mail: jbennett@publicjustice.net


DYNAGAS LNG: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Dynagas LNG
Partners LP (NYSE: DLNG, DLNG-PA, DLNG-PB) for violations of Sec.
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares between February 16,
2018 and March 21, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before July 16, 2019.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Dynagas entered into a new three-year
charter contract with Statoil with reduced revenues, this agreement
was not a continuation of the existing contract. Based on the
reduction in revenues, the Company's distribution operations were
not sustainable. The Company's cash flow also failed to be
long-term requirements for distribution plans. Based on these
facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially
misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the
truth about Dynagas, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

Contact:

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


EAST CAPITOL: Court Grants Final Certification of Settlement Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In a class action lawsuit MILDRED KINARD et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
EAST CAPITOL FAMILY RENTAL, L.P. et al., the  Defendants, Case No.
1:15-cv-01935-TJK (D. Colo), the Hon. Judge Timothy J. Kelly
entered an order:

   1. granting parties' joint motion for final certification
      of class for settlement purposes and for approval of
      class action settlement;

   2. approving the parties' Class Action Settlement; and

   3. directing parties to file a status report or a
      stipulation of dismissal within 225 days of the
      issuance of the Order.[CC]

EMINENT INC: Balaguer Sues Over Denied Overtime Pay, Breaks
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paulino Balaguer, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Eminent, Inc. and Does 1 through
10, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV16803, (Cal. Super., May 15, 2018),
seeks to recover minimum and overtime wages, redress for failure to
provide meal periods and rest breaks, accurate itemized wage
statements and all wages due upon separation of employment in
violation of Business and Professions Code, the California Labor
Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

Defendant is engaged in the business of garment manufacturing where
Balaguer worked at Eminent's facility located at 16706 Edwards Road
in Cerritos, CA in a non-exempt status. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zorik Mooradian, Esq.
      Haik Hacopian, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ZORIK MOORADIAN
      5023 N. Parkway Calabasas
      Calabasas, CA 91302
      Telephone: (818) 876-9627
      Facsimile: (888) 783-1030
      Email: zorik@mooradianlaw.com
             haik.hacopian@gmail.com


ESKOM: De Beer Attorneys Preparing Load Shedding Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cape Times reports that organisations, enterprises and small
businesses have approached De Beer Attorneys to take legal action
against Eskom for financial losses they allege to have suffered as
a result of load shedding.
The firm in April called on anyone who could prove they had
suffered losses to contact them.

Managing partner Elaine Bergenthuin had said they were preparing a
class action against the power utility.

Eskom said it was covered by the general public liability policy.

"No indemnity is granted by this policy against liability for:
failure to supply arising out of any interruption of, variation or
fluctuation in the supply of electricity which is not consequent
upon damage to generation and/or transmission plant or equipment,"
Eskom said.

On May 6, De Beer said it believed it still had a solid basis for a
claim.

"Given recent revelations during the Zondo Commission of Inquiry
into State Capture, it seems that several key office-bearers at
Eskom have been involved in corrupt activities at the parastatal in
the past.

"De Beer Attorneys believe that a legal duty exists on the part of
the responsible directors themselves to recoup at least some of the
losses that local businesses have suffered," De Beer said.

Meanwhile, more than 10 000 leaders in the fields of power, energy
and water are expected to descend on the Cape Town International
Convention Centre for the African Utility Week and Powergen Africa
conference and exhibition.

High on the agenda of the exhibition, which runs from May 14 to 16,
are ways to mitigate the electricity challenges currently facing
South Africa.

The senior communications manager of African Utility Week and
Powergen Africa, Annemarie Roodbol, said: the event was a platform
to discuss issues of global importance.

"We provide a platform for the industry to discuss challenges and
successes, and to share knowledge and to network.

"For example, one of our speakers believes that mini-grids are the
answer to South Africa's load-shedding problems.

"The programme for 2019 follows the industry trend of connecting
the full value chain and reflects the many disciplines required for
a modern, smart power industry," Roodbol added. [GN]


ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss Bailey Class Suit Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
Esperion Therapeutics, 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 suit entitled, Kevin Bailey v. Esperion
Therapeutics, Inc., et al. (No. 18-cv-11438), has been granted.

On May 7, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan, captioned Kevin Bailey v.
Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., et al. (No. 18-cv-11438).

An amended complaint was filed on October 22, 2018, against the
Company and certain directors and officers. The amended complaint
alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 based on allegedly making
false and misleading statements and omissions about the safety and
tolerability of bempedoic acid, and specifically facts and
circumstances surrounding the Phase 3 trial results for bempedoic
acid that the Company announced on May 2, 2018.

On November 13, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, and that motion was fully briefed on December
18, 2018. The lawsuit sought, among other things, compensatory
damages in connection with an allegedly inflated stock price
between February 22, 2017, and May 22, 2018, as well as attorneys'
fees and costs.

On February 19, 2019, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss with prejudice and entered judgment in the Company's
favor.

Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., a lipid management company, focuses on
developing and commercializing oral therapies for the treatment of
patients with elevated low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C).
Esperion Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 2008 and is
headquartered in Ann Arbor, Michigan.


EZCORP INC: Appeal on Class Certification Ruling Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
EZCORP, 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 Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
granted the company's appeal in the class action suit entitled, In
re EZCORP, Inc. Securities Litigation (Master File No.
1:15-cv-00608-SS).  

On July 20, 2015, Wu Winfred Huang, a purported holder of Class A
Common Stock, for himself and on behalf of other similarly situated
holders of Class A Common Stock, filed a lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Texas styled
Huang v. EZCORP, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-00608-SS).

The complaint names as defendants EZCORP, Inc., Stuart I. Grimshaw
(our chief executive officer) and Mark E. Kuchenrither (our former
chief financial officer) and asserts violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

The original complaint related to the Company's announcement on
July 17, 2015 that it will restate the financial statements for
fiscal 2014 and the first quarter of fiscal 2015, and alleged
generally that the Company issued materially false or misleading
statements concerning the Company, its finances, business
operations and prospects and that the Company misrepresented the
financial performance of the Grupo Finmart business.

On August 14, 2015, a substantially identical lawsuit, styled
Rooney v. EZCORP, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-00700-SS) was also
filed in the United States District Court for the Western District
of Texas. On September 28, 2015, the plaintiffs in these two
lawsuits filed an agreed stipulation to be appointed co-lead
plaintiffs and agreed that their two actions should be
consolidated.

On November 3, 2015, the Court entered an order consolidating the
two actions under the caption In re EZCORP, Inc. Securities
Litigation (Master File No. 1:15-cv-00608-SS), and appointed the
two plaintiffs as co-lead plaintiffs, with their respective counsel
appointed as co-lead counsel.

On January 11, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action
Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). In the Amended Complaint, the
plaintiffs seek to represent a class of purchasers of our Class A
Common Stock between November 6, 2012 and October 20, 2015.

The Amended Complaint asserts that the Company and Mr. Kuchenrither
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5, issued materially false or misleading statements throughout
the proposed class period concerning the Company and its internal
controls, specifically regarding the financial performance of Grupo
Finmart.

The plaintiffs also allege that Mr. Kuchenrither, as a controlling
person of the Company, violated Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act. The Amended Complaint does not assert any claims
against Mr. Grimshaw.

On February 25, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit. The plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss
on April 11, 2016, and the defendants filed their reply on May 11,
2016. The Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss on June 22,
2016.  On October 18, 2016, the Court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss and dismissed the Amended Complaint without
prejudice.

The Court gave the plaintiffs 20 days (until November 7, 2016) to
file a further amended complaint. On November 4, 2016, the
plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint ("Second Amended Complaint").

The Second Amended Complaint raises the same claims dismissed by
the Court on October 18, 2016, except plaintiffs now seek to
represent a class of purchasers of EZCORP's Class A Common Stock
between November 7, 2013 and October 20, 2015 (instead of between
November 6, 2012 and October 20, 2015).

On December 5, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Second Amended Compliant. The plaintiffs filed their opposition to
the motion to dismiss on January 6, 2017, and the defendants filed
their reply brief on January 20, 2017.

On May 8, 2017, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss
with regard to claims related to accounting errors relating to
Grupo Finmart's bad debt reserve calculations for "nonperforming"
loans, but denied the motion to dismiss with regard to claims
relating to accounting errors related to certain sales of loan
portfolios to third parties.

Following discovery on the surviving claims, the plaintiff filed a
Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint, seeking to
revive the "nonperforming" loan claims that the Court previously
dismissed. We opposed that motion, and on May 14, 2018, the Court
heard oral arguments on the motion, as well as plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Representative and
Class Counsel, which was also pending.

On July 26, 2018, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion for
leave to amend, thus accepting the Third Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint, and we filed our answer on August 3, 2018.

On August 31, 2018, the plaintiff filed an Amended Motion for Class
Certification and Appointment of Class Representative and Class
Counsel, and the company filed its opposition on September 28,
2018. On February 19, 2019, the Court issued an order certifying
the class and approving the class representative and class counsel.


On March 5, 2019, the company requested an appeal of that order to
the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and on March 25, 2019, the
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the appeal.

EZCORP said, "We cannot predict the outcome of the litigation, but
we intend to continue to defend vigorously against all allegations
and claims."

EZCORP, Inc. lends or provides credit services to people who lack
the cash or access to credit to meet short-term needs. The company
offers non-recourse loans with personal property—jewelry,
consumer electronics, tools, sporting goods, and musical
instruments—as collateral. EZCORP also sells merchandise,
primarily collateral forfeited from its pawn-lending operations.
And it provides payday loans or fee-based credit services to
customers seeking loans. The company, founded in 1989, is
headquartered in Austin, Texas.


FISHER-PRICE INC: Nabong Sues Over Baby Sleeper Hazard
------------------------------------------------------
Mark Nabong, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Fisher-Price, Inc. and Mattel, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-03290, (N.D. Ill., May 19, 2019), seeks
to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of
federal securities laws.

Fisher-Price manufactures the Rock 'n Play Sleeper, an infant
play-bed.  Nabong claims that its 30 degree incline increases the
risk that the infant's head will tilt to constrict the windpipe
and/or cause the infant's face to become pressed against the padded
fabric in the sleeper and block airflow, increasing the risk of
death by asphyxiation. Nabong purchased a Rock 'n Play Sleeper at a
Target in Niles, Illinois.

Fisher-Price manufactures and markets products for the care of
infants and preschool children to consumers throughout the United
States and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Mattel, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
      111 West Jackson, Suite 1700
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Tel: (312) 984-0000
      Fax: (212) 686-0114
      Email: malmstrom@whafh.com

             - and -

      Demet Basar, Esq.
      Daniel Tepper, Esq.
      Kate McGuire, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 545-4600
      Fax: (212) 545-4653
      Email: basar@whafh.com
             tepper@whafh.com
             mcguire@whafh.com


FITBIT INC: Filing of Consolidated Amended Lopes Suit Due June 24
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEPHEN LOPES, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. FITBIT, INC., JAMES PARK,
and WILLIAM ZERELLA, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-06665-JST (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francsico Division, has issued
an order setting schedule for filing of Consolidated Amended
Complaint and the Defendants' responses thereto.
The action is a proposed class action alleging violations of the
federal securities laws against the Defendants.

By Order dated April 25, 2019, the Court appointed Irving Lubman as
the Lead Plaintiff in the securities class action and approved his
selection of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as the Lead Counsel.

Following the appointment of the Lead Plaintiff and the Lead
Counsel, the parties have met and conferred and agreed on a
schedule for the Lead Plaintiff to file a consolidated amended
complaint and for the Defendants' responses thereto.

Therefore, the parties stipulated and agreed, and Judge Tigar
approved, as follows:

     1. The Lead Plaintiff will file his consolidated amended
complaint on June 24, 2019;

     2. The Defendants will answer or otherwise respond to the
consolidated amended complaint on Aug. 23, 2019;

     3. If any Defendant files a motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint, the Lead Plaintiff will file any opposition
thereto on Oct. 22, 2019; and

     4. Any Defendant who files a motion to dismiss may file a
reply on Dec. 6, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 30, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/HWG5XU from Leagle.com.

Stephen Lopes, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Vincent Prongay --
rprongay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Charles
Henry Linehan -- clinehan@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray
LLP, Lesley F. Portnoy -- lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay
& Murray LLP & Lionel Zevi Glancy -- lglancy@glancylaw.com --
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Irving Lubman, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Vincent Prongay, Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP, Casey Edwards Sadler, Glancy Prongay & Murray
LLP, Charles Henry Linehan, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Lesley F.
Portnoy, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Lionel Z. Glancy, Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP.

Ananda Patti, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Pafiti, Pomerantz LLP,
J. Alexander Hood, II, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Jeremy A.
Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan Lindenfeld,
Pomerantz LLP, Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP & Peretz
Bronstein, Bronstein Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC.

Fitbit, Inc., James Park & William Zerella, Defendants, represented
by Alexis I. Caloza -- acaloza@fenwick.com -- Fenwick and West LLP,
Jennifer Corinne Bretan -- jbretan@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West
LLP & Susan Samuels Muck -- smuck@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West
LLP.

Wesley Archer, Movant, represented by Laurence Matthew Rosen, The
Rosen Law Firm, P.A.

Teamsters Local 710 Pension Fund, Movant, represented by Shawn A.
Williams, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Michael Albert, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Tricia Lynn McCormick, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Jason Rylander, Movant, represented by Joel E. Elkins, WeissLaw
LLP.

Robert Sherman & Jeff Sharp, Movants, represented by Jennifer
Pafiti, Pomerantz LLP.


FLOOR & DECOR: Rosen Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Floor & Decor Holdings, Inc. (FND) between May 23,
2018 and August 1, 2018 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for Floor & Decor investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the Floor & Decor class action, go to
https://tinyurl.com/yxp7xr59 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at
866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) prior to the May 24 Secondary the Company had already
begun to experience declining sales trends that would ultimately
result in the reduction of its fiscal 2018 sales and adjusted EPS
guidance, which had been increased as recently as May 2018; (2) as
a result of this adverse information being withheld from the
market, the price of the Company's stock was artificially inflated
during the Class Period, allowing Company insiders to sell more
than 10.3 million shares of Floor & Decor common stock, including
the shares sold in the May 24 Secondary Offering, for proceeds of
more than $466 million; and (3) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' positive statements about Floor & Decor's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 19,
2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1580.html

Contact:

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


FLOOR & DECOR: Timothy L. Miles Files Securities Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Timothy L. Miles informs investors there has
been a class action lawsuit filed against Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:
FND) and certain of its officers accusing the Company of making
materially false and misleading statements in a secondary offering
of 10 million shares of its common stock at $44.77 per share (the
"May 24 Secondary Offering"). The complaint asserts alleged
violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 between May
23, 2018 and August 1, 2018. Floor & Decor describes itself as a
high-growth differentiated multi-channel specialty retailer of hard
surface flooring and related accessories, with warehouse-format
stores across 21 states.

According to the complaint, Floor & Decor's May 24 Secondary
Offering documents included false and misleading statements.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that the defendants knew but
failed to disclose that the company had already begun to experience
declining sales trends that would ultimately result in the
reduction of its fiscal 2018 sales and adjusted earnings per share
guidance, which the company publicly increased in May 2018. While
the company's stock was artificially inflated, insiders sold more
than 10.3 million shares of Floor & Decor common stock, including
shares sold in the May 24 Secondary Offering.

On August 2, 2018, Floor & Decor revealed its 2018 second quarter
financial results. The company reported a lower than expected
revenue and thus lowered its full year guidance for revenue,
comparable-store sales growth, and adjusted earnings per share.
Following this news, Floor & Decor stock dropped 17% to close at
$39.53 per share on August 2, 2018.

If you purchased Floor & Decor securities, have information, or
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Timothy L. Miles, Esquire,
at 615-587-7384, Toll-Free at 855-846-6529, or by email to
tmiles@timmileslaw.com If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares
purchased.

Contact:

         Timothy L. Miles, Esq.
         Law Offices of Timothy L. Miles
         124 Shiloh Ridge
         Hendersonville, TN 37075
         Phone: 855-846-6529
                615-587-7384
         Website: www.timmileslaw.com
         Email: tmiles@timmileslaw.com [GN]


FLOWERS BAKING: Court Denies Class Certifaction in Button Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, Richard Button, the Plaintiff, v.
Flowers Baking Co. of Henderson, LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case
No. 2:18-cv-10116-RGK-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon .Judge R. Gary
Klausner entered an order denying  Plaintiff's motion seeking to
certify a class consisting of:

   "all individuals employed by Defendants at any time during
   the period of four years prior to the filing of this
   lawsuit and ending on a date as determined by the Court,
   and who have been employed aas Branch Sales Managers or
   Area Sales Directors within the State of California."

The Court said, "Plaintiff has not met his burden of showing that
"common questions present a significant aspect of the case and they
can be resolved for all members of the class in a single
adjudication. Morever, the evidence indicates that a class action
is not best suited to adjudicate this action "fairly and
efficiently"."[CC]

FLOWERS FOODS: Securities Suit Stayed Due to Settlement Talks
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. W. Louis Sands, Sr., grants the Parties' request that all
deadlines and proceedings continue to be stayed, except for
settlement-related proceedings in the lawsuit styled IN RE FLOWERS
FOODS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 7:16-cv-00222-WLS (M.D.
Ga.).

According to the Order, the Parties have filed a Notice of
Settlement in Principle stating that they have reached a settlement
in principle of this case and that they intend to file a
Stipulation of Settlement and motion for preliminary approval
within thirty days.

"To ensure the timely and orderly disposition of this case, the
Parties are ORDERED to file the appropriate stipulation and motion
for approval no later than thirty days after entry of this Order,
that being Wednesday, June 12, 2019 or, by the same deadline, file
with the Court a motion for additional time containing a written
statement as to why additional time is needed," Judge Sands rules.

"Except for settlement-related proceedings, this case shall remain
STAYED until further order of the Court. All pending motions (Docs.
92, 102, 117, 124, 128) are DENIED AS MOOT WITHOUT PREJUDICE,"
Judge Sands adds.[CC]


FLYWHEEL SPECIALTY: Bonilla Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Jairo Bonilla, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Flywheel Specialty Services, LLC and Ismael Garza, Case
No. 4:19-cv-01183 (S.D. Tex., April 1, 2019), is brought against
the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants violated the FLSA by employing the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated non-exempt employees for a workweek longer
than forty hours but refusing to compensate them for their
employment in excess of forty hours. Additionally, the Defendants
fail to maintain accurate time and pay records.

The Plaintiff resides in Harris County, Texas and was employed by
Defendants during the last three years. The Plaintiff’s job
duties were primarily manual labor in nature, installing drywall
and painting, requiring little to no official training, much less
managerial skill or power.

The Defendants are in the residential construction business; it
does business in the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Melissa Moore, Esq.
      Curt Hesse, Esq.
      MOORE & ASSOCIATES
      Lyric Centre
      440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
      Houston, TX 77002
      Tel: (713) 222-6775
      Fax: (713) 222-6739


FRESNO COUNTY, CA: Court Extends Time to Respond in Campos Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued Order extending Time to File Responsive in the
case captioned CESAR CAMPOS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FRESNO DEPUTY
SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION, COUNTY OF FRESNO; XAVIER BECERRA, in his
official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California,
Defendants. No. 1:18-cv-01660-AWI-EPG. (E.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs filed their Class-Action Complaint on December 6,
2018. The Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (FAC) on
Sunday, May 12, 2019.

The FAC adds two new plaintiffs, deletes the class action
allegations, and adds two new claims, requiring additional time to
respond beyond the two weeks set under Rule 15.

Defendant Fresno Deputy Sheriff's Association obtained an extension
of time to respond to the FAC up to and including June 24, 2019;
and

Defendants County of Fresno and Becerra in his official capacity
wishes to coordinate their responses with other defendants to the
action.

Defendants County of Fresno and Xavier Becerra, in his official
capacity as Attorney General of the State of California may have an
extension of time within which to file a response to the FAC, and
the date for such response will now be June 24, 2019.

The parties having so stipulated and good cause appearing
therefore,

Defendants County of Fresno and Xavier Becerra, in his official
capacity as Attorney General of the State of California shall file
a response to the First Amended Complaint on or before June 24,
2019 and

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 23, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yyq94zgv from Leagle.com.

Cesar Campos, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan F. Mitchell,
Mitchell Law, PLLC, 944 N Main St, Ann Arbor, MI 48104, pro hac
vice, Talcott J. Franklin -- tal@talcottfranklin.com -- Talcott
Franklin P.C., pro hac vice & Bradley A. Benbrook --
brad@benbrooklawgroup.com -- Benbrook Law Group.

Latana M. Chandavong, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan F.
Mitchell, Mitchell Law, PLLC, pro hac vice & Bradley A. Benbrook,
Benbrook Law Group.

Neng Her & Hugh X. Yang, Plaintiffs, represented by Jonathan F.
Mitchell, Mitchell Law, PLLC.
Fresno Deputy Sheriff's Association, Defendant, represented by
Monique Alonso -- monique@majlabor.com -- Messing Adam & Jasmine
LLP.

Priscilla Winslow, in official capacity as chair and members of the
California Public Employment Relations Board, Xavier Becerra, in
his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of
California, Eric Banks, in official capacity as chair and members
of the California Public Employment Relations Board, Erich Shiners,
in official capacity as chair and members of the California Public
Employment Relations Board & Arthur A. Krantz, in official capacity
as chair and members of the California Public Employment Relations
Board, Defendants, represented by Natasha Saggar Sheth, California
Department Of Justice.


GILEAD SCIENCES: Product Liability Class Suit in California Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Gilead Sciences, 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 product liability class action suit in California.

The company has been named as a defendant in one class action
lawsuit filed in 2018 and various product liability lawsuits
related to Viread, Truvada, Atripla, Complera and Stribild.

Plaintiffs allege that Viread, Truvada, Atripla, Complera and/or
Stribild caused them to suffer kidney and/or bone injuries.

The lawsuits, all of which are pending in state or federal court in
California, involve hundreds of plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs in these cases seek damages and other relief on various
grounds for alleged personal injury and economic loss.

Gilead said, "We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in these
actions. While we believe these cases are without merit, we cannot
predict the ultimate outcome. If plaintiffs are successful in their
claims, we could be required to pay significant monetary damages."

Gilead Sciences, Inc., a research-based biopharmaceutical company,
discovers, develops, and commercializes medicines in the areas of
unmet medical needs in the United States, Europe, and
internationally. The company was founded in 1987 and is
headquartered in Foster City, California.


GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT: Torres Sues over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Greystar Management
Services, L.P. for violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act. The case is captioned Sonia Torres, individually and
as representative of a Class of Participants and Beneficiaries on
Behalf of the Greystar 401(k) Plan; Plaintiffs, v. Greystar
Management Services, L.P.; Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00510 (W.D.
Tex., May 13, 2019).

Plaintiff Sonia Torres and all participants in the Greystar
retirement plan allegedly suffered financial harm as a result of
the imprudent or excessive fee options in the retirement plan
because Greystar's inclusion of those options deprived participants
of the opportunity to grow their retirement savings by investing in
prudent options with reasonable fees, which would have been
available in the retirement plan and if Greystar had satisfied its
fiduciary obligations.

Greystar allegedly failed to make investment decisions based solely
on the merits of each investment and in the best interest of
retirement plan participants; failed to ensure the retirement plan
was invested in the lowest-cost investment vehicles. Through these
actions and omissions, Greystar failed to discharge its duties with
respect to the retirement plan solely in the interest of the
participants and beneficiaries of the retirement plan, and for the
exclusive purpose of providing benefits to participants and their
beneficiaries and defraying reasonable expenses of administering
the retirement plan, in violation of its fiduciary duty of loyalty
under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1104(a)(1)(A). Accordingly, Plaintiff Sonia
Torres brings this action on behalf of the retirement plan under 29
U.S.C. Sec. 1132(a)(2) to enforce Greystar's liability under 29
U.S.C. Sec. 1109(a) to make good to the retirement plan all losses
resulting from Greystar's breaches of fiduciary duty.

Greystar Management Services, L.P. is a private company with its
principal headquarters located at 600 East Colinas Boulevard,
Irving, Texas. Greystar is a private subsidiary whose ultimate
parent is Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC, which provides real
estate investment, development, and property management services.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     W. Mark Lanier, Esq.
     Alex J. Brown, Esq.
     Jonathan P. Wilkerson, Esq.
     THE LANIER LAW FIRM, P.C.
     10940 W. Sam Houston Pkwy N, Suite 100
     Houston, TX 77064
     Telephone: 713-659-5200
     Facsimile: 713-659-2204
     E-mail: wml@lanierlawfirm.com
             alex.brown@lanierlawfirm.com
             jonathan.wilkerson@lanierlawfirm.com

             - and -

     Greg F. Coleman, Esq.
     GREG COLEMAN LAW
     800 South Gay Street, Suite 1100
     Knoxville, TN 37929
     Telephone: (865) 247-0080
     Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
     E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com

             - and –

     Jordan Lewis, Esq.
     JORDAN LEWIS, P.A.    
     4473 N.E. 11th Avenue
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334
     Telephone: (954) 616-8995
     Facsimile: (954) 206-0374
     E-mail: jordan@jml-lawfirm.com


HCA HEALTHCARE: ER Patients Sue Over Excess Charges
---------------------------------------------------
Keith O'Leary, Timothy Shaw and Nathan Haviland on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HCA
Healthcare, Inc., Poinciana Medical Center, Inc., Fort Walton Beach
Medical Center, Inc., Palms West Hospital LP and North Florida
Division I, Inc., East Florida Division, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-80647, (S.D. Fla., May 15, 2019), seeks to recover minimum
and overtime wages as mandated by New York labor law and the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate approximately 50 hospitals and emergency rooms
in the State of Florida. Plaintiffs contest Defendants' imposition
of emergency room fees on top of the charges for the individual
items of treatment and services provided that is not disclosed in
advance of treatment and is concealed from the patient while at one
of their emergency rooms.

O'Leary, Shaw and Haviland have, at some time, availed of emergency
room service in any of the Defendants' facilities. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jared Michael Lee, Esq.
     JACKSON LEE PA
     1991 Longwood Lake Mary Rd.
     Longwood, FL 32750
     Tel: (407) 477-4401
     Fax: (407) 477-4949


HELENA AGRI-ENTERPRISES: Proctor Remanded to Cal. Superior Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JORGE PROCTOR, individually and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
HELENA AGRI-ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Delaware company doing business as
HELENA CHEMICAL COMPANY; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-2833 JLS (NLS) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Janis
L. Sammartino of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California (i) granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand; (ii)
remanded the action to the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Diego; and (iii) denied as moot the
Defendant's Motions to Dismiss and to Consolidate.

On Nov. 15, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the action in the Superior
Court of California, County of San Diego, alleging six causes of
action for violation of (1) California Labor Code Sections 510 and
1198 (Unpaid Overtime), (2) California Labor Code Sections 226.7
and 512(a) (Unpaid Meal Period Premiums), (3) California Labor Code
Secti 226.7 (Unpaid Rest Period Premiums), (4) California Labor
Code Sections 1194 and 1197 (Unpaid Minimum Wage), (5) California
Labor Code Sections 201 and 202 (Final Wages Not Timely Paid), and
(6) California Business & Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq.
The Defendant was served on Nov. 16, 2018.

On Dec. 17, 2018, the Defendant removed to the Court pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Sections 1332(d) and 1441, as amended in relevant part by
the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA")" because the
Defendant and the Plaintiff are citizens of different states, the
amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, and there are over 700
alleged class members.  The Defendant filed its Motions to Dismiss
and to Consolidate on Dec. 21, 2018, and the Plaintiff filed its
Motion to Remand on Jan. 17, 2019.

Judge Sammartino concludes that anders v. Old Dominion Freight
Line, Inc. is more applicable in the case.  As in Sanders, the only
possible explanation that the Court can discern for the Defendant's
selection of the 40% violation rate is that it is sufficient to
yield an amount in controversy in excess of $5 million.  A
defendant's assumption of a violation rate sufficient to put the
total amount in controversy over $5 million is not reasonable
simply because the complaint does not specify a particular
violation rate.  Under these circumstances, it is impossible for
the Court to decide that the Defendant has satisfied its burden to
demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in
controversy for the meal and rest break claims is $2,876,610, as
the Defendant claims in the Opposition.  Because the burden is on
the removing Defendant, under such circumstances the scales tip
against federal-court jurisdiction.

Accordingly, Judge Sammartino (i) granted the Plaintiff's Motion to
Remand; (ii) remanded the action to the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of San Diego; and (iii) denied as moot the
Defendant's Motions to Dismiss and to Consolidate.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 30, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/xSWMuU from Leagle.com.

Jorge Proctor, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel
J. Park, Justice Law Corporation & Douglas Han --
dhan@justicelawcorp.com -- Justice Law Corporation.

Helena Agri-Enterprises, LLC, a Delaware company, Defendant,
represented by John E. Fitzsimmons -- john.fitzsimmons@dlapiper.com
-- DLA Piper LLP.


HH FRANCHISING: Geiger Moves for Certification of Caregivers Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled ROSEANN GEIGER and SHERRI
HOLLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. H.H. FRANCHISING SYSTEMS, INC., d/b/a HOME HELPERS, a foreign
corporation; GLENKAT, INC.; KATHLEEN HOLDEN, an individual; and
GLENN HOLDEN, an individual, Case No. 3:17-cv-00738-FDW-DSC
(W.D.N.C.), move the Court for an order:

   (1) certifying the matter as a collective action pursuant to
       the provisions of 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) of the Fair
       Labor Standards Act for the putative plaintiffs/class
       members, who are defined as:

       "All in-home caregiver employees who were employed by
        Glenkat, Inc., Kathleen Holden, Glenn Holden and/or H.H.
        Franchising Systems, Inc. d/b/a Home Helpers, working in
        North Carolina, who were not paid at least minimum wage
        for all hours worked and/or overtime for all hours worked
        over forty (40) in a workweek";

   (2) approving the proposed FLSA notice of this action and the
       consent form; and

   (3) updating production of names, last known mailing
       addresses, alternate addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail
       addresses, last four digits of their social security
       numbers, and the dates of employment of all putative class
       members.

The Plaintiffs also move the Court for an order certifying a class
action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure under the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act.  This NCWHA
Class is defined as:

      "All in-home caregiver employees who were employed by
       Glenkat, Inc., Helpers, Kathleen Holden and Glenn Holden,
       beginning December 2014 to the present, working in North
       Carolina, who were not paid all regular and overtime wages
       owed as promised."[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          L. Michelle Gessner, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHELLE GESSNER, PLLC
          435 East Morehead Street
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: (704) 234-7442
          E-mail: michelle@mgessnerlaw.com


HILAIRE MCGRIFF: Sued Over Denied Commissions, Health Insurance
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vamsi Vemuru, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Hilaire McGriff PC, Mika Hilaire, David
McGriff and Does 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV16934
(Cal. Super., May 15, 2019), seeks unpaid wages and interest
thereon for Defendants' failure to pay for all hours worked and
minimum wage rate, reimbursement of business-related expenses,
statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage
statements, waiting time penalties in the form of continuation
wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon
separation of employment, injunctive relief and other equitable
relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest under
California Labor Code, Unfair Competition Law of the California
Business and Professions Code and applicable Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Orders including wrongful termination in violation
of public policy and anticipatory breach of contract.

Vemuru worked as an associate attorney for Hilaire McGriff, a law
firm where, as an HMPC employee, he would receive compensation in
the form of health insurance coverage and commission wages. He did
not receive any of those, says the complaint.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
      Diego Aviles, Esq.
      BIBIYAN & BOKHOUR, P.C.
      287 S. Robertson Blvd., Ste. 303
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Tel: (310) 438-5555
      Fax: (310) 300-1705
      Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
             diego@tomorrowlaw.com


HONEYWELL INT'L: Wayne Cty. Employees' Fund Hits Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne County Employees' Retirement System, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Honeywell
International Inc., Darius Adamczyk and Thomas A. Szlosek,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-12542, (D. N.J., May 15, 2019), seeks to
recover damages for violations of the federal securities laws under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Honeywell is a multinational conglomerate that makes a variety of
commercial and consumer products, engineering services and
aerospace systems. It also happens to be involved in
asbestos-related personal injury actions related to its predecessor
company, Bendix Friction Materials, which was sold in 2014.

In 1999, Honeywell acquired The Bendix Corporation, and with it
took ownership of Bendix's asbestos-related liabilities arising
from manufacturing brakes. Honeywell's actual Bendix
asbestos-related liability was almost three times as high—$1.703
billion.

However, Honeywell allegedly manipulated the manner in which it was
supposed to account for loss contingencies thus providing incorrect
accounts of its Bendix asbestos-related liability to its investors
up until August 23, 2018 when it disclosed that its Bendix
asbestos-related liability would need to be increased by $1.083
billion (from $610 million to $1.693 billion as of June 30, 2018).
From a high of $161.28 per share, Honeywell's stock eventually fell
to $140.83 per share amounting to a total market capitalization
loss of more than $14.8 billion in October 24, 2018.

Plaintiff purchased Honeywell securities at artificially inflated
prices and lost substantially upon revelation of corrective
disclosures. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
      Christopher J. Kupka, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500
      Facsimile: (866) 367-6510
      Email: ek@zlk.com

             - and -

      Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq.
      Adam M. Apton, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel: (212) 363-7500
      Fax: (212) 363-7171
      Email: nporritt@zlk.com
             aapton@zlk.com

             - and -

      Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      733 Summer Street, Suite 304
      Stamford, CT 06901
      Tel: (212) 363-7500
      Fax: (866) 367-5610
      Email: nkulesa@zlk.com


HURLEY INTERNATIONAL: Tincher Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, JENA N. TINCHER, on behalf of herself, and all others
similarly situated, and as an "aggrieved employee" on behalf of
other "aggrieved employees" under the Labor Code Private Attorneys
General Act of 2004, Plaintiff(s), v. HURLEY INTERNATIONAL, LLC, an
Oregon limited liability company; NIKE, INC., an Oregon
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant(s), Case
No. 19STCV08627 (Filed on March 14, 2019), was transferred from the
Los Angeles County Superior Court to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on May 10, 2019. The
district court has original jurisdiction over the action pursuant
to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. The grounds for removal
are that the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000
exclusive of interest and costs, and the action is a class action
in which at least one class member is a citizen of a state
different from that of the Defendant.

Nike is incorporated under the laws of the state of Oregon, with
its principal place of business in Beaverton, Oregon. Hurley
International LLC operates as a subsidiary of Nike Inc. The company
produces and markets swimwear, eyewear, and apparel. [BN]

Attorneys for Defendant:

     Jon D. Meer, Esq.
     Richard Y. Chen, Esq.
     Michael Afar, Esq.
     Jared W. Speier, Esq.
     SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
     2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
     Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
     Telephone: (310) 277-7200
     Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
     E-mail: jmeer@seyfarth.com
             rchen@seyfarth.com
             mafar@seyfarth.com
             jspeier@seyfarth.com


IAM: UAL Worker Files Class Suit Over Union Opt-Out Requirement
---------------------------------------------------------------
National Right to Work Foundation reports that a United Airlines
fleet service employee has filed a class action lawsuit in the US
District Court for the Western District of Texas against the
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM)
union challenging its requirement that he "opt-out" of paying for
union officials' political and ideological activities.

According to the complaint, which was filed with free legal aid
from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, the
opt-out scheme violates workers' rights under the Railway Labor Act
(RLA), and the First Amendment under the standard laid out in the
landmark 2018 Supreme Court decision Janus v. AFSCME. The lawsuit
contends that, under Janus as well as the 2012 Knox v. SEIU Supreme
Court case -- both of which were argued by National Right to Work
Foundation staff attorneys -- no union dues or fees can be charged
beyond the maximum that can legally be required without a worker's
affirmative consent.

The employee, Arthur Baisley, is not a member of the IAM but is
still forced to pay union fees. Despite being based in the Right to
Work state of Texas, the Railway Labor Act pre-empts state Right to
Work protections which make union membership and financial support
strictly voluntary. However, under longstanding law even without
Right to Work protections, nonmembers cannot be required to fund a
union's ideological activities such as lobbying and politics.

The lawsuit challenges the burdensome procedure IAM union officials
created for workers seeking to exercise their right not to fund the
"nonchargable" activities. The complaint lays out the convoluted
union boss-created process that workers must jump through just to
prevent dues from being taken in violation of their First Amendment
rights.

Baisley's experience with these requirements demonstrates how the
opt-out procedure is used to violate workers' rights by getting
them to pay for union politics without their consent. Even though
he sent a letter to IAM agents in November 2018 to object to
funding all union political activities, the union officials only
accepted his objection for 2019, and told Baisley he would be
required to renew his objection to full dues and fees next year or
else be charged for full union dues.

The complaint challenges this union-created policy on the grounds
that it "require[s] employees to opt-out of paying union fees that
they have no legal obligation to pay" and thus breaches workers'
First Amendment rights. The complaint also alleges that the IAM's
"opt-out requirement" violates the RLA, which governs labor in the
air and rail industries and "protects the right of employees to
‘join, organize, or assist in organizing' a union of their choice
as well as the right to refrain from any of those activities."

The class action lawsuit asks the court to strike down the op-out
requirement not only as it is applied to Baisley, but also for his
coworkers whose rights are similarly restricted by the IAM's
illegal policy. Union officials would then be required to get
nonmember workers to give affirmative consent to paying for union
boss activities beyond what nonmember workers can legally be
required to subsidize under the RLA.

"For too long union bosses have enforced deliberately complicated
opt-out requirements with the aim of trapping workers into paying
for union boss politics despite the fact that, as nonmembers, they
have already chosen not to affiliate with the union," said National
Right to Work President Mark Mix. "The case shows the far-reaching
implications of the Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME case, which
ruled government unions must get public employees to affirmatively
consent before funding a union because all speech directed at the
government is inherently political."

"This case simply seeks to apply the same legal standard to workers
like Mr. Baisley who are subjected to mandatory union payments
under the Railway Labor Act by requiring union officials to get
workers to opt-in to the portion of dues that the union already
admits is spent on ideological and political activities," added
Mix. [GN]


INPAX SHIPPING: Shortchanges Drivers' Wages, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------
Scott Oberg and William Wunsch, on behalf of themselves, all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Inpax Shipping Solutions Inc.,
Inpax Shipping Solutions Inc. of Ohio and INSS, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 19-cv-01100 (N.D. Ohio, May 15, 2019), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime, liquidated damages and for costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees pursuant to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act,
Ohio Prompt Pay Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

Defendants operate an Amazon delivery service where Oberg and
Wunsch worked as a drivers. They claim that Defendants had a
practice of under-recording their hours rendered. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chris P. Wido, Esq.
      Tina M. Scibona, Esq.
      THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
      25200 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 200
      Beachwood, OH 44122
      Phone: (216) 291-4744
      Fax: (216) 291-5744
      Email: chris.wido@spitzlawfirm.com


INTERSECT ENT: Yaron Hits Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------
Avi Yaron, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Intersect Ent., Inc., Lisa D. Earnhardt and
Jeryl L. Hilleman, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-02647, (N.D. Cal.,
May 15, 2019), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Intersect is a commercial drug delivery company that develops
products for patients with ear, nose, and throat conditions. Its
planned SINUVA sinus implant is used to treat patients who have had
surgery yet suffer from recurrent sinus obstruction due to polyps.
Intersect allegedly failed to disclose to investors that it faced
certain challenges with the launch of SINUVA, which had negatively
impacted the company's second quarter 2018 financial results and
that it incurred first quarter 2019 loss of $10.8 million. On this
news, the Company's share price fell $8.05, or more than 25%, to
close at $25.10 per share on May 7, 2019, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

Yaron purchased Intersect securities and lost as a result of
federal securities law violations and material omissions by
Intersect. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
      Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      Email: info@glancylaw.com

             - and -

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


IVERIC BIO: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated NY Class Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
IVERIC bio, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the motion to dismiss
the consolidated Micholle suit and Wasson suit remains pending.

On January 11, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain of its current and former executive
officers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, captioned Frank Micholle v. Ophthotech
Corporation, et al., No. 1:17-cv-00210.

On March 9, 2017, a related putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and the same group of its current and former
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, captioned Wasson v. Ophthotech
Corporation, et al., No. 1:17-cv-01758.

These cases were consolidated on March 13, 2018. On June 4, 2018,
the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint (the
"CAC").

The CAC purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the Company's common stock between March 2, 2015 and
December 12, 2016. The CAC generally alleges that the Company and
certain of its officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements
concerning the results of the Company's Phase 2b trial and the
prospects of the Company's Phase 3 trials for Fovista in
combination with anti-VEGF agents for the treatment of wet AMD.

The CAC seeks unspecified damages, attorneys’ fees, and other
costs. The Company and individual defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the CAC on July 27, 2018.

That motion is fully briefed.

IVERIC bio, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, develops novel
therapies to treat ophthalmic diseases with a focus on age-related
and orphan retinal diseases. The company was formerly known as
Ophthotech Corporation and changed its name to IVERIC bio, Inc. in
April 2019. IVERIC bio, Inc. was founded in 2007 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


JAB HOLDING: Waddell Files Statement of Good Cause
--------------------------------------------------
Counsel for Plaintiffs in the case captioned CHARLES WADDELL and
JOHN BICANICH, Directly On Behalf of Themselves and All Other
Similarly Situated Current and Former Stockholders of COTY INC. and
Derivatively On Behalf of COTY INC., Plaintiffs, v. SABINE
CHALMERS, JOACHIM FABER, OLIVIER GOUDET, PETER HARF, ANNA-LENA
KAMENETZKY, PIERRE LAUBIES, PAUL S. MICHAELS, ERHARD SCHOEWEL,
ROBERT SINGER, and JAB HOLDING COMPANY S.A.R.L., JAB COSMETICS
B.V., and COTTAGE HOLDCO B.V., Defendants, and COTY INC. Nominal
Defendant, Case No. 2019-0381  filed a Statement of Good Cause with
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on May 23, 2019.

The Statement held that it is the opinion of counsel that this
action should not be assigned to a Master in the first instance
because this action asserts direct and derivative claims against
the directors and controlling stockholders of Coty, Inc. related to
a $1.75 billion partial tender offer. A related action is currently
pending before Chancellor Bouchard.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Joel Friedlander, Esq.
     Jeffrey M. Gorris, Esq.
     Christopher P. Quinn, Esq.
     FRIEDLANDER & GORRIS, P.A.
     1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2200
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Phone: (302) 573-3500

          - and -

     Jeremy S. Friedman, Esq.
     David F.E. Tejtel, Esq.
     FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC
     493 Bedford Center Road, Suite 2D
     Bedford Hills, NY 10507
     Phone: (888) 529-1108

          - and -

     D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
     KASKELA LAW LLC
     18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100
     Newtown Square, PA 19073
     Phone: (484) 258-1585

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Fell Suit Moved to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
JOYCE FELL AND DAVID FELL, 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. 18CV326306 (April 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 May 1, 2019. The Central District of California Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03734 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:

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

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Fernandez Suit Moved to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
FATIMA P. FERNANDEZ, 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. BC703745 (April 27, 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-03763 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.
          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

               - and -

          Brian J. McCormick, Jr., Esq.
          Dena R. Young, Esq.
          ROSS FELLER CASEY, LLP
          One Liberty Place
          1650 Market St., Suite 3450
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          
          Telephone: 877 704-8050
          Facsimile: 215 231-3750
          E-mail: bmccormick@rossfellercasey.com
                  dyoung@rossfellercasey.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Fimbres Suit Moved to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
GENISSA FIMBRES, Individually and as Successor-In-Interest On
Behalf of the ESTATE OF RITA RAMIREZ, deceased, the Plaintiff, vs.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON &
JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC.; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC664311
(June 7, 2017), was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles, to U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on May 1, 2019. The Central District of
California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03739 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:

          Jennifer Liakos, Esq.
          NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, PLLC
          525 South Douglas Street, Suite 260
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 331-8224
          Facsimile: (646) 843-7603
          E-mail: Jliakos@napolilaw.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Gehlke Suit Moved to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
REBECCA GEHLKE, 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. RIC190 1340 (Feb.
6, 2019), was removed from the Superior Court of California, County
of Riverside, 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-03768 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:

          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: Natalie Garcia Suit Moved to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
NATALIE GARCIA, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON &
JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES,
INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC.; RITE AID CORPORATION; WAL-MART
STORES INC.; TARGET CORPORATION; SAFEWAY INC.; THE VONS COMPANIES
INC.; ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC.; THE PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS
COUNCIL; and DOES 1-100, the Defendants, Case No. ECU09409 (Aug.
26, 2016), was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of Imperial, 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-03745 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:

          Matthew P. Dickson, Esq.
          Jesse M. Bablove, Esq.
          DICKSON KOHAN & BABLOVE LLP
          348 Campus Drive, Suite 205
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: 949 535 1341
          Facsimile: 949 535 1449
          E-mail: mdickson@dbklawyers.com
                  jbablove@dbklawyers.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Neilson Suit Moved to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
VICTORIA NEILSON, an individual, and her spouse, DERILL NEILSON,
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. BC666982 (June 29, 2017), was removed from the
Superior Court of California, County of Fresno, 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-03755 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:

          Anne Andrews, Esq.
          John C. Thorthon, Esq.
          Lila Razmara, Esq.
          ANDREWS THORTON HIGGINS RAZMARA LLP
          2 Corporate Park, Suite 110
          Irvine, CA 92606
          Telephone: (949) 748 1000
          Facsimile: (949) 315 3540
          E-mail: aa@andrewsthorthon.com
                  jct@andrewsthorthon.com
                  lr@andrewsthorthon.com

               - and -

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

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Nguyen Suit Moved to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
NGAN NGUYEN, an individual, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON;
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER
COMPANIES, INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. FKA LUZENAC AMERICA,
INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
BC697829 (March 13, 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-03771 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.
          Lauren A. Welling, Esq.
          Timothy M. Clark, 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
                  lwelling@thesandersfirm.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Callahan Suit to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson removed the case, MARIA DEL CARMEN CALLAHAN, the
Plaintiff, vs. GENUINE PARTS COMPANY (sued individually and as
successor-in-interest to NATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE PARTS ASSOCIATION
a/k/a NAPA), a Georgia Corporation with its principal place of
business in the State of Georgia, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
JCCP 4674 / BC695364, 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-03782
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 Consumer, Inc.:

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

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sasaki Suit Moved to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
ELENA CASTRO SASAKI, an individual, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON &
JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California;
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER
COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in
California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with
its principal place of business in the State of California; and
DOES 1 through 100, the Defendants, Case No.
56-2018-511678-CU-MT-VTA (May 14, 2018), was removed from the
Superior Court of California, County of Ventura, 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-03835 to the proceeding.

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

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sullivan Sues over Deceptive Labels of Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Johnson & Johnson
Consumer Companies, Inc. for violations of the New York General
Business Law, Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, consumer protection
statutes of all 50 states, and for breach of its express and
implied warranties and common law unjust enrichment. The case is
captioned Yajaira Sullivan, individually on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Johnson & Johnson
Consumer Companies, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02803
(E.D.N.Y., May 13, 2019).

Plaintiff Yajaira Sullivan seeks to remedy the deceptive and
misleading business practices of Johnson & Johnson Consumer
Companies, Inc. with respect to the marketing and sale of Aveeno
Stress Relief Moisturizing Lotion and Aveeno Stress Relief Body
Wash Products throughout the State of New York and throughout the
country. Johnson & Johnson represents that these products have the
ability to provide and do provide stress relief and that they can
calm and relax their users. However, the Johnson & Johnson's
claims, representations, and warranties are false and misleading.
Plaintiff Yajaira Sullivan asserts that every sound and reliable
study has demonstrated that aromatherapy with lavender, chamomile,
and ylang ylang are no better than a placebo at providing stress
relief. There are no studies demonstrating the ingredients in these
products, by themselves or in combination, can be used for
aromatherapy to relieve stress as Johnson & Johnson claims.

Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. is a corporation
incorporated in New Jersey with its principal place of business in
Skillman, New Jersey. The company manufactures, markets, advertise
and distributes the Aveeno Stress Relief Moisturizing Lotion and
Aveeno Stress Relief Body Wash Products throughout the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph Lipari, Esq.
     THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
     14 Wall Street, 20th Floor
     New York, NY 10005
     Telephone: (212) 618-1938
     Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
     E-mail: liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com


JUMIA TECHNOLOGIES: Hagens Berman Files Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, with nine offices in eight cities
around the country and eighty attorneys, reminds investors in Jumia
Technologies AG (NYSE: JMIA) of the securities class action,
Strugala v. Jumia Technologies AG et al., No. 1:19-cv-04397,
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Jumia securities between
April 12, 2019 and May 9, 2019 (the "Class Period") and suffered
losses, you do not need to sign up to be included in the putative
class of investors.

If you suffered losses in excess of $100,000, you may qualify to be
a lead plaintiff – one who selects and oversees the attorneys
prosecuting the case. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in
this class action, you must move the Court no later than July 15,
2019 (the "Lead Plaintiff deadline"). Contact Hagens Berman
immediately for more information about the case and being a lead
plaintiff: https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/JMIA or contact Reed
Kathrein, who is leading the firm's investigation, by calling
510-725-3000 or emailing JMIA@hbsslaw.com

According to the complaint, Defendants misled investors in part by
concealing (1) Jumia materially overstated its active customers and
active merchants, and (2) Jumia overstated its sales.

"We're focused on investors' losses, whether the matters raised by
Citron on May 9, 2019 are correct, and the extent to which
investors may have been misled," said Hagens Berman partner Reed
Kathrein.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Jumia
should consider their options to help in the investigation or take
advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program,
whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards
totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the
SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 510-725-3000 or
email JMIA@hbsslaw.com

Contact:

       Reed Kathrein, Esq.
       Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
       Phone: 510-725-3000
       Website: https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/JMIA
       Email: JMIA@hbsslaw.com
              reed@hbsslaw.com [GN]


JUUL LABS: Faces Deceptive Marketing Class Action in Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
EJ Dickson, writing for Rolling Stone, reports that the vape
manufacturer Juul Labs has long faced accusations of using fruity
flavors and eye-catching packaging to market its products to
teenagers, even though the company has repeatedly denied these
claims. Now, a 15-year-old girl from Sarasota, Florida, and her
family are filing a class action lawsuit against Juul Labs and the
tobacco company Altria Group (which owns Philip Morris), alleging
that they purposefully tried to get teenagers hooked on the
products using deceptive marketing tactics.

According to the lawsuit -- which lists the family as plaintiffs,
as well as "those similarly situated" -- the family is accusing the
manufacturers of racketeering, and is seeking damages on behalf of
themselves and potentially other anonymous plaintiffs. The suit
claims that Juul "knew that Juul e-cigarettes were not safe for
nonsmokers, and posed a risk of aggravating addiction in those
already addicted to cigarettes." Altria is also being sued because
it has a 35% stake in Juul.

In the suit, the girl, identified only as A.N., claims that she
started using Juul when she was 14, and enjoyed using the device
because of its fruity mango flavor. At the time, the suit says, she
was unaware at the time that the device contained nicotine; a year
later, she is addicted to the device and suffers seizures, a rare
potential side effect of nicotine addiction. "Health authorities
consider youth e-cigarette use an epidemic. Defendants are to
blame," the complaint says. "Mimicking Big Tobacco's past marketing
practices, Defendants prey on youth to recruit replacement smokers
for financial gain."

The lawsuit is part of a wider effort to crack down on e-cigarette
use among teenagers. According to a recent National Institutes of
Health study, the number of teenagers smoking e-cigarettes has
risen exponentially, with nearly 21% of teenagers in 2018 reporting
they had vaped within the past 30 days, as opposed to 11% the prior
year. The Centers for Disease Control has also reported that 4.9
million middle- and high-school students have reported using a
tobacco product within the past 30 days, up from 1.3 million users
in 2017. And although vaping is generally considered safer than
smoking traditional cigarettes, e-cigarettes still contain high
doses of nicotine, and emerging research has pointed to a range of
potential health risks, including increased risk of stroke and
heart attacks.

The Silicon Valley-based startup Juul is by far the most popular
option, with the company taking up nearly 75% of the entire
e-cigarette market. With its discreet packaging (it looks like a
USB drive, thus making it easy to conceal from parents or teachers)
and wide range of fruity flavors, not to mention's the company's
social media-based marketing campaigns (which Stanford researchers
referred to as "patently youth-oriented"), the Juul has
specifically been accused by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
of trying to appeal to teenagers. In an effort to curb what FDA
commissioner Scott Gottlieb has referred to as a teen vaping
"epidemic," the FDA has issued more than 60 warning letters to Juul
distributors that have sold to underage consumers.

Although Juul has denied these claims, it has also taken small
public steps to address the FDA's criticisms, including yanking
most flavored vapes from stores. "Our intent was never to have
youth use Juul," Kevin Burns, the chief executive of Juul Labs,
said in a statement last year. "But intent is not enough. The
numbers are what matter and the numbers tell us underage use of
e-cigarettes is a problem."

In a statement to Rolling Stone, a spokesperson for Juul again
denied claims that it was intentionally trying to target young
users: "JUUL Labs is committed to eliminating combustible
cigarettes, the number one cause of preventable death in the
world," the spokesperson said. "Our product is intended to be a
viable alternative for current adult smokers only. We do not want
non-nicotine users, especially youth, to ever try our product. To
this end, we have launched an aggressive action plan to combat
underage use as it is antithetical to our mission. To the extent
these cases allege otherwise, they are without merit and we will
defend our mission throughout this process." [GN]


KUSHCO HOLDINGS: Rosen Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of KushCo Holdings, Inc. (KSHB) from July 13, 2017
through April 9, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for KushCo investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the KushCo class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1561.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. or toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com
or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) KushCo made material accounting errors in connection with
its acquisitions of CMP Wellness LLC, Summit Innovations, LLC, and
The Hybrid Creative; (2) KushCo's previously issued financial
statements for the fiscal years ended August 31, 2018 and August
31, 2017 could not be relied upon; (3) KushCo's net loss for the
fiscal year ended August 31, 2018 was more than twice as high than
previously reported; (4) KushCo and its management's assurances
that its financial statements for those fiscal years and periods
were accurate and fairly reported could not be relied upon; and (5)
as a result, KushCo's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.  When the true details entered
the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 1,
2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1561.html

Contact:

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


LADENBURG THALMANN: Appeal in Plains All American Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9,
2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the
appeal in the class action suit involving the company and Plains
All American Pipeline, L.P., is still pending.

In January 2016, an amended complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas against Plains
All American Pipeline, L.P. and related entities as well as their
officers and directors.

The amended complaint added Ladenburg and other underwriters of
securities offerings in 2013 and 2014 that in the aggregate raised
approximately $2,900,000 as defendants to the purported class
action.

Ladenburg was one of the underwriters of the October 2013 initial
public offering.

The complaint allege, among other things, that the offering
materials were misleading based on representations concerning the
maintenance and integrity of the issuer's pipelines, and that the
underwriters are liable for violations of federal securities laws.


In April 2018, the court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss
the second amended complaint with prejudice and entered final
judgment for the defendants. In May 2018 the plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal of the dismissal order.

Ladenburg said, "If the plaintiffs' appeal is successful, Ladenburg
intends to vigorously defend against these claims.

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

Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. operates as a
diversified financial services company in the United States.
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. was founded in 1876 and
is headquartered in Miami, Florida.


LAREDO PETROLEUM: Rivera Moves to Certify Oilfield Workers Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned ROGER RIVERA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LAREDO PETROLEUM,
INC., Case No. 7:19-cv-00005-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex.), moves for
conditional certification of a putative class consisting of:

   "All oilfield workers who worked for, or on behalf of, Laredo
    Petroleum, Inc. in the past three (3) years who were
    classified as independent contractors and paid a day-rate
    with no overtime (the "Day-Rate Workers")."

Mr. Rivera also seeks authority to send notice of this action to
other similarly situated workers.

Mr. Rivera filed this collective action on behalf of all oilfield
workers classified as independent contractors and paid a day-rate
by Laredo Petroleum, Inc., in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.  He alleges that Laredo subjected him and numerous other
oilfield workers like him to a common and illegal practice of
classifying them as independent contractors and paying a day-rate
for each day worked, regardless of the number of hours worked in a
single day or workweek.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          William R. Liles, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 325-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 325-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  wliles@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


LENDINGCLUB CORP: Faces Plouffe Class Action in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
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 faces a
putative class action suit entitled, Plouffe v. LendingClub
Corporation, 0:19-cv-60715-FAM.

In March 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company in the State of Florida (Plouffe v. LendingClub
Corporation, 0:19-cv-60715-FAM) alleging violations of the federal
Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The complaint alleges that the Company made unauthorized credit
report inquiries relating to the plaintiff following the receipt of
a bankruptcy discharge by the plaintiff. The plaintiff seeks to
represent a class of similarly situated individuals in the lawsuit.


LendingClub said, "The case is in the early stages and the Company
has not yet filed a response to the plaintiff's complaint. 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.


LIVENT CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announced that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities
of the Livent Corporation ("Livent," "LTHM" or the "Company) (NYSE:
LTHM) pursuant to or traceable to Livent's initial public offering
("IPO") on or around October 12, 2018.  

The complaint, which is pending in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleges that Defendants
violated the Securities Act of 1933. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff in the Livent LTHM Class Action Lawsuit you must move the
Court no later than July 22, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery
does not require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to
take no action, you may remain an absent class member.

According to the lawsuit, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements in the offering documents relating to the IPO, including
failing to disclose that: (i) a supply contract with Nemaska
Lithium Inc. had been terminated; (ii) the Company would be forced
to fulfill its customer contracts using alternative vendors at
reduced revenues and lower margins; (iii) the Company had a
long-standing contract to supply lithium hydroxide to a customer at
a much lower price than any of Livent's existing contracts; (iv)
the Company's margins were squeezed due to that customer's
increased orders; and (v) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about Livent's business, operations, and
prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

On February 11, 2019, Livent released its fourth quarter 2018
financial results that missed top line sales targets, citing
difficulties negotiating contracts with existing customers. On this
news, Livent's share price fell $0.57, over 4%, to close at $12.55
per share on February 12, 2019.

On May 8, 2019, Livent announced disappointing financial results
for first quarter 2019, citing further customer issues. On this
news, the Company's share price fell $1.70, nearly 16%, to close at
$9.03 per share on May 8, 2019.

If you purchased Livent securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options, please visit
https://tinyurl.com/yxuxklnb or contact Matthew Guarnero toll free
at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

Contact:

         Michael S. Bigin, Esq.
         Matthew Guarnero, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         10 East 40th Street, New York,
         New York 1001
         Phone: (877) 779-1414
         Website: https://www.bernlieb.com
         Email: seidman@bernlieb.com
                MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
                Bigin@bernlieb.com [GN]


LOGISTICARE SOLUTION: Adams Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Adams and Shaniqua Bunton, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Logisticare Solution, LLC, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00372 (W.D. Tex., April 01, 2019), is brought against
the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act.

The Defendant has violated the SCPWA and FLSA by implementing a
policy wherein it improperly required its hourly call-center
employees to perform work off-the-clock and without pay, and also
clocked those employees out when their breaks exceeded fifteen
minutes and further created miscalculation on their rates. The
Defendant also failed to compensate all hours worked each workweek
and the proper amount of overtime on a routine and regular basis in
the last three years.

The Plaintiffs are non-exempt call-center employees who were paid
by the hour. The Plaintiff Adams was employed the Defendant in
Greenville, South Carolina from approximately November 2015 until
March 2016.

The Plaintiff Bunton was employed by Logisticare in Austin, Texas
from approximately August 2017 until July 2018.

The Defendant is a foreign limited liability company, licensed to
and doing business in Texas. Logisticare employs non-exempt workers
in its call centers to provide assistance to Logisticare’s
clients. Logisticare is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, and has
additional call centers in Arizona, California, Connecticut,
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Montana,
New Jersey, Nevada, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Clif Alexander, Esq.
      Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
      Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq.
      Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
      ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
      819 N. Upper Broadway
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Tel: (361) 452-1279
      Fax: (361) 452-1284
      E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
              lauren@a2xlaw.com
              cgordon@a2xlaw.com
              carter@a2xlaw.com


LYNEER STAFFING: Trejo's Labor Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ANITA TREJO, Plaintiff, v. LYNEER STAFFING SOLUTIONS,
LLC; CIERA STAFFING, LLC; EMPLOYERS HR LLC; YUSEN LOGISTICS
(AMERICAS) INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 19STCV10411 (Filed on March 27, 2019), was transferred from the
Superior Court of California of the County of Los Angeles to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on May 13, 2019. This class action lawsuit arises out of an ongoing
wrongful scheme by Defendants to deny their employees the benefits
due under California's wage and hour laws for work performed in
California. Defendants wrongfully refused to pay Plaintiff and
Plaintiff Class the minimum wages and overtime compensation and
other statutory benefits mandated by California law. Plaintiff
Anita Trejo also accuses the Defendants of unlawful business
practices in violation of the California Business and Professions
Code. The United States District Court for the Central District of
California assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-04132 to the proceeding.

Lyneer Staffing Solutions, LLC is a Delaware business entity, which
is registered and conducting business in the state of California.
The company provides temporary staffing services throughout
California. [BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
     Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq.
     Shooka Dadashzadeh, Esq.
     MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
     249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
     Long Beach, CA 90802
     Telephone: (562) 590-5550
     Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
     E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
             kodenbreit@mahoney-law.net
             sdadashzadeh@mahoney-law.net


MARCUS HOTELS: West Claims Website not Blind-friendly
-----------------------------------------------------
Mary West, Plaintiff, v. Marcus Hotels, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-00731, (E.D. Wis., May 15, 2019), is a class action that
seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and compensatory damages
under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human
Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Defendant owns and operates "The Pfister," a hotel located at 424
East Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee and operates
www.thepfisterhotel.com. West is legally blind and claims that the
website is not accessible to the blind when she attempted to book a
room. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 465-1188
      Fax: (212) 465-1181


MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Colorado Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Maxar Technologies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit filed in the District Court of
Colorado.  

In January 2019, a Maxar stockholder filed a class action lawsuit
in the District Court of Colorado, naming Maxar and members of
management as defendants alleging, among other things, that the
company's public disclosures were deficient in violation of the
federal securities laws and seeking monetary damages.

Once the court appoints a lead plaintiff, that plaintiff will have
sixty days to file a consolidated amended complaint and we will
have sixty days to file a response.  

Maxar "We believe that these cases are without merit and we intend
to vigorously defend against them."

Maxar Technologies Inc. provides space technology solutions for
commercial and government customers worldwide. The company operates
through three segments: Space Systems, Imagery, and Services. The
company was founded in 1969 and is based in Westminster, Colorado.


MAXIMUS INC: Appeal in Virginia Class Action Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Maximus, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the appeal in the class
action suit in Virginia is still pending.

In August 2017, the Company and certain officers were named as
defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

The plaintiff alleged the defendants made a variety of materially
false and misleading statements, or failed to disclose material
information, concerning the status of the Company's Health
Assessment Advisory Service project for the U.K. Department for
Work and Pensions from the period of October 20, 2014, through
February 3, 2016.

In August 2018, the company's motion to dismiss the case was
granted, and the case was dismissed. In October 2018, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Circuit Court for
the Fourth Circuit. That appeal is pending.

Maximus said, "At this time, it is not possible to reasonably
predict whether this matter will be permitted to proceed as a class
or to reasonably estimate the value of the claims asserted, and we
are unable to estimate the potential loss or range of loss."

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

Maximus, Inc.  provides business process services (BPS) to
government health and human services programs worldwide. Maximus,
Inc. was founded in 1975 and is headquartered in Reston, Virginia.


MDL 2445: Suboxone Antitrust Suit Underway in E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, In re Suboxone
(Buprenorphine Hydrochloride and Naloxone) Antitrust Litigation.

On September 22, 2016, 41 states and the District of Columbia, or
the States, brought suit against Indivior and the company in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
alleging violations of federal and state antitrust statutes and
state unfair trade and consumer protection laws relating to
Indivior's launch of Suboxone Sublingual Film in 2010 and seeking
an injunction, civil penalties, and disgorgement.

After filing, the case was consolidated for pre-trial purposes with
the In re Suboxone (Buprenorphine Hydrochloride and Naloxone)
Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2445, or the Suboxone MDL, a
multidistrict litigation relating to putative class actions on
behalf of various private plaintiffs against Indivior relating to
its launch of Suboxone Sublingual Film.

While the company was not named as a defendant in the original
Suboxone MDL cases, the action brought by the States alleges that
the company participated in an antitrust conspiracy with Indivior
in connection with Indivior's launch of Suboxone Sublingual Film
and engaged in related conduct in violation of federal and state
antitrust law.

The company moved to dismiss the States' conspiracy claims but, by
order dated October 30, 2017, the Court denied its motion to
dismiss. The company filed an answer denying the States' claims on
November 20, 2017. The fact discovery period closed July 27, 2018,
but the parties agreed to conduct certain fact depositions in
August 2018.  

The case is currently in the expert discovery phase, which is
scheduled to close May 30, 2019.

Aquestive said, "We are not able to determine or predict the
ultimate outcome of this proceeding or provide a reasonable
estimate, or range of estimates, of the possible outcome or loss,
if any, in this matter."

Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company,
focuses on identifying, developing, and commercializing various
products to address unmet medical needs. Aquestive Therapeutics,
Inc. was founded in 2004 and is headquartered in Warren, New
Jersey.


MDL 2741: Young-Beverly v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MONICA YOUNG-BEVERLY, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, a
Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00981 (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-02815-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-Beverly 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



MICHAEL KOEHN: Long Seeks Final Approval of $5K Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled BRUCE LONG, individually on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MICHAEL C.
KOEHN and, JOHN AND JANE DOES NUMBERS 1 THROUGH 10, Case No.
1:18-cv-00943-WCG (E.D. Wisc.), files with the Court his unopposed
motion for final approval of class settlement agreement.

On February 1, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved the
Settlement and conditionally certified the settlement class under
Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court has preliminarily defined the settlement class as:

     All persons to whom Michael C. Koehn mailed an initial
     written communication to an address in the State of
     Wisconsin, between June 21, 2017 and July 12, 2018, which
     stated a static amount as being the amount due even though
     the debts were accruing interest.

The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges Koehn violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act by mailing consumers initial collection
letters to collect defaulted medical debts which stated a static
amount as being the amount due even though the debts were actually
accruing interest.  The Plaintiff also alleges the letters were
mailed without meaningful attorney involvement.

The agreement provides that Koehn will create a class settlement
fund of $5,000 ("Class Recovery"), which a Third-Party Settlement
Administrator will distribute to each Class Member whose Class
Notice is not returned as undeliverable and does not exclude
him/herself from the Settlement.  Class Members will receive their
pro rata share of the Class Recovery by check which will be void
sixty (60) days from the date of issuance.

Subject to Court approval, Koehn shall pay $1,500 to the Plaintiff
for his statutory damages, which also considers his services to the
Settlement Class.

In connection with Class Counsel's application for approval of
attorney's fees and costs, the Parties stipulate that, if the Court
grants the Final Order, then the Litigation is a "successful
action" within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692k(a)(3)
notwithstanding that Koehn does not admit liability.  As such, and
subject to court approval, Koehn agrees Class Counsel shall be
entitled to receive $20,315, which covers all fees and all expenses
arising out of the Litigation.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Springfield, NJ 07081
          Telephone: (973) 379-7500
          E-mail: Philip@SternThomasson.com
                  Andrew@SternThomasson.com
                  Francis@SternThomasson.com


MONSANTO CO: Dubourg Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Victor J. Dubourg Sr. and Carol M. Dubourg,
Plaintiff, v. Monsanto Company, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-02583
(E.D. Mo., February 21, 2019), was transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California in May 16, 2019,
under Case No. 19-cv-02583.

Plaintiffs seeks compensatory and punitive damages, costs, expert
fees, disbursements and attorneys' fees incurred in prosecuting
this action, disgorgement of profits, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest at the maximum rate and such other relief
resulting from negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with
the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup (R), containing the active ingredient
glyphosate.

Monsanto is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation
based in St. Louis, Missouri. It is the world's leading producer of
glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, a broad-spectrum
herbicide used to kill weeds and grasses known to compete with
commercial crops grown around the globe.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MONSANTO CO: Thompson Sues Over Herbicide Side Effects
------------------------------------------------------
Aurie Hazel Thompson, Plaintiff, v. Monsanto Company, Defendant,
Case No. 19-cv-01169 (M.D. Fla., May 15, 2019), seeks compensatory
and punitive damages, costs, expert fees, disbursements and
attorneys' fees incurred in prosecuting this action, disgorgement
of profits, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum
rate and such other relief resulting from negligent and wrongful
conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture,
testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (R),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

Thompson developed non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma as a direct and proximate
result of being exposed to Roundup.

Monsanto is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation
based in St. Louis, Missouri. It is the world's leading producer of
glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, a broad-spectrum
herbicide used to kill weeds and grasses known to compete with
commercial crops grown around the globe.[BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

       George T. Williamson, Esq.
       FARR, FARR, EMERICH, HACKETT, CARR & HOLMES, P.A.
       99 Nesbit Street
       Punta Gorda, FL 33950
       Tel: (941) 639-1158
       Fax. (941) 639-0028
       Email: gwilliamson@farr.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Hong Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH HONG, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 3:19-cv-02895 (E.D. Cal., May 24, 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 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:

         Gerald Singleton, Esq.
         Mark F. Fleming, Esq.
         John C. Lemon, Esq.
         Erika L. Vasquez, Esq.
         SINGLETON LAW FIRM, APC
         450 A Street, 5 th Floor
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 771-3473
         Facsimile: (619) 255-1515
         E-mail: gerald@slffirm.com
                 mark@slffirm.com
                 john@slffirm.com
                erika@slffirm.com

              - and -

         Timothy A. Scott, Esq.
         Nicolas O. Jimenez, Esq.
         SCOTT TRIAL LAWYERS, APC
         1350 Columbia Street, Suite 600
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 794-0451
         Facsimile: (619) 652-9964
         E-mail: tas@scotttriallawyers.com
         noj@scotttriallawyers.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Jones-Basler et al. Sue over Sale of Herbicide
----------------------------------------------------------------
CAITLIN JONES-BASLER, JOHNNY QUINONEZ, VANESSA MOORE, the
Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-00953-TLN-EFB (E.D. Cal., May 24, 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. Caitlin
Jones-Basler'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:

         Gerald Singleton, Esq.
         Mark F. Fleming, Esq.
         John C. Lemon, Esq.
         Erika L. Vasquez, Esq.
         SINGLETON LAW FIRM, APC
         450 A Street, 5 th Floor
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 771-3473
         Facsimile: (619) 255-1515
         E-mail: gerald@slffirm.com
                 mark@slffirm.com
                 john@slffirm.com
                erika@slffirm.com

              - and -

         Timothy A. Scott, Esq.
         Nicolas O. Jimenez, Esq.
         SCOTT TRIAL LAWYERS, APC
         1350 Columbia Street, Suite 600
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 794-0451
         Facsimile: (619) 652-9964
         E-mail: tas@scotttriallawyers.com
         noj@scotttriallawyers.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Kusnetzs Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
STANLEY KUSNETZ and FANY B, KUSNETZ, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04804 (S.D.N.Y., 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. Stanley
Kusnetz'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:

          Paul D. Rheingold, Esq.
          RHEINGOLD GIUFFRA
          RUFFO & PLOTKIN LLP
          
          551 Fifth Avenue, 29 th Floor
          New York, NY 10176
          Telephone: (212) 684-1880


MONSANTO COMPANY: Mason Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH MASON, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-01421 (E.D. Mo., May 24, 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 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: Terhunes Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
GERALD TERHUNE and PATY TERHUNE, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01419 (E.D. Mo., May 24,
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. Gerald
Terhune'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

MR COOPER GROUP: $17MM Settlement in Jordan Case Approved
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington granted final approval of the settlement in the case,
Zamora Jordan v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, No. 2:14-CV-0175-TOR
(E.D. Wash.).

The Settlement Agreement requires Defendants to pay $17,000,000
into the non-reversionary Settlement Fund.   Class counsel
estimates that class members will receive awards ranging between
$75 and $52,165.

Mr. Cooper Group 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 is a
defendant in a class action proceeding originally filed in state
court in March 2012 and then removed to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Washington under the caption
Laura Zamora Jordan v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC.

The suit was filed on behalf of a class of Washington borrowers and
challenges property preservation measures the Company took, as loan
servicer, after the borrowers defaulted and the Company's vendors
determined that the borrowers had vacated or abandoned their
properties.

The case raises claims for (i) common law trespass, (ii) statutory
trespass, and (iii) violation of Washington's Consumer Protection
Act, and seeks recovery of actual, statutory, and treble damages,
as well as attorneys’ fees and litigation costs.

On July 25, 2018, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
to resolve this matter.  The Company is pursuing reimbursement of
the settlement payment from the owners of the loans it serviced,
but there can be no assurance that the Company would prevail with
any claims for reimbursement.

Mr. Cooper Group Inc. provides servicing, origination, and
transaction-based services related principally to single-family
residences in the United States. The company operates through three
segments: Servicing, Originations, and Xome. The company was
formerly known as WMIH Corp. and changed its name to Mr. Cooper
Group Inc. in October 2018. Mr. Cooper Group Inc. is headquartered
in Coppell, Texas.


MYRIAD GENETICS: Kessman Class Action Concluded
-----------------------------------------------
Myriad Genetics, 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 class action suit
initiated by Matthew Kessman has been concluded.

On April 20, 2018, Matthew Kessman, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a purported class action
complaint in the United States District Court, District of Utah,
No. 2:18-cv-0336-DAK-EJF ("Kessman Action"), against the company,
its President and Chief Executive Officer, Mark C. Capone, its
former President and Chief Executive Officer, Peter D. Meldrum, its
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, R. Bryan
Riggsbee, and its former Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer, James S. Evans (collectively the "Defendants").


The Kessman Action is premised upon allegations that the Defendants
allegedly made false and misleading statements regarding the
company's business, operational and compliance policies,
specifically by allegedly failing to disclose that the Company was
allegedly submitting false or otherwise improper claims for payment
under Medicare and Medicaid for our hereditary cancer testing.

On March 25, 2019, the United States District Court granted the
Company's Motion to Dismiss the Kessman Action with prejudice.
Because no appeal was filed within the required time limit, the
Kessman Action is concluded.

Myriad Genetics, Inc., a molecular diagnostic company, focuses on
developing and marketing novel predictive medicine, personalized
medicine, and prognostic medicine tests worldwide. Myriad Genetics,
Inc. was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Salt Lake City,
Utah.


NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Sued in Kansas Over Broker Commissions
------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit filed in Kansas City, Kan., claims the
practice of a home seller paying the commission of the buyer's
broker artificially increases costs, The Kansas City Star reports.
The suit is filed on behalf of any home sellers who paid broker
commissions in Kansas City, Springfield, Columbia or St. Louis
since April 29, 2015.

The suit claims that local National Association of Realtors
associations require sellers wanting their homes on the Multiple
Listing Service database to pay the buyer's broker. The rule forces
sellers to pay someone who is actively working against their
interests, argue lawyers for the plaintiffs -- Boulware Law and
Williams Dirks Dameron LLC.

A similar class-action was filed in federal court in Chicago in
March against NAR associations in several major U.S. cities. That
suit claims that the NARs perpetuate a practice that has kept buyer
broker commissions in the 2.5 percent to 3 percent range for years,
even as technology has reduced the role of buyer brokers,
Courthouse News Service reports. [GN]


NATUS MEDICAL: Badger Class Action Dismissed
--------------------------------------------
Natus Medical Incorporated 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 putative class action
lawsuit (Badger v. Natus Medical Incorporation, et al, No.
17-cv-00458-JSW) alleging violations of federal securities laws has
been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, naming as defendants the Company and
certain officers and a director.

The case was filed in January 2017 and later dismissed in March
2019.

Natus Medical Incorporated provides neurology, newborn care, and
hearing and balance assessment healthcare products and services
worldwide. Natus Medical Incorporated was incorporated in 1987 and
is headquartered in Pleasanton, California.

NAVAJO MANUFACTURING: Whitehouse Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Whitehouse, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Navajo Manufacturing Company, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01392, (D. Colo., May 15, 2019), seeks to
recover overtime for all hours worked and overtime compensation at
the proper regular rates of pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 and applicable Colorado Minimum Wage Order.

Plaintiff was employed by Navajo as a Sales Representative making
sales calls by telephone from call centers. He claims to have
regularly worked more than forty hours per workweek usually
clocking forty-five to sixty hours per workweek. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul F. Lewis, Esq.
      Michael D. Kuhn, Esq.
      Andrew E. Swan, Esq.
      LEWIS KUHN SWAN PC
      620 North Tejon Street, Suite 101
      Colorado Springs, CO 80903
      Telephone: (719) 694-3000
      Facsimile: (866) 515-8628
      Email: plewis@lks.law
             mkuhn@lks.law
             aswan@lks.law


NCI BUILDING: Amended Complaint Filed in Voigt Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
NCI Building Systems, 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 an amended complaint
has been made in the class action suit initiated by Gary D. Voigt,

On July 17, 2018, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Ply Gem Parent, LLC ("Ply
Gem"), and for certain limited purposes as set forth in the Merger
Agreement, Clayton, Dubilier & Rice, LLC ("CD&R"), pursuant to
which, at the closing of the merger, Ply Gem would be merged with
and into NCI, with NCI continuing its existence as a corporation
organized under the laws of the State of Delaware (the "Merger").

On November 14, 2018, an individual stockholder, Gary D. Voigt,
filed a putative class action complaint in the Delaware Court of
Chancery against CD&R, CD&R Fund VIII, and certain directors of the
Company.

Voigt purports to assert claims on behalf of himself, on behalf of
a class of other similarly situated stockholders of the Company,
and derivatively on behalf of the Company, the nominal defendant.

An amended complaint was filed on April 11, 2019. The amended
complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust
enrichment against CD&R Fund VIII and CD&R, and for breach of
fiduciary duty against the director defendants in connection with
the Merger.

Voigt seeks damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

The Company intends to vigorously defend the litigation.

NCI Building Systems, Inc. designs, engineers, manufactures, and
markets metal products for the nonresidential construction industry
in North America. It operates in four segments: Engineered Building
Systems, Metal Components, Insulated Metal Panels, and Metal Coil
Coating. NCI Building Systems, Inc. was founded in 1984 and is
headquartered in Houston, Texas.


NEWELL BRANDS: Continues to Defend Oklahoma Firefighters Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Newell Brands Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Oklahoma Firefighters
Pension and Retirement System v. Newell Brands Inc., et al.

The Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors have been named as defendants in a putative securities
class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Hudson County, on behalf of all persons who acquired Company common
stock pursuant or traceable to the S-4 registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with the April 2016 acquisition of
Jarden (the "Registration Statement").

The action was filed on September 6, 2018, and is captioned
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Newell
Brands Inc., et al., Civil Action No. HUD-L-003492-18.

The operative complaint alleges certain violations of the
securities laws, including, among other things, that the defendants
made certain materially false and misleading statements and
omissions in the Registration Statement regarding the Company's
financial results, trends, and metrics.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and
costs, among other relief, but has not specified the amount of
damages being sought.

The Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously.

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

Newell Brands Inc. designs, manufactures, sources, and distributes
consumer and commercial products worldwide. Newell Brands Inc. was
formerly known as Newell Rubbermaid Inc. and changed its name to
Newell Brands Inc. in April 2016. The company was founded in 1903
and is based in Hoboken, New Jersey.


NEWELL BRANDS: New Jersey Securities Litigation Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Newell Brands 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 consolidated class action suit in New Jersey entitled,
In re Newell Brands, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No.
18-cv-10878 (JMV)(JBC).

The Company and certain of its officers have been named as
defendants in two putative securities class action lawsuits, each
filed in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired our common stock between February 6, 2017 and January 24,
2018.

The first lawsuit was filed on June 21, 2018 and is captioned Bucks
County Employees Retirement Fund, Individually and on behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. Newell Brands Inc., Michael B. Polk,
Ralph J. Nicoletti, and James L. Cunningham, III, Civil Action No.
2:18-cv-10878 (United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey).

The second lawsuit was filed on June 27, 2018 and is captioned
Matthew Barnett, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Newell Brands Inc., Michael B. Polk, Ralph J.
Nicoletti, and James L. Cunningham, III, Civil Action No.
2:18-cv-11132 (United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey).

On September 27, 2018, the court consolidated these two cases under
Civil Action No. 18-cv-10878 (JMV)(JBC) bearing the caption In re
Newell Brands, Inc. Securities Litigation.

The court also named Hampshire County Council Pension Fund as the
lead plaintiff in the consolidated case.

The operative complaint alleges certain violations of the
securities laws, including, among other things, that the defendants
made certain materially false and misleading statements and
omissions regarding the Company's business, operations, and
prospects between February 6, 2017 and January 24, 2018.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and
costs, among other relief, but have not specified the amount of
damages being sought.

The Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously.

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

Newell Brands Inc. designs, manufactures, sources, and distributes
consumer and commercial products worldwide. Newell Brands Inc. was
formerly known as Newell Rubbermaid Inc. and changed its name to
Newell Brands Inc. in April 2016. The company was founded in 1903
and is based in Hoboken, New Jersey.


NEXSTAR MEDIA: Defending against TV Ads Antitrust Suit in Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nexstar Media Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the defendants' motion
to dismiss the consolidated class action suit entitled, In Re:
Local TV Advertising Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:18-cv-06785 must
be filed by June 5, 2019.  

On July 30, 2018, Clay, Massey & Associates, PC filed an antitrust
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated against Gray Television, Inc., Hearst Communications,
Nexstar Media Group, Inc., Tegna Inc., Tribune Media Company and
Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.

The lawsuit alleges unlawful coordination between broadcast
television station owners to artificially increase prices of
television spot advertisements in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Section 1).

Nexstar has since been named in 15 similar complaints, including
ten in the Northern District of Illinois, three in the Southern
District of New York and two in the District of Maryland.

Each complaint includes similar allegations and claims a violation
of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. One, filed in the District of
Maryland, also alleges violations of state antitrust and consumer
protection statutes and a claim for unjust enrichment.

On October 9, 2018, these cases were consolidated in a
multi-district litigation in the District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois captioned In Re: Local TV Advertising
Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:18-cv-06785 ("MDL Litigation").

On January 23, 2019, the Court in the MDL Litigation appointed
plaintiffs' lead and liaison counsel. The MDL Litigation is
ongoing. The Plaintiffs' Consolidated Complaint was filed on April
3, 2019; Defendants' Motion to Dismiss must be filed by June 5,
2019.

Nexstar denies the allegations against it and will defend its
advertising practices as necessary.

Nexstar Media Group, Inc. operates as a television broadcasting and
digital media company in the United States. The company focuses on
the acquisition, development, and operation of television stations
and interactive community Websites in small and medium-sized
markets. The company was formerly known as Nexstar Broadcasting
Group, Inc. and changed its name to Nexstar Media Group, Inc. in
January 2017. Nexstar Media Group, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is
headquartered in Irving, Texas.


NFL: In Dispute with Insurance Carriers Over Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
Mike Florio, writing for NBC Sports, reports that it takes a lot to
make the insurance industry seem sympathetic. The NFL potentially
is in the process of doing that.

The league wants more than $1 billion from its insurance carriers
in connection with the settlement of the class action arising from
the claim that the NFL concealed for years the long-term risks of
head trauma from its players. But the league apparently doesn't
want the insurance carriers to find out what the league knew and
when the league knew it regarding the long-term risks of head
trauma.

According to Daniel Kaplan of SportsBusiness Journal, the insurance
companies have commenced the process of enforcing "long-standing
subpoenas" for documents regarding head injuries from the NFL's 32
teams. The NFL has attempted to block the effort with a motion for
a temporary restraining order.

A court in Indiana already has ordered the Colts to comply (the
Colts are appealing). The league's motion to block the subpoenas
included a copy of one served to the Bills, which via Kaplan seeks
six categories of documents including correspondence related to NFL
player safety committees, communications about the class-action
settlement, and documents relating to the film Concussion, the
League of Denial book, and ProCap, a padded helmet product.

The move comes amid a two-year fight over the limits of permissible
"discovery" in the lawsuit. The league avoided surrendering
sensitive information regarding its knowledge as to head trauma by
settling the class action. Absent a settlement with the insurance
companies, the league could eventually be required to submit to an
effort to test whether the payments made to former players fall
within the scope of the insurance coverage the NFL purchased.

Obviously, insurance companies prefer not to pay whenever and
wherever they can legitimately refuse to do so. Their only asset is
money, and the business is all about bringing in as much money as
possible in premiums while paying out as little as possible in
claims.

But the NFL in this case apparently wants the benefit of its
insurance coverage without giving the insurance companies access to
information that could be critical to determining whether or not
coverage exists. Most insurance policies include a long list of
coverage exclusions and other exceptions that prevent payment from
being made; it's only fair for the insurance companies to be able
to determine whether, for example, the league's knowledge of the
potential risks arising from head trauma coupled with any
meaningful effort to warn players and/or to enhance safety make
coverage unavailable.

Of course, both sides understand these sensitivities. The
circumstances suggest that the league has something to hide, and
that the insurance companies hope to force the NFL to choose
between opening the vault of information or accepting whatever
offer the insurance companies are willing to make in order to make
the case go away.

As a practical matter, the league won't be inclined to blink until
it has to. This latest battle is aimed at forcing the league to
blink; the league will try in response to continue to delay for as
long as possible the moment at which it must choose between
accepting the best offer from the insurance companies or facing the
reality that certain potentially unfortunate secrets regarding head
trauma will end up being revealed to the insurance companies and
possibly in turn to the world. [GN]



NHL: Faces New Lawsuit Over Dismissal of CTE Risks
--------------------------------------------------
Nicolas Pollock, writing for The Atlantic, reports that the
National Hockey League is facing renewed scrutiny into the lasting
consequences that violence in its sport has on players. On May 1,
the league's commissioner, Gary Bettman, appeared at Canadian
Parliament to address questions about head and brain injuries in
hockey -- a topic of growing alarm among current and former
players, but one that Bettman has frequently dismissed.

Bettman maintained this stance throughout the hearing. But
circumstances surrounding the meeting raise the question of how
long the NHL will be able to plausibly deny the sport's potential
risk.

The group questioning Bettman was part of a parliamentary
subcommittee on sports-related concussion. The subcommittee came
together as attention to fighting and hits to the head in hockey
has increased, coinciding with rising awareness of the
neurodegenerative disease chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE.
It is now widely believed that the disease is linked to the
repetitive blows to the head that are common in sports that involve
athletes crashing into each other at high speeds.

Because nuanced research into CTE is still in relatively early
stages, many scientists urge greater caution in protecting
athletes' brains. Players themselves have joined this call for
better safety measures, especially following a string of
high-profile early deaths over the past decade among former players
whose brains were found to have evidence of CTE. In 2013, a group
of former players, many fearing they already had or would develop
the disease, launched a class-action lawsuit against the NHL for
negligence toward head injury.

Bettman and the NHL, meanwhile, have argued that changes to the
game should not be made until the science of head injury and CTE is
more complete. The NHL defended itself in the 2013 lawsuit by
employing a group of CTE skeptics as expert witnesses who cast
doubt on CTE science. Bettman echoed this group's views during the
subcommittee hearing. In response to a pointed question from a
subcommittee member about the link between CTE and hockey, he
responded, "Based on everything I've been told -- and if anybody
has any information to the contrary, we'd be happy to hear it --
other than some anecdotal evidence, there has not been that
conclusive link."

The NHL stands out in its continued denial of a link between CTE
and head injuries sustained during game-play. The National Football
League joined the majority camp of opinion surrounding CTE when it
acknowledged such a link between football and the disease in 2016.

A brewing set of lawsuits by former players and their estates will
challenge the NHL's position. A day before Bettman appeared before
the subcommittee, Kelli Ewen, the widow of the late hockey enforcer
Todd Ewen, filed a lawsuit against the NHL in relation to his
death. Todd played 11 seasons in the NHL and fought in almost every
one of his games. After retiring, he began experiencing memory
issues and depression. He took his own life in 2015. I recently
profiled Todd in a short video documentary:

In the months before his death, Todd confided in Kelli that he
believed he had CTE. After he died, Kelli had his brain sent to
Lili-Naz Hazrati, a neuropathologist at the Canadian Concussion
Centre, to be analyzed for evidence of the disease. To the family's
shock, Hazrati concluded that Todd didn't have the condition. Three
years later, however, another neuropathologist, Ann McKee, one of
the world's leading authorities on the condition, reexamined
portions of Todd's brain and concluded that he in fact did have
CTE.

In the three-year interim between these diagnoses, the NHL employed
Hazrati in its defense of the players' ongoing head-injury
class-action suit. In her report, she cited Todd's negative CTE
diagnosis to refute a causal link between hockey and CTE. In a
subsequent deposition, Hazrati again claimed that there was no link
between CTE and head trauma. "We don't know if one causes the
other," she said. When asked whether she believes that CTE is a
disease, Hazrati said it was rather "a pattern seen on a slide."

In April, in an email response to interview requests for my
documentary, however, a representative provided a statement that
appeared to conflict with this claim: "Dr. Hazrati does not deny
that concussions can cause damage to the brain, potentially
resulting in a progressive neurodegenerative disease." (Hazrati
declined multiple interview requests for my documentary and did not
comment on Kelli Ewen's allegations for this article.)

Kelli Ewen's new lawsuit details both Hazrati's and the NHL's
failure to correct the statements they made regarding Todd since
news of his positive diagnosis was released. It goes on to allege
that Hazrati and the NHL had an undisclosed relationship at the
time Kelli first sent Todd's brain to be examined, and that Hazrati
falsely presented herself as "an independent and neutral
neuropathologist who believed that CTE was a genuine disease."
Kelli says that if she had known of these extenuating factors, she
would not have had Todd's brain analyzed by Hazrati.

Last November, the NHL offered a settlement to the former players
involved in the class-action lawsuit. It amounted to roughly
$22,000 per player with up to $75,000 in medical treatment.
According to a lawyer representing players in the case, most
involved are expected to take the settlement.

Kelli Ewen's new lawsuit, though, could set a precedent for players
who don't accept the settlement and instead pursue their own suits.
The NHL used Ewen's initial negative diagnosis as a shield during
one of its most public confrontations with the demons circling
hockey. With that shield gone, the league might have less to defend
itself with in a looming next round of court battles, when players
and their families could again press Bettman and his colleagues to
reflect on the possibility of hockey's danger -- and to do more to
guard against injury.

"Todd's death can no longer be exploited to justify the NHL's
complete lack of concern over head hits and violence on the ice,"
Kelli's lawsuit notes. "Rather, his death and CTE diagnosis should
be a motivating force for positive change in NHL gameplay, and is
further evidence that repeated head hits experienced in the NHL by
players lead to long-term neurocognitive deficits."

In a press scrum that followed the subcommittee hearing, Bettman
said he would not retract his statements regarding Todd Ewen. The
NHL has not responded to further interview requests. [GN]


NIO INC: Tarapara Sues over False Registration Statement
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against NIO, Inc. and its
executives and directors for violations of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934. The case is captioned BABULAL TARAPARA,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. NIO INC., BIN LI, LOUIS T. HSIEH, LIHONG QIN,
PADMASREE WARRIOR, TIAN CHENG, XIANG LI, HAI WU, YAQIN ZHANG,
XIANPING ZHONG, ZHAOHUI LI, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, GOLDMAN SACHS
(ASIA) L.L.C., MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED,
DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.,
CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, UBS SECURITIES LLC, and WR
SECURITIES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02777 (E.D.N.Y., May
10, 2019). Plaintiff Babulal Tarapara brings this class action on
behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
NIO securities pursuant and/or traceable to the company's false
and/or misleading registration statement and prospectus issued in
connection with the company's September 2018 initial public
offering. The registration statement and prospectus were false and
misleading and omitted to state material adverse facts.
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
the company would not build its own manufacturing plant; (2) that,
instead, the company would rely on JAC Auto, a manufacturer owned
by the Chinese government; (3) that reductions in government
subsidies for electric cars would materially impact the company's
sales; (4) that the number of registered users of the company's
mobile application did not reflect the active user base; and (5)
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.

NIO is incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands with its
principal executive offices located in Shanghai, China. NIO's
American Depositary Shares trades on the New York Stock Exchange
under the symbol NIO. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     230 Park Ave., Suite 530
     New York, NY 10169
     Telephone: (212)682-5340
     Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
     E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com

             - and –

     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
     Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
     Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
     Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Telephone: (310) 201-9150
     Facsimile: (310) 201-9160


NOKIA CORP: Rosen Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Nokia Corporation (NOK) from April 15, 2015 through
March 21, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks
to recover damages for Nokia investors under the federal securities
laws.

To join the Nokia class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1566.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. or toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com
or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Alcatel-Lucent S.A. ("Alcatel"), a French global
telecommunications equipment company acquired by Nokia in November
2016, maintained insufficient internal controls and was materially
non-compliant in its business practices; (2) Nokia had failed to
conduct adequate due diligence into Alcatel prior to its
acquisition; (3) subsequent to the completion of Nokia's
acquisition of Alcatel, the Company maintained insufficient
internal controls over the integration of Alcatel's businesses; (4)
as a result of the foregoing, at all relevant times, Nokia was at
risk of serious criminal and civil penalties; and (5) as a result,
Nokias's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 18,
2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1566.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Contact:

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


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

Investors who purchased the Company's shares between March 2, 2018,
and February 28, 2019, inclusive (the ''Class Period''), are
encouraged to contact the firm before May 28, 2019.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Nutanix released its second quarter
fiscal 2019 results on February 28, 2019. The Company reported its
third-quarter guidance to be lower than analysts' expectations.
Management blamed "inadequate marketing spend for pipeline
generation and slower than expected sales hiring" for the weak
guidance. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements
were false and materially misleading throughout the class period.
When the market learned the truth about Nutanix, investors suffered
damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

Contact:

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


OGLETREE DEAKIN: 3 Added to Sex Bias Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Dorrian, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that two women
among a group accusing Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart
P.C. of sex-based pay discrimination against female shareholders
nationwide asked a federal court in California to make them named
plaintiffs and to move part of the case to Colorado.

Those measures are necessary to preserve the class equal pay claims
Dawn Knepper asserted when she first filed the case, Jocelyn
Campanaro and Angelica Ochoa say in a motion filed May 9 with the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Campanaro, Ochoa, and Alicia Voltmer were added to the lawsuit as
opt-in plaintiffs under the collective action provisions governing
the Equal Pay Act.

Denial of their motion to intervene and be included as named
plaintiffs will prejudice their rights and the rights of other
female Ogletree shareholders, the women say. That's because Knepper
is no longer able to act as the lead plaintiff in and class
representative of the proposed equal pay collective action, they
say.

The court March 25 ruled that Knepper can't pursue her equal pay
allegations in court but instead must arbitrate them on an
individual basis under the terms of her employment agreement with
Ogletree.

It's undisputed that Campanaro and Ochoa aren't subject to
arbitration agreements, according to their motion papers. But now
that Knepper, the sole named plaintiff, "has been relegated to
arbitration and prevented from proceeding with litigation, their
longstanding claims are placed in limbo," the women say.

Ogletree won't be prejudiced by allowing them to act as named
plaintiffs of the proposed equal pay class because the case is
still in its infancy, Campanaro and Ochoa say. No additional
discovery would be needed and no discovery that's already been
completed would have to be redone, they say.

Because the California-based Knepper is effectively out of the
class equal pay claim, the court should sever and transfer that
claim to the District of Colorado, where Campanaro and Ochoa live
and work, the motion says.

Knepper's separate class claim under California's Private Attorney
Generals Act should remain in the Central District of California,
Campanaro and Ochoa say. That claim has been stayed pending the
individual arbitration of her equal pay allegations.

Campanaro and Ochoa argue alternatively that the court should
dismiss them from Knepper's case and give them 60 days to refile
the class equal pay allegations in another court, including the
District of Colorado.

Sanford Heisler Sharp LLP and Desai Law Firm PC represent Knepper.
Paul Hastings LLP represents Ogletree.

The case is Knepper v. Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,
P.C., C.D. Cal., No. 8:19-cv-00060, motion filed 5/9/19. [GN]


ONECOIN: Former Investor Files Fraud Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Max Boddy, writing for Coin Telegraph, reports that former OneCoin
investor Christine Grablis is suing the cryptocurrency investment
scheme for fraud, according to a complaint filed on May 7.

Grablis is seeking damages and a class action suit to represent
other investors purportedly defrauded by OneCoin.

The full list of defendants in this lawsuit -- Grablis v. OneCoin
Ltd. -- includes OneCoin Ltd, Ruja Ignatova, Konstantin Ignatov,
Sebastian Greenwood, Mark Scott, along with other potential parties
who have yet to be named.

According to a Bloomberg report on May 7, OneCoin founder Ruja
Ignatova has been charged with wire fraud, securities fraud and
money laundering; Konstantin Ignatova, Ruja's younger brother and
purported executive at OneCoin, was charged with wire fraud,
securities fraud and money laundering in March.

As noted in the class action complaint, Greenwood is the co-founder
and "public face" of OneCoin. Scott, on the other hand, is listed
as a licensed attorney, who stands accused of using his legal
knowledge to help the firm launder money via hedge funds.

Silver Miller, a law firm which purportedly specializes in
representing cryptocurrency investors, has issued a press release
instructing potentially affected investors on how they can
participate in the class action suit.

As previously reported by Cointelegraph, OneCoin was a global Ponzi
Scheme that has used smoke and mirrors tactics to maintain an air
of legitimacy. The scam used a multi-level marketing scheme to sell
education materials for trading that came with tokens that could
purportedly be used to mine onecoins. [GN]


OPKO HEALTH: Bid to Combine Kerznowski & Steinberg Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
OPKO Health, 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 motions to consolidate
Kerznowski and Steinberg actions are pending before the court.

On September 7, 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York (the
"SEC Complaint") against a number of individuals and entities,
including the Company and its CEO and Chairman, Phillip Frost ("Dr.
Frost").

On December 27, 2018, the Company announced that the Company and
Dr. Frost entered into no admit/no deny settlement agreements with
the SEC, resolving the SEC Complaint. The settlement was approved
by the Court in January 2019.

Following the SEC's announcement of the SEC Complaint, a number of
class actions and derivative suits were filed concerning the
allegations in the SEC Complaint and related matters.

On February 4, 2019, the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey appointed the Amitim Funds as lead plaintiff
in the class action suit involving Jason Kerznowski and that matter
was transferred to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.

Amitim Funds was also appointed as lead plaintiff in the Charles
Steinberg class action. The other class action lawsuits were either
administratively stayed and closed, or voluntarily dismissed.

On May 3, 2019, plaintiffs in each of the Kerznowski and Steinberg
matters, filed an amended class action complaint. Motions to
consolidate these actions are pending before the court.

OPKO Health, Inc., a healthcare company, engages in the diagnostics
and pharmaceuticals business in the United States, Ireland, Chile,
Spain, Israel, Mexico, and internationally. OPKO Health, Inc. was
incorporated in 1991 and is headquartered in Miami, Florida.


OREGON: Timber Suit Sent to Mediation
-------------------------------------
Alex Paul, writing for Albany Democrat Herald, reports that a $1.4
billion breach of contract lawsuit brought against the Oregon
Department of Forestry by Linn County and 100 other taxing
districts is heading to a mediation session in June.

The decision was reached during a May 3, 2019 settlement conference
before Linn County Circuit Court Judge David Delsman.

Present were Linn County Commissioner Roger Nyquist; John
DiLorenzo,Esq. -- johndilorenzo@dwt.com -- the attorney for the
class action plaintiffs; Aaron Stuckeyq., Esq. --
aaronstuckey@dwt.com -- and Greg Chaimov, Esq. --
gregorychaimov@dwt.com -- and Scott Kaplan, Esq. --
scott@sekaplanlaw.com -- of the state Department of Justice, State
Forester Peter Doherty, Deputy State Forester Liz Dent and several
Department of Forestry policy analysts.

Dilorenzo gave a 30-minute presentation in court analyzing the
class action case's strengths and the plaintiffs' willingness to
work out a settlement.

Kaplan talked about the state's defenses and appellate
opportunities.

Linn County and 100 other taxing districts that receive annual
payments from timber sales from state forest lands contend that the
Oregon Department of Forestry hasn't lived up to its contracts with
those counties and districts dating back to the 1930s and 1940s.
The state, they say, has reduced timber harvests while placing
greater emphasis on water quality, fish survival and recreational
issues.

But the districts say that the state's actions amount to a breach
of contract and that greatest permanent value -- in this case,
revenue from timber sales. [GN]


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Faces ADA-Related Class Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Overstock.com, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company is
defending against a putative class action suit in New York alleging
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").

On January 31, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the company in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, alleging that the company's website violates
the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") in addition to other
New York specific laws, because it is not accessible to blind and
visually impaired people. No estimate of the possible loss or range
of loss can be made.

Overstock.com said, "We intend to vigorously defend this action."

Overstock.com, Inc. operates as an online retailer in the United
States and internationally. It operates through Retail and tZERO
segments. The company was formerly known as D2-Discounts Direct and
changed its name to Overstock.com, Inc. in October 1999.
Overstock.com, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in
Midvale, Utah.


PAPA MURPHY'S: Final Order and Release Issued in Lennartson Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Papa Murphy's Holdings, 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 United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington has issued a
final order and mandate releasing all claims relating to the
putative class action lawsuit against the company initiated by
plaintiff John Lennartson.

The Company is named as a defendant in a putative class action
lawsuit filed by plaintiff John Lennartson on May 7, 2015, in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington.

The lawsuit alleges the Company failed to comply with the
requirements of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") when
it sent SMS text messages to consumers. Mr. Lennartson asks that
the court certify the putative class and that statutory damages
under the TCPA be awarded to plaintiff and each class member. On
October 14, 2016, the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC")
granted the Company a limited waiver from the TCPA's written
consent requirements for certain text messages that it sent up
through October 16, 2013 to individuals who, like Mr. Lennartson,
provided written consent prior to October 16, 2013.

In January 2019, the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington issued the final order and mandate releasing
all claims relating to the putative class action lawsuit filed
against the company by plaintiff John Lennartson on May 7, 2015,
alleging the Company failed to comply with the requirements of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act when it sent SMS text messages to
consumers.

Papa Murphy's Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, owns,
operates, and franchises Take 'N' Bake pizza stores. The company
operates in three segments: Franchise, Company Stores, and Brand
Funds. The company was founded in 1981 and is headquartered in
Vancouver, Washington. As of May 23, 2019, Papa Murphy's Holdings,
Inc. operates as a subsidiary of MTY Franchising USA, Inc.


PAYCRON INC: Autodialed Class Certified in Jackson TCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William F. Jung issued an order in the lawsuit entitled
JEREMY JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PAYCRON INC., a Florida company, Case No.
8:19-cv-00609-WFJ-AAS (M.D. Fla.), conditionally granting
certification of a single class of consumers that received
unsolicited telemarketing calls made by or on behalf of the
Defendant using an automatic telephone dialing system subject to
the Plaintiff obtaining evidence sufficient to (1) identify members
of the class for purposes of effectuating class notice and (2)
determine classwide and per class member damages prior to the entry
of final judgment.

The certified Autodialed Class consists of:

     All persons in the United States who from four years prior
     to the filing of this action: (1) Defendant (or an agent
     acting on behalf of Defendant) called, (2) using the same
     dialing equipment used to call Plaintiff, (3) for
     substantially the same reason Defendant called Plaintiff,
     and (4) for whom Defendant claims (a) it obtained prior
     express written consent in the same manner as Defendant
     claims it obtained prior express written consent to call
     Plaintiff, or (b) Defendant does not claim to have obtained
     prior express written consent.

Although the Plaintiff also requested to certify a class
corresponding to his claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act's Do Not Call registry provision, as the Court noted during the
hearing on the Plaintiff's motion, it appears likely that there is
significant overlap between the two classes.  Therefore, given the
conditional nature of this certification, the Court denies without
prejudice the Plaintiff's request to certify the Do Not Call
registry class.

Judge Jung notes that the Plaintiff may renew his motion to certify
the Do Not Call registry class if warranted at the time he moves
for final certification of the Autodialed Class.

The Court appoints Plaintiff Jeremy Jackson as Class representative
and Avi R. Kaufman, Esq., and Kaufman P.A. as Class Counsel.  The
Plaintiff is directed to obtain evidence sufficient to (1) identify
members of the Class for purposes of effectuating class notice and
(2) determine Classwide and per Class member damages prior to the
entry of final judgment.  The Plaintiff is ordered to submit a
motion for final certification or status report regarding his
discovery efforts within 90 days of the date of the Order.[CC]


PET SUPERMARKET: Eldridge Seeks Certification of Class Under TCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Troy Eldridge moves to certify the case styled TROY ELDRIDGE v. PET
SUPERMARKET, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-22531-KMW (S.D. Fla.), as a
class action and to appoint his attorneys as class counsel.

The class consists of all persons within the United States who,
without having provided prior express written consent, were sent a
text message from or on behalf of Defendant Pet Supermarket, Inc.
or an affiliate, subsidiary, or agent thereof.  The Class excludes
the Defendant, any entity in which Defendant has a controlling
interest or which has a controlling interest in the Defendant, and
any of Defendant's legal representatives, assigns or successors,
the judge presiding over this case and any member of the Judge's
immediate family.

The Plaintiff filed this putative class action to address Defendant
Pet Supermarket, Inc.'s practice of using automated technology to
send millions of marketing text messages to Plaintiff and more than
100,000 others without anyone's prior express written consent in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David P. Milian, Esq.
          Ruben Conitzer, Esq.
          Juan J. Rodriguez, Esq.
          CAREY RODRIGUEZ MILIAN GONYA LLP
          1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 372-7474
          Facsimile: (305) 372-7475
          E-mail: dmilian@careyrodriguez.com
                  rconitzer@careyrodriguez.com
                  jrodriguez.@careyrodriguez.com


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Court Dismisses L. Smith's FDCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Georgia, Columbus Division, issued an Order granting Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned LAKEASHA SMITH, Plaintiff,
v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant. Case No.
4:19-CV-25 (CDL). (M.D. Ga.).

Lakeasha Smith brought this putative class action alleging that
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (PRA) sent her a collection
letter that violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA).

Lakeasha Smith, also known as Lakeasha Brown, owes a debt to PRA
based on her use of a credit card she got from Comenity Capital
Bank. PRA, the debt servicer, sent a collection letter that
contained details about the debt. At the time of the letter,
Smith's debt was more than six years old, so a lawsuit to recover
the debt was time-barred under Georgia law.

Smith does not allege that she selected any of the payment options.
Smith does allege that if she were to make a partial payment, she
could unknowingly cause the statute of limitations to restart.

Smith further alleges that PRA's letter is misleading and deceptive
because it fails to inform the consumer that making a partial
payment with some form of written acknowledgement will restart the
statute of limitations for a lawsuit to occur.

Smith does not allege facts to suggest that PRA would sue her
following a partial payment. In fact, Smith alleged that PRA
unequivocally stated that it will not sue her.  

To prevail on her FDCPA claim, Smith must establish that: (1) she
was the object of collection activity arising from consumer debt
(2) PRA is a debt collector under the FDCPA and (3) PRA engaged in
a practice prohibited by the FDCPA.   

Here, PRA does not dispute that Smith was the object of collection
activity arising from consumer debt or that it is a debt collector
under the FDCPA. The dispositive question is whether Smith
adequately alleged an FDCPA violation.

The Court previously examined a debt collection letter that also
sought to collect a time-barred debt, offered partial payment
options, and contained a disclosure regarding the statute of
limitations that is nearly identical to the one in the letter Smith
received. The Court concluded that the plaintiff in that action
failed to state a claim under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e or 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692f because the plaintiff did not allege facts to suggest
that the statute of limitations would be revived in the event of a
partial payment, so he did not adequately allege that the letter he
received was misleading.  

Here, the Court studied the letter Smith received in its entirety
and considered the parties' arguments regarding the implications of
the disclosure language.  In addressing the defendant's argument
that it would be required to give legal advice to debtors if its
letter were found to be misleading, the Eleventh Circuit noted that
if a debt collector was unsure about the applicable statute of
limitations, it would be easy to include general language about
that possibility, correcting any possible misimpression by
unsophisticated consumers without venturing into the realm of legal
advice. The Eleventh Circuit further suggested that any
misimpression could be cured by incorporating the following
language into its collection letters: The law limits how long you
can be sued on a debt. Because of the age of your debt, the
creditor will not sue you for it.  
PRA's motion to dismiss is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 23, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yya7tjrc from Leagle.com.

LEAKEASHA SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by YAAKOV SAKS, 285 Passaic
Street, Hackensack NJ 07601 & MISTY OAKS PAXTON, The Oaks Firm,
3895 Brookgreen Pt, Decatur, GA, 30034-5631

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES LLC, Defendant, represented by
NATASHA COOPER -- ncooper@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIREWOODS LLP.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Court Dismisses Pozzuolo Class Action Plaintiff
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Hoffmann, Esq. -- jhoffmann@balch.com -- and Jason
Tompkins, Esq. -- jtompkins@balch.com -- of Balch & Bingham LLP, in
an article for JDSupra, report that in Pozzuolo v. Portfolio
Recovery Associates, LLC, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
recently dismissed the named plaintiff of a putative class action
for lack of standing to bring suit. Pozzuolo sought to represent a
class of individuals who received validation notice letters from
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (PRA), which arguably ran afoul
of the Fair Debt Collection Pracitces Act (FDCPA) -- and more
specifically 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g -- by stating disputes could
be made telephonically when the FDCPA requires them in writing. PRA
moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing
Pozzuolo lacked standing because he had not suffered concrete
injury. In fact, his deposition testimony shows he "merely skimmed
the letter and had no intention to dispute the debt." PRA also
noted that it treats telephonic and written disputes the same.
Moreover, PRA stressed that Pozzuolo's allegations, even if all
true, at best state a mere procedural violation of Section 1692g(a)
occurred. Ultimately, the Court agreed.

The court began its analysis by laying out the relevant, well-known
standing landscape. While violation of a statute alone may suffice,
"bare procedural violation[s] divorced from any concrete harm" will
not. Yet, when the statutory violation is "the very harm that
Congress sought to prevent," procedural violations may be enough.
The Court then turned to Spokeo and its illustrative examples under
the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) of procedural violations that
fail to qualify as concrete harms, namely: (1) accurate reporting
without notice; and (2) reporting of incorrect zip codes. With this
in mind, the court stated it would apply the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals' adoption of the Spokeo II/Strubel test. In other words,
when the U.S. Supreme Court remanded Spokeo, the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals (in Spokeo II) said it would follow the Second
Circuit's two-part articulation of standing (Strubel), which
appears to additionally be endorsed by both the Fourth and Sixth
Circuits. Under that test "an alleged procedural violation . . .
manifests concrete injury if the violation actually harms or
presents a material risk of harm to the underlying concrete
interest."  In applying that test, the court found Pozzuolo's case
fell apart. Though the court noted that "PRA's letter . . .
constituted a procedural violation of the FDCPA," Pozzuolo "[b]y
his own admission, . . . was not hurt as a result of receiving this
letter." Indeed, he " [did not] dispute the debt with any of the
credit reporting agencies. He had no reason to do so. He
acknowledges the debt and the amount." In short, "because he never
intended to dispute the debt, the violation did not harm or present
a material risk of harm to Pozzuolo."

Pozzuolo shows that standing challenges remain a viable means to
toss cases, individual and class actions alike. Claims under 15
U.S.C. Sec. 1692g remain particularly vulnerable to such standing
challenges, and litigants should be sure to use discovery
effectively to establish standing arguments where applicable.
Moreover, because standing calls into question subject matter
jurisdiction, it remains a viable out at all stages of litigation.
[GN]


PRECISION CASTPARTS: Neighbors Hope to Expand Pollution Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Koberstein, writing for Pamplin Media Group, reports that five
residents of Portland and Milwaukee have asked Multnomah County
Circuit Court to certify their ongoing litigation against Precision
Castparts as a class-action lawsuit.

In recent court filings, the plaintiffs accused the company of
polluting their homes along with thousands of other residential
properties in their community with "significant" amounts of
potentially dangerous airborne particulates.

They all live in the so-called "Precision Plume," which the lawsuit
defines as an area straddling the Multnomah-Clackamas County line
in the Brentwood-Darlington and Ardenwald neighborhoods of Portland
and Milwaukie. If granted, the class-action motion would add the
occupants of about 5,000 residential properties to the litigation,
so long as they lived there on Feb. 17, 2016. Renters and
homeowners qualify. The plaintiffs are seeking court-ordered relief
and damages on behalf of everyone who lived in the "Precision
Plume" on that date.

The company, however, disagrees.

"We strenuously dispute the claims made by the plaintiffs, and we
will be filing our response with the court in the coming weeks,"
said company spokesman David Dugan. "Due to the pending litigation,
we will not provide further comment at this time."

Pollution in tree moss

Founded in 1956, Precision Castparts manufactures metal castings at
its "Large Parts Campus" at 4600 S.E. Harney St., for aerospace,
medical and military uses, including parts for jet engines. The
plant makes parts out of steel and titanium.

Southeast Portland residents Kelley Foster, Juan Pratsanchez, Kirk
Gayton and Debra Taevs sued the company in July 2016, seeking an
unspecified amount of damages. Their lawsuit wanted Precision
Castparts to pay each area resident a specific amount based on how
much pollution "trespassed" on their property.

In October 2016, the court consolidated that case with another
filed by Southeast Portland residents Brian Resendez, Rodica Alina
Resendez, Michelle Francisco and Matthew Talbot. The Resendez case
sought more than $10 million in damages.

A hearing on further court proceedings is planned in late July. A
jury trial that could take more than a month is tentatively
scheduled for mid-July 2020.

Plaintiffs claim that Precision Castparts "invaded" their
properties by allowing its toxic air pollution to "trespass" for
several decades. They also accuse the company of negligence and
creating a nuisance, which they say interfered with their "use and
enjoyment "of their properties.

"That relief is particularly important here in Oregon, where
'corporate polluters' often 'get their way' by threatening the
budgets of environmental regulatory agencies," plaintiffs said in
their motion to make the lawsuit a class action.

Their lawsuit came soon after U.S. Forest Service researchers
identified Precision Castparts as a possible source of toxic metals
detected in tree moss in their community. This was the same moss
study that linked Bullseye Glass, another Southeast Portland
business, to toxic air pollution in the area. Plaintiffs in both
the Bullseye and Precision Castparts cases are represented by the
same Seattle law firm, Keller Rohrback.

As moss does not have roots, it absorbs nutrients, water and
pollution from the atmosphere. The Forest Service says moss tissue
makes a record of pollution levels in the surrounding environment
and serves as a "bioindicator" of air pollution.

The moss study found the highest concentration of nickel in
Portland near the Precision Castparts site. It detected the
fourth-highest concentration of chromium in the city at the same
location. In the spring of 2016, after the moss study was made
public, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality installed
air monitors near Precision Castparts that showed elevated levels
of nickel, arsenic and hexavalent chromium in the air, according to
expert testimony filed by the plaintiffs.

According to the plaintiffs' motion, the company uses raw materials
containing "substantial" percentages of nickel and chromium. It
said that in 2016, it emitted up to 2.6 tons of nickel and chromium
into the air. DEQ classifies nickel and chromium as hazardous air
pollutants that can cause cancer and other diseases.

Plaintiffs hired experts in the fields of engineering, air modeling
and public health to examine Precision Castparts' emissions, model
the ambient concentrations of toxic metals in the air, and produce
maps that are based upon this information. One of its experts said
the average concentration of the carcinogenic compound hexavalent
chromium was 5.9 times higher than a cancer risk guideline set by
the federal government.

The motion said Precision Castparts' emissions created an
"objectively unreasonable risk" to property owners and residents of
the properties within the Plume, thus substantially and
unreasonably interfering" with their use and enjoyment of their
property.

Improved pollution controls

Precision Castparts says on its website that it has completed, or
is in the process of completing, "multiple upgrades" to its air
pollution control equipment, including new baghouses and air
filtration equipment. While it does not deny that it uses a high
nickel content in its alloys, it said it uses a type of nickel that
has a "very low toxicity" to humans. The website also claims that
scientific studies found that workers exposed to the type of nickel
alloys used by Precision Castparts "have no increased cancer
risk."

"We recently completed installation of improved controls that will
further reduce our chromium emissions," the Precision Castparts
website states.

But the court motion pointed out that the company's emissions were
significant "not only because they are so large, but also because
it appears (the company's) systems to limit those emissions are
ineffective or nonexistent. (The company's) own records and
deposition testimony demonstrate that they have failed to properly
maintain their baghouse system, causing increased emissions."

For example, the baghouses, which function like giant vacuum
cleaners, developed leaks that were "improperly and untimely
repaired," according to depositions taken from company officials.
Because the baghouses were not properly maintained, the motion
said, they were "far less effective at capturing metal-laden
particulate matter pollution. That particulate matter ultimately
escapes -- unfiltered and untreated -- into the outside air."

Moreover, the motion claims that many "significant sources of
particulate pollution at the company's Large Parts Campus have no
emissions controls at all."

Last fall, the Oregon Health Authority released a report that said
toxic metals and other chemicals released over the years by the
company's plants are not likely to have harmed human health. The
public health assessment found that levels of metals -- including
arsenic, cadmium, chromium and nickel -- detected near the Harney
Street plant were below levels that would be expected to harm
public health.

However, the class-action motion casts doubt on the accuracy of the
health assessment, in part because it relied on data the company
self-reported to the state. "(The company's) poor maintenance of
its emissions control equipment means (the company) likely
underestimates their total emissions as reported to regulators," it
said. [GN]


PRICESMART INC: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. announces that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired PriceSmart, Inc. (NASDAQ: PSMT) securities
between October 26, 2017 and October 25, 2018 (the "Class Period").
Investors have until July 22, 2019 to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company's
business, operations, and prospects.  Specifically, the complaint
alleges that defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1)
the company's omni-channel business strategy had failed to reach
key operating goals; (2) the company's South America distribution
strategy had failed to realize key cost saving goals; (3) the
company had invested Trinidad and Tobago dollars into certificates
of deposits with financial institutions; (4) these investments had
been improperly classified as cash and cash equivalents; (5) the
relevant corrections would materially impact financial statements;
(6) there was a material weakness in the company's internal
controls over financial reporting; (7) increasing competition
negatively impacted the company's revenue and profitability; and
(8) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements
about the company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

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

Contact:

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


RADIANT LOGISTICS: Wins Dismissal of Barahona Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Radiant Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company's motion to
dismiss the class action suit initiated by Ingrid Barahona has been
granted.

On October 25, 2013, plaintiff Ingrid Barahona filed a purported
class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of
California against  Radiant Global Logistics, Inc. (RGL), DBA
Distribution Services, Inc. ("DBA", a wholly-owned subsidiary), and
two third-party staffing companies (collectively, the "Staffing
Defendants") with whom Radiant and DBA contracted for temporary
employees.

In the lawsuit, Ms. Barahona, on behalf of herself and the putative
class, sought damages and penalties under California law, plus
interest, attorneys' fees, and costs, along with equitable
remedies, alleging that she and the putative class were the subject
of unfair and unlawful business practices, including certain wage
and hour violations relating to, among others, failure to provide
meal and rest periods, failure to pay minimum wages and overtime,
and failure to reimburse employees for work-related expenses. Ms.
Barahona alleged that she was jointly employed by the staffing
companies and Radiant and DBA.

Radiant and DBA denied Ms. Barahona's allegations in their
entirety, denied that they were liable to Ms. Barahona or the
putative class members in any way, and vigorously defended against
these allegations based upon a preliminary evaluation of applicable
records and legal standards.

On February 19, 2019, the company filed a Motion to Dismiss
("Motion") the class action case in its entirety on the grounds
that Ms. Barahona failed to bring her case to trial within 5 years
as required by California law.

On March 14, 2019, the Court held a hearing on the Motion and
granted the Company's Motion.

Radiant said, "As a result, we expect the Court to enter an order
dismissing the case and enter judgment in favor of the Company
sometime in the month of May 2019. Once the Court enters the order
and judgment, Ms. Barahona will have 60 days to file a notice of
appeal. At this time, the Company is unable to express an opinion
as to the likely outcome of the matter."

Radiant Logistics, Inc. operates as a third-party logistics and
multi-modal transportation services company primarily in the United
States and Canada. Radiant Logistics, Inc. was founded in 2001 and
is headquartered in Bellevue, Washington.


REALNETWORKS INC: Claims Period in Napster Case Ends Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
RealNetworks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the claims period in
the class action suit involving Napster ends on December 31, 2019


On January 18, 2019, RealNetworks acquired an additional 42%
interest in Rhapsody International, Inc. (doing business as
Napster) bringing its aggregate ownership to 84% of Napster's
outstanding equity, thus giving RealNetworks a majority voting
interest.

Napster's music streaming service provides users with broad access
to digital music, offering on-demand streaming and conditional
downloads through unlimited access to a catalog of millions of
music tracks.

Napster offers music services worldwide and generates revenue
primarily through subscriptions to its music services either
directly to consumers or through distribution partners.

In March 2016, Napster was notified of a putative consumer class
action lawsuit relating to an alleged failure to pay so-called
"mechanical royalties" on behalf of the plaintiffs and "other
similarly-situated holders of mechanical rights in copyrighted
musical works."

On April 7, 2017, the plaintiffs and Napster agreed to settlement
terms during a mediation session. The long form Settlement
Agreement was executed effective on January 16, 2019.

The damages payable under the Settlement Agreement will be
calculated on a claims made basis, subject to an overall maximum of
$10.0 million.

RealNetworks said, "We have not recorded an accrual related to this
settlement as of March 31, 2019 as the amount payable is not
reasonably estimable. In May 2019, public notice was posted about
the settlement informing purported class members that they can make
claims or object to the settlement."

The claims period ends on December 31, 2019, on which date (or
shortly thereafter) Napster expects to know the total amount of
damages payable in respect to validly made claims. Damages for
valid claims are expected to be paid in the second quarter of
2020.

RealNetworks, Inc. provides network-delivered digital media
applications and services to manage, play, and share digital media.
RealNetworks, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in
Seattle, Washington.


RESOURCE MARKETING: Baudin Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Baudin, Josephine Duffney and Karishma Persaud, individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v.
Resource Marketing Corp., LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-00386 (N.D. N.Y.,
April 1, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs alleges the Defendant requires its agents to perform
compensable work tasks before and after their scheduled shifts and
during their unpaid meal periods but trains and instructs its
Agents not to record this time on their timesheets. Agents are only
paid on time spent connected to the Defendant's Auto Dialer. These
policies result in Agents not being paid for all time worked,
including overtime.

The Plaintiff Baudin worked for the Defendant as an Agent at its
Clifton Park, New York call center facility from mid-December 2018
through January 2019.

The Plaintiff Duffney worked for the Defendant as a Team Leader,
Supervisor and Agent at its Clifton Park, New York call center
facility from October 2016 until December 2018.

The Plaintiff Persaud worked for the Defendant as an Agent at its
Clifton Park, New York call center facility from November 2017
until June 2018 and then as a Remote Agent from June 2018 until her
employment with the Defendant was terminated in March 2019.

The Defendant specializes in providing extremely targeted, high
quality leads to businesses by way of live call transfers. Its
principal office is at 800 Route 146, Suite 175, Clifton Park, New
York 12065. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Jason T. Brown, Esq.
      BROWN LLC
      111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
      Jersey City, NJ 07310
      Tel: (877) 561-0000
      E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com


REVLON INC: Rosen Files Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Revlon, Inc. (NYSE: REV) from March 12, 2015 through
March 28, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks
to recover damages for Revlon investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the Revlon class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1537.html or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Revlon failed to create measures to monitor its
enterprise resource planning ("ERP") system appropriately once
implemented; (2) Revlon failed to design, implement and
consistently operate effective process-level controls to ensure
that it appropriately (a) recorded and accounted for inventory,
accounts receivable, net sales and cost of goods sold, (b)
reconciled balance sheet accounts, (c) reviewed and approved the
complete population of manual journal entries, and (d) used
complete and accurate information in performing manual control,
which constituted a material weakness in its internal controls over
financial reporting; (3) as a result of the poor preparation and
planning of the implementation of the ERP system, Revlon was unable
to fulfill product shipments of approximately $64 million of net
sales and the Company incurred $53.6 million of incremental charges
to remediate the decline in customer services levels; and (4) as a
result, defendants' statements about Revlon's business, operations,
and prospects were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 15,
2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1537.html

Contact:

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


RGS FINANCIAL: Tataru Seeks Class Certification Under FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled GABRIEL TATARU, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. RGS FINANCIAL, Inc.,
Case No. 1:18-cv-06106 (N.D. Ill.), asks the Court to certify a
class and to allow him to represent a class of:

     (a) all individuals with Illinois addresses (b) who were
     sent a collection letter, by or on behalf of RGS, in the
     form represented by Exhibit A (c) to collect a consumer debt
     (d) that was sent from September 6, 2017, to September 27,
     2018 (e) that was not returned as undeliverable by the
     postal service.

Mr. Tataru filed suit against the Defendant for alleged violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and for failing to
accurately identify the creditor to whom the debt was owed, and by
making false, deceptive or misleading statements by claiming the
debt was owed to "FNB OMAHA II", when there is no such entity by
that name.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan Paul Thompson, Esq.
          Robert W. Harrer, Esq.
          CHICAGO CONSUMER LAW CENTER, P.C.
          111 West Washington Street, Suite 1360
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 858-3239
          Facsimile: (312) 610-5646
          E-mail: bryan.thompson@cclc-law.com
                  rob.harrer@cclc-law.com


SACHS ELECTRIC: Bid for Class Certification Terminated as moot
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a class action lawsuit JUSTIN GRIFFIN, the Plaintiff, v. SACHS
ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al., the Defendants, Case 5:17-cv-03778-BLF
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order:

   1. terminating as moot Plaintiff's motion for class
      certification; and

   2. directing parties to jointly advise the Court as to the
      status of McCarthy Building Companies, Inc. in light of
      the Court's summary judgment ruling in favor of Sachs
      Electric Company.

On February 6, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification, proposing separate classes composed of employees of
the two defendants in this action, Sachs Electric Company ("Sachs")
and McCarthy Building Companies, Inc. ("McCarthy"). In the motion,
Plaintiff stated that "Plaintiff and Sachs have already filed
cross-motions [for summary judgment] on the issue of liability. If
this Court rules in Sachs'[s] 16 favor, then this case is over."

On May 28, 2019, the Court granted Sachs's motion for summary
judgment in full. Thus, McCarthy is the only defendant remaining in
this action. In light of the Court's summary judgment order and
Plaintiff's statement that such a ruling would end this case, the
Court terminates as moot Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.[CC]


SAMYANG FOODS: July 15 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------
Have you purchased Korean Ramen Noodles between May 1, 2001 and
December 31, 2010? This notice may affect your rights. Please read
carefully.

The Supreme Court of British Columbia and the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice have approved the certification and settlement of
two class actions against Defendant Samyang Foods Co., Ltd. The BC
Court certified the BC Class in Kozma et al. v. Nong Shim Co.,
Ltd., et al., on March 15, 2019. The Ontario Court certified the
Ontario Class in Jooli Park v. Nong Shim Co. Ltd et al. on March
26, 2019.

Who is a Class Member and Who is Potentially Eligible to
Participate in the Settlement?

The certified class includes all persons resident in British
Columbia, Ontario, or elsewhere in Canada , who purchased, either
directly or indirectly, Korean Ramen Noodles in Canada between May
1, 2001 and December 31, 2010 . You are affected by the class
actions and are a "member" of the BC Class or Ontario Class if you
purchased Korean Ramen Noodles in Canada during the relevant period
made by any of the following companies: Nong Shim, Ottogi, Paldo,
Korea Yakult, and Samyang.

The BC and Ontario settlements only pertain to persons who have
purchased Korean Ramen Noodles from Samyang in Canada between
May 1, 2001 and December 31, 2010 . If you have purchased Korean
Ramen Noodles in Canada from any of the other, non-settling
Defendants, between May 1, 2001 and December 31, 2010, you are a
member of either the BC Class or the Ontario Class.

The BC Class includes BC residents. The Ontario Class includes: (i)
Ontario residents, and (ii) non- Ontario and non-BC residents in
Canada.

The Terms of Settlement with Samyang

The settlement provides that the Settling Defendant has agreed to
pay $288,586.98 in compensation to the class, and also to provide
co-operation to the class in continuing with their lawsuit against
the other Non-Settling Defendants.  No monies are to be distributed
directly to class members, but rather, the Court has approved a
distribution of the funds to pay Class Counsel's legal fees and
disbursements, a $500 honorarium to the representative plaintiffs
and the balance remaining in the fund to be shared equally between
the Law Foundation of British Columbia and the Law Foundation of
Ontario.

How to Opt-Out of the Class

You can Opt-Out of the class actions by sending a signed letter to
Class Counsel, with the following information:

   (a) Your full name, current mailing address, telephone number,
and email address;

   (b) If you are writing on behalf of a company, the name of the
company and your position at the company;

   (c) A statement saying that you (or the company) wants to
Opt-Out of the class action. You must identify which class action
you (or the company) want to Opt-Out of; and,

   (d) Your reason for opting-out.

Requests to Opt-Out must be post-marked by on or before July 15,
2019.

This is your only chance to exclude yourself or Opt-Out of the
class actions. No further right to Opt-Out will be provided.

For More Information

For more information about the lawsuit, contact Class Counsel at:

Klein Lawyers LLP
Suite 400
1385 West 8th Avenue
Vancouver , BC  V6H 3V9
Telephone: 604-874-7171
Facsimile: 604-874-7180
www.callkleinlawyers.com

Or contact the Claims Administrator at:

Crawford Class Action Services
3-503 133 Weber St N
Waterloo ON N2J 3G9
Facsimile: 1-888-842-1332 [GN]


SAN JOSE, CA: Hernandez, et al., Seek to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In a class action lawsuit, JUAN HERNANDEZ, et al., the Plaintiffs,
vs. CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
5:16-cv-03957-LHK (N.D. Cal.), Juan Hernandez, Nathan Velasquez,
Frank Velasquez, Rachel Casey, Mark Doering, Mary Doering, Barbara
Arigoni, Dustin Haines-Scrodin, Andrew Zambetti, Christina Wong,
Craig Parsons, I.P., a minor, Greg Hyver, Todd Broome, Martin
Mercado, Christopher Holland, Theodore Jones, Donovan Rost, Michele
Wilson, and Cole Cassady will move the Court on August 22, 2019
for an order:

   1. certify a class of:

      "all persons who attended the June 2, 2016 Donald J. Trump
      campaign Rally (the "Rally") at the South Hall of the McEnery

      Convention Center in San Jose, California, and who, upon
      exiting the Rally, were either (1) directed, or otherwise
      required, by agents of the City of San Jose to leave in the
      direction of, or along a route toward, anti-Trump protesters,

      and/or (2) were prevented by agents of the City of San Jose
      from leaving by any alternate route. Excluded from the Class

      are the City of San Jose's officers, directors, agents, legal

      representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns that
attended
      the Raly in his, her, or their capacity as  such. Also
      excluded from the Class are counsel for Plaintiffs and
      Defendants (the "Class");

   2. certifying a subclass of:

      "all members of the Class who sustained injury to their
      persons or damage to their property upon leaving the Rally
      (the "Subclass")";

   3. certifying the Plaintiffs as representatives of the Class;

   4. certifying Juan Hernandez, Nathan Velasquez, Rachel Casey,
      Mark Doering, Barbara Arigoni, Dustin Haines-Scrodin, Andrew

      Zambetti, I.P., a minor, Martin Mercado, Christopher Holland,

      Theodore Jones, Donovan Rost, Michele Wilson, and Cole
      Cassady, as representatives of the Subclass;

   5. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel of record, Dhillon Law Group
      Inc., to serve as counsel to the Class and Subclass; and

   6. authorizing notice of the pending action, and of the Subclass

      members' right to opt out, to be provided to the Class and
      Subclass by email.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Proposed Class and Subclass:

          Harmeet K. Dhillon, Esq.
          Krista L. Baughman, Esq.
          Gregory R. Michael, Esq.
          DHILLON LAW GROUP INC.
          177 Post Street, Suite 700
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 433-1700
          Facsimile: (415) 520-6593
          E-mail: harmeet@dhillonlaw.com
                  kbaughman@dhillonlaw.com
                  gmichael@dhillonlaw.com


SARASOTA COUNTY, FL: Eleventh Cir. Appeal Filed in Leo FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Susan Leo, et al., filed an appeal from a Court ruling
in their lawsuit styled Susan Leo, et al. v. Sarasota County School
Board, et al., Case No. 8:16-cv-03190-JSM-TGW, in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this class was
certified in the lawsuit:

     "all current and former school bus drivers employed by
      Sarasota County School Board during the period of time from
      three years prior to the date that the notice is sent who
      were not paid overtime for any hours worked over 40 hours
      in a workweek";

The action alleges overtime violations under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

The appellate case is captioned as Susan Leo, et al. v. Sarasota
County School Board, et al., Case No. 19-11635, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants SUSAN LEO, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated; ROBERT BIEGEL, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated; THERESA JONES, on behalf of herslef and others
similarly situated; LUIS MORALES, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated; BONNIE CHRISTIE, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated; ANDREW GAMMILL, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated; RONALD SEEKFORD, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated; SHELIA SEEKFORD, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated; PATRICIA A. BUCHOLTZ; PAMELA
HAMMOND; HARRY WRIGHT; JOYCE SANCHEZ; IRENE BURNS; JOAN HULMES;
JANET BONANNO; and NATHANIEL COOLEY are represented by:

          Joseph Anthony Eustace, Jr., Esq.
          JOSEPH A. EUSTACE, JR., PA
          4214 W Obispo St.
          Tampa, FL 33629
          Telephone: (813) 205-2278

               - and -

          Jay Paul Lechner, Esq.
          Jason Michael Melton, Esq.
          WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC
          200 Central Ave., Suite 400
          St. Petersburg, FL 33701
          Telephone: (727) 823-0000
          E-mail: lechnerj@theFLlawfirm.com
                  shelley@theFLlawfirm.com

Defendant-Appellee SARASOTA COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD is represented by:

          Joshua R. Dell, Esq.
          GURLEY & ASSOCIATES
          601 S Osprey Ave.
          Sarasota, FL 34236-7526
          Telephone: (941) 365-4501

               - and -

          Arthur S. Hardy, Esq.
          MATTHEWS EASTMOORE
          1626 Ringling Blvd., Suite 300
          Sarasota, FL 34236-5841
          Telephone: (941) 366-8888
          E-mail: ahardy@matthewseastmoore.com

Defendant-Appellee SARASOTA CLASSIFIED/TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,
is represented by:

          Lynn C. Hearn, Esq.
          Ronald G. Meyer, Esq.
          MEYER BROOKS DEMMA & BLOHM, PA
          131 N Gadsden St.
          PO Box 1547
          Tallahassee, FL 32301-1507
          Telephone: (850) 878-5212
          E-mail: lhearn@meyerbrookslaw.com
                  rmeyer@meyerbrookslaw.com


SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: $85 Million Bird Food Case Settlement Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro 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 final fairness
hearing in the class action suit entitled, In re Morning Song Bird
Food Litigation, Lead Case No. 3:12-cv-01592-JAH-AGS, is scheduled
on June 3, 2019.

The proposed Settlement provides for the payment of a Settlement
Amount of up to $85 million.

In connection with the sale of wild bird food products that were
the subject of a voluntary recall in 2008, the Company, along with
its Chief Executive Officer, have been named as defendants in four
actions filed on and after June 27, 2012, which have been
consolidated, and, on March 31, 2017, certified as a class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California as In re Morning Song Bird Food Litigation, Lead Case
No. 3:12-cv-01592-JAH-AGS.

The plaintiffs allege various statutory and common law claims
associated with the Company's sale of wild bird food products and a
plea agreement entered into in previously pending government
proceedings associated with such sales.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, a class action on behalf
of all persons and entities in the United States who purchased
certain bird food products.

The plaintiffs assert: (i) hundreds of millions of dollars in
monetary damages (actual, compensatory, consequential, and
restitution); (ii) punitive and treble damages; (iii) injunctive
and declaratory relief; (iv) pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest; and (v) costs and attorneys' fees.

The Company and its Chief Executive Officer dispute the plaintiffs'
assertions and have vigorously defended the consolidated action.

The parties reached an agreement to settle this matter, which the
parties memorialized in a settlement agreement submitted to the
Court for approval on December 7, 2018. On January 31, 2019, the
Court preliminarily approved the settlement, and scheduled a final
fairness hearing for June 3, 2019.

During the three months ended March 30, 2019, the Company paid
$42.5 million to the settlement fund in accordance with the
settlement agreement. At March 30, 2019, March 31, 2018 and
September 30, 2018, $42.5 million, zero and $85.0 million,
respectively, was accrued for a probable loss related to this
matter in the "Other current liabilities" line in the Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheets.

During the three and six months ended March 30, 2019, the Company
received insurance reimbursement payments related to this matter of
$8.4 million and $13.4 million, respectively.

The Company recognized insurance recoveries of $5.0 million related
to this matter in the "Income (loss) from discontinued operations,
net of tax" line in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of
Operations during the first quarter of fiscal 2019, and the
remaining $8.4 million of reimbursements have been recognized as an
accrued liability in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as
of March 30, 2019 pending the finalization of the settlement.

Scotts Miracle-Gro said, "There can be no assurance that future
developments with respect to this action, whether as a result of an
adverse outcome or as a result of significant defense costs, will
not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows."

The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company manufactures, markets, and sells
consumer lawn and garden products in the United States and
internationally. The company operates through three segments: U.S.
Consumer, Hawthorne, and Other. The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company was
founded in 1868 and is headquartered in Marysville, Ohio.


SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Scotts EZ Seed Litigation Settled
-----------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro 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 case entitled, In
re Scotts EZ Seed Litigation, is now settled and the Company made
final payment of the claims made by class members during the three
months ended March 30, 2019.

The Company was named as a defendant in In re Scotts EZ Seed
Litigation, Case No. 12-cv-4727 (VB), a New York and California
class action lawsuit filed August 9, 2012 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York that asserted
claims under false advertising and other legal theories based on a
marketing statement on the Company's EZ Seed grass seed product
from 2009 to 2012.

The plaintiffs sought, on behalf of themselves and purported class
members, various forms of monetary and non-monetary relief,
including statutory damages that they contend could amount to
hundreds of millions of dollars.

The Company defended the action vigorously, and disputed the
plaintiffs' claims and theories, including the recoverability of
statutory damages.

In 2017, the Court eliminated certain claims, narrowed the case in
certain respects, and permitted the case to continue proceeding as
a class action. On August 7, 2017, the Court requested briefs on
the Company's request for interlocutory review of issues relating
to the recoverability of statutory damages in a class action by the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and, on
August 31, 2017, approved that request. On January 8, 2018,
however, the Second Circuit denied the interlocutory appeal
request.

The parties engaged in mediation on April 9, 2018 and agreed in
principle to a preliminary settlement of the outstanding claims on
April 10, 2018.

The preliminary settlement required the Company to pay certain
attorneys' and administrative fees and provide certain payments to
the class members. The preliminary settlement was approved by the
court on December 19, 2018.

This case is now settled and the Company made final payment of the
claims made by class members during the three months ended March
30, 2019.

At March 30, 2019, March 31, 2018 and September 30, 2018, $0.1
million, $10.2 million, and $11.7 million, respectively, was
accrued for a probable loss related to this matter in the "Other
current liabilities" line in the Condensed Consolidated Balance
Sheets. During the three and six months ended March 30, 2019, the
Company recognized favorable adjustments of $0.9 million and $0.4
million, respectively, related to this matter in the "Impairment,
restructuring and other" line in the Condensed Consolidated
Statements of Operations as a result of the final payment of the
claims made by class members.

The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company manufactures, markets, and sells
consumer lawn and garden products in the United States and
internationally. The company operates through three segments: U.S.
Consumer, Hawthorne, and Other. The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company was
founded in 1868 and is headquartered in Marysville, Ohio.


SEDGEWICK CLAIMS: Robinson Labor Suit Removed to M.D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Monica Robinson, for herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Sedgewick Claims Management
Services, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2019-CA-004403 was removed
from the Ninth Judicial Circuit of Florida to the US District Court
for the Middle District of Florida on May 15, 2019, under Case No.
19-cv-00920.

Robinson seeks to recover overtime compensation and other wages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees, costs
and other compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, PA
      951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Tel: (561) 447-8888
      Fax: (561) 447-8831
      Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com

Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. is represented by:

      Chad K. Lang, Esq.
      SANCHEZ-MEDINA, GONZALEZ & QUESADA, LLP
      201 Alhambra Circle, Suite 1205
      Coral Gables, FL 33134-5107
      Tel: (305) 377-1000
      Fax: (855) 327-0391
      Email: CLang@SMGQLAW.com


SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Court Amends Briefing Schedule in Hamidi
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Emergency
Request to Amend Deadlines in the case captioned KOUROSH KENNETH
HAMIDI; et al.; AND THE CLASS THEY REPRESENT Plaintiffs, v. SERVICE
EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 1000, AND JOHN CHIANG,
Controller, State of California; Defendants. Case No.
2:14-CV-319-WBS-KJN. (E.D. Cal.).

Pursuant to the Plaintiff's unopposed emergency request, and for
good cause shown, the Court amends the outstanding deadlines for
the briefs for the pending Motions, as follows:

The parties shall file their Reply Briefs, if any, by Thursday, 30
May 2019.

Oral argument on the pending motions will be held on Monday, 17
June 2019, at 1:30 p.m., in Courtroom 5 before the Honorable
William B. Shubb.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 23, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y3laj3b6 from Leagle.com.

Kourosh Kenneth Hamidi, Kim McElroy, Dawn P. Ammons, William L.
Blaylock, Christopher Browne, Ryan Christensen, Kelli Giles,
Madeline L. Lopez, Clint Miller, Gary W. Morrish, Virginia Ollis,
Olayemi Sarumi, Cecilia Stanfield, Antonia Toledo & Diane C. Tutt,
Plaintiffs, represented by W. James Young, National Right to Work
Legal Defense Foundation Inc, 8001 Braddock Road, Suite 600
Springfield, Virginia 22160, pro hac vice & Steven R. Burlingham,
Gary, Till, Burlingham & Lynch. 1380 Lead Hill Blvd, Suite 200,
Roseville, CA 95661

Service Employees International Union, Local 1000, Defendant,
represented by Jeffrey B. Demain -- jdemain@altshulerberzon.com --
Altshuler Berzon LLP, Anne Marie Giese, Service Employees
International Union, Local 1000, 1808 a4th Street, Sacramento, CA
95811, Eric Prince Brown -- ebrown@altshulerberzon.com --
Altschuler Berzon, LLP, Eve H. Cervantez --
ecervantez@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP, Patrick
Casey Pitts -- cpitts@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon, LLP
& York Jiann Chang, SEIU Local 1000, 11745 East Telegraph Road,
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670

John Chiang, Defendant, represented by Kim L. Nguyen, Office Of The
Attorney General, Peter H. Chang, Office of the Attorney General
Department of Justice, Thomas M. Patton, California Department Of
Justice Office of the Attorney General & Mark Randolph Beckington,
Attorney General's Office for the State of California.


SHAMROCK FOODS: Arreola's Labor Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, STEVEN A. ARREOLA, an individual, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SHAMROCK FOODS
COMPANY; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
19STCV09541 (Filed on March 21, 2019), was transferred from
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. The removal is based on diversity of
citizenship. The United States District Court for the Central
District of California assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-04123 to the
proceeding.

This complaint purports to state causes of action on behalf of
Plaintiff Steven A. Arreola and the putative class members for: (1)
failure to provide meal periods pursuant to Cal. Labor Code
Sections 226.7 and 512; (2) failure to allow rest periods pursuant
to Cal. Labor Code Section 226.7; (3) failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements pursuant to Cal. Labor Code Section
226(a); (4) waiting time penalties pursuant to Cal. Labor Code
Section 203; and (5) unfair competition in violation of Cal.
Business and Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq. Plaintiff
seeks to represent himself and a Proposed Class consisting of all
persons who are employed or have been employed as a non-exempt
employee by Shamrock Foods Company in the state of California since
four years prior to the filing of this action to the present.

Shamrock Foods Company is an Arizona corporation with its principal
place of business located at 3900 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300,
Phoenix Arizona. [BN]

Attorneys for Defendant:

     Andrew J. Sommer, Esq.
     Megan S. Shaked, Esq.
     CONN MACIEL CAREY LLP
     870 Market Street, Suite 1111
     San Francisco, CA 94102
     Telephone: (415) 268-8894
     Facsimile: (415) 268-8889
     E-mail: asommer@connmaciel.com
             mshaked@connmaciel.com


SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Gentry Homes Class Action Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Simpson Manufacturing 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 company continues
to defend a class action suit initiated by Gentry Homes, Ltd.

Gentry Homes, Ltd. v. Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 17-cv-00566, was filed in federal district court in Hawaii
against Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc. and Simpson Manufacturing,
Inc. on November 20, 2017.  

The Gentry case is a product of a previous state court class
action, Nishimura v. Gentry Homes, Ltd., et al. which is now
closed.  

The Nishimura case concerned alleged corrosion of the Company's
galvanized strap-tie holdowns and mudsill anchor products used in a
residential project in Honolulu, Hawaii, Ewa by Gentry.  

In the Nishimura case, the plaintiff homeowners and the developer,
Gentry, arbitrated their dispute and agreed on a settlement in the
amount of $90 million, with $54 million going to repair costs and
$36 million going to attorney's fees.  

In the Gentry case, Gentry alleges breach of warranty and negligent
misrepresentation related to the Company's strap-tie holdowns and
mudsill anchor products. Gentry is demanding general, special, and
consequential damages from the Company in an amount to be proven at
trial.  

Gentry also seeks pre-judgment and post-judgment interest,
attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief.  The Company admits no
liability and will vigorously defend the claims brought against it.


Simpson said, "At this time, the Company cannot reasonably
ascertain the likelihood that it will be found responsible for
substantial damages to Gentry. Based on the facts currently known,
and subject to future events and circumstances, the Company
believes that all or part of the claims may be covered by its
insurance policies."

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

Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc., through its subsidiaries, designs,
engineers, manufactures, and sells building construction products.
Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc. was founded in 1956 and is
headquartered in Pleasanton, California.


SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Kaneshiro Class Action Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
Simpson Manufacturing 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 company continues
to defend a class action suit initiated by Stephen Kaneshiro.

Stephen Kaneshiro, et al. v. Stanford Carr Development, LLC et
al./Stanford Carr Development, LLC, et al. v. Simpson Strong-Tie
Company, Inc., Civil No. 18-1-1472-09 VLC, is a putative class
action lawsuit filed in the Hawaii First Circuit.  

The Company was added as a third-party defendant on December 28,
2018. The homeowner plaintiffs allege that all homes built by
Stanford Carr Development and its subsidiaries (collectively
"Stanford Carr") in the State of Hawaii have strap-tie holdowns and
mudsill anchors that are suffering premature corrosion. Stanford
Carr has asserted indemnity and contribution claims against the
Company.  

The Company admits no liability and will vigorously defend the
claims asserted against it.  

Simpson said, "At this time, the Company cannot reasonably
ascertain the likelihood that it will be found responsible for
substantial damages to Stanford Carr. Based on the facts currently
known, and subject to future events and circumstances, the Company
believes that all or part of the claims may be covered by its
insurance policies."

Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc., through its subsidiaries, designs,
engineers, manufactures, and sells building construction products.
Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc. was founded in 1956 and is
headquartered in Pleasanton, California.


SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Vitale Suit v. D.R. Horton Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Simpson Manufacturing 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 D.R. Horton, Inc.
continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Charles
Vitale.

Charles Vitale, et al. v. D.R. Horton, Inc. and D.R. Horton-Schuler
Homes, LLC, Civil No. 15-1-1347-07, a putative class action
lawsuit, was filed in the Hawaii First Circuit on July 13, 2015, in
which homeowner plaintiffs allege that all homes built by D.R
Horton/D.R. Horton-Schuler Homes (collectively "Horton Homes") in
the State of Hawaii have strap-tie holdowns that are suffering
premature corrosion.

The court has denied a motion for statewide class certification.  

The Company is not currently a party to the Vitale lawsuit, but the
lawsuit in the future could potentially involve the Company's
strap-tie holdowns.

Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc., through its subsidiaries, designs,
engineers, manufactures, and sells building construction products.
Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc. was founded in 1956 and is
headquartered in Pleasanton, California.


SKECHERS USA: Wilk Moves to Certify Class of Non-Exempt Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff asks the Court to conditionally certify the action
titled EALEEN WILK, an individual v. SKECHERS U.S.A., INC. and DOES
1-100, inclusive, Case No. 5:18-cv-01921-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal.), as a
representative collective action under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Pursuant to the FLSA and cases interpreting it, the Plaintiff seeks
Court authority to facilitate and to send notice of this action to
prospective collective action members, consisting of all current
and former non-exempt employees of Defendant, who were employed by
Defendant and who received commissions, non-discretionary bonuses
and/or other items of compensation and worked overtime during one
or more pay periods from September 10, 2015, through the present
(the "Putative FLSA Class Members");

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to approve the proposed Notice
and Consent Forms and to order the Defendants to produce to the
third-party administrator retained by class counsel to administer
the Notice, Simpluris, Inc., the names, addresses, alternate
addresses, e-mail addresses, and all telephone numbers of all
Putative FLSA Class Members (the "Putative FLSA Class List") that
such information shall be provided in Microsoft Excel format to the
Plaintiff's counsel within 10 days of the date of the Court's Order
granting this motion.

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to order that all Putative
FLSA Class Members shall have 90 days from the sending of the
Notice to postmark their Consents to Join and mail such Consents to
Simpluris, and to conditionally certify Mayall Hurley, P.C., as
FLSA class counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on June 10, 2019, at 9:00 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert J. Wasserman, Esq.
          William J. Gorham, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Scardigli, Esq.
          Vladimir J. Kozina, Esq.
          MAYALL HURLEY P.C.
          2453 Grand Canal Boulevard
          Stockton, CA 95207-8253
          Telephone: (209) 477-3833
          Facsimile: (209) 473-4818
          E-mail: rwasserman@mayallaw.com
                  wgorham@mayallaw.com
                  nscardigli@mayallaw.com
                  vjkozina@mayallaw.com


SPRINT CORP: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP (www.blockesq.com), a Boston based securities
litigation firm representing investors nationwide, on May 6
disclosed that it has filed a securities fraud class action against
Sprint Corporation ("Sprint" or the "Company") (NYSE: S) and
certain of its officers alleging violations of the federal
securities laws.

The lawsuit charges that Sprint misrepresented the number of net
postpaid subscriber additions in its Form 10-Q for the period
ending December 31, 2018. In a subsequent letter to the FCC, Sprint
admitted that its Form 10-Q disclosures were "incomplete" and that
the reported net subscriber increase included those offered "free
lines."

If you purchased Sprint shares between January 31, 2019 and April
16, 2019 and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the
Court no later than June 21, 2019. As a member of the class, you
may seek to file a motion to serve as a lead plaintiff or take no
action and remain an absent class member. If you wish to become
involved in the litigation or have questions about your legal
rights, you are encouraged to contact Block & Leviton LLP at (617)
398-5660, by email at info@blockesq.com or by visiting
http://shareholder.law/sprint

The complaint in this case was filed in the United States District
Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan), located at 500
Pearl Street, New York, New York, 10007, and is captioned Meneses
v. Sprint Corporation et al., No. 1:19-cv-03549. The Hon. Andrew L.
Carter, Jr. is the judge assigned to the case.

Block & Leviton LLP was recently ranked 4th among securities
litigation firms by ISS for recoveries in 2017. The firm represents
many of the nation's largest institutional investors and numerous
individual investors in securities litigation throughout the
country. Indeed, its lawyers have recovered billions of dollars for
its clients. [GN]


SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Unit Still Defends Ferguson ERISA Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
SS&C Technologies Holdings, 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 DST Systems, Inc. is
facing a putative class action lawsuit entitled, Ferguson, et al v.
Ruane Cunniff & Goldfarb Inc, et al.

A putative class action suit was filed against DST Systems, Inc.
(DST), the Compensation Committee of DST's Board of Directors, the
Advisory Committee of DST Systems, Inc. 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan
(the "Plan") and certain of DST's present and/or former officers
and directors, alleging breach of fiduciary duties and other
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.  

On September 1, 2017, a complaint was filed purportedly on behalf
of the Plan in the Southern District of New York, captioned
Ferguson, et al v. Ruane Cunniff & Goldfarb Inc, et al., naming as
defendants the DST, the Compensation Committee of DST's Board of
Directors, the Advisory Committee of the Plan and certain of DST's
present and/or former officers and directors.

SS&C Technologies said, "We intend to defend this case vigorously,
and, because it is still in its preliminary stages, have not yet
determined what effect this lawsuit will have, if any, on our
financial position or results of operations."

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

SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. provides software products and
software-enabled services to financial services and healthcare
industries in the United States, Canada, rest of the Americas,
Europe, the Asia Pacific, and Japan. SS&C Technologies Holdings,
Inc. was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Windsor,
Connecticut.


ST JUDE MEDICAL: Canada Defibrillator Class Action Certified
------------------------------------------------------------
Waddell Phillips Professional Corporation on May 6 disclosed that a
national class action has been certified against St. Jude Medical,
Inc. and St. Jude Medical Canada, Inc. for the purpose of effecting
a CAD $5 million settlement of the class action.  The class action
relates to certain models of implantable cardiac defibrillators or
cardiac resynchronization therapy devices manufactured by the
Defendants between January 2010 and May 23, 2015 under the brand
names Fortify, Fortify Assura, Quadra Assura, Unify, Unify Assura,
and Unify Quadra.

There are approximately 8,900 individuals who were implanted with
potentially affected devices in Canada.

Details of the certification order and of the settlement agreement
are set out in the Notice of Certification and Motion for
Settlement Approval: http://www.stjudeicdclaim.ca/

There will be a motion for approval of the settlement heard by the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice on August 1, 2019.  If approved,
the class will be provided with notice of the settlement approval,
and details about how to claim a portion of the settlement funds.

Any class member who wishes to exclude themselves from the class
action must do so by sending an opt out form to the claims
administrator by no later than July 19, 2019.  An explanation about
how to opt out is set out in the Notice.

Waddell Phillips Professional Corporation and Howie, Sacks & Henry
LLP are class counsel, and can be reached at the addresses below
for further information regarding the class action or the
settlement.

                     About Waddell Phillips PC

Waddell Phillips Professional Corporation --
http://www.waddellphillips.ca-- is a boutique law firm,
specializing in plaintiff-side class actions.  The principals of
the firm have helped victims in a wide range of cases, including
product liability, consumer protection, aboriginal residential
schools, franchise disputes and securities misrepresentations.

                About Howie, Sacks & Henry LLP

Howie, Sacks & Henry advances mass tort claims and class actions on
behalf of people injured by dangerous products, pharmaceuticals and
medical devices. These include victims who have suffered exposure
to asbestos, cancer caused by the use of baby powder, the side
effects of pharmaceutical drugs like Taxotere and Abilify, and
those adversely impacted by defective medical devices, including
St. Jude Defibrillators, Hernia Mesh and Transvaginal Mesh.

For more information on the St. Jude Defibrillator class action,
please visit:
https://waddellphillips.ca/class-actions/st-jude-defibrillator-class-action/,
call the firm at 647- 261-4486, or email
reception@waddellphillips.ca.; Howie, Sacks & Henry LLP:

For more information on the St. Jude Defibrillator class action,
please visit: https://tinyurl.com/y5uowrxj or call the law firm at
1-877-474-5997. [GN]


STATE FARM: Court Limits Brief to 16 Pages in B. Durant's Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Motion to
Allow Plaintiff to file an Overlength Brief in the case captioned
BRETT DURANT, On Behalf of Himself and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY, a foreign automobile insurance company, Defendant. Case
No. 2-15-CV-01710-RAJ. (W.D. Wash.).

Being fully advised in the premises, and finding good cause, the
Court grants the Plaintiff's Motion.

The Plaintiff is granting an additional four (4) pages of briefing
for his Motion for Final Approval, for a total page limit of
sixteen (16) pages.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 23, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y5e9zk7x from Leagle.com.

Brett Durant, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Tyler K. Firkins --
tfirkins@vansiclen.com -- VAN SICLEN STOCKS & FIRKINS & David A.
Nauheim -- david@nauheimlaw.com -- NAUHEIM LAW OFFICE.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, a foreign
automobile insurance company, Defendant, represented by David
Dworsky -- ddworsky@sheppardmullin.com -- SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER &
HAMPTON, pro hac vice, Frank Falzetta --
ffalzetta@sheppardmullin.com -- SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON,
pro hac vice, Gregory S. Worden  --
Gregory.Worden@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH
LLP, Jennifer M. Hoffman -- jhoffman@sheppardmullin.com -- SHEPPARD
MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON, pro hac vice & Laura Hawes Young --
Laura.Young@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH
LLP.


STEINHOFF INT'L: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Germany
----------------------------------------------------------
Tassilo Hummel and Emma Rumney, writing for Reuters, report that
Steinhoff will face a class action before a German regional court,
dragging shares in the South African furniture retailer down by as
much as 10 percent on May 23, as the fallout from its billion-euro
accounting scandal continues.

Steinhoff already faces around 6 billion euros ($6.68 billion)
worth of legal claims following the fraud, which stunned investors
that had bought into a story of a small South African outfit
transformed into a discount furniture retailer straddling four
continents.

A court in Frankfurt, where the company has a secondary
stock-market listing, decided to bundle various cases brought by
shareholders against the company and transfer them to a higher
regional jurisdiction in the form of a class action, official
documents published in Germany's federal gazette on May 22 showed.

Shareholders will ask German judges to state that Steinhoff's
balance sheets for 2013, 2014 and 2015 were incorrect in the hope
of winning financial compensation for their losses.

A spokeswoman for Steinhoff, which delayed the publication of its
2017 and 2018 accounts following the scandal and has said
irregularities could stretch back earlier than 2015, did not reply
to requests for comment.

"I am convinced that we will be able to prove various violations of
duties and help investors to win," Maximilian Weiss, Esq. one of
the lawyers representing shareholders said in a statement.

Steinhoff had failed in its duties to inform the public in a timely
manner about the accounting irregularities, he continued, adding
that other investors who had not yet brought their cases could now
join the class action.

The company, which owns Mattress Firm Inc in the United States, the
Fantastic chains in Australia and Conforama in France has been
battling for survival since the scandal broke, wiping out
shareholder equity and prompting numerous investigations and
resignations of its senior leadership.

It has also pitted the company against its shareholders who blame
the retailer for their losses, and sparked at least 10 material
lawsuits against the company claiming around 6 billion euros in
damages in total, according to its 2017 annual report published
earlier this month, including a separate class action in the
Netherlands.

The company also published its long-delayed results for 2017
earlier in May, reporting a $4 billion operating loss for the year.
Its 2018 results are not expected until June.

Its shares fell by 10% in Johannesburg on May 23 before recovering
to 1.35 rand per share -- a 4.93% decline -- by 1253 GMT. Its
Frankfurt-listed shares were also down 5.6%.[GN]


SUBURBAN PROPANE: Continues to Defend NY & Pennsylvania Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Suburban Propane Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 30, 2019, that the company continues
to defend itself from two class lawsuits, one in New York and the
other in Pennsylvania.

The Partnership's natural gas and electricity business is currently
a defendant in two putative class action suits in the federal
district courts of New York and Pennsylvania.

The complaints allege a number of claims regarding pricing to its
electricity customers in those states under various consumer
statutes and common law.

The complaint in the Pennsylvania action was dismissed in its
entirety by the district court, which dismissal is being appealed
by plaintiff.

Plaintiff also filed a motion to amend its complaint and reverse
the dismissal order, which motion was also denied by the court.

The complaint in the New York action was dismissed in part by the
district court, but causes of action based on the NY consumer
statute and breach of contract were allowed to proceed.  

The Partnership filed a motion for reconsideration seeking the
dismissal of the entire New York complaint, which motion was denied
by the district court.  

Based on the nature of the allegations under these suits, the
Partnership believes that the suits are without merit and is
defending each of these suits vigorously.  

With respect to these pending suits, the Partnership has
determined, based on the allegations and discovery to date, that no
reserve for a loss contingency is required.  The Partnership is
unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss,
if any, arising from either of these two actions.  

Suburban Propane said, "Although any litigation is inherently
uncertain, based on past experience, the information currently
available to the Partnership, and the amount of its accrued
insurance liabilities, the Partnership does not believe that
currently pending or threatened litigation matters, or known claims
or known contingent claims, will have a material adverse effect on
its results of operations, financial condition or cash flow."

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

Suburban Propane Partners, L.P., through its subsidiaries, engages
in the retail marketing and distribution of propane, fuel oil, and
refined fuels. The company operates in four segments: Propane, Fuel
Oil and Refined Fuels, Natural Gas and Electricity, and All Other.
Suburban Energy Services Group LLC serves as a general partner of
Suburban Propane Partners, L.P. The company was founded in 1945 and
is headquartered in Whippany, New Jersey.


SUNCOKE ENERGY: Wheby Says Registration Statement Misleading
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against the SunCoke Energy,
Inc. and its Board of Directors for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with the proposed transaction
announced on Feb. 5, 2019, pursuant to which SunCoke Energy, Inc.
(SXC) will acquire all outstanding common units of SunCoke Energy
Partners, L.P. (SXCP) not already owned by SXC in a stock-for-unit
merger transaction. The case is captioned EARL M. WHEBY, JR.,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. SUNCOKE ENERGY, INC., MICHAEL G. RIPPEY, JOHN W.
ROWE, ALVIN BLEDSOE, PETER B. HAMILTON, SUSAN R. LANDAHL, ROBERT A.
PEISER, JAMES E. SWEETNAM, and SUNCOKE ENERGY PARTNERS, L.P.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00886-UNA (D. Del., May 10, 2019).

On April 30, 2019, SXC filed a registration statement with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in
connection with the proposed transaction, which recommends that
SXC's shareholders vote to approve the issuance of SXC common stock
pursuant to the terms of the merger agreement in connection with
the proposed transaction. However, Plaintiff Earl M. Wheby, Jr.
alleges that the registration statement fails to disclose: (i) the
projections for SXC's directly-held assets; (ii) the terminal
values; (iii) the individual inputs and assumptions underlying the
range of discount rates of 11.0% to 13.0% and the range of
perpetuity growth rates of 0.0% to 2.0%; (iv) Evercore's basis for
applying a range of EBITDA exit multiples of 5.5x to 7.5x; (v)
SXC's net cash; (vi) SXC's liability for pneumoconiosis benefits;
and (vii) the value of the projected cash tax expense resulting
from remedial allocations.

SXC is a Delaware corporation with its principal offices located at
1011 Warrenville Road, Suite 600, Lisle, IL 60532. SXC's common
stock is traded on the NYSE under the ticker symbol SXC. The
company is the largest independent producer of high-quality coke in
the Americas, as measured by tons of coke produced each year and,
through its predecessor entities, has approximately fifty-five
years of coke production experience. Michael G. Rippey is the
President, Chief Executive Officer, and a director of the company.
Rippey is also Chairman of the Board, President, and CEO of SunCoke
Energy Partners GP LLC, which manages SXCP. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
     1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
     Berwyn, PA 19312
     Telephone: (484) 324-6800
     Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
     E-mail: rm@maniskas.com

             - and -

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


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Valiente Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Johel Valiente and Ashraf Aiad, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Swift
Transportation Company of Arizona, LLC and Does 1 through 20,
inclusive, Defendants, inclusive, Case No. 18STCV01036 (Cal.
Super., October 16, 2019), was removed to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on May 15,
2019 under Case No. 19-cv-04217.

Valiente and Aiad seek redress for failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to pay all overtime wages, meal period violations, wage
statement violations, waiting time penalties and unfair competition
under California Law.

Defendants cite that the class easily exceeds the 100-member
requirement imposed by the Class Action Fairness Act, that the
amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 and that Plaintiff and
Defendant are citizens of different states, as basis for removal.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Louis Benowitz, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF LOUIS BENOWITZ
      9454 Wilshire Bou1evard, Penthouse I
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (310) 844-5141
      Facsimile: (310)492-4056
      Email: louis@benowitzlaw.com

             - and -

      Joshua Cohen Slatkin, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JOSHUA COHEN SLATKIN
      l1726 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 200
      Los Angeles, CA 90049
      Telephone: (310) 627-2699
      Facsimile: (310) 943-2757

Swift is represented by:

     Paul S. Cowie, Esq.
     SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER AND HAMPTON LLP
     379 Lytton Avenue
     Palo Alto, CA 94301
     Tel: (650) 815-2600
     Fax: (650) 815-2601
     Email: pcowie@sheppardmullin.com

            - and -

     Corinne L. Hays, Esq.
     SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER AND HAMPTON LLP
     Four Embarcadero Center, Seventeenth Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Tel: (415) 434-9100
     Fax: (415) 434-3947
     Email: chays@sheppardmullin.com


TAMPA BAY: Faces $300MM Class Action Over TCPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bleyer, writing for Sunshine State News, reports that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Tampa Bay Sports and
Entertainment which conservatively could cost the Jeff Vinik-led
company $300 million.

The legal action alleges TBSE, owner of the National Hockey
League's Tampa Bay Lightning, violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Miami law firm of Carey Rodriguez Milian Gonya is bringing the
lawsuit on behalf of lead plaintiff Bryan Hanley and other "persons
similarly situated."  The number of plaintiffs could exceed
10,000.

Basically, anyone targeted with text messages from the Tampa Bay
Lightning marketing department may choose to join the class action.
The texts included promotions for upcoming Lightning games at
downtown Tampa's Amalie Arena as well as discount ticket packages.

Hanley is asking for $1,500 for each text message he received
promoting the Lightning. The number of text messages is unspecified
but exceeds 20 based on my experience with texts sent from the
Lightning marketing arm.

Hanley alleges Vinik's TBSE transmitted advertising and
telemarketing text messages to cellular telephones throughout the
Tampa Bay area.

Specific total damages are not mentioned in Hanley vs. TBSE, but
the math is simple: $1,500 for each text, 20 texts, 10,000
victims=$300 million. Forbes Inc. at the end of 2018 valued the
Lightning at $445 million. Besides taking a financial hit, Vinik
and the Lightning's serial harassment becomes a public relations
albatross as well.

Class action lawsuits rarely culminate with such stratospheric
settlements. The attorneys invariably are well compensated but the
sea of claimants have been known to receive pathetic amounts of
compensation such as coupons or paltry two-digit sums.

That will not be the case in the litigation against TBSE, according
to Ruben Conitzer, lead attorney for Carey Rodriguez.

In speaking with Tampa Bay Beat, Conitzer wouldn't speculate on the
amount of a settlement or court award but asserted this would not
be one of those class actions that would translate to little or
nothing for the aggrieved parties.

Conitzer revealed that Vinik's legal team is trying to have the
Telephone Consumer Protection Agency declared unconstitutional.

"The tactic has been attempted in other jurisdictions to no avail,"
he said.

There are other options for recipients of the illegal texts.
Victims could opt out of the class action and file suit separately.
An award or settlement could be $30,000 or more, but attorneys'
fees would eat up much of that. I asked Conitzer if an aggrieved
party could also be a lead plaintiff along with Hanley in the class
action and he replied in the affirmative.

2019 has been a rough year for Vinik:

   * His $3 billion Water Street Tampa development chugs on but way
behind schedule. The project is collateralized to creditor Cascades
Investments.

   * The Vinik-instigated 1 percent sales tax for transit is tied
up in the courts on several counts of unconstitutionality.  The tax
is integral for building a Tampa light rail system that would run
through Water Street.

   * A retired hedge fund manager, Vinik tried and so far has
failed to raise $3 billion for a newly-formed hedge fund with
himself at the helm.

   * The Lightning, prohibitive favorites to win the NHL's Stanley
Cup, were swept in the first round of the playoffs by the
lowest-seeded team in the Eastern Conference. The team's
post-season collapse was stunning and historic.

   * Vinik has failed to register TBSE, a Delaware corporation, as
a "foreign agent" though doing business in Florida for nine years.
Fines are due the State of Florida and registration is imperative.

   * Vinik's fiduciary relationship with the Tampa Bay Times, the
area's only daily, has become more sinister. Bloomberg's company
profile of Vinik's Tampa Bay Sports and Entertainment LLC lists its
address as the Times building at 490 1st Ave. S., St. Petersburg.
TBSE's line of business "includes publishing newspapers" but
nothing else, according to Bloomberg.

Now there is this class action suit that, if taken to the limit,
could unravel or, at best, pare Vinik's interest in the Lightning.
(Tom Rask, publisher of the Tampa Bay Guardian, contributed to this
article.) [GN]


TARGET CORP: Rigney Hits Lack of Notice Over Health Plan
--------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Rigney and Kyle Adams, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TARGET CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 89578565 filed in the Circuit Court of the
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County, Florida on May
15, 2019, seeks statutory penalties, injunctive relief, attorneys'
fees, costs and expenses, and other appropriate relief for failure
to provide legally sufficient required notices of Plaintiffs' right
to continued health care coverage under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 and the Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1985.

Target is the plan sponsor of their employees' Health Plan where
Rigney, a former employee, was a participant with Kyle Adams also
covered as a plan beneficiary. Said Plan failed to provide him with
an adequate notice of their right to continue their health coverage
upon the occurrence of a qualifying event. Rigney's employment was
terminated on September 21, 2018. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chad A. Justice, Esq.
      JUSTICE FOR JUSTICE LLC
      1205 N Franklin St., Suite 326
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Tel. (813) 566-0550
      Fax: 813-566-0770
      E-mail: chad@getjusticeforjustice.com

              - and -

      Luis Cabassa, Esq.
      Brandon Hill, Esq.
      WENZEL, FENTON AND CABASSA PA
      1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 224-0431
      Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
      Email: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
             bhill@wfclaw.com


TELLURIAN INC: Andrews & Springer Probes Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Andrews & Springer LLC, a boutique securities class action law firm
focused on representing shareholders nationwide, is investigating
potential securities violations and breach of fiduciary duty claims
against Tellurian, Inc. (TELL) ("Tellurian" or the "Company").

If you currently own shares of Tellurian and want to receive
additional information and protect your investments free of charge,
please visit us at https://tinyurl.com/y2vggwjl or contact Craig J.
Springer, Esq. at cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call toll free
at 1-800-423-6013.

Andrews & Springer -- http://www.andrewsspringer.com-- is a
boutique securities class action law firm representing shareholders
nationwide who are victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty or corporate misconduct. Having formerly defended
some of the largest financial institutions in the world, our
founding members use their valuable knowledge, experience, and
superior skill for the sole purpose of achieving positive results
for investors. These traits are the hallmarks of our innovative
approach to each case our Firm decides to prosecute. [GN]


TETRAPHASE PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Transfer IGNITE3 Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tetraphase 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 defendants' request
to transfer the class action suit related to IGNITE3 to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, remains pending

In July 2018, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed
against the company, its chief executive officer, its chief
scientific officer and the underwriters of its July 2017 public
offering, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The complaint is brought on behalf of an alleged class of those who
purchased the company's securities pursuant and/or traceable to its
July and August 2017 public offering and those who purchased its
securities between March 8, 2017 and February 13, 2018.

The complaint purports to allege claims arising under Sections 10
and 20 of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The complaint
generally alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by, among other things, making material
misstatements or omissions concerning IGNITE3.

The complaint seeks, among other relief, unspecified compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. The defendants have moved to
transfer the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.

Tetraphase said, "We believe we have valid defenses against these
claims, and will engage in a vigorous defense of such litigation."

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

Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company,
develops various antibiotics for the treatment of serious and
life-threatening multidrug-resistant infections. The company was
founded in 2006 and is headquartered in Watertown, Massachusetts.


THURS TRUCKING: Conditional Certification of Zettler Class Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ZETTLER, TIMOTHY, Plaintiff, v. THURS TRUCKING, INC.,
and JEAN THURS Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-654-jdp (W.D. Wis.),
Judge James D. Peterson of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin (i) granted the parties' joint motion for
leave to file a second amended complaint, and (ii) denied Zettler's
motion for conditional certification.

Plaintiff Zettler says that his former employers, the Defendants,
maintained policies that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and Wisconsin law.  Zettler now moves for conditional
certification of an FLSA collective action of current and former
Thurs Trucking drivers under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

Judge Peterson finds that the parties agree that no more than 18
drivers would be eligible for the proposed class.  Even assuming a
100% opt-in rate, this is far fewer than necessary to satisfy the
numerosity requirement for a class under Section 216(b).  If the
other truck drivers at Thurs Trucking wish to join the lawsuit,
they will need to do so under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20.
Zettler does not provide any explanation for why, despite the small
number of the Plaintiffs, joinder under Rule 20 would be
impractical.

Zettler contends that numerosity is not a requirement for
certifying a collective action under the FLSA.  But the Court has
previously applied a numerosity requirement in FLSA collective
actions.  Zettler also says that Wisconsin district courts have
allowed other FLSA collective actions to go forward with fewer than
18 members.  But the cases that Zettler cites all included larger
Rule 23 classes that asserted claims substantively similar to the
claims asserted by the FLSA classes.  The Judge holds that Zettler
remains free to pursue his claims against Thurs Trucking as an
individual, and he may join additional Plaintiffs to the suit under
Rule 20.  But his motion for certification as a collective action
will be denied.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Peterson granted the parties' joint
motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.  The
Defendants' answer to the amended complaint is redirected to the
second amended complaint.  The Judge denied Zettler's motion for
conditional certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 30, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/HeHMkt from Leagle.com.

Timothy Zettler, Plaintiff, represented by Yingtao Ho --
yh@previant.com -- The Previant Law Firm, S.C.

Thurs Trucking & Jean Thurs, Defendants, represented by Bridgette
Blitch -- bblitch@bwesq.com -- Blitch Westley SC & Joseph Elton
Blitch -- jblitch@bwesq.com -- Blitch Westley, S.C..


TICKETMASTER LLC: Ameri Ticket Pricing Row Removed to N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Mahmoud Ameri, Erin Ouborg, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ticketmaster
LLC, Defendant, Case No. RG18922688, (Cal. Super., September 28,
2018), was removed to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on May 15, 2019 under Case No.
19-cv-02642.

Ticketmaster is a primary ticketing service provider. It contracts
with venues to provide ticket distribution services, and then sells
tickets to the venue's events to consumers or other buyers. Ameri
and Ouborg allege that Ticketmaster receives double commissions for
each ticket, first on the sale of tickets to resellers, and then on
the resale of the same tickets on secondary exchanges.[BN]

Ameri and Ouborg are represented by:

      Randall B. Aiman-Smith, Esq.
      Reed W.L. Marcy, Esq.
      Hallie Von Rock, Esq.
      Carey A. James, Esq.
      Brent A. Robinson, Esq.
      7677 Oakport St. Suite 1150
      Oakland, CA 94621
      Tel: (510) 817-2711
      Fax: (510) 562-6830
      Email: ras@asmlawyers.com
             rwlm@asmlawyers.com
             hvr@asmlawyers.com
             caj@asmlawyers.com
             bar@asmlawyers.com

Defendants are represented by:

     Daniel M. Wall, Esq.
     Timothy L. O'Mara, Esq.
     LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
     505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
     San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
     Telephone: (415) 391-0600
     Facsimile: (415) 395-8095
     Email: dan.wall@lw.com
            tim.omara@lw.com


TIER REIT: Faces Cousins-Merger Related Suits
---------------------------------------------
TIER REIT, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company is
defending against two Cousins-merger related suits.

On March 25, 2019, the company announced its entry into a
definitive merger agreement (the "Merger Agreement") with Cousins
Properties Incorporated ("Cousins"), and Murphy Subsidiary Holdings
Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cousins ("Merger Sub"),
to combine in a 100% stock-for-stock transaction (the "Merger").

On May 1, 2019, a purported stockholder filed a putative
stockholder class action against the Company and the members of the
company's board of directors challenging the disclosures made in
connection with the Merger.

The lawsuit is captioned Martin v. TIER REIT, INC., et al., No.
1:19-CV-01292, and is pending in the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland.

On May 3, 2019, a purported stockholder filed a putative
stockholder class action against the Company and the members of the
company's board of directors, Cousins, and Merger Sub also
challenging the disclosures made in connection with the Merger.

The lawsuit is captioned Franchi v. TIER REIT, Inc. et al., No.
1:19-CV-01310, and is also pending in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland.
      
The complaints generally allege that the registration statement
filed in connection with the Merger fails to disclose certain
allegedly material information in violation of Section 14(a) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder.
The alleged omissions relate to (i) the existence of certain
provisions in confidentiality agreements entered into between the
Company and alternative bidders during the strategic sales process;
(ii) certain financial projections and GAAP reconciliations for the
Company and Cousins; and (iii) certain financial analyses performed
by the Company's financial advisor.

Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the Defendants from proceeding with the
Merger and seek damages in the event the transaction is
consummated.

TIER REIT said, "We are reviewing the complaints and have not yet
formally responded to them, but believe that Plaintiffs'
allegations are without merit and intend to defend against them
vigorously. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and there
can be no assurance regarding the likelihood that the Company's
defense of the actions will be successful. Additional lawsuits
arising out of the Merger may also be filed in the future."

TIER REIT, Inc. is a publicly traded, self-managed, Dallas-based
real estate investment trust focused on owning quality,
well-managed commercial office properties in dynamic markets
throughout the U.S. The company is based in Dallas, Texas.


TYSOON FOODS: Says Cattle Price Fixing Class Action Baseless
------------------------------------------------------------
Spike Jordan, writing for Kearney Hub, reports that a 121-page
class action lawsuit filed in federal district court in Illinois,
alleges that the nation's four largest beef packers in the United
States have engaged in a conspiracy to depress the price of fed
cattle in order to inflate their own margins.

The complaint was filed on April 30 by the Scott+Scott Law firm on
behalf of the Billings, Montana-based Ranchers-Cattlemen Action
Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of America (R-CALF USA), and four
cattle-feeding ranchers from Kansas, Wyoming, Iowa and Nebraska,
including local feedlot owner Charles "Chuck" Weinreis.

R-CALF CEO Bill Bullard said in a telephone interview May 2 that
the suit alleges that Tyson Foods, Inc., JBS S.A., Cargill, Inc.,
and National Beef Packing Company, LLC. -- who together purchase
and process more than 80 percent of U.S. fed cattle -- have engaged
in a conspiracy to artificially depress cattle prices and have been
doing so since at least Jan. 1, 2015, and that the conspiracy
continues to the present. By doing so, the suit says, the packers
violated prohibitions in the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, The Clayton
Anti-Trust Act, The Packers and Stockyards Act, and the Commodity
Exchange Act.

"Because this is a private action, (R-CALF) and the producers are
doing this ourselves, as opposed to relying on the government which
has chosen not to act," Bullard said.

While the lawsuits plaintiffs are mainly feeder operations, Bullard
said it has an impact that filters down to the even the smallest
cow/calf rancher.

"The most important prices discovery market for the entire cattle
industry is the fed cattle market," Bullard said. "The price for
all other younger cattle is based on the expected future value of
that animal when it's ready to be sold to the packers.

"Our focus on the fed cattle market is a focus on the critical
market for the entire industry," he said.

The class action lawsuit seeks to recover the losses suffered by
two classes believed harmed by the packing companies' alleged
conduct. The first class includes cattle producers who sold fed
cattle to any one of the firms from January 2015 to the present.
The second class consists of traders who transacted live cattle
futures or options contracts on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange
("CME") from January 2015 to the present. The complaint, which
plaintiffs claim is supported by witness accounts, including a
former employee of one of the packers, trade records, and economic
evidence, alleges that the big four packers conspired to
artificially depress fed cattle prices through various means,
including:

   - Collectively reducing their slaughter volumes and purchases of
cattle sold on the cash market in order to create a glut of
slaughter-weight fed cattle;

   - Manipulating the cash cattle trade to reduce price competition
amongst themselves, including by enforcing an antiquated queuing
convention through threats of boycott and agreeing to conduct
substantially all their weekly cash market purchases during a
narrow 30-minute window on Fridays;

   - Transporting cattle over uneconomically long distances,
including from Canada and Mexico, in order to depress U.S. fed
cattle prices; and

   - Deliberately closing slaughter plants to ensure the
underutilization of available U.S. beef packing capacity.

The plaintiffs allege these practices are estimated to have
depressed fed cattle prices by an average of 7.9 percent since
January 2015, causing significant harm to U.S. ranchers.

Tyson spokesman Gary Mickelson issued a statement after the suit
was filed.

"We're disappointed this baseless case was filed," Mickelson said.
"As with similar lawsuits concerning chicken and pork, there's
simply no merit to the allegations that Tyson colluded with
competitors."

"We welcome competition, which makes us a better company, enhances
the quality of our products and provides more choices at greater
value to our customers," he said. "We depend on thousands of
independent cattle, pig and chicken farmers and ranchers as a vital
part of our supply chain. Contrary to the assertions in this
lawsuit, Tyson wants its suppliers to succeed."

Cargill also issued a short statement in response to the suit.

"For many years, Cargill has served as a trusted partner to
American cattle ranchers, committed to supporting their family
farms and livelihoods," the company said in a statement. "We
believe the claims lack merit, and we are confident in our efforts
to maintain market integrity and conduct ethical business."

Emailed requests to JBS and National Beef were not returned by
press time on May 3.

Bullard said on May 2 that the plaintiffs in the lawsuit have been
advised not to speak to the media. [GN]


UBER TECH: Court Sustains Demurrer Over Smythe Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled as Ryan Smythe, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Uber Technologies,
Inc., Appellant, Case No. CGC16552035 (Cal. Super. May 16, 2019),
Judge Mary E. Wiss sustains Defendant's demurrer to Plaintiff's
first amended complaint with leave to amend.

Smythe filed a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in opposition
to Defendant's demurrer to Smythe's original complaint.

Smythe worked as a driver for both Uber and its competitor, Lyft,
Inc. His original complaint alleges that Uber directed its drivers
and others to create and use fake Lyft accounts to request rides,
thereby sending Lyft drivers on wild goose chases to pick up
nonexistent passengers. Uber Technologies appealed from an order
denying its motion to compel arbitration of said action. Court of
Appeal of the First District, Division 3 of California correctly
found that the action is beyond the scope of Smythe's arbitration
agreement with Uber and affirmed the decision on June 8, 2018.
[BN]

Uber is represented by:

      Alexandra Laks, Esq.
      Claudia M. Vetesi, Esq.
      MORRISON & FOESTER
      425 Market St.
      San Francisco, CA 941052482
      Tel: (415) 268-7000, 268-6710, 268-6626
      Email: alaks@mofo.com
             cvetesi@mofo.com

             - and -

      William Lewis Stern, Esq.
      COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
      415 Mission Street
      San Francisco, CA 941052533
      Tel: (415) 591-7069


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Maurice Blackburn Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Sol Dolor, writing for Australian Lawyer, reports that Maurice
Blackburn Lawyers is ready to face off with Uber in what it
described as a class action of "epic" proportions.

On May 3, the firm filed its class action in the Victorian Supreme
Court after 18 months of preparation. The case has the potential to
be one of Australia's biggest class actions, the firm said.

Andrew Watson, national head of class actions, said that Maurice
Blackburn conducted public meetings across Australia with thousands
of registered participants, as well as secured backing from major
litigation funder Harbour, to prepare for the suit.

"Make no mistake, this will be a landmark case regarding the
alleged illegal operations of Uber in Australia and the devastating
impact that has had on the lives of hard-working and law-abiding
citizens here," Watson said. "The sheer scale of the case means it
is shaping as one of the largest class actions in Australian
history."

"It is not acceptable for a business to place itself above the law
and operate illegally to the disadvantage of others. We've got a
strong case, a strong team, and substantial support from thousands
of drivers, operators, and licence owners nationwide," he said.

More than 6,000 participants have registered for the class action,
which covers drivers, operators, and licence owners from Victoria,
New South Wales, Queensland, and Western Australia.

Elizabeth O'Shea, senior associate, said that participants will not
have out-of-pocket costs or liability risks, since the case's costs
are underwritten by a third-party litigation funder.

"We have a proud history of running the nation's largest and
toughest class actions, and we believe that this is an important
mechanism to pursue justice and compensation for those who have had
their lives turned upside down by Uber's alleged illegal
operation," O'Shea said.

"Uber sells the idea that it does things differently, but in
reality and as we allege, this has meant operating unlawfully,
using devious programs like ‘Greyball.' All of this caused
extensive loss and damage to law-abiding taxi and hire car drivers,
operators and licence holders across the country," she said. "Uber
came in and exploited people by operating outside of regulations,
and it was Uber's conduct that led to horrible losses being
suffered by our group members. For those reasons, we are targeting
the multi-billion dollar company Uber and its associated entities
to provide redress to those affected." [GN]


UGI CORP: Suits over Underfilled Propane Cylinders Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
UGI 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 U.S. District Court
for the Western District Court of Missouri ruled that it has
jurisdiction over the indirect purchasers' state law claims and
that the indirect customer plaintiffs have standing to pursue in
the class action lawsuits alleging
collusion in reducing the fill level of portable propane
cylinders.

Between May and October of 2014, purported class action lawsuits
were filed in multiple jurisdictions against the Partnership/UGI
and a competitor by certain of their direct and indirect customers.


The class action lawsuits allege, among other things, that the
Partnership and its competitor colluded, beginning in 2008, to
reduce the fill level of portable propane cylinders from 17 pounds
to 15 pounds and combined to persuade their common customer,
Walmart Stores, Inc., to accept that fill reduction, resulting in
increased cylinder costs to retailers and end-user customers in
violation of federal and certain state antitrust laws.  

The claims seek treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees
and costs on behalf of the putative classes.

On October 16, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of these purported class
action cases to the Western Missouri District Court.  

As the result of rulings on a series of procedural filings,
including petitions filed with the Eighth Circuit and the U.S.
Supreme Court, both the federal and state law claims of the direct
customer plaintiffs and the state law claims of the indirect
customer plaintiffs were remanded to the Western Missouri District
Court.

The decision of the Western Missouri District Court to dismiss the
federal antitrust claims of the indirect customer plaintiffs was
upheld by the Eighth Circuit.

On April 15, 2019, the Western Missouri District Court ruled that
it has jurisdiction over the indirect purchasers' state law claims
and that the indirect customer plaintiffs have standing to pursue
those claims.

UGI said, "We are unable to reasonably estimate the impact, if any,
arising from such litigation. We believe we have strong defenses to
the claims and intend to vigorously defend against them."

UGI Corporation distributes, stores, transports, and markets energy
products and related services in the United States and
internationally. The company operates through four segments:
AmeriGas Propane, UGI International, Midstream & Marketing, and UGI
Utilities. UGI Corporation was founded in 1882 and is based in King
of Prussia, Pennsylvania.


UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Wants Mental Health Class Action Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that United
Behavioral Health wants to pare back the class action challenging
its coverage of mental health treatments, saying the patients
involved in the lawsuit don't have enough in common.

The May 3 motion for class decertification comes two months after a
federal judge held the insurer's internal guidelines on coverage
for mental health and substance use disorders are too narrow and
violate federal law. The guidelines don't align with generally
accepted standards of care. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Bid to Enforce Prelim Injunction in Abdi Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HANAD ABDI and JOHAN BARRIOS RAMOS, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated, Petitioners, V. KEVIN
MCALEENAN, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of U.S.
Department of Homeland Security; THOMAS BROPHY, in his official
capacity as Acting Director of Buffalo Field Office of Immigration
and Customs Enforcement; JEFFREY SEARLS, in his official Capacity
as Acting Administrator of the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility;
and WILLIAM BARR, in his official capacity as Attorney General of
the United States, Respondents, Case No. 1:17-CV-00721 EAW (W.D.
N.Y.), Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of New York granted the Petitioners' motion to
enforce the preliminary injunction.

Petitioners Abdi and Ramos brought the action seeking relief on
behalf of themselves individually and on behalf of a proposed class
of similarly situated asylum-seekers held at the Buffalo Federal
Detention Facility in Batavia, New York.  On Nov. 17, 2017, the
Court issued a Decision and Order denying the Respondents' motion
to dismiss and granting the Petitioners' motion for a preliminary
injunction.  The Court ordered Respondents to immediately
adjudicate or readjudicate the parole applications of all members
of the putative class of asylum-seekers detained at the Buffalo
facility in conformance with their legal obligations, including
their obligations under ICE Directive No. 11002.1: Parole of
Arriving Aliens Found to Have a Credible Fear of Persecution or
Torture.  It also ordered Respondents to provide individualized
bond hearings to members of the putative subclass who have been
detained for six months or more, as required by 8 U.S.C. Section
1225(b).

On Dec. 7, 2017, the Court held oral argument to address the
Petitioners' then-pending motion for class action certification.
At the conclusion of the motion hearing, it required the
Respondents to give notice to the proposed class counsel as soon as
a bond hearing was scheduled and to provide the same counsel with a
list of all the putative class members.  

The Court subsequently granted the Petitioners' motion for class
certification on Dec. 19, 2017, certifying a class of all arriving
asylum-seekers who have passed a credible fear interview and who
are or will be detained at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility
and who have not been granted parole, as well as a subclass of all
arriving asylum-seekers who are or will be detained at the Buffalo
Federal Detention Facility, have passed a credible fear interview,
and have been detained for more than six months without a bond
hearing before an immigration judge.

On Feb. 9, 2018, the Court issued another Decision and Order,
clarifying that once an immigration judge ("IJ") has determined
that a detainee should be released on bond, he or she must consider
the financial circumstances of each subclass member and alternative
conditions of release in setting the amount of bond.  As a result,
the Court ordered that bond hearings must be recalendared and the
record reopened" for any subclass member who remained detained
notwithstanding an IJ's determination that release on bond would be
appropriate, so that alternative conditions of release and the
individual's ability to pay are considered.  It also required the
Respondents to notify the Class Counsel of the date and location of
each bond hearing at least five days in advance of the hearing.

On Feb. 27, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Jennings
v. Rodriguez, which held, among other things that 8 U.S.C. nSect
1225(b) does not contain an implicit six-month time limit on the
detention of an alien seeking entry into the United States.  On
Oct. 31, 2018, the Respondents filed a motion to vacate that part
of the Court's preliminary injunction requiring that individualized
bond hearings be held for all the members of the subclass.  The
Respondents seek this relief based upon their interpretation of
Jennings.  On Dec. 13, 2018, the Respondents filed a motion to
decertify the subclass.  Although the Respondents address several
issues in their motion papers, the Jennings decision appears to be
the impetus for this motion as well.  The Petitioners oppose both
motions.

The Respondents' pending motions are scheduled to be argued on May
15, 2019.  While those pending motions were being briefed -- on
March 18, 2019 -- the Petitioners filed a motion to enforce the
preliminary injunction and the class reporting order.  They contend
that the Respondents are not taking appropriate measures to comply
with the Court's prior orders.  The Petitioners request that the
Court grants limited discovery relating to the Respondents' current
procedures used in complying with the preliminary injunction,
mandates additional reporting and disclosure conditions, requires
the Respondents to hold bond hearings for all applicable class
members no later than 195 days after their initial immigration
detention and provide notice to all parties no later than two weeks
before the scheduled hearing date, and directs the Respondents to
issue a directive informing immigration authorities of their
responsibilities under the Court's prior orders.  The Respondents
oppose Petitioners' motion.

Having reviewed the parties' submissions, Judge Wolford finds that
the Respondents' refusal to engage in a discussion with the
Petitioners concerning the admitted violations of the Court's
Orders is unreasonable.  The unreasonableness of their position is
only amplified by the fact that there is no dispute that
theRespondents have failed to comply with the requirements imposed
by the Court.  As a result, she concludes that it is unnecessary to
await the scheduled oral argument date before granting the
requested relief of a deposition.

Accordingly, the Judge granted the Petitioners' motion to the
extent that the Respondents are orderd to produce a witness or
witnesses for deposition within 30 days of the Court's Decision and
Order who has personal knowledge of the methodology being used by
the Respondents to identify and report the class members and who
can testify concerning any changes made or that will be made by the
Respondents to address the recurring errors in the identification
of the class members.  The Judge otherwise reserved decision on the
remaining aspects of the motion and all parties will plan on
addressing those remaining aspects of the motion at the upcoming
oral argument scheduled for May 15, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 30, 2019 Decision and Order
is available at https://is.gd/VpNblX from Leagle.com.

Hanad Abdi, Petitioner, represented by Aadhithi Padmanabhan, New
York Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Victoria Marie Roeck, New
York Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Antony Philip Falconer
Gemmell, New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Christopher T.
Dunn, NY Civil Liberties Union, Deepa Alagesan, International
Refugee Assistance Project, Heidi Lynne Levine --
HLEVINE@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, Mariko Hirose,
International Refugee Assistance Project, Michael D. Mann --
MDMANN@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP & Robert Andrew Hodgson, New
York Civil Liberties Union Foundation.

Johan Barrios Ramos, Petitioner, represented by Victoria Marie
Roeck, New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Antony Philip
Falconer Gemmell, New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Deepa
Alagesan, International Refugee Assistance Project, Heidi Lynne
Levine, Sidley Austin LLP, Mariko Hirose, International Refugee
Assistance Project, Michael D. Mann, Sidley Austin LLP, Robert
Andrew Hodgson, New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation &
Aadhithi Padmanabhan, New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation.

Thomas Brophy, Acting Director of Buffalo Field Office of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Jeffrey Searls, Acting
Administrator of the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility, Jefferson
Sessions, Attorney General of the United States & Elaine C Duke,
Acting, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
Defendants, represented by Kevin Charles Hirst, U. S. Department of
Justice - Civil Division, Stacey Ilene Young, U.S. Department of
Justice, J. Max Weintraub, U. S. Department of Justice - Civil
Division, Nicole N. Murley, U.S. Department of Justice & Tashiba
Monique Peoples, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Imigration
Litigation-District Court Section.


UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Faces Class Action Over Copyright Grants
---------------------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner, writing for Hollywood Reporter, reports that
Universal Music Group has a ticking time bomb on its hands. The
Copyright Act gives authors the ability to terminate a grant after
a 35-year wait, and now there are hundreds of recording artists
from the early 1980s who are looking to take advantage of this
statutory provision to reclaim ownership rights. Soon will come
artists from the late 1980s aiming to do the same. And after that,
artists from the 1990s will want to cancel copyright grants so as
to enjoy more financial rewards from digitally distributed music.

On May 3, UMG set in motion its plan to defuse this bomb.

John Waite and Joe Ely are leading an attempted class action
against UMG. They contend that in the face of termination notices,
the music giant "routinely and systematically refused to honor
them." The lawsuit aims to get a judge to reject all roadblocks and
force UMG to stand down.

UMG has now submitted a motion to dismiss.

In a memorandum filed on May 3, the music company brings forth a
series of contentions that will have the judge exploring largely
untested ground.

For instance, take the fact that some recording artists including
Waite and Ely do business through loan-out corporations. Doing so
may have had tax advantages, but now UMG argues that plaintiffs
can't terminate copyright grants because technically, they aren't
the grantors.

Or take the issue of the clock.

It may be 35 years until a grantor terminates, but is that from the
time the original contract was signed, or is it from the time the
work was published? When is the grant actually executed? This
so-called "gap grant" issue comes up when the contracts predate
1978, as that is when the termination provisions of copyright law
went into effect. So UMG's position is that since an artist like
Ely made his deal in 1976, his later sound recordings are
ineligible to be terminated. The U.S. Copyright Office came to the
conclusion that artists should still be able to terminate these gap
works, but UMG asserts that as a matter of statutory
interpretation, courts should decide and should hew to how the law
was written. UMG even invokes a recent Supreme Court opinion
involving copyright registration to make the point that courts must
follow the "plain meaning" of statutes. In other words, this is
precisely the sort of issue that could spend years being litigated
all the way up to the high court.

And that's not the end of UMG's bid to doom mass termination.

Many sound recordings were registered decades ago with "work for
hire" notations. Under copyright law, if an employee creates
something as a work for hire, that means the employer is deemed the
author of the work. The work is thus ineligible to be terminated.

Here, UMG isn't directly arguing just yet that these older sound
recordings are works for hire. Rather, UMG says that the agreements
provide that the sound recordings are works for hire, and true or
not, any dispute over ownership is untimely. UMG invokes the
Copyright Act's three-year statute of limitations.

Here's the full memorandum, which also gets into the question of
whether there are defects in the termination notices in that they
allegedly fail to fully identify what has been terminated. This may
also set up the next round of the fight. If the plaintiffs are able
to get past the initial motion to dismiss, UMG will surely oppose
class certification on the grounds that every instance of
termination requires an independent factual analysis. [GN]


UNIVERSAL PARKS: Yozze Sues over Collection of Biometric Identifier
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JACK YOZZE, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. UNIVERSAL PARKS & RESORTS
MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation,
the Defendant, Case No. 2019CH06366 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., May
23, 2019), seeks to recover damages resulting from Defendant's
violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, and
to obtain redress for persons injured by its conduct.

According to the complaint, the Defendant operates a worldwide
portfolio of theme parks and resorts, including the Universal
Orlando Resort ("Universal Orlando"). Using biometric-enabled
devices and technology, Defendant knowingly and intentionally
captures, collects, stores, and otherwise uses the biometrics of
its customers seeking entry into Universal Orlando.

Critically, Defendant knowingly handles the biometrics of its
Illinois customers without their informed written consent as
required by BIPA, in order to control and track their access to
Universal Orlando.

The Defendant's biometric system works by extracting biometric
information from its customers' fingerprints, or portions thereof,
and subsequently storing and repeatedly using the same for
authentication and park access. Defendant also associates
customers' biometrics, i.e. fingerprints, with other personally
identifiable information, including state identification cards.

BIPA defines a "biometric identifier" as any personal feature that
is unique to an individual, including handprints, fingerprints and
palm scans. "Biometric information" is any information based on a
biometric identifier, regardless of how it is converted or stored.
Collectively, biometric identifiers and biometric information are
known as "biometrics."[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Myles McGuire, Esq.
          Jad Sheikali, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893- 7002
          E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
                  jsheikali@mcgpc.com

UTAH: Settlement Class Certification Sought in Christensen Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled STACI CHRISTENSEN, an
individual; RYAN WEAKLY, an individual; AND DISABILITY LAW CENTER,
a Utah nonprofit corporation, and others similarly situated v.
Joseph Miner, Executive Director of the Utah State Department of
Health; Nathan Checketts, Director of Utah Division of Medicaid and
Health Financing; Ann Williamson, Executive Director of Utah State
Department of Human Services; Angie Pinna, Director of Utah
Division of Services for People with Disabilities; Utah Department
of Health; Utah Division of Medicaid and Health Financing; Utah
Department of Human Services; and Utah Division of Service for
People with Disabilities, Case No. 2:18-cv-00037-DAK-EJF (D. Utah),
file with the Court their unopposed motion for certification of
settlement class.

For purposes of settlement, the Plaintiffs propose a class with
members defined as:

     any person with an intellectual and/or developmental
     disability who is eligible for Medicaid, resides in a
     private ICF in Utah on or after January 12. 2018 and prior
     to the termination of this lawsuit, has "expressed an
     interest" in living in the community, and is capable of
     living in a home or other community-based setting.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint Parsons Behle &
Latimer and the Disability Law Center as Lead Counsel.

The Motion is made pursuant to and in accordance with the
Settlement Agreement and Working Plan recently entered into by the
parties and is filed concurrent with the parties' Joint Motion for
(1) Approval of Settlement Agreement and Class Notice; (2)
Appointment of Monitor; and (3) Stay of Proceedings.  The
Defendants do not oppose this Motion.

The individually-named Plaintiffs and proposed class members are
people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, who are
institutionalized in private intermediate care facilities for
individuals with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities
throughout the state of Utah, according to the Motion.  They want
to live in home or community-based settings, and they qualify to
receive Medicaid home and community-based services.  The Plaintiffs
contend that the Defendants have failed to provide the proposed
class members with sufficient access to care in community-based
settings, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and
the Rehabilitation Act.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Juliette P. White, Esq.
          Cedar Q. Cosner, Esq.
          PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER
          201 South Main Street, Suite 1800
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Telephone: (801) 532-1234
          Facsimile: (801) 536-6111
          E-mail: JWhite@parsonsbehle.com
                  CCosner@parsonsbehle.com

               - and -

          Laura Henrie, Esq.
          Mary Anne Davies, Esq.
          Nate Grippes, Esq.
          DISABILITY LAW CENTER
          205 North 400 West
          Salt Lake City, UT 84103
          Telephone: (801) 662-9080
          E-mail: LHenrie@disabilitylawcenter.org
                  mdavies@disabilitylawcenter.org


VIRGINIA.: Court Denies Bid for Appointment of Counsel
------------------------------------------------------
In a class action lawsuit TERRY K. OFORI, et al., the Plaintiff,
vs. HAROLD W. CLARKE, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
7:18-cv-00587 (W.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth Dillon entered
an order denying Ofori's motion for appointment of counsel without
prejudice.

The Court said, "Plaintiffs, Virginia inmates proceeding pro se,
filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. sectoin 1983.
This matter is before the court on plaintiff Terry K. Ofori's
motions for appointment of counsel and for class action
certification. The court cannot require an attorney to represent an
indigent civil plaintiff. See Mallard v. United States D. for S.
Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989). However, the court may
request that an attorney represent an indigent plaintiff when
"exceptional circumstances" exist. Cook v. Bounds, 518 F.2d 779,
780 (4th Cir. 1975). Exceptional circumstances depend on the type
and complexity of the case and the ability of the plaintiff to
present it. Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 1984),
abrogated on other grounds by Mallard, 490 U.S. at 309. The court
finds that Ofori's circumstances are not sufficiently exceptional
to justify appointment of counsel at this time, and it is hereby
ordered that Ofori's motion for appointment of counsel  is denied
without prejudice. Ofori may renew a motion for appointment of
counsel in the event that this case is set for a hearing or
trial."[CC]

VIRTUSA CORP: New Jersey Court Dismisses 1st Amended Sugg Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Re: Sugg, v. Virtusa Corp., Civil Action No. 18-8036
(MAS) (DEA) (D. N.J.), Judge Michael A. Shipp of the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey denied the Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss and Strike Portions of the Complaint.

The Plaintiff initiated the putative class action in New Jersey
Superior Court, Monmouth County, Law Division, and on April 19,
2018, the Defendant removed the matter to the Court pursuant to
diversity jurisdiction.  The Plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint ("FAC") on July 11, 2018.  The Plaintiff's FAC contains
three counts, the first two counts are brought on behalf of the
Plaintiff and the putative class and the third, as an individual
count, specifically: (i) discrimination on the basis of race, in
violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 because the Defendant prefers
hiring and promoting South-Asians; (ii) an unenforceable and
unconscionable non-competition agreement; and (iii) breach of
contract and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has an intentional general
pattern and practice of discriminating against non-South Asians.
He states that Defendant terminated his employment and his
replacement was South-Asian.  He also points to the Defendant's
visa application practices as evidence of an intent to discriminate
based on race.  In support, the Plaintiff cites to the Defendant's
public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
specifically the Form 10-K where Defendant reported certain visa
statistics.

The Defendant moved to dismiss, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure3 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), any claims based on the alleged
misuse of the visa process and to strike, pursuant to Rule 12(f),
all allegations in the FAC related to the Defendant's visa process.
It also moved to strike, pursuant to Rule 23(d), the Plaintiff's
employment discrimination class allegations related to applicants
it never hired.

Given the Plaintiff's unambiguous allegations of employment
discrimination, Judge Shipp finds Heldt v. Tata Consultancy Servs.
Ltd. persuasive.  The Defendant's characterization of the
Plaintiff's allegation as raising an abuse of visa process claim
under the INA is not persuasive because the Plaintiff clearly
states that the allegations support a Section 1981 claim, not an
Immigration and Nationality Act claim.  He, accordingly, denied the
Defendant's motion to dismiss this claim.

Regarding the Defendant's Motion to Strike, the Judge finds that
the Defendant failed to establish thatits discriminatory employment
practices is one of the rare cases in which the complaint itself
demonstrates that the requirements for maintaining a class action
cannot be met.  He, therefore, declined to reach the merits of the
Defendant's challenge to the Plaintiff's representative capacity
until the matter is properly before the Court on a motion to
certify the class.

For the reasons set forth, and for other good cause shown, Judge
Shipp denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Strike Portions
of the Complaint, and dismissed without prejudice Count II of the
Amended Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 30, 2019 Letter Opinion and
Order is available at https://is.gd/nojm3x from Leagle.com.

LEO SUGG, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARY SITUATED,
Plaintiff, represented by JONATHAN RUDNICK -- jonr@jonrudlaw.com --
The Law Offices of Jonathan Rudnick LLC.

VIRTUSA, Defendant, represented by PETER OWEN HUGHES --
peter.hughes@ogletree.com -- OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK &
STEWART, PC, ROBIN KOSHY -- robin.koshy@ogletree.com -- OGLETREE
DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART PC & JASON W. ISOM, Ogletree, Deakins,
Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C..


WAITR HOLDING: Court Dismisses Montgomery FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana issued an Order and Reasons granting Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss in the case captioned AUTUMN MONTGOMERY, v. WAITR
HOLDINGS INC., SECTION "L" (3). Civil Action No. 19-2208. (E.D.
La.).

Before the Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' state
law claims and associated class action allegations.  

This wage dispute arises out of Autumn Montgomery and Nateshus
Jackson's work as delivery drivers for Waitr Holdings Inc., a
technology company that operates a mobile food delivery app.

Montgomery, who worked as an employee, alleges that Waitr failed to
pay her the applicable minimum wage and failed to pay the correct
amount of overtime, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA). Jackson, who worked for Waitr as a contract delivery
driver, alleges that Waitr misclassified him as an independent
contractor, failed to pay him the applicable minimum wage, and
failed to pay the correct amount of overtime. Montgomery and
Jackson each seek to represent a nationwide collection of similarly
situated drivers under Section 216(b) of the FLSA.

Montgomery and Jackson also assert state law claims. They allege
that Waitr's requirement that all delivery drivers maintain at
their own expense a licensed and insured automobile to make
deliveries and bear all costs associated with their vehicles
unjustly enriched Waitr at their expense and gives rise to several
violations of the Louisiana Wage Payment Act.  

Waitr moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' state law claims and the
associated class action allegations under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6).

It argues that (1) Plaintiffs cannot state a cognizable claim for
unjust enrichment, violations of the Louisiana Wage Payment Act, or
any other theory provided by Louisiana law and (2) even if they
could, the Court should decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over them in light of the fundamental incompatibility
between Rule 23's class action procedure and the FLSA's collective
action procedure.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit a defendant to seek a
dismissal of a complaint based on the failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. A complaint should not be dismissed
for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that
the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim
which would entitle him to relief.

The remedy of unjust enrichment is only applicable to fill a gap in
the law where no express remedy is provided it is not available if
the law provides another remedy. Plaintiffs' claim that Waitr did
not adequately compensate them given the costs associated with
their vehicles is cognizable under the FLSA. Because the law
provides another remedy, Plaintiffs cannot, as a matter of law,
plead a plausible claim for unjust enrichment.  

The Louisiana Wage Payment Act (LWPA) is designed to compel prompt
payment of earned wages upon an employee's discharge or
resignation. It requires an employer, upon termination or
resignation of an employee, to pay the amount due under the terms
of employment.

The Plaintiffs allege that Watir's requirement that delivery
drivers bear the costs associated with their vehicles violates
these provisions.

The Plaintiffs have not stated a claim under the LWPA. First, the
Plaintiffs allege that Waitr promised to pay its employee drivers a
cash wage of $6.00 or $5.00 per hour and its independent contractor
drivers $2.50 per delivery and they do not allege that Waitr failed
to pay those amounts. Rather, they argue that because the Delivery
Drivers were required to bear the cost of their vehicles, they did
not receive the cash wage promised by WAITR free and clear.'

The phrase free and clear does not appear in the LWPA. The
Plaintiffs' allegation is not that Waitr failed to pay the wages
due under the terms of employment, but that the agreed-upon (and
paid) wages were inadequate because the delivery drivers incurred
out-of-pocket expenses to maintain and operate their vehicles.
Plaintiffs' charge that the wages Waitr promised to and did pay
were insufficient falls under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and is
not cognizable under the LWPA.

Second, Waitr's requirement that delivery drivers incur the costs
associated with their personal vehicles does not constitute a fine
or an unauthorized deduction of their wages as contemplated by the
LWPA. The term fine as used in the statute means a pecuniary
penalty imposed for the violation of some law, rule or regulation.

The out-of-pocket vehicle expenses incurred by Plaintiffs are not
fines or deductions from the Plaintiffs' wages within the meaning
of the LWPA. Waitr did not unilaterally deduct those costs from
their wages or impose them as a penalty the requirement that the
Plaintiffs bear the costs associated with their vehicles is a term
of Plaintiffs' employment that is imposed on all delivery drivers.

Because the Plaintiffs do not allege that Waitr (1) failed to pay
the amounts that it agreed to pay them (2) unilaterally deducted
from their pay the costs associated with their vehicles or (3)
imposed those costs as a penalty, they have not stated cognizable
claims under the LWPA. And because the FLSA provides Plaintiffs
another remedy, they cannot state a claim for unjust enrichment.
Accordingly,

Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
state law claims and the associated class action allegations is
granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 23, 2019 Order and
Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/y38wex97 from
Leagle.com.

Autumn Montgomery, Nateshus Jackson, Melissa A Parker, doc 8,
Brandon Wayne Degeyter, doc 8, Zachary R. Hillyard, Robert Jackson
Eubank, Doc. 14 & Miriam Abuzied, Doc. 14, Plaintiffs, represented
by Christopher L. Zaunbrecher, Briney Foret & Corry, LLP, 413
Travis StreetLafayette, LA 70503

Waitr Holdings, Inc., Defendant, represented by Steven F. Griffith,
Jr. -- sgriffith@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker Donelson Bearman
Caldwell & Berkowitz, Emily Olivier Kesler --
ekesler@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell &
Berkowitz, Erin E. Pelleteri -- epelleteri@bakerdonelson.com --
Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz & Laura E. Carlisle --
lcarlisle@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell &
Berkowitz.


WAL-MART STORES: Jenkins Sues Over Discriminatory Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
SHANE M. JENKINS, ESQ., on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-00271-RAJ-DEM (E.D. Va., May 23, 2019) seeks an end to Wal
Mart's discriminatory practices, make whole relief for the class,
and punitive damages.

Unlike its competitors (e.g., Amazon.com, Kroger, and Target),
Wal-Mart has implemented a single, nationwide loss prevention
policy targeting potential shoplifters, rather than known or
suspected shoplifters. This subtle policy shift has nurtured
consumer racial profiling by Wal-Mart employees who perform loss
prevention-related acts, including enforcing receipt checking
policy. As Wal-Mart reduced full-time positions and shifted to a
part-time workforce, Wal-Mart has become increasingly more reliant
on its greeters (hereinafter this term includes positions such as
customer host and any position involving receipt checking) to
perform loss prevention functions. For many Americans, encounters
with Wal-Mart greeters have become reminiscent of the Nazi Germany
Gestapo because Wal-Mart greeters have targeted minorities and
other protected classes and demanded "papers, please." The result
is harassment, detention, and interrogation. In some cases,
innocent consumers who fail to comply—^whether inadvertent or
intentional—^have been assaulted, arrested, or suffered serious
bodily harm or death. Such experiences are reported in the news and
documented across social media.

Nonminority consumers are also experiencing the effects of
delegating loss prevention functions to Wal-Mart greeters. In
predominantly minority areas, minority Wal-Mart greeters have
targeted nonminority consumers, resulting in reverse
discrimination. Wal-Mart greeters are trained—^whether formally
or informally—to physically touch a consumer or grab a consumer's
shopping cart. This type of treatment has imposed an unreasonable
risk of serious bodily harm or death on innocent Americans with
disabilities who become the unwitting target of a Wal-Mart greeter
and who are detained or assaulted. This risk is a constructive
barrier to the goods and services offered by Wal-Mart.

Accordingly, Shane alleges that Wal-Mart harassed, defamed,
assaulted, or falsely imprisoned Shane and other putative Class
Members who were singled out and treated less favorably on the
basis of race, national origin, or other impermissible criterion in
violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act. Shane further
alleges that Wal-Mart's loss prevention policy, and enforcement
thereof, continue to pose an inequitable and unreasonable risk of
serious bodily harm or death to Shane and other putative Class
Members with disabilities, resulting in the denial of access or
interference with full and equal enjoyment of goods and services
offered by Wal-Mart in violation of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, (the "ADA"), says the complaint.

Shane is an American Indian, suffers from the effects of
craniosynostosis, including multiple fontanel where large portions
of skull were surgically removed, is a qualified person with a
disability.

Wal-Mart is the Goliath of retail and the largest private employer
in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shane M. Jenkins, Esq.
     124 Ridgecrest Drive
     Suffolk, VA 23434
     Phone: (757) 619-5946
     Facsimile: (703)229-0524
     Email: jenkins@jenklaw.com


WELLCARE HEALTH: Seabaugh Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against WellCare Health
Plans, Inc. and its Board of Directors for breach of fiduciary
duties of loyalty, good faith, due care and disclosure. The case is
captioned GARRETT SEABAUGH, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, VS. WELLCARE HEALTH PLANS, INC.,
CHRISTIAN P. MICHALIK, RICHARD C. BREON, KENNETH A. BURDICK, AMY
COMPTON-PHILLIPS, H. JAMES DALLAS, KEVIN F. HICKEY, BOBBY JINDAL,
GLENN D. STEELE, JR., WILLIAM L. TRUBECK, KATHLEEN E. WALSH, PAUL
E. WEAVER, CENTENE CORPORATION, WELLINGTON MERGER SUB I, INC., and
WELLINGTON MERGER SUB II, INC., Defendants, Case No. 89312641 (13th
Cir. Fla., Hillsborough Cty., May 10, 2019). Plaintiff Garrett
Seabaugh alleges that the Defendants filed a materially misleading
and/or incomplete S-4 document to the Securities and Exchange
Commission. Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendants are engaged
in an unfair process for an unfair price in connection with a
proposed cash and stock transaction.

WellCare provides government-sponsored managed care services.The
company operates in three segments: Medicaid Health Plans, Medicare
Health Plans, and Medicare Prescription Drug Plans (PDPs). [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jason S. Weiss, Esq.
     WEISS LAW GROUP, P.A.
     5531 N. University Drive, Suite 103
     Coral Springs, FL 33067
     Telephone: (954) 573-2800
     Facsimile: (954) 573-2798
     E-mail: Jason@jswlawyer.com


WHITESTONE REIT: Continues to Defend Clark Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Whitestone REIT said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit, entitled Clark v. Whitestone REIT,
et al., Case 4:19-cv-01379.

On April 16, 2019, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas against the Company, James C.
Mastandrea, and David K. Holeman, entitled Clark v. Whitestone
REIT, et al., Case 4:19-cv-01379.  

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company and the
individual defendants violated certain federal securities laws by
making materially false and misleading statements in the Company's
Forms 10-Q for the first three quarterly periods of the year ended
December 31, 2018 as a result of the accounting errors that
required the restatement of our consolidated financial statements
for the first three quarterly periods of the year ended December
31, 2018.  

The purported class period runs from May 9, 2018 through February
27, 2019.  

The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages in an
amount to be proven at trial, plus interest, attorneys' fees, and
costs.  

The Company and the individual defendants believe that the claims
asserted in the lawsuit are without merit and intend to vigorously
defend against these claims.

Whitestone REIT is a fully-integrated real estate company that owns
and operates commercial properties in culturally diverse markets in
major metropolitan areas. Founded in 1998, the company is
internally managed with a portfolio of commercial properties in
Texas, Arizona and Illinois. The company is based in Houston,
Texas.


WHITESTONE REIT: Pomerantz Alerts Investors to Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Whitestone REIT (NYSE:WSR) and certain of its officers.
The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the
Southern District of Texas, and indexed under 19-cv-01851, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Whitestone securities from May 9,
2018 through February 27, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants'
violations of federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Whitestone securities during
the class period, you have until June 17, 2019, to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com  To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Whitestone is a community-centered retail REIT that acquires, owns,
manages, develops and redevelops high quality "E-Commerce
resistant" neighborhood, community and lifestyle retail centers
principally located in the largest, fastest growing and most
affluent markets in the Sunbelt.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company lacked effective
internal control over financial reporting; (2) Whitestone was
incorrectly recognizing assets and liabilities associated with its
contribution to Pillarstone Capital REIT Operating Partnership LP;
(3) the Company's financial statements for the fiscal year 2018
were overstating revenues; (4) the Company's financial statements
for the fiscal year 2018 could no longer be relied upon; and (5) as
a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
             
On February 27, 2019, post-market, Whitestone announced that "the
Company's unaudited consolidated financial statements as of and for
the periods ended March 31, 2018, June 30, 2018 and September 30,
2018 (collectively, the ‘Prior Period Financial Statements')
included in the Company's Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly periods ended March 31, 2018, June 30, 2018 and September
30, 2018, respectively, should be restated . . . and should no
longer be relied upon."  Whitestone specifically cited certain
accounting errors relating to derecognition of nonfinancial
assets."

On this news, Whitestone's stock price fell $2.07 per share, or
14.53%, over the following two trading sessions, closing at $12.18
per share on March 1, 2019.

Then, on March 15, 2019, post-market, Whitestone filed an annual
report announcing the Company's financial and operating results for
the quarter and year ended December 31, 2018.  Therein, Whitestone
disclosed that "[t]he Company identified a material weakness in its
internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2018.
As a result of the material weakness, management concluded that the
Company's internal control over financial reporting was not
effective as of December 31, 2018, and determined that its
disclosure controls and procedures were not effective as of March
31, 2018, June 30, 2018, September 30, 2018 and December 31, 2018.
The Company has implemented and continues to implement measures to
remediate the material weakness."

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


WOOD-MODE INC: Swede Seeks Unpaid Wages & Benefits Under WARN Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William Swede, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Wood-Mode, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-00845 (M.D. Pa., May 15, 2019), seeks collection of unpaid
wages and benefits for sixty calendar days pursuant to the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988.

Swede was an employee of Wood-Mode, Inc. for 42 years in Detail and
Engineering at Wood Mode's facility in One Second Street, Kreamer,
PA until his termination on May 13, 2019, as a consequence of the
mass layoff and/or plant closure and was not provided 60 days
advance written notice of their terminations, says the complaint.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Samuel J. Cordes, Esq.
     ROTHMAN GORDON, P.C.
     310 Grant Street
     Third Floor, Grant Building
     Pittsburgh, PA 15219
     Phone: (412) 338-1127
     Email: SJCordes@rothmangordon.com

            - and -

     Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
     René S. Roupinian, Esq.
     OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
     685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Tel: (212) 245-1000
     Fax: (646) 509-2070
     Email: rsr@outtengolden.com
            jar@outtengolden.com


ZOGENIX INC: Hagens Berman Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, with nine offices in eight cities
around the country and eighty attorneys, reminds investors in
Zogenix, Inc. (NASDAQ: ZGNX) of the upcoming June 11, 2019 lead
plaintiff movant deadline in the securities class action, Lake v.
Zogenix, Inc. et al., No. 3:19-cv-01975, pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Zogenix securities between
February 6, 2019 and April 8, 2019 (the "Class Period") and
suffered substantial losses (in excess of $50,000), you may qualify
to be a lead plaintiff – one who selects and oversees the
attorneys prosecuting the case.

If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must move the Court no later than June 11, 2019 (the "Lead
Plaintiff deadline").  Contact Hagens Berman immediately for more
information about the case and being a lead plaintiff
https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/ZGNX or contact Reed Kathrein, who is
leading the firm's investigation, by calling 510-725-3000 or
emailing ZGNX@hbsslaw.com

According to the complaint, Defendants misled investors about
Zogenix's New Drug Application ("NDA") for FINTEPLA(R) by
misstating and/or concealing information that the NDA (1) contained
inadequate non-clinical data and an incorrect version of a clinical
dataset, and (2) consequently the NDA was unlikely to gain approval
by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration ("FDA").

"We're focused on investors' losses, whether Defendants knew that
the NDA they submitted on February 5 was not sufficiently complete
to permit the FDA to conduct a substantive review, and the extent
to which investors may have been misled," said Hagens Berman
partner Reed Kathrein.

Whistleblowers:  Persons with non-public information regarding
Zogenix should consider their options to help in the investigation
or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program.  Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC.  For more information:

       Contact:
       Reed Kathrein, Esq.
       Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
       Phone: 510-725-3000
       Website: https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/ZGNX     
       Email:  ZGNX@hbsslaw.com
               reed@hbsslaw.com [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 ***