CAR_Public/190614.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, June 14, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 119

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Faces Motiani Suit in Florida Over Defective Earplugs
3M COMPANY: Sold Defective Earplugs, Porginski Suit Says
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE: Faces Zaklow Suit in New Jersey Court
ACCURATE BACKGROUND: Shekar Moves to Certify Class Under FCRA
ACORN STAIRLIFTS: Flores FCRA Class Suit Removed to M.D. Florida

ADP LLC: Rohde Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Sabatini Files Suit Over Waste Mgmt. Merger Deal
AIR CANADA: Court Rules in Favor of Passengers in Class Action
AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Bid for Class Cert. in Karth Suit Underway
ALIBABA GROUP: Oct. 16 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

ALTERATION GROUP: Denied Pay Slips, Overtime Pay, Thermidor Says
AMAZON.COM.KSDC LLC: Engineers Class Certified in Christeson Suit
AMERICAN FRUIT: Martinez Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
AMERICAN RECEIVABLES: Vice Sues Over Vague Collection Letter
AMERICOLD LOGISTICS: Contreras Sues Over Improperly Paid Overtime

AMN SERVICES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Woehrle Suit Alleges
APEX ASSET MANAGEMENT: Varela Sues over Unfair Collection Practices
APPLE INC: Faces Another Securities Class Action
ARCIMOTO INC: Settlement of Consolidated Suit Awaits Court OK
BELL CANADA: Court Allows Privacy Class Action to Proceed

BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Wijesinha Seeks to Certify Class Under TCPA
CA VENTURES: Cortazar Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
CARBEL USA: Rodriguez Seeks Overtime Pay, Minimum Wage
CASINO RAMA: Judge Dismisses Cyber-Attack Class Action
CBL & ASSOCIATES: Paskowitz Sues Over Share Price Drop

CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Class Certification in Naylor Farms' Suit Upheld
COCA-COLA CO: Soler-Somohano Appeals Order in Sales Practices MDL
COFIROUTE USA: Faces Class Action Over Toll Service Ads
CONTRACT CALLERS: Tabiti Sues over FDCA Violations
CRANE CARTAGE: Vasquez Seeks Minimum Wage

CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Arbitration Ruling in Smith Suit Affirmed
CV SCIENCES: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Smith Class Suit Pending
CV SCIENCES: Continues to Defend Sallustro Securities Class Suit
DIAL SOAP: DOJ Files Statement of Interest in Class Action
DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Aug. 20 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

DON VITO OZUNA: Camilo's Bid for Prelim. OK of $375K Deal Denied
DONALD TRUMP: Faces Class Action Over Gender Pay Bias
EL POLLO: Aug. 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
EPICENTER FESTIVAL: Disgruntled Attendees Mull Class Action
EQUIFAX INC: Reaches Data Breach Settlement Agreements

EQUITY BANCSHARES: July 12 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: 2nd Cir. Affirms Class Action Dismissal
FACEBOOK INC: B.C. Court Allows Class Action to Expand
FEDERAL EXPRESS: Freem Moves for Certification of FLSA Class
FIAT CHRYSLER: 2nd Partial Consent Decree in State Suit Entered

FIRST AMERICAN: Brent and Teri Files Class Suit in California
FISHING LINE: Accused by Fishing Line of Salmon Price-fixing
FLIK TOKEN: Investors File Class Action in Atlanta
FLORIDA CRYSTALS: Coffie Files Tort Class Suit in S.D. Florida
FLOWERS FOODS: Court Won't Decertify FLSA Class in Neff Suit

FORD MOTOR: Appeal Pending in Transmission Settlement
FORD MOTOR: Canadian Court Approves Transmission Settlement
FRIENDFINDER NETWORKS: Can Compel Arbitration in Gutierrez Suit
FTS INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Glock Class Suit over IPO
GENERAL MOTORS: Car Owners Sue Over Defective Transmission

GOGO INC: Bid to Dismiss Pierrelouis Class Action Still Pending
GOOGLE INC: Greenberg Traurig Attorneys Discuss Cy Pres Ruling
GOOGLE INC: Settles Pixel Phone Microphone Defect Class Action
GREATCALL INC: Barnes Sues over Defective Medical Alert Device
GRUMA CORP: Citywide Sues over Independent Distributor Model

HALLEN CONSTRUCTION: Bid to Certify Lewis Class Held in Abeyance
HONEYWELL SAFETY: McKnight Renews Bid to Certify Class Under FLSA
JABIL, INC: Walker Seeks Unpaid Overtime & Minimum Wages
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Leavitt Sues over Talcum-Based Products
JUMIA TECHNOLOGIES: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action

JWS CONSTRUCTIONS: Class Action Among Options if Faults Proven
KEYW HOLDING CORP: Wheby Sues Over Jacobs Merger Deal
KNOXVILLE, TN: Recode May Spur De-Annexation Class Action
L'OREAL USA: Removes Conti Case to Eastern District of California
LAMPS PLUS: Baker Sterchi Discusses 9th Cir. Ruling

LESTER B. PEARSON: Sued Over Specialized School Program Fees
LIBERTY MEDIA: MoU Reached in Buchanan Suit
LIRON INC: Faces Labrasca Labor Suit in California State Court
LOUI AMSTERDAM: Chang Seeks OT Pay, Minimum Wage
LYNEER STAFFING: Trejo Seeks Minimum and Overtime Wages

MARYLAND MUTUAL: Homeowners Allege Realty Rates Price-fixing
MASSACHUSETTS FINANCIAL: Settles Employees' 401(k) Class Action
MATCH GROUP: Discovery Underway in Candelore Suit
MATCO TOOLS: Bid to Dismiss or Transfer Fleming Labor Suit Denied
MAXIM INC: Huguelet Sues over Fraud

MCKENNA DUPONT: Faces Phillips Suit over Debt Collection Practices
MDL 2047: Bid to Apply Remediation Damages Formula Partly Granted
MDL 2741: Denson Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Litigation
MDL 2741: Mincks Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Litigation
MDL 2741: Parsons Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Litigation

MDL 2741: Rawls Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Litigation
MDL 2777: $59MM Attorneys' Fees Awarded in EcoDiesel Marketing Suit
MDL 2777: Consent Decree Issued in EcoDiesel Marketing Suit
MDL 2804: Daytona Likely to Join Opioid Crisis Class Action
MDL 2885: Andrews Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation

MDL 2885: Brock Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation
MDL 2885: Cousino Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation
MDL 2885: Fleuricourt Suit Included in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation
MDL 2885: Grant Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation
MDL 2885: Hanson Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation

MDL 2885: Hudgens Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation
MDL 2885: Hughes Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation
MDL 2885: Hulsey Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation
MDL 2885: Jacobs Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation
MDL 2885: Robinson Suit Consolidated in 3M Earplug Litigation

MDL 2885: Rowe Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation
MDL 2885: Wilson Suit Consolidated in 3M Earplug Litigation
MELT BAR: Clark Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
METRO BANK: Amann Sues over Accounting Errors
MIAMI INT'L: Gomez Sues Alleging Violations of Disabilities Act

MIDLAND CREDIT: Damasco Suit Moved to Eastern District of New York
MIDWEST INVESTORS: Baldwin Suit Alleges BIPA Violation
MINDSHARE VENTURES: Davis Sues over Unwanted Text Messages
MINED MINDS: Former West Virginia Students File Class Action
MONSANTO CO: Pinson Sues in Missouri Over Injuries From Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Geich Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Rodriguez Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MURRAY-DARLING BASIN: Irrigators File Class Action
NANTHEALTH INC: Bid for Class Certification in Deora Still Pending
NANTHEALTH INC: Case Management Conference Set for Sept. 17

NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal Initiated in Gulino Discrimination Suit
NEW YORK: Appeals Order in Gulino Discrimination Suit to 2nd Cir.
NEW YORK: Appeals S.D.N.Y. Judgment in Gulino Discrimination Suit
NEW YORK: Disability Advocates File Class Action Against MTA
NEW YORK: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Decision in Gulino Bias Suit

NEW YORK: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of S.D.N.Y. Ruling in Gulino Suit
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in Walfish Suit
OAKLEY INC: Accused by Haggar Suit of Violating Disabilities Act
ONEMAIN HOLDINGS: Aug. 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
PANALPINA WORLD: CCOIC Appeals Decision in Precision Class Suit

PANE EVINO: Gonzalez et al Seek Minimum Wage and OT Pay
PETLAND INC: Blumenauer Sues over Automated Marketing Text Messages
PHELAM HALLIMAN: Johnson Files Appeal in Suit Sup. Ct. Pennsylvania
PHH MORTGAGE: Cabral TCPA Case Goes to District of Massachusetts
POSTMATES: Faces Class Action in New York Over Fees

RALPHS GROCERY: McCorkle Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
REAL TIME: Berry Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
RGS FINANCIAL: Tataru's Bid to Certify Class Under Advisement
ROBINS JEAN RETAIL: Haggar et al. Alleges ADA Violations
ROGAR MANAGEMENT: McGrath Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premium

S & H CONSTRUCTION: Salazar Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
SCHENKER INC: Lane Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
SCHWANS COMPANY: Miller PI Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida
SEDANOS MARKET: Garcia Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
SEQUIUM ASSET: Activities on Howard's Bid to Certify Class Stayed

SERVIS ONE: Maryland Court OKs Class Notice in Dolphus Labor Suit
SGS NORTH AMERICA: Tamimi Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
SMART & FINAL STORES: Shahandeh Hits Unpaid OT, Missed Breaks
SQUARE INC: Ruark Sues over Mishandling of Patient's Medical Data
STAGE STORES: Bid for Corrective Notice in Crosby FLSA Suit Denied

STELARIS FOODS: Shortchanges Drivers' Wages, Rivera Claims
STURM FOODS: Court Denies Bid to Relabel Subclass in Suchanek Suit
TD AMERITRADE: Illinois Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
TELUS COMMS: Business Members Can't Be Part of Class Action
TRANS BAY CABLE: Coleman et al. Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.

TRI-CITY MEDICAL: Faces Gerson Labor Suit over Unpaid Wages
UNITED STATES: Two Immigrants Classes Certified in Jimenez Suit
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Roper Moves to Certify Class Under FLSA
VERSUM MATERIALS: Robert Files Suit Over Merck Merger Deal
VIEGA LLC: Prime Source Sues Over Copper Press Fitting Price-fixing

VIKING CRUISES: Faces Viking Sky Class Action in California
VITALE'S ITALIAN: Court Refuses to Certify Torres' FLSA Class
VORTENS INC: Court Grants Prelim Approval of Cone Suit Settlement
WABCO HOLDINGS: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action
WELLCARE HEALTH: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action

WEST PARK HD: Oberg Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
WEST VIRGINIA: Richards Sues Human Resources over ADA Violations
WESTERN REFINING: Schmidtberger Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime
WILLIS, TX: Court Affirms Dismissal of Garcia's Claims
WORK-MODE INC: Trego Sues over Late Termination Notice

WORLD WIDE TECHNOLOGY: Young Suit Transferred to S.D. Illinois
ZILLOW GROUP: Correa Suit Transferred to C.D. California
[*] AdvoFin Builds Class Action Against Online Casinos
[*] Insurers Respond to Rising Levels of Securities Class Actions

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 43,200 Claims v. Goodyear Tire Pending at Mar. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l Defends 3,688 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l Still Faces Mount Vernon Mills Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Inc. Still Defends Lawsuits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Concerns Confirmed for Mill Residents

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Beaver Falls Couple Sues Over Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brandon Drying Defends 7,709 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Class Action Signals Asbestos-Level Health Crisis
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Construction Firm Fined GBP176,500 for Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA to Remove Asbestos Debris From Tire Plant

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Cleared of Negligence in Mechanic's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Still Defends Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Ordered to Pay $300MM in Olson Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J, Colgate Created "Severe Health Hazard"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaman Corp. Still Faces Suits at March 29

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lanier Law's $4.69-Bil. Win Named 2018 Top Verdict
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mineralogist Says No Asbestos in J&J Baby Powder
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pollution Exemption Clears Insurer from Obligation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Estimates $70.2MM Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Had 789 Pending Claims at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Units Still Face 9 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Diagnosed with Cancer Secure Cash Benefits


                            *********

3M COMPANY: Faces Motiani Suit in Florida Over Defective Earplugs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RAJESH MOTIANI v. 3M COMPANY, AEARO HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO
INTERMEDIATE, LLC, AEARO, LLC and AEARO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Case No.
3:19-cv-01480-MCR-EMT (N.D. Fla., May 14, 2019), arises out of an
alleged multi-year, multi-million-dollar fraud perpetrated on the
United States Government and the men and women, who served in the
United States military by one of the largest companies in the
country, 3M.

From approximately 2003 through 2015, 3M sold to the U.S. military
tens of thousands of defective earplugs, the dual-ended Combat Arms
Earplugs, version 2 ("Combat Arms Earplugs") for the use of U.S.
soldiers and service men and women in combat and training.  3M knew
that its earplugs were defective, but manipulated laboratory
testing results and falsely represented to the military as meeting
the military's specifications, including representations by 3M that
their Combat Arms Earplugs offered maximum hearing protection for
military personnel and that they were free from all defects that
could have impaired their serviceability, the Plaintiff alleges.

3M Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in St. Paul, Minnesota.  3M is one of the largest
companies in the United States and is in the business of designing,
manufacturing and selling worker safety products, which include
hearing protection devices.

Aearo Holding LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business in St. Paul.  AHC was formerly known as
Aearo Holding Corp. and is a wholly owned subsidiary of 3M Company.
AHC is one of the group of 3M predecessor and subsidiary entities
collectively known as "the Aearo entities."  Aearo Technologies LLC
is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of
business in St Paul.  ATL is a subsidiary of Aearo Holding LLC and
3M Company, and has operated under the assumed business names
"Aearo Company" and "Aearo Technologies."  ATL is one of the group
of 3M predecessor and subsidiary entities collectively known as
"the Aearo entities."

Aearo Intermediate LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
its principal place of business in Indianapolis, Indiana.  ATI was
formerly known as Aearo Technologies, Inc.  ATI is a subsidiary of
Aearo Holding LLC and 3M Company.  ATI is one of the group of 3M
predecessor and subsidiary entities collectively known as "the
Aearo entities."  Aearo LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
with its principal place of business in Indianapolis.  AL is a
subsidiary of Aearo Holding LLC and 3M Company.  AL is one of the
group of 3M predecessor and subsidiary entities collectively known
as "the Aearo entities."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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: Sold Defective Earplugs, Porginski Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER PORGINSKI v. 3M COMPANY, AEARO HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO
INTERMEDIATE, LLC AEARO, LLC and AEARO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Case No.
3:19-cv-01479-RV-EMT (N.D. Fla., May 14, 2019), accuses the
Defendants of selling defective earplugs to the United States
Government and the men and women, who served in the United States
military.

From approximately 2003 through 2015, 3M sold to the U.S. military
tens of thousands of defective earplugs, the dual-ended Combat Arms
Earplugs, version 2 ("Combat Arms Earplugs") for the use of U.S.
soldiers and service men and women in combat and training.  The
Plaintiff contends that these defective earplugs were purchased in
good faith by the U.S. military and were standard issue in certain
branches of the military during foreign conflicts and deployments
between 2003 and 2015, resulting in severe and permanent hearing
loss to tens of thousands of soldiers, who were issued and used the
defective earplugs upon 3M's representations that the earplugs were
defect-free and offered effective hearing protection.

3M Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in St. Paul, Minnesota.  3M is one of the largest
companies in the United States and is in the business of designing,
manufacturing and selling worker safety products, which include
hearing protection devices.

Aearo Holding LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business in St. Paul.  AHC was formerly known as
Aearo Holding Corp. and is a wholly owned subsidiary of 3M Company.
AHC is one of the group of 3M predecessor and subsidiary entities
collectively known as "the Aearo entities."  Aearo Technologies LLC
is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of
business in St Paul.  ATL is a subsidiary of Aearo Holding LLC and
3M Company, and has operated under the assumed business names
"Aearo Company" and "Aearo Technologies."  ATL is one of the group
of 3M predecessor and subsidiary entities collectively known as
"the Aearo entities."

Aearo Intermediate LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
its principal place of business in Indianapolis, Indiana.  ATI was
formerly known as Aearo Technologies, Inc.  ATI is a subsidiary of
Aearo Holding LLC and 3M Company.  ATI is one of the group of 3M
predecessor and subsidiary entities collectively known as "the
Aearo entities."  Aearo LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
with its principal place of business in Indianapolis.  AL is a
subsidiary of Aearo Holding LLC and 3M Company.  AL is one of the
group of 3M predecessor and subsidiary entities collectively known
as "the Aearo entities."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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


ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE: Faces Zaklow Suit in New Jersey Court
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Accounts Receivable.
The case is captioned as JILL ZAKLOW, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ACCOUNTS
RECEIVABLE, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-12755-CCC-MF (D.N.J.,
May 21, 2019). The suit alleges Fair Debt Collection Act violation.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Claire C. Cecchi.[BN]

Attorneys for Jill Zaklow, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          Ari Hillel Marcus, esq.
          MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (347) 526-4093
          Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
                  ari@marcuszelman.com

ACCURATE BACKGROUND: Shekar Moves to Certify Class Under FCRA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled KIRAN KUMAR CHANDRA SHEKAR,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ACCURATE
BACKGROUND, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-00585-LA (E.D. Wisc.), moves for
class certification and proposes this class definition:

     All individuals about whom Defendant's "AccurateNow"
     division (including its corporate predecessor) furnished a
     background report for employment purposes to a prospective
     employer that contained an item of public record information
     between April 25, 2012 and the present and to whom it did
     not send any notice under FCRA section 1681k(a)(1) at the
     time it prepared the report.

Discovery has established that the Class that Mr. Shekar seeks to
certify here includes over one hundred thousand members, according
to the Motion.

The lawsuit arises from claims pursuant to the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Soumilas, Esq.
          James A. Francis, Esq.
          Jordan M. Sartell, Esq.
          FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
          E-mail: jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jsartell@consumerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Larry P. Smith, Esq.
          David M. Marco, Esq.
          SMITHMARCO PC
          55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 1200
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 324-3532
          Facsimile: (888) 418-1277
          E-mail: lsmith@smithmarco.com
                  dmarco@smithmarco.com


ACORN STAIRLIFTS: Flores FCRA Class Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Flores v. Acorn Stairlifts, Inc.,
Case No. 2019-CA-004317-O, was removed on May 2, 2019, from the
Orange County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida (Orlando).

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:19-cv-00844-PGB-GJK to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Acorn Stairlifts manufactures and installs stair lifts in homes in
the United States and internationally.  The Company offers wireless
remote controlled chair lifts/stair glides/stair climbers for
various staircases.  The Company serves handicapped, as well as
people finding difficulty in using staircases.  Acorn Stairlifts
was founded in 2001 and is based in Orlando, Florida.[BN]

Plaintiff Bianca Flores, on her own behalf and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals, are represented by:

          Marc Reed Edelman, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          One Tampa City Center, Suite 700
          201 N Franklin Street
          Tampa, FL 33602-5157
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 257-0572
          E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com

Defendant Acorn Stairlifts, Inc., a Foreign For-Profit Corporation,
is represented by:

          Clark Sigman Splichal, Esq.
          Susan N. Eisenberg, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          Southeast Financial Center
          200 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3000
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (786) 871-3990
          Facsimile: (786) 220-0470
          E-mail: csplichal@cozen.com
                  seisenberg@cozen.com


ADP LLC: Rohde Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Rohde, individually and on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ADP, LLC, a California Limited
Liability Company, ADP Payroll Services, Inc., Automatic Data
Processing, Inc. and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 19-cv-03347 (C.D. Cal., May 17, 2019), seeks all damages
and injunctive relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

ADP provides consumer reporting, investigation and background
checks, as well as payroll services throughout the country.
Pederson claims ADP routinely sends unsolicited text messages
without his consent. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
      MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
      55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel: (312) 893-7002
      Fax: (312) 275-7895
      Email: eturin@mcgpc.com


ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Sabatini Files Suit Over Waste Mgmt. Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Sabatini, for himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Advanced Disposal Services, Inc., Michael Koen, B.
Clyde Preslar, Richard Burke, Tanuja M. Dehne, E. Renae Conley,
Michael Hoffman and Ernest J. Mrozek, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-00919, (D. Del., May 17, 2019), seeks to enjoin defendants
and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating or closing the acquisition of Advanced Disposal
Services, Inc. by Waste Management, Inc. and Everglades Merger Sub
Inc., rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the merger,
rescissory damages, costs of this action, including reasonable
allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such
other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Advanced Disposal's stockholders will receive $33.15 in cash for
each share of Advanced Disposal common stock they own.

The complaint asserts that the registration statement for the
merger failed to include critical financial analysis performed by
its financial advisor, UBS Investment Bank including all line items
used to calculate Cash Flow from Operations less Adjusted Capital
Expenditures and a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics
that support the fairness opinions in order to make a fully
informed decision whether to vote in favor of the Proposed
Transaction or seek appraisal needed by the shareholders to make an
informed decision on the merger deal.

Advanced Disposal, based in Ponte Vedra, Florida, is a solid waste
company that provides integrated, non-hazardous solid waste
collection, recycling and disposal services to residential,
commercial, industrial and construction customers across sixteen
states and the Bahamas. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
      RM LAW, P.C.
      1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Tel: (484) 324-6800
      Email: rm@maniskas.com


AIR CANADA: Court Rules in Favor of Passengers in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos P Martins, Esq. -- cmartins@lexcanada.com -- and Emma
Romano, Esq. -- eromano@lexcanada.com -- of Bersenas Jacobsen
Chouest Thomson Blackburn LLP, in an article for International Law
Office, report that the Quebec Superior Court of Justice recently
ruled against Air Canada in a class action brought by passengers
with disabilities, their attendants and obese passengers who had
been required to pay for additional seats on flights.

The court held that Air Canada was required to compensate
passengers and their attendants for the discriminatory practice but
it limited the class of individuals who were eligible for
compensation to those who had purchased their tickets in Quebec.

Facts

The representative plaintiff in this class action was severely
disabled. He lived in a long-term care home in Baie-Comeau, Quebec
and his condition required constant assistance. On several
occasions he had travelled to Montreal on flights operated by Air
Canada. Given his disability, he had required an attendant to
accompany him for each of these flights.

On each occasion he had assumed the cost of his attendant's seat on
the plane as well as his own, as required by Air Canada's fare
policy.

The policy stipulated, among other things, that passengers with a
disability must travel with an attendant who may assist with
everyday needs during the flight (eg, eating, using the washroom or
taking medication) and, in case of changes in cabin pressure or an
emergency, services not provided by the crew.

Parties' position

The plaintiff argued that:

   * Air Canada was liable for committing a contractual fault by
levying fees for the additional seat required for passengers with a
disability, disregarding the obligations imposed on Air Canada by:
the Civil Code of Quebec; the Canada Transportation Act; and
the Canadian Human Rights Act;

   * the attendant's travel expenses should be borne by Air Canada,
which is obliged to do all that is reasonably possible to
accommodate passengers with disabilities;
   * the additional expense constituted an undue obstacle to
mobility contrary to the Canada Transportation Act, in addition to
it being discriminatory;

   * with respect to the claims on behalf of the attendants who had
paid for their own ticket to accompany a person with a disability,
these claims had been proper because they were related to the
disabled passengers' claims; and
   
   * for obese persons, the reasoning was similar because Air
Canada required payment for two seats for the benefit of a single
person whose particular condition did not allow for the use of a
single seat.

Air Canada argued that:

   * the court had no jurisdiction to hear the case;
   * its pricing practices were not discriminatory;
   * its rate policies did not constitute undue obstacles to
mobility contrary to the Canada Transportation Act; and
   * the claims by class members who were attendants should not
succeed because these passengers could not claim to have been
personally discriminated against based on a disability.

Finally, Air Canada urged the court to limit the scope of the class
action to those parties who had purchased tickets in Quebec.

Quebec Superior Court decision

The court began by addressing preliminary issues, including:

   * the attendants' claims;
   * whether the class should be limited to those parties who had
purchased tickets in Quebec;
   * the nature of the claim; and
   * the question of jurisdiction.

Attendant claims

The court held that the attendants who had paid for their own seat
to accompany a person with a disability were entitled to
compensation, reasoning that an attendant could not be considered
the same as any other passenger. Rather, an attendant must be
considered an accessory to the transport of the person with the
disability. Therefore, the court held that the attendants who had
paid for their own seats were properly included in the collective
action.

Class limited to Quebec purchasers

The court limited the class of people eligible for reimbursement
from Air Canada to those passengers who had bought tickets in
Quebec.

The court reasoned that the claim was based on whether Air Canada
had committed a contractual fault within the meaning of Article
1458 of the Civil Code of Quebec.

In contrast to other Canadian provinces, Quebec has a civil law
regime which is codified in the Civil Code of Quebec. Given the
significant differences between the civil and common law, and given
the absence of evidence from the plaintiffs on the law applicable
in the other provinces, the court limited the class members to only
those persons who had bought tickets in Quebec.

Nature of claim and jurisdiction

The court held that the essential nature of the class action was a
claim for contractual liability for breaching an obligation which
had been imposed by the Civil Code of Quebec, the Canada
Transportation Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The question of jurisdiction had been finally decided in a previous
decision in this case. Regardless, the Quebec Court of Appeal's
decision in WestJet v Chabot (2016 QCCA 584) established that the
court had jurisdiction to hear and decide a class action based on
contractual civil liability where damages had been claimed against
an airline for the improper performance of a contractual
obligation.

Was Air Canada at fault?

Once the preliminary issues had been addressed, the court framed
the issue of whether Air Canada was liable for a contractual fault
as follows:

   * Has Air Canada committed a discriminatory practice by
requiring payment of two airline tickets, either for:
an attendant in the context where the passenger has a disability;
or an obese person who requires two seats?

   * If there is a discriminatory practice, does that constitute a
fault within the meaning of Article 1458 of the Civil Code of
Quebec?

   * If there is a fault, can Air Canada exonerate itself by
invoking a valid defence?

The court found that Air Canada's practice of requiring passengers
with a disability and obese passengers to purchase two seats was
discriminatory. Relying on a Canadian Transportation Agency's
decision from 2008, the court found that the fact that a person
must pay for an additional seat because of their disability
constituted an undue obstacle to their mobility within the meaning
of the Canada Transportation Act.

As Air Canada presented no evidence to challenge the veracity of
the Canadian Transportation Agency's decision, the decision was
presumed to be accurate.

The court also held that the practice of requiring payment for two
seats was a discriminatory practice within the meaning of the
Canadian Human Rights Code.

The court found that there was no valid defence because imposing a
'one passenger one ticket' rate as an accommodation measure would
not result in excessive costs for Air Canada.

Therefore, the practice constituted a fault within the meaning of
the Civil Code of Quebec. The failure to perform a specific duty
imposed by a law or a regulation is in principle a civil fault,
since there is a violation of a norm of conduct fixed by the
legislature.

Damages

The court held that damages could be awarded based on the cost of
the second fare for each passenger with a disability or who was
obese.

However, the court declined to award non-pecuniary damages for
humiliation and punitive damages as the plaintiffs had presented no
evidence for these heads of damages.

Comment

This decision confirms that carriers that do not abide by a 'one
passenger one ticket' policy may be liable for discriminating
against passengers with disabilities and obese passengers who
require more than one seat. [GN]


AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Bid for Class Cert. in Karth Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Akebia 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 plaintiff in Karth
v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., has filed a motion to
further amend his complaint and for class certification.  

Four putative class action lawsuits have been filed against Keryx
and certain of its former officers (Gregory P. Madison, Scott A.
Holmes, Ron Bentsur, and James Oliviero) and consolidated in the
Massachusetts District Court, captioned Karth v. Keryx
Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (filed October 26, 2016, with an
amended complaint filed on February 27, 2017).

Plaintiff seeks to represent all stockholders who purchased shares
of Keryx common stock between May 8, 2013 and August 1, 2016. The
complaint alleges that Keryx and the named individual defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or
misleading statements concerning Keryx, its supplier relationships,
and future prospects, and that the allegedly misleading statements
were not made known to the market until Keryx's August 1, 2016
announcement of an interruption in its supply of Auryxia.

By order dated July 19, 2018, the Massachusetts District Court
granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint.

On February 27, 2019, defendants filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings. On April 30, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion to further
amend his Complaint, and also moved for class certification.  

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on
the development and commercialization of therapeutics for patients
with kidney diseases. The company was founded in 2007 and is
headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.


ALIBABA GROUP: Oct. 16 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on June 3 disclosed that the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York has approved
the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement
that would benefit purchasers of securities of Alibaba Group
Holding Limited (BABA):

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

TO:   All persons and/or entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired Alibaba Group Holding Limited ("Alibaba") American
Depositary Shares ("ADS"), or purchased call options or sold put
options on Alibaba ADS, during the period September 19, 2014
through January 28, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"), other
than those shares purchased directly in the September 19, 2014
Initial Public Offering (the "Class").

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

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, that the above-captioned
litigation (the "MDL Action") has been certified as a class action
on behalf of the Class, except for certain persons and entities who
are excluded from the Class as set forth in the full Notice of (I)
Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement
Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and
Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs in the MDL Action have
reached a proposed settlement of the MDL Action for $250,000,000
(the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in
the MDL Action.

A hearing will be held on October 16, 2019 at 10:00 a.m., before
the Honorable Colleen McMahon at the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, Courtroom 24A, 500 Pearl Street, New
York, NY 10007, to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement
should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether
the MDL Action should be dismissed with prejudice against
Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated April 26, 2019 (and
in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan
of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv)
whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees
and reimbursement of expenses should be approved.

Court-appointed Lead Counsel, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., will apply
to the Court for an award of attorneys' fees for all Plaintiffs'
Counsel in an amount not to exceed 25% of the Settlement Fund
(including accrued interest).  In addition, Lead Counsel will apply
for reimbursement of Litigation Expenses paid or incurred in
connection with the institution, prosecution and resolution of the
claims against the Defendants, in an amount not to exceed
$5,000,000, which may include a request for award(s) sufficient to
reimburse the reasonable costs and expenses incurred by Plaintiffs,
including lost wages, directly related to their representation of
the Class in an amount not to exceed $12,500 for each
representative Plaintiff.

If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by
the pending Settlement of the MDL Action, and you may be entitled
to share in the Settlement Fund.  If you have not yet received the
Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by
contacting the Claims Administrator at Christine Asia Co. Ltd. et
al. v. Jack Yun Ma et al., c/o Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box
230, 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205, Media, PA 19063,
1-833-226-6360.  Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be
downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator,
www.AlibabaSettlement.com.

If you are a member of the Class, in order to be eligible to
receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a
Claim Form postmarked no later than September 3, 2019.  If you are
a Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not
be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the
Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or
orders entered by the Court in the MDL Action.

If you are a member of the Class and wish to exclude yourself from
the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is
received no later than September 25, 2019 to the Claims
Administrator, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice.  If you properly exclude yourself from the Class, you will
not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
MDL Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of
the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses must be filed with the Court and provided
to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received
no later than September 25, 2019, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.

The MDL Action is separate from an action that had been filed in
California Superior Court, San Mateo County, that alleged
violations of a different federal statute.  That state court action
was separately settled in May 2019.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Alibaba, or
Alibaba's counsel regarding this notice.  All questions about this
notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate
in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims
Administrator.

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

The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
Attn:   Laurence Rosen, Esq.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Email: alibabasettlement@rosenlegal.com

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

Christine Asia Co. Ltd. et al v. Jack Yun Ma, et al.    
c/o Strategic Claims Services
P.O. Box 230
600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205
Media, PA 19063
1-833-226-6360
www.AlibabaSettlement.com

By Order of the Court


ALTERATION GROUP: Denied Pay Slips, Overtime Pay, Thermidor Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jean M. Thermidor, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Alteration Group of NY, LLC, Jeremy Miller,
David Miller, Sona Babooram and Eileen Nunez, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-04572 (S.D. N.Y., May 17, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum and overtime wages and redress for failure to provide
itemized wage statements pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants own, operate, or control a tailoring services company,
located at 89 5th Ave #904, New York, NY 10003 under the name
"Alteration Specialists of New York" where Thermidor was employed
as a tailor. She claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage, spread-of-hours and
overtime compensation for the hours that they worked. Defendants
also failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of their hours
worked. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMAZON.COM.KSDC LLC: Engineers Class Certified in Christeson Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Kathryn H. Vratil sustains in small part the Plaintiff's
Unopposed Motion for Conditional Certification of Proposed
Settlement Class and Preliminary Approval of the Parties'
Settlement Agreement and Release and Notice to Settlement Class
Members filed in the lawsuit titled WYATT CHRISTESON, individually
and on behalf of a class of similarly situated employees v.
AMAZON.COM.KSDC, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-02043-KHV-JPO (D. Kan.).

The Court conditionally certifies a collective action comprised of
Christeson and seven other IT Support Engineers, whom the Defendant
employed at any time between January 25, 2015, and March 31, 2018.
The Court otherwise overrules the Plaintiff's Motion.  In addition,
the Court approves Wyatt Christeson as class representative.  The
case remains set for trial on September 16, 2019.

Wyatt Christeson brings suit against Amazon.com.ksdc, LLC on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, alleging that the
Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Under the amended settlement agreement, the Defendant agrees to pay
each Settlement Class Member who opts in ("Participating
Plaintiff") $250 plus approximately $195 for each instance in which
the Participating Plaintiff recorded 40, 49 or 55 hours in a
workweek.  This entitles each Participating Plaintiff to between
$250 and $3,762, depending on his or her timesheets.  If all seven
IT Support Engineers opt in and become Participating Plaintiffs,
the Defendant will pay up to $61,636.00, which includes the
Plaintiff's request for up to $35,000 in attorney's fees, up to
$2,467.62 in costs and up to a $5,000 service award to the
Plaintiff.

According to the Court's Memorandum and Order, if the parties seek
further approval of a settlement, they must cite specific cases
which authorize costs and fee awards in that order of magnitude.
The Court is skeptical of such high fee requests, especially where
they are not subject to testing through the adversarial
process.[CC]


AMERICAN FRUIT: Martinez Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
Julio C. Martinez Sr., on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. American Fruit and Produce, Corp. and Hugo
Acosta, Case No. 1:19-cv-21251 (S.D. Fla., April 02, 2019), is
brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to provide their
employees overtime pay and or minimum wages for work performed in
excess of 40 hours weekly, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a fruit and vegetable
quality inspector from October 20, 1992 through March 29, 2019 and
was a resident of Dade County, Florida.

The Defendant American Fruit is a corporation that regularly
transacts business within Dade County.

The Defendant Acosta is a corporate officer and owner and manager
the Defendant American Fruit. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Tel: (305) 865-6766
      Fax: (305) 865-7167


AMERICAN RECEIVABLES: Vice Sues Over Vague Collection Letter
------------------------------------------------------------
Rickey Vice, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. American Receivables Agency, LLC, Defendants Case No.
19-cv-04038 (D. Kan., May 17, 2019), seeks statutory and punitive
damages, reasonable costs and attorneys' fees incurred in this
action, including expert fees and other and further relief under
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

American Receivables is a collection agency who attempted to
collect an alleged debt from Vice via collection letter that does
not meaningfully convey the identity of the creditor to whom the
said debt is owed; letter implies that the original creditor is
different than the current creditor, as it uses both terms within
the body of the letter thus creating confusion. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony LaCroix, Esq.
      LACROIX LAW FIRM, LLC
      406 W 34th St #810,
      Kansas City, MO 64111
      Telephone/Fax: (816) 399-4380
      Email: Tony@lacroixlawkc.com


AMERICOLD LOGISTICS: Contreras Sues Over Improperly Paid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE CONTRERAS, on behalf of himself and other aggrieved employees
v. AMERICOLD LOGISTICS LLC, a Delaware Corporation and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. CIV DS 1913523 (Cal. Super., San
Bernardino Cty., May 2, 2019), seeks to recover civil penalties
arising out of the Defendants' alleged multiple violations of the
California Labor Code.

Mr. Contreras alleges that the Defendants did not pay him or other
hourly employees properly calculated overtime wages because
non-discretionary earned bonuses were not figured into their
regular rate of pay for purposes of payment of overtime
compensation.

AmeriCold Logistics provides temperature-controlled warehousing and
logistics services in the United States and internationally.  The
Company offers producer solutions, including facilities, public
refrigerated warehouses, plant-attached storage, port facilities,
integrated consolidation programs, and automation and retailers
solutions.  The Plaintiff is unaware of the true names capacities
of the Doe Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael D. Singer, Esq.
          Kristina De La Rosa, Esq.
          COHELAN KHOURY SINGER
          605 C Street Suite 200
          San Diego CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 595-3001
          Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
          E-mail: msinger@ackslaw.com
                  kdelarosa@ackslaw.com

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian, II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
          18250 Ventura Blvd.
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609-0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
          E-mail: sahagii@aol.com


AMN SERVICES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Woehrle Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
SARA WOEHRLE, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
AMN SERVICES, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company;
PROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEM-SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, a California
Corporation; an individual, and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No.
19STCV15213 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 2, 2019), alleges
that the Defendants fail to pay for all hours worked and for
overtime wages, in violation of the California Labor Code.

Providence is a California corporation, and primarily provides
patient services at its owned, controlled and/or operated
hospitals, medical centers, urgent and occupational care centers,
imaging centers, primary care clinics and other kinds of healthcare
facilities inside California.  One of those medical centers is the
Little Company of Mary Torrance located in Torrance, California.
Providence has also owned, operated and/or controlled other
facilities inside California, including Providence Tarzana Medical
Center, Providence Saint Joseph Medical Center, Providence Saint
John's Health Center, Providence Little Company of Mary San Pedro,
and Providence Holy Cross Medical Center.

AMN is an employment staffing agency and is a California
corporation with its principal place of business in California.  In
particular, AMN employs, compensates and assigns healthcare
professionals to work at various kinds of healthcare facilities
throughout California, including those owed, operated and/or
controlled by Providence.  The true names or capacities of the Doe
Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nazo Koulloukian, Esq.
          KOUL LAW FIRM
          3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1710
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 761-5484
          Facsimile: (818) 561-3938
          E-mail: nazo@koullaw.com

               - and -

          Ashkan Shakouri, Esq.
          SHAKOURI LAW FIRM
          11601 Wilshire Blvd., Fifth Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 575-1827
          Facsimile: (310) 575-1872
          E-mail: ash@shakourilawfirm.com


APEX ASSET MANAGEMENT: Varela Sues over Unfair Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed by Ricardo Varela against
the Apex Asset Management, LLC for violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Act. The case is captioned VARELA v. APEX ASSET
MANAGEMENT, LLC et al, Case No. 2:19-cv-12470-CCC-SCM (D.N.J., May
11, 2019). This consumer credit-related lawsuit is assigned to Hon.
Judge Claire C. Cecchi.

Apex Asset Management, LLC is a debt collection agency based in
Lancaster, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
     KIM LAW FIRM LLC
     411 Hackensack Ave Ste 701
     Hackensack, NJ 07601
     Telephone: (201) 273-7117
     Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
     E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com


APPLE INC: Faces Another Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Mikey Campbell, writing for Apple Insider, reports that Apple's
almost universally positive financial outlook, offered in investor
conference calls following quarterly earnings reports, are again
under scrutiny as a class action complaint takes issue with
comments made by CEO Tim Cook and CFO Luca Maestri in the quarter
leading up to a revenue guidance correction in January.

The complaint, lodged with the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, homes in on forward-looking statements
regarding Apple's business in China -- specifically iPhone -- for
the important holiday quarter of 2018.

In forecasts presented during a conference call last November, both
Cook and Maestri touted a strong product lineup expected to fuel
first fiscal quarter sales between $89 billion and $93 billion.
Riding high on a new slate of iPhone XS and XR handsets, which were
at the time already up for sale, Apple told investors to anticipate
a record-breaking quarter.

Beyond reiterating prepared guidance, Cook and Maestri emphasized a
positive outlook in fielding questions from analysts. Specifically,
Cook dismissed concerns of "macroeconomic uncertainty" in emerging
markets like China, citing Apple's "very strong" performance
leading into the holiday season. The executives also failed to
recognize the brewing U.S.-China trade war.

That take was ultimately proven incorrect, as economic headwinds in
the burgeoning Chinese market contributed to what would result in
quarterly revenue of $84.3 billion, well below initial guidance.

The suit also claims Apple failed to account for knock-on effects
of its iPhone battery replacement program, instituted in 2017 to
allay concerns of handset throttling. It was later learned that
Apple replaced some 11 million iPhone batteries, up to 11 times
more than anticipated, allowing users to hold on to their
smartphone instead of buying a new model.

Apple's decision to halt reportage of unit sales is also a bone of
contention, with plaintiffs claiming the move was designed to mask
declines of the company's flagship product.

The rosy outlook proffered by Cook and Maestri caused Apple's stock
price to artificially inflate during the class period starting Nov.
2, a day after the company released earnings for the last quarter
of 2018, until a guidance revision was released in early January,
the suit alleges. Shareholders were consequently impacted by the
"false and misleading statements" when the revision down was
announced and Apple shares fell.

Citing violations of the Securities and Exchange Act, the complaint
seeks class status, unspecified damages and legal fees.

The class action filing is similar in scope to two complaints
lodged in April, which also claim Apple misled investors with
largely positive forward looking statements. [GN]


ARCIMOTO INC: Settlement of Consolidated Suit Awaits Court OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
Arcimoto, 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 parties in the
consolidated Switzer and Mendelson suits have reached a settlement
agreement, which is subject to court approval.

On March 11, 2018, the Company was served with a lawsuit entitled
John R Switzer vs W.R. Hambrecht & Co. LLC et al., Case Number:
CGC-18-564904, filed in San Francisco County Superior Court in the
State of California.

In this action, the Company was named as a defendant along with
five individuals who were directors and/or executive officers at
the time of the completion of the Company's Regulation A offering
on September 21, 2017.

The action was styled as a putative class action, alleged on behalf
of all those who purchased the Company's common stock in its
Regulation A offering. The plaintiff alleged violations of Section
12(a)(2) and Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
and is seeking damages in an unspecified amount to be proven at
trial.

In addition, on March 28, 2018, the Company was served with another
lawsuit entitled Jay Mendelson v. Arcimoto, Inc. et al., Case
Number CGC-18-565324, filed in San Francisco County Superior Court
in the State of California.

In that action, which was styled as a putative class action, the
Company was also named as a defendant along with the same
individuals who were directors and/or executive officers at the
time of the completion of the company's Regulation A offering on
September 21, 2017.

The allegations and claims made in the Mendelson action were
substantially similar to those of the Switzer action and the
plaintiff was also seeking damages in an unspecified amount to be
proven at trial.

The two actions were consolidated into a single lawsuit on May 28,
2018.

The Company believes that the consolidated lawsuit was without
merit and vigorously defended itself against these claims in court.


On July 30, 2018, counsel for the Company filed a demurrer to the
consolidated complaint, seeking its dismissal. By Order dated
September 19, 2018, the San Francisco Court sustained in part and
denied in part the demurrer. On September 28, 2018, plaintiffs in
that case filed a First Amended Consolidated Complaint.

The Company denied the substantive claims and allegations made in
that amended pleading and continued to assert a vigorous defense.


On January 25, 2019, the parties reached a settlement agreement in
the consolidated cases, subject to court approval.

By its terms, the settlement agreement resolves this litigation in
its entirety.

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

Arcimoto, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and sells
three-wheeled electric vehicles. The company was formerly known as
WTP Inc and changed its name to Arcimoto, Inc. in December 2011.
Arcimoto, Inc. was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in Eugene,
Oregon.


BELL CANADA: Court Allows Privacy Class Action to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------
Alex Boutilier, writing for Toronto Star, reports that an Ontario
court has cleared the way for a class-action lawsuit against Bell
Canada over a controversial advertising program that tracked its
customers' internet, phone and television habits.

On May 13, the Ontario Superior Court certified the class-action
lawsuit against Bell over its now-discontinued "Relevant
Advertising Program" (RAP). The program tracked Bell customers'
activities to build detailed profiles for third-party advertisers.

RAP was announced in 2013 and discontinued in 2015, although Bell
claims the program was never launched.

But the telecom giant could be on the hook for hundreds of millions
in damages over the program, and the lawsuit could have wider
implications for internet and tech giants that collect massive
amounts of data about their users in order to sell advertising.

"All sorts of e-commerce is trying to collect this information . .
. (and) digitizing it, collecting it and monetizing it," said Ted
Charney, one of the lawyers representing the Bell customers.

"This is where the big money is going now, and people are
increasingly beginning to realize that their privacy and their data
is worth something. And they're beginning to feel more and more
like they're being taken advantage of by these companies."

Charney has previously said $750 million was "a very conservative
number" in assessing potential damages, but said on May 14 that
it's difficult to estimate the potential bill for Bell if the
lawsuit is successful. He said lawyers are still trying to
determine how much money each customer's personal data was worth to
Bell. [GN]


BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Wijesinha Seeks to Certify Class Under TCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled SHEHAN WIJESINHA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BLUEGREEN
VACATIONS, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-20073-CMA (S.D. Fla.), asks the
Court to:

   (1) certify a class with respect to the claims for violation
       of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act:

       All individuals within the United States (i) who were sent
       an outbound call; (ii) which call was connected; (iii) to
       a cellular telephone number obtained by Defendant as a
       lead from Choice Hotels International, Inc., which was
       designated as a "Choice Inact CP Wireless" campaign lead;
       (iv) promoting Defendant's vacation packages; (v) placed
       by Gold Mountain Communications, LLC on behalf of
       Defendant using the TCN "Manual Dial Only" system; (vi)
       from October 9, 2018 through January 28, 2019;

   (2) designate Plaintiff as class representative; and

   (3) designate the law firms of IJH Law, Hiraldo P.A., and
       Eisenband Law, P.A as class counsel.

The case concerns Defendant BlueGreen Vacation Unlimited, Inc.'s
alleged use of "manual dialer" technology to try and circumvent the
TCPA so that it could bombard consumers with unwanted telemarketing
calls.  This decision ultimately resulted in 3.38 million calls to
unsuspecting consumers in a period of just over 15 months.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
          IJH LAW
          1200 Brickell Ave Suite 1950
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (786) 496-4469
          E-mail: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com

               - and -

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 400-4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Eisenband, Esq.
          EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
          515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 533-4092
          E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com


CA VENTURES: Cortazar Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against CA Ventures, LLC
for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case
is captioned BRITTANY CORTAZAR, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. CA Ventures, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-22075-UU (S.D. Fla., May 22, 2019). Plaintiff Brittany
Cortazar alleges that CA Ventures, LLC sent unsolicited text
messages to her cellular telephone number using an automatic
telephone dialing system and without her prior express consent.

CA Ventures, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company whose
principal office is located at 130 E. Randolph, #2100, 1 Prudent,
Chicago, Illinois. The company is engaged in various real estate
investment and development projects. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
     Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
     SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
     14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205
     Miami, FL 33132
     Telephone: 305-479-2299
     E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
             gberg@shamisgentile.com

             - and -

     Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
     EDELSBERG LAW, PA
     19495 Biscayne Blvd #607
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Telephone: 305-975-3320
     E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com


CARBEL USA: Rodriguez Seeks Overtime Pay, Minimum Wage
------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
Carbel USA LLC for violations of the New York Labor Law, New York
Minimum Wage Act, and the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations.
The case is captioned Douglas Rodriguez, Individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, -v- Carbel USA
LLC, Defendant, Index No. 705142/2019 (N.Y. Sup., March 25, 2019).

Plaintiff Douglas Rodriguez seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages
and overtime premium pay for manual workers. Among other things,
Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff at a
rate of at least 1.5 times his regular rate and 1.5 times the New
York State Minimum wage rate for hours worked in excess of 40 in a
week, for each week during the period of his employment with
Defendants.

Carbel USA LLC is a for-profit limited liability company with
offices located at 182-08 149th Avenue, Springfield Gardens, New
York. The company is engaged in the business of providing warehouse
and distribution services for companies such as ZARA clothing.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
     ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
     215-28 Hillside Avenue,
     Queens Village, NY 11427
     Telephone: (718) 740-1000
     Facsimile: 9718) 740-2000
     E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com


CASINO RAMA: Judge Dismisses Cyber-Attack Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Armstrong, Esq. -- larmstrong@sbalawyers.ca -- of Strigberger
Brown Armstrong LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that in
Kaplan v. Casino Rama, released May 7, 2019, Justice Belobaba
dismissed the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class action arising
from the 2016 cyber-attack on Casino Rama.

Background
In November 2016 Casino Rama's computer system was hacked and a
variety of personal information relating to the casino's employees,
customers and suppliers was stolen. The hacker made a ransom
demand, which was not paid, following which the hacker posted the
personal information of close to 11,000 people online.

The representative plaintiffs included employees of the Casino,
members of the Casino's loyalty program, and people who had joined
OLG's self-exclusion program.

In considering whether to certify the class action, Justice
Belobaba made specific reference to the steps taken by the Casino,
including notifying the authorities, notifying thousands of people
potentially affected by the breach, taking steps to shut down the
websites containing the stolen information and providing free
credit monitoring for a year to many of the people affected. He
also noted that there was no evidence that anyone had experienced
fraud or identity theft or that anyone had suffered financial or
psychological loss because of the attack.

Certification Analysis
In reviewing the five requirements for certification, as set out in
s 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, Justice Belobaba concluded the
class action "collapse[d] in its entirety at commonality"
[5(1)(c)]. Despite this finding, Justice Belobaba also made
substantive comments with respect to 5(1)(a) and (b), which are
summarized below.

5(1)(a) Cause of Action

The plaintiffs asserted five causes of action: negligence, breach
of contract, intrusion upon seclusion, breach of confidence and
publicity given to private life.

Of note, the hacker remained unidentified and was not a party to
the action. Traditionally, some of the causes of action pleaded are
aimed at recovery from the party who breached the plaintiff's
privacy (i.e. the hacker). Justice Belobaba commented that this
left class counsel "trying to force square (breach of privacy) pegs
into round (tort and contract) holes".

The Court found the claims for breach of confidence and publicity
given to private life were doomed to fail and should be struck. It
is also questioned whether intrusion upon seclusion could be
sustained against the defendants on the basis of their alleged
recklessness. However, considering the infancy of the tort of
inclusion upon seclusion, Justice Belobaba was not prepared to find
that the claim was bound to fail. He found the same with respect to
the claims in negligence and breach of contract.

5(1)(b) Class Definition

The Court found the proposed class was overly broad and imprecise.
Justice Belobaba made a point of agreeing with the defendants, that
the class definition could not include the Casino's unionized
employees. The Court lacked jurisdiction over their complaints for
the privacy breach, whether in negligence or contract, as they fell
within the ambit of the collective agreement. Such matters fall
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations
Board.

5(1)(c) Common Issues

Justice Belobaba deliberated on the appropriate test under s.
5(1)(c), which for years required satisfying two inquiries: (1)
whether there was some evidentiary basis that the proposed common
issue actually existed; and, (2) whether there was some evidence
that the proposed issue could be answered in common across the
entire class. However, in the 2013 decision of the Supreme Court of
Canada, ProSys Consultants Ltd v. Microsoft Corp, the first part of
the test was eliminated, no longer requiring evidence that the
alleged acts occurred. Justice Belobaba found himself to be bound
by the SCC's direction; however, he performed the two-step
analysis, noting that an appeal was likely forthcoming.

Getting to the heart of the common issues analysis, Justice
Belobaba made the following comments at paragraph 56 of the
decision:

The problem here, with almost all of the PCIs [proposed common
issues] is that there is no basis in fact for either the existence
of the PCI or its overall commonality or both. Further, many of the
PCIs require so much in the way of individual inquiry that any
commonality is overwhelmed by the need for individualized
assessments.

Justice Belobaba found that the proposed causes of action that
could possibly proceed -- negligence, breach of contract, and
intrusion upon seclusion -- could not serve as the basis for common
issues. His conclusion hinged on a not so subtle finding that
privacy breach cases are inherently individual in nature. In this
case, the stolen information varied amongst the victims; ranging
from mundane information (e.g. addresses) to more sensitive data
(e.g. bank records). Justice Belobaba found that, whether each of
the alleged causes of action could be made out, required a look at
the individual circumstances of each plaintiff. For instance, the
standard of care in data breach cases is a sliding scale based on
the sensitivity of the stolen information. Intrusion upon seclusion
also requires consideration as to whether the breach is "offensive"
to the specific plaintiff. Finally, there was no evidence of any
class-wide contractual terms or conditions to support a common
issue in that regard.

The Court acknowledged that it should not refuse certification
merely because the damages would require individual assessments.
However, Justice Belobaba found that there were no common liability
issues, which made the issue of damages moot.

Finding that there was a lack of commonality, the Court dismissed
the motion for certification. [GN]


CBL & ASSOCIATES: Paskowitz Sues Over Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------
Laurence Paskowitz, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CBL & Associates Properties,
Inc., Stephen D. Lebovitz, Charles B. Lebovitz, A. Larry Chapman
and Farzana Khaleel, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00149 (E.D. Tenn.,
May 17, 2019), seeks compensatory and punitive damages, damages,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorney fees
and experts fees and other costs and disbursements pursuant to the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

CBL is a real estate investment trust and is an active owner and
developer of malls and shopping centers in the United States,
owning holding interests in, or managing more than 140 properties
across 31 states. CBL is under investigation by both the Federal
Bureau of Investigation and the SEC for allegedly inflating the
Company's rental income and occupancy rates for its properties when
providing those figures to banks when applying for financing
arrangements. CBL reached an agreement to settle the claims for $90
million, reflecting the payment of full damages, costs and counsel
fees but only announced this news 14 days after filing their annual
report on Form 10-K.

In reaction to this revelation, CBL shares dropped 47 cents, or
roughly 25% on trading volume of approximately 11.7 million shares.
CBL Series D preferred shares dropped 7%, or 74 cents, on volume of
576,300 shares, and CBL Series E preferred shares dropped 69 cents
in two days, on volume of 214,200 shares.

Paskowitz acquired and held shares of the CBL at artificially
inflated prices and lost substantially.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq.
     Robert Preston Bramlett, Esq.
     BRAMLETT LAW OFFICES
     40 Burton Hills Blvd., Suite 200
     P. O. Box 150734
     Nashville, TN 37215
     Telephone:615.248.2828
     Facsimile: 866.816.4116
     Email: PKNASHLAW@aol.com
            Robert@BramlettLawOffices.com

            - and -

     Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
     Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
     GAINEY, McKENNA, & EGLESTON
     440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Telephone: (212) 983-1300
     Facsimile: (212) 983-0383
     Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
            gegleston@gme-law.com

            - and -

     Roy L. Jacobs, Esq.
     ROY JACOBS & ASSOCIATES
     420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2440
     New York, NY 10170
     Telephone: (212) 867-1156
     Facsimile: (212) 504-8343
     Email: rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Class Certification in Naylor Farms' Suit Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NAYLOR FARMS, INC.; HARREL'S LLC,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CHAPARRAL ENERGY, LLC,
Defendant-Appellant, BLACK STONE MINERALS COMPANY, L.P., Amicus
Curiae, Case No. 17-6146 (10th Cir.), Judge Nancy Moritz of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district
court's order granting Naylor Farms' motion to certify under Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Defendant Chaparral operates approximately 2,500 oil and gas wells
in Oklahoma.  Plaintiffs Naylor Farms and Harrel's have royalty
interests in some of those wells.  As a result, Naylor Farms
receives a portion of the proceeds those wells generate.  But
according to Naylor Farms, Chaparral systematically underpaid
Naylor Farms and other similarly situated royalty owners by
improperly deducting from their royalty payments certain
gas-treatment costs -- costs that Naylor Farms says Chaparral was
required to shoulder under Oklahoma law.  Thus, Naylor Farms
brought a putative class-action lawsuit against Chaparral and moved
to certify the class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

Naylor Farms assert claims for breach of contract, breach of
fiduciary duty, fraud, unjust enrichment, and failure to produce in
paying quantities.  The complaint alleges that Chaparral breached
the IDM by improperly deducting GCDTP-service costs from the
royalty payments Chaparral made to Naylor Farms and to other
similarly-situated royalty owners.  More specifically, Naylor Farms
contends that in an attempt to circumvent the implied duty of
marketability ("IDM"), Chaparral enters into wellhead sales
contracts with midstream processing companies. Under the terms of
those contracts, the midstream companies acquire title or
possession of unprocessed gas at or near the wellhead.  Yet
according to Naylor Farms, the midstream companies don't actually
pay Chaparral for the gas at this time.  Instead, the midstream
companies first perform certain gathering, compressing,
dehydrating, transporting, and producing ("GCDTP") services and
then sell the treated gas to downstream purchasers.

Based on this theory of liability, Naylor Farms moved to certify a
class comprising it and other similarly situated royalty owners.
In relevant part, it argued that certification was appropriate
under Rule 23 because (1) whether Chaparral breached the IDM is a
common question; and (2) this and other common questions
predominate over any individual ones.

In response, Chaparral asserted that whether it breached the IDM
isn't a common question because a jury won't be able to answer it
without first assessing "individualized issues, including the
obligation created by each" individual lease and the gas produced
from each" individual well.  Further, Chaparral asserted, these
individual questions about lease language and gas quality, as well
as individual questions about damages, predominate over any common
questions Naylor Farms might identify.  Thus, Chaparral argued,
Naylor Farms cannot satisfy Rule 23's certification requirements.

The district court disagreed and concluded that certification was
appropriate.  As an initial matter, the court ruled that Naylor
Farms identified at least one common question: whether Chaparral
breached the IDM.  It hen rejected Chaparral's arguments that
answering this common question will require an individualized
assessment of either the language that appears in each lease or the
quality of the gas that comes from each well.  Next, the district
court ruled that common questions, including whether Chaparral
breached the IDM, predominate over any individual ones.
Ultimately, after addressing Rule 23's remaining requirements, the
district court granted Naylor Farms' motion to certify.

Chaparral now appeals the district court's class-certification
order.  According to Chaparral, the district court erred in
certifying the class under Rule 23.  In support, Chaparral advances
three discrete arguments.  It first asserts the district court
erred in failing to recognize that marketability constitutes an
individual question -- one that necessarily predominates over any
common ones in this litigation.  It next contends the district
court erred in rejecting Chaparral's argument that distinctions in
lease language also give rise to individual questions, and that
those individual questions likewise predominate.  Finally, it
insists the district court erred in failing to recognize that in
the absence of evidence indicating Chaparral employs a uniform
payment methodology, certification is inappropriate.

Judge Moritz finds that the district court didn't abuse its
discretion by concluding that the marketability question in this
particular case is subject to common, classwide proof for purposes
of satisfying Rule 23's commonality and predominance requirements.
She agrees with Chaparral that if the district court assumed GCDTP
services function solely as a mechanism for transforming
unmarketable gas into a marketable product, then the court
committed a legal error.  But she disagrees with Chaparral that the
district court ever assumed otherwise.  

Naylor Farms has also presented evidence of these same two factors.
More importantly, it has presented classwide evidence of these
same two factors.  First, the record contains classwide evidence
indicating that Chaparral elects to participate in the
high-pressure-pipeline market: according to Naylor Farms' expert,
this is where Chaparral's gas is actually "sold."  Second, Naylor
Farms' expert opined that, as a classwide matter, the gas at issue,
was required to undergo at least one GCDTP service before it could
"reach" and be "sold into" the pipeline market.   In short, the
district court's ruling that marketability is subject to classwide
proof under the specific facts of the case is entirely consistent
with the OCOCA's decision in Pummill v. Hancock Expl. LLC.  Thus,
Chaparral faces an uphill climb in attempting to show that this
particular ruling rests on an error of state law.  In attempting to
make that showing, Chaparral relies heavily on the OCOCA's recent
decision in Whisenant v. Strat Land Expl. Co.

Next, Chaparral asserts that even if gas-quality variations don't
pose a bar to certification, lease-language variations do.  The
Judge holds that the argument overlooks the fact that the district
court declined to certify Naylor Farms' fraud claim.  And Chaparral
cites no authority indicating that whether it entered into the
wellhead sales contracts in good faith is dispositive of, or even
relevant to, the claims the district court did certify.
Accordingly, the Judge finds the argument inadequately briefed and
declines to consider it as well.  And she further concludes that
Chaparral therefore fails to demonstrate the district court abused
its discretion in certifying the class despite minor variations in
lease language.

As a final matter, Chaparral asserts Naylor Farms failed to
demonstrate that Chaparral uses a uniform payment methodology to
calculate royalty payments and that this lack of a common payment
methodology defeats class certification.  The Judge sees no
indication that will occur in the case.  On the contrary, as the
district court pointed out, Naylor Farms provided evidence that its
expert can determine damages on a classwide basis through use of a
model, thus obviating the need for individualized evidence.  And
Chaparral fails to explain why that model is inaccurate or
unworkable.  Further, the district court correctly noted that if
necessary, it can later divide the class into subclasses for
purposes of determining damages.  Thus, the district court didn't
abuse its discretion in ruling that individual questions about
damages don't defeat predominance.

For the reasons she discussed, Judge Moritz concludes that
Chaparral fails to demonstrate the district court's decision to
certify the class falls outside the bounds of rationally available
choices given the facts and law involved in the matter at hand.
She therefore affirmed the district court's order.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/VN3kwL from Leagle.com.

Anthony J. Shaheen -- ajshaheen@hollandhart.com -- Holland & Hart
LLP, Denver, Colorado, (Christopher A. Chrisman --
cachrisman@hollarndhart.com -- and Jessica M. Schmidt --
jmschmidt@hollandhart.com -- Holland & Hart LLP, Denver, Colorado;
Linda J. Byford, Chaparral Energy, LLC, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma;
John J. Griffin, Jr., Harvey D. Ellis, Jr., and Charles V. Knutter,
Crowe & Dunlevy, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, with him on the briefs),
for Defendant-Appellant Chaparral Energy, LLC.

Conner L. Helms (Gary R. Underwood and Erin M. Moore, with him on
the brief), Helms Underwood & Cook, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for
Plaintiffs-Appellees Naylor Farms, Inc. and Harrel's LLC.

Daniel H. Charest -- dcharest@burnscharest.com -- and Warren T.
Burns -- wburns@burnscharest.com -- Burns Charest LLP, Dallas,
Texas, filed an amicus curiae brief for Black Stone Minerals
Company, L.P. in support of Plaintiffs-Appellees Naylor Farms, Inc.
and Harrel's L.L.C.


COCA-COLA CO: Soler-Somohano Appeals Order in Sales Practices MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Movant Alberto Soler-Somohano filed an appeal from a Court ruling
in the multidistrict litigation styled In re: COCA-COLA PRODUCTS
MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION (NO. II), MDL No.
4:14-md-02555-JSW, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Oakland.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought on behalf of "all persons who purchased Coca-Cola's Coke
product that: (1) lists phosphoric acid on the ingredients list but
does not state that the product contains artificial flavoring
and/or chemical preservatives; (2) includes the label statement "no
artificial flavors. no preservatives added. since 1886."; and/or
(3) includes the label statement "original formula."

The appellate case is captioned as GEORGE ENGURASOFF; JOSHUA OGDEN;
JULIA HUGHES; AYANNA NOBLES; PAUL MERRITT; BRISTOL I. AUMILLER;
YOCHEVED LAZAROFF; RACHEL DUBE; RONALD SOWIZROL; MICHELLE MARINO;
MARY RANKIN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. COCA-COLA REFRESHMENTS USA, INC.;
COCA-COLA COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees v. ALBERTO SOLER-SOMOHANO,
Movant-Appellant, Case No. 19-16025, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- June 12, 2019 -- Transcript shall be ordered;

   -- July 12, 2019 -- Transcript shall be filed by court
      reporter;

   -- August 21, 2019 -- Appellant's opening brief and excerpts
      of record shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 31 and
      9th Cir. R. 31-2.1;

   -- September 20, 2019 -- Appellees' answering brief and
      excerpts of record shall be served and filed pursuant to
      FRAP 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1; and

   -- The optional appellant's reply brief shall be filed and
      served within 21 days of service of the appellees' brief,
      pursuant to FRAP 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1.[BN]


COFIROUTE USA: Faces Class Action Over Toll Service Ads
-------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Bradon, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a man is
filing a class action lawsuit against numerous transportation
authorities, alleging that he and other drivers were mailed a
letter that advertised toll services.

Harvey Thompson III, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, filed a complaint on April 26 in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
against Cofiroute USA LLC, Orange County Transportation Authority,
Riverside County Transportation Commission.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants are transportation
agencies that operate as electronic toll collection systems on toll
highways. The plaintiff and proposed class members were allegedly
accused by the defendant of using the Express Lanes without a
FasTrak account.

The defendants later retracted their claims, admitting that they
were wrong with their allegations, the suit says. In the letters of
retraction, Thompson says the defendants advertised toll-related
services.

Thompson alleges those letters violated the Streets & Highways
Code.

The plaintiff is seeking trial by jury, penal fines of more than $5
million, attorneys' fees, court costs and other relief deemed fit.
The plaintiff is represented by William McGrane of The Walsh Firm
P.C.

United States District Court for the Central District of California
Southern Division Case number 8:19-CV-00769 [GN]


CONTRACT CALLERS: Tabiti Sues over FDCA Violations
--------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Contract Callers,
Inc. and JH Capital Group for violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Act (FDCA). The case is captioned Tabiti v. Contract
Callers Inc. et al, Case No. 1:19-cv-03269 (N.D. Ill., May 14,
2019). This consumer credit-related lawsuit is assigned to Hon.
Judge Robert W. Gettleman.

Established in 1926, Contract Callers, Inc. is a business process
outsourcing company that offers clients across all business sectors
customer care and complete credit life cycle solutions. The company
provides first-party receivables management and third-party debt
recovery services. Based in Woodland Hills, California, JH Capital
Group, LLC is a diversified specialty finance company that offers
end-to-end solutions to customers at different stages of the
distressed credit cycle in the United States. It provides consumer
debt settlement and credit lending services that rehabilitates
consumers' credit standing. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Celetha Chatman, Esq.
     COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD.
     20 North Clark Street, Suite 3100
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Telephone: (312) 757-1880
     E-mail: cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com

             - and -

     Michael Jacob Wood, Esq.
     COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD.
     20 North Clark Street, Suite 3100
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Telephone: (312) 757-1880
     E-mail: mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com


CRANE CARTAGE: Vasquez Seeks Minimum Wage
-----------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Crane Cartage, LLC
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California
Labor Code, and the California Business and Professions Code. The
case is captioned CHRISTOPHER VASQUEZ, individually, and on behalf
of other members of the general public similarly situated,
Plaintiff, vs. CRANE CARTAGE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00657-DAD-SKO (E.D. Cal., May
14, 2019). Plaintiff cites the Defendant's failure to pay minimum
wage, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to timely
pay wages upon termination, failure to reimbursed business
expenses, and for its unlawful and unfair business practices.

Crane Cartage LLC is a Delaware limited liability company that
provides nationwide ground and logistics services. The company
maintains a single, centralized Human Resources department at its
corporate headquarters in Houston, Texas. It offers air charter,
warehousing, and transportation management services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Arbitration Ruling in Smith Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THOMAS B. SMITH, et al., v. CREDIT ACCEPTANCE
CORPORATION, Case No. 2373 (Md. Spec. App.), Judge Melanie M. Shaw
Geter of the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed the
order of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City compelling
arbitration in a contract action for the purchase of an
automobile.

On Nov. 15, 2013, Appellants, Thomas Smith and Timothy Smith,
entered into a Retail Installment Contract to purchase a 2003
Cadillac Escalade from Anderson Automotive Group, Inc.  The
Dealership assigned all of its rights, title, and interest,
including its security interest, in and to the Contract and the
Vehicle to Appellee, Credit Acceptance.

Beginning in 2015, the Appellants failed to remit the required
monthly installment payments to Credit Acceptance as required.
After Credit Acceptance attempted to obtain payment from Appellants
unsuccessfully, Credit Acceptance repossessed and sold the Vehicle,
which resulted in a deficiency balance of $12,957.30.

On Nov. 30, 2016, Credit Acceptance filed a lawsuit in the District
Court of Maryland, seeking to recover the unpaid deficiency
balance.  On July 11, 2017, just prior to trial, Credit Acceptance
voluntarily dismissed the District Court Action.

Following the Appellee's voluntary dismissal of its action against
Appellants in the District Court of Maryland for failure to make
required payments under the same contract, the Appellants filed a
class action complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.
The Appellants alleged the Appellee charged impermissible
"convenience fees" and failed to sufficiently notify the Appellants
regarding the repossession and sale of the vehicle in contravention
of Maryland's Credit Grantor Closed End Credit Provisions.  The
Appellee then petitioned the circuit court to compel arbitration of
the Appellants' claim.

The Appellants opposed the motion, arguing the Appellee waived its
right to arbitration when it previously filed its claim in the
District Court.  On Jan. 12, 2018, the circuit court granted the
Appellee's petition.

The Appellants timely appealed and present the following question
for the Court's review:  Whether the Maryland Court of Appeals in
Cain v. Midland Funding, LLC, 452 Md. 141, 156 A.3d 807 (Md. 2017)
limited the waiver of the right to arbitrate related claims as
defined by Charles J. Frank, Inc. v. Associated Jewish Charities of
Baltimore, Inc., 294 Md. 443, 450 A.2d 1304 (Md. 1982) to include
only those claims that are dependent on the claims raised in a
prior action.

As Judge Shaw Geter sees it, by either standard, Credit Acceptance
did not waive its right to arbitrate the claims in the Circuit
Court Action.  None of the Appellants' claims filed in the Circuit
Court Action were "raised and/or decided" in the District Court
Action.  The sole issue before the District Court was a breach of
contract action alleging the Appellants were responsible for a
contractual deficiency.

The Appellants argue their answer to an interrogatory in the
District Court Action sufficiently "raised" the issues alleged in
the Circuit Court Action as required by Frank.  The Judge
disagrees.  She opines that the answers to interrogatories are not
a part of the court record.  Also, the notice of intention to
defend, filed by Appellants, was general and did not specify any
issues.  Further, Credit Acceptance dismissed the lawsuit prior to
trial.  Thus, under Frank, Credit Acceptance did not waive its
right to arbitrate the claims in the Circuit Court Action as the
issues were neither "raised and/or decided in a judicial
proceeding."

The Appellants' claims in the Circuit Court Action are also not
"related to" nor "dependent" on Credit Acceptance's claim in the
District Court Action under Cain.  Unlike in Cain, where Cain's
claims would not have existed but for Midland's district court
action against him, the Appellants' claims that Credit Acceptance
violated the CLEC is wholly independent of Credit Acceptance's
claim in the District Court.  The Appellants' claims arise from
Credit Acceptance's actions in collecting payment under the
Contract, while Credit Acceptance's claim in the District Court
Action was for a contractual deficiency.  The Appellants' claims
would exist regardless of whether they breached the Contract or
whether Credit Acceptance instituted the District Court Action.
Accordingly, the Judge holds the circuit court did not err in
granting Credit Acceptance's petition to compel arbitration.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Shaw Geter affirmed.  Costs to be
paid by the Appellant.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/zCRZHi from Leagle.com.


CV SCIENCES: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Smith Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CV Sciences, 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 consolidated class action suit initiated by David Smith
is pending.

On August 24, 2018, David Smith filed a purported class action
complaint in Nevada District Court alleging certain misstatements
were contained in financial filings that led to stock price
fluctuations and resulting financial harm.

Several additional individuals filed similar claims, and the Smith
suit and each of the other suits all arise out of a report
published by Citron Research on Twitter on August 20, 2018
suggesting that the Company misled investors by failing to disclose
that the Company's efforts to secure patent protection had been
"finally rejected" by the United States Patent and Trademark Office
(USPTO).

On November 15, 2018, the Court consolidated the actions and
appointed Richard Ina, Trustee for the Ina Family Trust as Lead
Plaintiff for the consolidated actions. On January 4, 2019, Counsel
for Lead Plaintiff Richard Ina, Trustee for the Ina Family Trust
filed a "consolidated amended complaint".

On March 5, 2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss the action.


Management intends to vigorously defend the allegations.

CV Sciences said, "Since no discovery has been conducted and the
case remains stayed, an estimate of the possible loss or recovery
cannot be made at this time. Various shareholder derivative suits
have been filed which are premised on the same event as the
already-pending case. These are stayed pending the outcome of the
securities class action case."

CV Sciences, Inc. operates as a life science company. It operates
through two segments, Consumer Products and Specialty
Pharmaceuticals. The company was formerly known as CannaVest Corp.
and changed its name to CV Sciences, Inc. in January 2016. CV
Sciences, Inc. was founded in 2010 and is based in Las Vegas,
Nevada.


CV SCIENCES: Continues to Defend Sallustro Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
CV Sciences, 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 purported class action suit initiated by Tanya
Sallustro.

On April 23, 2014, Tanya Sallustro filed a purported class action
complaint (the "Complaint") in the Southern District of New York
(the "Court") alleging securities fraud and related claims against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors and seeking
compensatory damages including litigation costs.

Ms. Sallustro alleges that between March 18-31, 2014, she purchased
certain shares of the Company's common stock for a total investment
of $16 thousand. The Complaint refers to Current Reports on Form
8-K and Current Reports on Form 8-K/A filings made by the Company
on April 3, 2014 and April 14, 2014, in which the Company amended
previously disclosed sales (sales originally stated at $1.3 million
were restated to $1.1million, a reduction of $0.2 million) and
restated goodwill as $1.9 million (previously reported at net
zero).

Additionally, the Complaint states after the filing of the
Company's Current Report on Form 8-K on April 3, 2014 and the
following press release, the Company's stock price "fell $7.30 per
share, or more than 20%, to close at $25.30 per share."

Subsequent to the filing of the Complaint, six different
individuals filed a motion asking to be designated the lead
plaintiff in the litigation. On March 19, 2015, the Court issued a
ruling appointing Steve Schuck as lead plaintiff. Counsel for Mr.
Schuck filed a "consolidated amended complaint" on September 14,
2015.

On December 11, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. After requesting several
extensions, counsel for Mr. Schuck filed an opposition to the
motion to dismiss on March 21, 2016. The Company's reply brief was
filed on April 25, 2016.

On April 2, 2018, the Court issued a ruling granting in part and
denying part the motion to dismiss. Thereafter, on October 3, 2018,
plaintiff's counsel filed a motion to withdraw Mr. Schuck as Lead
Plaintiff and to substitute Jane Ish as new Lead Plaintiff. This
motion was granted by the Court.

CV Sciences said, "Various shareholder derivative suits and
complaints have been filed which are premised on the same event as
the already-pending securities class action case. These are stayed
pending the outcome of the securities class action case."

Management intends to vigorously defend these allegations and an
estimate of possible loss cannot be made at this time.

CV Sciences, Inc. operates as a life science company. It operates
through two segments, Consumer Products and Specialty
Pharmaceuticals. The company was formerly known as CannaVest Corp.
and changed its name to CV Sciences, Inc. in January 2016. CV
Sciences, Inc. was founded in 2010 and is based in Las Vegas,
Nevada.


DIAL SOAP: DOJ Files Statement of Interest in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Independent Women's Forum reports that on May 10, the Department of
Justice filed a Statement of Interest in a class action lawsuit
against Dial Soap due to the extraordinary attorney fee arrangement
in the case. Most people think of class action lawsuits as a
democratic tool for justice, but this case may be an example of the
potential for abuse.

In the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, Congress found that class
action lawsuits "are an important and valuable part of the legal
system"—but only "when they permit the fair and efficient
resolution of legitimate claims." Class actions aggregate hundreds
or thousands of claims into one case and are designed to allow for
the recovery of small claims where the cost of individual
litigation otherwise would be prohibitive. In CAFA, Congress also
found that the class action devise had been abused and this abuse
had "undermined public respect for our judicial system." One such
abuse identified by Congress was where class counsel are awarded
massive fees but class members "receive little or no benefit."
Because of this potential for abuse, Congress allows the Attorney
General to review class settlements and file Statement of Interests
in the case.

In the Dial case, plaintiffs allege (and Dial disputes) that Dial
falsely advertised that its hand soaps containing triclosan were
more effective at killing germs than were other soaps. Under the
proposed settlement agreement, the attorneys would be awarded a
whopping $3.825 million, including nearly two million tied to the
award of injunctive relief. The United States argues that the
injunction "provide[s] no benefit to consumers," given that the FDA
has banned the use of triclosan, and Dial has already voluntarily
made the changes required by the injunctive relief. The United
States thus opposes the proposed class action settlement because it
"would afford little value to consumers while handsomely
compensating attorneys."

Too often the potential for abuse is exploited, but it looks like
the DOJ is paying attention this time. Costly class actions that
don't result in any benefit to "the little guy" only ultimately add
to the costs that consumers face as litigation costs are passed
along to us. Our justice system should be about righting wrongs,
not enriching trial lawyers. [GN]


DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Aug. 20 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP regarding the Diplomat Securities Litigation:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

DAVID N. ZIMMERMAN, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DIPLOMAT PHARMACY, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

Civ. No. 2:16-cv-14005-AC-SDD
Hon. Avern Cohn
CLASS ACTION

SUMMARY NOTICE
    
TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED DIPLOMAT PHARMACY, INC. ("DIPLOMAT")
COMMON STOCK FROM FEBRUARY 29, 2016 THROUGH AND INCLUDING NOVEMBER
3, 2016


THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (the "Court")
and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that (i) the
above-captioned litigation (the "Litigation") has been
preliminarily certified as a class action on behalf of a class of
all Persons who purchased Diplomat common stock from February 29,
2016 through and including November 3, 2016, except for certain
Persons excluded from the Class as defined in the full printed
Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action
("Notice"), which is available as described below; and (ii) Lead
Plaintiffs and Defendants in the Litigation have reached an
agreement to settle the Litigation for an aggregated settlement
payment of $14.1 million in cash (the "Settlement"). If the
Settlement is approved it will resolve all claims in the
Litigation. Any capitalized terms used in this Summary Notice that
are not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed
to them in the Stipulation of Settlement dated April 22, 2019 (the
"Stipulation"), and the Notice.

A hearing will be held on August 20, 2019, at 10:00 a.m., before
the Honorable Avern Cohn, at the Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse,
231 W. Lafayette Blvd., Detroit, Michigan for the purpose of
determining: (1) whether the proposed settlement of the claims in
the Litigation for the sum of $14,100,000 in cash should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2)
whether a Class should be certified for purposes of the Settlement;
(3) whether, thereafter, this Litigation should be dismissed with
prejudice pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the
Stipulation; (4) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation is fair,
reasonable, and adequate and therefore should be approved; and (5)
the reasonableness of the application of Lead Counsel for the
payment of attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in connection
with this Litigation together with the interest earned thereon
(which may include payments to the Lead Plaintiffs pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 in connection with
their representation of the Class).

If you purchased Diplomat common stock during the period between
February 29, 2016 and November 3, 2016, inclusive, your rights may
be affected by the settlement of this Litigation. If you have not
received a detailed Notice and a copy of the Proof of Claim and
Release form ("Proof of Claim"), you may obtain copies (as well as
a copy of the Stipulation) by writing to Diplomat Securities
Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box
404131, Louisville, KY 40233-4131, or by downloading this
information at www.DiplomatSecuritiesSettlement.com. If you are a
Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund, you must either submit a Proof of Claim online at
www.DiplomatSecuritiesSettlement.com by September 23, 2019, or by
mail postmarked no later than September 23, 2019, establishing that
you are entitled to recovery.

If you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a
request for exclusion postmarked by July 30, 2019, in the manner
and form explained in the detailed Notice referred to above. All
Members of the Class who do not timely and validly request
exclusion from the Class will be bound by any judgment entered in
the Litigation pursuant to the terms and conditions of the
Stipulation.

Any objection to the Settlement must be mailed or delivered to the
Clerk of the Court and counsel for the Settling Parties at the
addresses below such that it is received no later than July 30,
2019:

Court:
Clerk of the Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF
MICHIGAN
231 W. Lafayette Blvd.
Detroit, MI 48226

Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs:

Ellen Gusikoff Stewart
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101

Joshua L. Crowell
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100     
Los Angeles, CA 90067

Counsel for Defendants:
James W. Ducayet
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
One South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60603

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK’S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you
may contact counsel for Lead Plaintiffs at the addresses listed
above or go to the following website:
www.DiplomatSecuritiesSettlement.com.

DATED: May 7, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN


DON VITO OZUNA: Camilo's Bid for Prelim. OK of $375K Deal Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Virginia K. Demarchi denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of settlement in the lawsuit entitled RODRIGO
CAMILO, et al. v. SEVERO C. OZUNA, et al., Case No.
5:18-cv-02842-VKD (N.D. Cal.).

According to the Order, the Court held a hearing on the Motion on
March 19, 2019.  Following the hearing, and at the Court's
direction, the Plaintiffs filed supplemental briefing on the
matter.  Upon consideration of the moving papers, the Plaintiffs'
supplemental submissions, and the arguments of counsel, the Court
conditionally certifies a Rule 23 class and FLSA collective class,
but otherwise denies the Plaintiffs' motion without prejudice to
filing a renewed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement
by June 17, 2019.

Plaintiffs Rodrigo Camilo, Alvaro Camilo, Ricardo Sanchez, and Jose
Lopez bring this hybrid putative class action and collective class
action for alleged wage and hour violations under various
provisions of the California Labor Code and the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act.  The Defendants are Severo C. Ozuna and the Don Vito
Ozuna Food Corporation, a tortilla factory based in Morgan Hill,
California.

Prior to certification, the parties participated in a full-day
private mediation with Hon. George Hernandez (Ret.) and reached a
settlement as to the Plaintiffs' claims and those of all "Class
Members," defined in the parties' Joint Stipulation for Class
Action Settlement and Release ("Stipulated Settlement") as
follows:

     All non-exempt hourly employees who are employed or have
     been employed by Defendants as all non-exempt hourly
     employees involved in the tortilla and chip manufacturing
     process who were employed by Defendants between May 14, 2014
     and March 19, 2019 who claim they were not paid all their
     overtime at the rate of 1.5 times their regular rate of pay,
     and who claim did not receive their breaks.

The Stipulated Settlement does not refer to a subclass of employees
who were not timely paid final wages upon termination.

The proposed settlement is non-reversionary and contemplates a
release of claims in return for a total payment of $375,000 into a
common fund.  From that fund, the parties will deduct $112,500 in
attorneys' fees, up to $10,000 in litigation expenses, no more than
$15,000 for settlement administration costs, and service awards of
$5,000 to each named Plaintiff.  The remaining sum, $217,500,
referred to as the "Net Settlement Fund," will then be available
for distribution to each "Participating Class Member" based on the
number of weeks he or she worked, with 67% of the fund being
allocated to Rule 23 class claims and 33% being allocated to those
under the FLSA.

The Defendants agree to fund the settlement in two installments.
The first payment of $200,000 is due by July 1, 2019, or 30 days
after final approval of the settlement (assuming no objections are
asserted and no appeal is filed), whichever is later.  The second
installment of $175,000 is due by May 1, 2020.  Payments will be
distributed by CPT Group, the agreed-upon claims administrator,
after each installment is paid.[CC]


DONALD TRUMP: Faces Class Action Over Gender Pay Bias
-----------------------------------------------------
Dan Desai Martin, writing for Shareblue Media, reports that Omarosa
Manigault-Newman, the former Apprentice star, Trump supporter, and
White House staffer, alleges she was paid less on the Trump
campaign than a man doing the same work.

The allegations, filed on May 13 in federal court, are part of an
effort by another former Trump campaign staffer, Alva Johnson, to
certify a collective action lawsuit against the Trump campaign.

In the court document, Manigault-Newman alleges that the Trump
campaign paid her and other female staffers "less than male
employees who performed the same or similar job duties under
similar working conditions."

Manigault-Newman released a statement after the allegations were
files saying that she strongly suspected she was subjected to pay
discrimination, and has since seen evidence from experts supporting
her hunch. "The numbers don't lie," she said. After the campaign,
Manigault-Newman worked at the White House until she was fired in
December 2017.

In addition to Manigault-Newman, Johnson's attorney presented data
from the Federal Election Commission (FEC) which shows that,
"excluding a small handful of employees in senior leadership roles,
on average, females were paid $3,865 monthly and males were paid
$4,568 -- a stunning gap of 18.2 percent." The data is from May
2016 through December 2016.

Alva Johnson made headlines when she filed her lawsuit in February
2019. In addition to allegations of pay discrimination, Johnson
claimed Trump grabbed her and kissed her without her consent.
Johnson is one of 23 women who have accused Trump of sexual
harassment.

"I immediately felt violated because I wasn't expecting it or
wanting it," Johnson said. "I can still see his lips coming
straight for my face," she added.

The actions described by Johnson line up with how Trump himself
described his own sexual predatory behavior on an Access Hollywood
tape.

"You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful -- I just start
kissing them," Trump said. "It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't
even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do
anything. Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything."

In her court filing, Manigault-Newman did not allege sexual
harassment by Trump.

If Johnson's motion to create a collective action lawsuit is
successful, she will be able to reach out and invite other women
who worked on Trump's campaign to join in the lawsuit, according to
her lawyer.

If the allegations are true, Trump has the same stance toward equal
pay as Republicans in the House of Representatives. The House
recently voted on the Paycheck Fairness Act, a bill to make it
easier for women to challenge pay discrimination and hold employers
accountable.

While Democrats unanimously supported the bill, Trump's Republican
pals overwhelmingly voted against it. [GN]


EL POLLO: Aug. 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP regarding the
El Pollo Loco Securities Settlement:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

DANIEL TUROCY, et al., Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

EL POLLO LOCO HOLDINGS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 8:15-cv-01343-DOC-KES
(Consolidated)
CLASS ACTION


SUMMARY NOTICE

IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED EL POLLO LOCO HOLDINGS, INC. (EL POLLO
LOCO) COMMON STOCK OR EXCHANGE-TRADED CALL OPTIONS, OR SOLD
EXCHANGE-TRADED PUT OPTIONS FROM MAY 15, 2015, THROUGH AND
INCLUDING AUGUST 13, 2015, AND WERE DAMAGED THEREBY (THE CLASS),
YOU COULD RECEIVE A PAYMENT FROM A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. CERTAIN
PERSONS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION OF THE CLASS AS SET FORTH
IN THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT.

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

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and Order of the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, Southern Division, that the
above-captioned litigation (the Litigation) has been certified as a
class action and that a Settlement has been proposed for
$20,000,000 in cash. A hearing will be held on August 21, 2019, at
8:30 a.m., before the Honorable David O. Carter at the Ronald
Reagan Federal Building and United States Courthouse, 411 West
Fourth Street, Courtroom 9D, Santa Ana, CA 92701, for the purpose
of determining whether: (1) the proposed Settlement should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) the
proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the Settlement
proceeds is fair, reasonable and adequate and therefore should be
approved; and (3) the application of Lead Counsel for the payment
of attorneys fees of no more than 30% of the Settlement Amount,
payment of litigation expenses of no more than $750,000 from the
Settlement Fund, including interest earned thereon, and an amount
not to exceed $3,000 each for Lead Plaintiffs pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
§78u-4(a)(4) in connection with their representation of the Class,
should be approved; and (4) the Court should enter the Final
Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THE LITIGATION, AND YOU MAY BE
ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND. If you have not received
a detailed Notice of Pendency and Settlement of Class Action (the
Notice) and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release, you may
obtain a copy of these documents by contacting the Claims
Administrator: El Pollo Loco Securities Settlement, c/o Gilardi &
Co. LLC, P.O. Box 505027, Louisville, KY 40233-5027,
1-866-446-5054. You may also obtain copies of the Stipulation of
Settlement, Notice and Proof of Claim and Release at
www.ElPolloLocoSecuritiesSettlement.com.

If you are a Class Member, to be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of
Claim and Release by mail postmarked no later than August 6, 2019,
or submit it online by that date, establishing that you are
entitled to a recovery. If you do not submit a valid Proof of Claim
and Release, you will not share in the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund, but you will still be bound by any judgment
entered by the Court in this Litigation (including the releases
provided for therein).

If you are a Class Member and do not exclude yourself from the
Class, you will be bound by any judgment entered by the Court in
this Litigation (including the releases provided for therein)
whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim and Release. To exclude
yourself from the Class, you must submit a written request for
exclusion so that is postmarked no later than July 31, 2019, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you
request exclusion, you will not recover money pursuant to the
Settlement. Any objection to the proposed Settlement, the Plan of
Allocation of Settlement proceeds, or the fee and expense
application must be filed with the Court and delivered such that it
is received by each of the following no later than July 31, 2019:

CLERK OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA

Ronald Reagan Federal Building &
United States Courthouse
411 West Fourth Street
Santa Ana, CA  92701

Co-Lead Counsel:
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
RYAN A. LLORENS
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA  92101

Defense Counsel:
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
JASON D. RUSSELL
300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite
3400 Los Angeles, CA  90071

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERKS OFFICE, DEFENDANTS, OR
DEFENDANTS COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions
about the Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlement, you may contact Lead Counsel at the address listed
above or by calling 1-800-449-4900 or 1-213-785-2610.

DATED: May 15, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTHERN DIVISION


EPICENTER FESTIVAL: Disgruntled Attendees Mull Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cierra Jones, writing for mxdwn.com, reports that the Epicenter
Festival was nothing short of a disaster. Severe weather, traffic
nightmares, and canceled sets turned eager fans into disappointed
fans. Problems arose early, as traffic was a big issue for fans
trying to get to the festival.

According to consequenceofsound, a ticket holder by the name of
Kelly Tesh told a local news channel that she arrived within three
miles of the festival around 5:00 p.m. on May 10 via US Highway 1.
After moving just one and a half miles in four hours, she and her
friends decided to get rid of their tickets and head home.

For those who stuck it out and made through traffic, another
problem stood in between them and the festival. Parking was also a
disaster for fans as there was a lack of lighting, parking
attendants, or security. This left cars trapped in chaos with
festival goers claiming they were stuck in the parking lot for more
than four hours.

The issue became so frustrating that a few people decided to cut a
hole through the fencing around the parking lot, allowing cars to
filter out through the gap.

Severe weather led to a forced set evacuation ahead of the May 11
evening's performances. Fans were told to seek shelter in their
cars, while those who attempted to leave the festival grounds were
stuck in mayhem once again.

The weather led to the cancelation of highly anticipated sets from
Tool, Judas Priest, The Cult, and many more.

Major damage was detected to the festival grounds, stages, and
infrastructure, leading to a delay for the May 12 gates to open for
several hours. Before the festival, the forecast had predicted
inclement conditions for the festival days. With the recent traffic
mayhem and last-minute evacuation, it seemed as though organizers
were perhaps not as prepared as fans would have liked.

Through all of the mishaps, Epicenter decided to continue the
festival on May 12 to end with a high note.

For some fans, there is no forgiving or forgetting how much of a
disaster the Epicenter Festival was.

According to theprp, a Facebook group formed calling for a
class-action lawsuit against the organizers. Over 1300 members
signed up for the group, but it appears to have since been removed
from the social network. [GN]


EQUIFAX INC: Reaches Data Breach Settlement Agreements
------------------------------------------------------
Emma Hurt, writing for WABE, reports that Equifax Inc. (NYSE: EFX),
the Atlanta-based credit bureau, revealed in its earnings release
that dealing with its 2017 cybersecurity breach has cost about $1.4
billion plus legal fees, but Chief Executive Mark Begor told
investors the company has made progress since the 2017 breach,
notably by reaching settlement agreements recently with some of the
class action lawsuits and government investigators.

"This is a positive step forward for Equifax, as we work to put the
2017 cybersecurity event behind us," Begor said of the lawsuits,
though he qualified they are pending court approval.

A year and a half ago, the company, which gathers consumers' credit
histories, revealed a massive security breach compromised the
personal information of about 150 million people.

Begor also said the settlement terms include the creation of a
single "consumer redress fund" to consolidate redress requests, for
which the company advocated.

There are still many other lawsuits outstanding. The company has
said hundreds of suits were filed against it since the breach,
including more than 2,500 individual consumer plaintiffs,
international and domestic class action suits, shareholder
litigation and government lawsuits from states and cities. [GN]


EQUITY BANCSHARES: July 12 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, on May 14 announced that a securities class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the
securities of Equity Bancshares, Inc. ("Equity Bancshares," "EQBK"
or the "Company) (NASDAQ: EQBK) between May 11, 2018 and April 22,
2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit, filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, seeks to recover damages for Equity Bancshares investors
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you purchased EQBK securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options, please visit EQBK Class Action Lawsuit or
contact Joe Seidman toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
seidman@bernlieb.com.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclosed
that (1) Equity Bancshares lacked adequate internal controls to
assess credit risk; (2) certain of Equity Bancshares' loans posed
an increased risk of loss; (3) Equity Bancshares was reasonably
likely to incur significant losses for certain substandard loans;
and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about Equity Bancshares' business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

On April 22, 2019, Equity Bancshares disclosed that a $14.5 million
provision for loss against a credit relationship had impacted its
financial results for first quarter 2019. On this news, Equity
Bancshares' share price fell $4.76, or more than 16%, to close at
$24.71 per share on April 23, 2019.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in the Equity Bancshares
class action, you must move the court no later than July 12, 2019.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to
share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead
plaintiff. If you take no action, you may remain an absent class
member.

If you purchased EQBK securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options, please visit https://tinyurl.com/yydd82jh
or contact Joe Seidman toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
seidman@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. [GN]


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: 2nd Cir. Affirms Class Action Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that
on May 7, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit summarily affirmed the judgment by Judge Edgardo Ramos of
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York granting defendants' motion to dismiss in a putative
securities class action.  In re Express Scripts Holdings Co.
Securities Litigation No. 18-cv-1850 (2d Cir. May 7, 2019).
Plaintiffs alleged that defendants -- a pharmacy benefit manager
("the Company") and certain of its officers -- violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange
Act") by making materially false or misleading statements in
connection with the purchase or sale of securities.  As discussed
in our prior post, the District Court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss, finding that plaintiffs did not adequately plead that
defendants made any misleading statements or that defendants acted
with the requisite scienter.  On appeal, plaintiffs argued that the
District Court incorrectly held that the Amended Complaint failed
to adequately allege that defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and omission and acted with scienter.  The
Second Circuit affirmed in a summary order.  Summary orders do not
have binding precedential effect.

The Company entered into a ten-year agreement with a major
insurance company to serve as its exclusive pharmacy benefits
manager, which was subject to periodic pricing reviews and could be
renewed at the end of the ten-year term.  Plaintiffs allege that
defendants "materially misrepresented" and "failed to disclose the
true state" of the Company's "relationship and negotiations" with
the insurance company, and that the Company "misled investors by
amortizing the [a]greement over 15 years, rather than 10 years,"
when it knew the agreement would not be renewed.  Plaintiffs cited
the following four statements by defendants as being materially
false or misleading:  (i) an officer describing the relationship
between the Company and the insurance company as "great," "very,
very solid," and "business as usual;" (ii) an officer stating that
the Company "really enjoys" its relationship with the insurance
company and that it is a "two-way street;" (iii) an officer stating
that the Company was "currently in discussions with [the insurance
company] regarding the periodic pricing provisions of the
agreement" and "excited to continue productive discussions," which
were "very early on;" and (iv) an SEC filing by the Company
representing that it was actively engaged in good-faith discussions
with the insurer concerning the periodic pricing review.  According
to the Second Circuit, the statements by the officers were opinions
and "expressions of puffery" and as such were not misleading.  The
Court emphasized that the Company had made efforts to negotiate and
had attempted to resolve disputes between the parties, and the
Company's statements merely expressed optimism about the process
and did not become misleading just because it did not turn out as
planned.  Indeed, the Second Circuit noted that the Company had in
fact warned investors that the negotiations could be unsuccessful
and that the agreement might not be renewed.  Accordingly, the
Second Circuit found that "no reasonable investor could have found
the statements, in light of the overall context, to be false,
misleading, or incomplete."

The Second Circuit next considered plaintiffs' allegation that the
Company misleadingly amortized the ten-year agreement over a
fifteen-year period when it knew that there was a remote
possibility that the agreement would actually be renewed.  While
agreeing that the Company's expectations were "overly optimistic,"
the Second Circuit found that these actions did not demonstrate
that the Company "overvalued" the agreement.  Furthermore, the
Second Circuit found that defendants did not have a duty to
disclose the allegedly troubled relationship between the parties.
Citing to the Second Circuit's holding in In re Vivendi, S.A. Sec.
Litig., 837 F.3d 223, 239 (2d Cir. 2016), the Court noted that a
"pure omission is actionable under securities laws only when the
corporation is subject to a duty to disclose the omitted facts, and
in and of themselves, [Section] 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 do not create
an affirmative duty to disclose any and all material information."
Because discussions between the parties were ongoing, the Court
found that defendants' "lack of clairvoyance . . . does not
constitute securities fraud."

Turning to the issue of scienter, the Second Circuit agreed with
the District Court's holding that plaintiffs failed to allege that
defendants had an intent to deceive or misrepresent the
relationship to the public.  The Second Circuit noted that while
scienter based on conscious misbehavior or reckless conduct may be
established with circumstantial evidence that defendants knew or
had access to information suggesting that their public statements
were not accurate, the Second Circuit has "limited the scope of
securities fraud liability" on such a basis and liability would not
be found if public statements were consistent with information that
was "available at the time."  The Court found that defendants
"could not have known that the negotiations with [the insurance
company] would ultimately fail, especially considering the fact
that the first periodic pricing review was successful even though
it took ‘approximately a year,' was ‘combative,' and led [the
insurance company] to ‘raise[] the possibility of litigation' to
resolve the contractual dispute."  According to the Court, the
"fact that [d]efendants' optimism ‘turned out to be unwarranted
is not circumstantial evidence of conscious fraudulent behavior or
recklessness.'"

Finding plaintiffs' remaining arguments without merit, the Second
Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment dismissing the
claims with prejudice against defendants. [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: B.C. Court Allows Class Action to Expand
------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a class-action lawsuit launched
against Facebook by a British Columbia woman is allowed to include
to residents of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Newfoundland and
Labrador who claim their images were used without their knowledge.

Deborah Douez claims the social media giant used her image and
those of others without their knowledge in the "sponsored stories"
advertising program that is no longer in operation.

Facebook Inc. fought the certification of the class action all the
way to the Supreme Court of Canada and lost and now a B.C. Supreme
Court judge ruled that Douez can expand the certification to
include residents of other provinces who were unknowingly featured
in the promotion.

Justice Nitya Iyer also agreed with Douez that Facebook is
obligated to pay any profits that it made from the unauthorized use
of the class members' names or portraits.

If someone liked a product under the program, which ran from
January 2011 to May 2014, Facebook generated a news feed
endorsement using the person's name and profile photo, but didn't
tell that person their image was being used.

In a ruling issued on May 13, Iyer said if the plaintiffs were
asking for damages, she would agree with Facebook that the change
should be denied, but she notes that giving up the profit made is a
remedy under privacy laws in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and
Newfoundland and Labrador. [GN]


FEDERAL EXPRESS: Freem Moves for Certification of FLSA Class
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned MICHELL FREEM, behalf of
himself and on behalf of a Class of all other persons similarly
situated v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation,
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 8:19-cv-00445-DOC-ADS
(C.D. Cal.), asks the Court pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act for entry of an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a class of persons who at any
      point in the last 3 years: (1) work or have worked for
      Federal Express Corporation ("Defendant" and/or "FedEx") as
      hourly paid technician employees; (2) have worked off the
      clock or for more than forty (40) hours in any week; and
      (3) have not been paid minimum wage or overtime wages;

   2. directing FedEx to produce a computer-readable list
      identifying by name, last known mail address, last known
      e-mail address, and telephone number of the class members
      within 10 days of entry of the Order;

   3. authorizing the Plaintiff to issue the proposed Notice to
      putative class members via U.S. Mail and/or e-mail and the
      Consent to Join form;

   4. authorizing FedEx to post the Notice in a conspicuous
      common area in its branches; and

   5. equitably tolling the statute of limitations of the FLSA
      Collective until the Court deems notice is proper.

The Court will commence a hearing on June 24, 2019, at 8:30 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard E. Quintilone, II, Esq.
          Andrew H. Haas, Esq.
          QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES
          22974 El Toro Road, Suite 100
          Lake Forest, CA 92630-4961
          Telephone: (949) 458-9675
          Facsimile: (949) 458-9679
          E-mail: req@quintlaw.com
                  ahh@quintlaw.com

               - and -

          Timothy D. Cohelan, Esq.
          Michael D. Singer, Esq.
          J. Jason Hill, Esq.
          COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
          605 C Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 595-3001
          Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
          E-mail: tcohelan@ckslaw.com
                  msinger@ckslaw.com
                  jhill@ckslaw.com


FIAT CHRYSLER: 2nd Partial Consent Decree in State Suit Entered
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, v. FIAT CHRYSLER
AUTOMOBILES N.V., FCA US LLC, V.M. MOTORI S.p.A., and V.M. NORTH
AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:19-CV-00151 (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco Division, has entered the
Second California Partial Consent Decree, resolving the Defendants'
alleged violations of California Business and Professions Code
Sections 17200 et seq., 17500 et seq., and 17580.5.

The State of California, acting by and through Xavier Becerra,
Attorney General of the State of California, and the California Air
Resources Board ("CARB") filed a complaint in the action on Jan. 9,
2019, against Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., FCA US LLC, V.M.
Motori S.p.A, and V.M. North America, Inc., alleging in relevant
part that, in connection with the certification, marketing,
distribution, and sale in California of approximately 14,000 model
year ("MY") 2014 to 2016 Ram 1500 and MY 2014 to 2016 Jeep Grand
Cherokee vehicles equipped with 3.0 liter EcoDiesel engines, the
Defendants violated 42 U.S.C. Section 7604(a)(1); California Health
and Safety Code Sectio 43016, 43151, 43152, 43153, 43154, 43205,
43211, and 43212; 13 C.C.R. Sections 1961, 1961.2, 1965, 1968.2,
and 2037 and the 40 C.F.R sections incorporated therein by
reference; and California Business and Professions Code Sections
17200 et seq., 17500 et seq., and 17580.5.

The California Complaint alleges, in relevant part, that each
Subject Vehicle contains, as part of the electronic control module,
certain software functions and calibrations that cause the emission
control system of those vehicles to perform differently (i.e., to
underperform or shut off) during normal vehicle operation and use,
as compared to during emissions testing.  It alleges that these
software functions and calibrations are undisclosed Auxiliary
Emission Control Devices ("AECDs") in violation of California and
federal law, and that they are also prohibited defeat devices under
California and federal law.  The California Complaint also alleges
that during normal vehicle operation and use, the Subject Vehicles
emit increased levels of oxides of nitrogen ("NOx").  It seeks,
among other things, civil penalties, injunctive relief, mitigation,
costs and other equitable relief related to the presence of the
defeat devices in the Subject Vehicles.

The Parties intend to resolve certain aspects of the California
Claims through the entry of: (1) a consent decree among the United
States, California, and the Defendants ("FCA/US/CA Consent Decree")
concerning the Subject Vehicles, lodged on Jan. 10, 2019, that,
among other things, establishes a recall program offering consumers
an approved emissions modification to be applied to the Subject
Vehicles, establishes a post-entry testing program to ensure
continued compliance and durability of modified Subject Vehicles,
requires the  Defendants to implement certain corporate compliance
reforms, and requires Defendants to make a civil penalty payment of
$42.7 million to CARB and a separate penalty payment of $3,175,200
to CARB for certain additional on-board diagnostic ("OBD")
non-compliances; and (2) a consent decree between California and
Defendants concerning the Subject Vehicles, lodged on Jan. 10,
2019, that requires the Defendants to make a payment of $19,035,000
to CARB and which is intended to fully mitigate the total lifetime
excess NOx emissions from the Subject Vehicles in California, as
claimed by California.

They have agreed to resolve the remaining aspects of the California
Claims related to the Subject Vehicles without the need for
litigation through the Second California Partial Consent Decree.
The Consent Decree resolves the Defendants' alleged violations of
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.,
17500 et seq., and 17580.5 as more fully described in the
California Complaint, including by providing certain injunctive and
monetary relief to the California Attorney General.

The Parties recognize, and Judge Chen by entering the Consent
Decree finds, that the Consent Decree has been negotiated by the
Parties in good faith and will avoid litigation among the Parties
regarding the Consumer Protection Claims, and that the Consent
Decree is fair, reasonable, and in the public interest.  The
obligations of the Consent Decree apply to and are binding upon the
State of California, including the California Attorney General, and
upon Defendants, as applicable, and any of their respective
successors, assigns, or other entities or persons otherwise bound
by law.

The Defendants' obligations to comply with the requirements of the
Consent Decree are joint and several.  They will do all things
within their power and authority to ensure that any legal successor
or assign of any Defendant will remain jointly and severally liable
for the payment and other performance obligations hereunder.  They
will provide a copy of the Consent Decree to the members of their
respective Board of Directors and their executives whose duties
might reasonably include compliance with, or oversight over
compliance with, any provision of the Consent Decree.

The Defendants are permanently restrained and enjoined from
advertising, marketing, offering for sale, selling, offering for
lease, leasing, or distributing, or assisting others in the
advertising, marketing, offering for sale, selling, offering for
lease, leasing, or distributing in California any vehicle that
contains a Defeat Device.

The Defendants will pay to the California Attorney General $13.5
million, to be used by the California Attorney General, at the sole
discretion of the California Attorney General, for the enforcement
of consumer protection and environmental laws by the California
Attorney General, and to defray the costs of the investigation
leading to this Consent Decree, the FCA/US/CA Consent Decree, and
the First California Partial Consent Decree, and of the California
Attorney General's ongoing monitoring of Defendants' compliance
with these consent decrees.

The Total Settlement Payment comprises (i) $8.3 million to resolve
the Consumer Protection Claims concerning the no fewer than 13,515
Subject Vehicles sold or leased in California; and (ii) $5.2
million to defray the costs of the investigation leading to the
Consent Decree, the FCA/US/CA Consent Decree, and the First
California Partial Consent Decree, and of the California Attorney
General's ongoing monitoring of Defendants' compliance with these
consent decrees.  

If the Defendants fail to make the payment required, then they
shall, in addition to the California Mitigation Payment, pay
stipulated penalties directly to the California Attorney General as
follows: Noncompliance: (i) $20,000 (1st through 30th day),(ii)
$40,000 - 31st through 45th day, and (iii) $80,000 - 46th day and
beyond.

The payments required to be made pursuant to the Consent Decree
will be made within 30 calendar days of the date of entry, payable
by wire transfer to the California Attorney General's Office
pursuant to instructions provided by the California Attorney
General's Office.  The Defendants are responsible for any bank
charges they incur for processing wire transfers.

The Effective Date of the Consent Decree will be the date upon
which it is entered by the Court or a motion to enter the Consent
Decree is granted, whichever occurs first, as recorded on the
Court's docket.

Upon its approval and entry by the Court, the Consent Decree will
constitute a final judgment of the Court as to the California
Attorney General and the Defendants.  Judge Chen finds that there
is no just reason for delay and therefore enters the judgment as a
final judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 and 58.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/LNDl9u from Leagle.com.

People of the State of California, Plaintiff, represented by Judith
Aurora Yosepha Fiorentini, Office of the Attorney General, Laurel
Carnes, Office of the Attorney General, Nicklas A. Akers,
California Department of Justice & Jon F. Worm, Office of the
Attorney General.


FIRST AMERICAN: Brent and Teri Files Class Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against First American
Financial Corporation. The case is styled as Brent and Teri
Johnson, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. First American Financial Corporation and
First American Title Company, Defendants, Case No.
8:19-cv-01112-JLS-ADS (C.D. Cal., June 4, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Diversity-Other Contract.

First American Financial Corporation is a United States financial
services company and is a provider of title insurance and
settlement services to the real estate and mortgage
industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Kevin F Ruf, Esq.
   Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP
   1925 Century Park East Suite 2100
   Los Angeles, CA 90067
   Tel:(310) 201-9150
   Fax: (310) 201-9160
   Email: kruf@glancylaw.com




FISHING LINE: Accused by Fishing Line of Salmon Price-fixing
------------------------------------------------------------
The Fishing Line LLC, on behalf of itself and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Mowi ASA (FKA Marine Harvest ASA), Marine
Harvest USA, LLC, Marine Harvest Canada, Inc., Ducktrap River Of
Maine LLC, Grieg Seafood ASA, Grieg Seafood BC LTD., Bremnes
Seashore AS, Ocean Quality AS, Ocean Quality North America Inc.,
Ocean Quality USA Inc., Ocean Quality Premium Brands, Inc., Salmar
Leroy Seafood Group ASA, Leroy Seafood USA Inc. and Scottish Sea
Farms Ltd. The Fishing Line LLC, and all others similarly situated,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-22011 (S.D. Fla., May 17, 2019), seeks
damages, injunctive relief and other relief pursuant to Sections 1
and 3 of the Sherman Act.

Defendants are salmon producers alleged of entering into
anti-competitive agreements and/or concerted practices with each
other to control the prices of salmon and salmon-related products.

The Fishing Line is a fresh fish market which supplies fish,
including farm-raised salmon, to retailers and institutions
throughout the United States. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven M. Ebner, Esq.
      SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP
      200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 4100
      Miami, FL 33131
      Phone: (305) 347-7323
      Fax: (305) 347-7760
      Email: SEbner@shutts.com

             - and -

      Ronald J. Aranoff, Esq.
      Ryan J. Keenan, Esq.
      Scott C. Ferrier, Esq.
      WOLLMUTH MAHER & DEUTSCH LLP
      500 Fifth Avenue, 12th Floor
      New York, New York 10110
      Phone: (212) 382-3300
      Fax: (212) 382-0050
      Email: raranoff@wmd-law.com
             rkeenan@wmd-law.com


FLIK TOKEN: Investors File Class Action in Atlanta
--------------------------------------------------
Daryl Nelson, writing for Atlanta Black Star, reports that in
November 2018 a $5 million federal securities lawsuit was filed by
Chicago-based lawyer Alexander Loftus against T.I. and a man said
to be Tip's business partner named Ryan Felton.

Loftus represents a group of plaintiffs that invested in Felton's
cryptocurrency FLiK Token, an investment vehicle the plaintiffs
claim T.I. also had a stake in.

And now, as of May 10, a class-action lawsuit has been filed in a
federal district court in Atlanta on behalf of the investors, who
said they paid $40 million and were told the tokens would
substantially increase in value.

T.I. and Felton are accused of enticing investors to buy in at 6
cents per coin and said they were told it would be worth $14.99 in
just a year and a half.

Plus, celebrities like Kevin Hart mentioned the cryptocurrency on
social media and congratulated the "Live Your Life" rapper for
starting it, and he was accused of making the offer seem more
legitimate.

The value eventually increased to 21 cents per coin before it was
worthless, and the suit alleges that T.I. and his co-defendants
dumped the cryptocurrency afterward, then stopped all the social
media promotions.

And besides the securities class action suit, that $5 million
complaint from the investors in the initial coin offering was
amended, so now Hart has been added for his connection with FLiK.

Loftus, who said Felton and T.I. were involved in a classic "pump
and dump" scheme, said the government is now cracking down on
cryptocurrency startups.

"This is an example where technology got a bit ahead of regulation
and now that the SEC is catching up, a lot of ICO offerings are
going to get pinched for violations just like this" said Loftus in
a statement.

"Thinly traded cryptocurrencies like this can be manipulated just
like a penny stock, so fraudsters can make a quick buck with a
celebrity endorsement pumping the value up such as the endorsement
made by Actor Kevin Hart in this case."

In November T.I.'s attorney Albert A. Chapar sent a statement to
Atlanta Black Star and said the rapper is far from a fraudster,
because he was also duped by Felton.

"Tip is truly disheartened by the lawsuit," said Chapar. "Tip did
not receive a single dollar from Felton or any of the money alleged
to have been invested by the Plaintiffs, nor did he have any
ownership in the company."

"Felton has made multiple misrepresentations as well as
unauthorized statements about Tip's involvement," he added. "The
terribly unfortunate truth is that Felton misused and took
advantage of Tip's name and likeness, thereby victimizing both the
investors and Tip." [GN]


FLORIDA CRYSTALS: Coffie Files Tort Class Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Florida Crystals
Corporation. The case is styled as Clover Coffie and Jennie
Thompson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Florida Crystals Corporation, Sugar Cane
Growers Cooperative of Florida, United States Sugar Corporation,
Flo-Sun Incorporated, American Sugar Refining, Inc, Okeelanta
Corporation, Osceola Farms, Sugarland Harvesting Co., Trucane Sugar
Corporation, Independent Harvesting, Inc., King Ranch, Inc. and J &
J Ag Products, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 9:19-cv-80730-DMM (S.D.
Fla., June 4, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Torts to Land.

Florida Crystals is the only producer of certified organic sugar
grown and harvested in the United States. Its subsidiary, ASR
Group, is the world's largest cane sugar refining company, which
owns and operates sugar refineries in Louisiana, California, New
York, Maryland, Canada, Mexico, England, Italy and Portugal.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Joseph C. Schulz, Esq.
   The Law Offices of Berman & Berman
   P.O. Box 272789
   Boca Raton, FL 33427
   Tel: (561) 826-5200
   Fax: (561) 826-5201
   Email: service@thebermanlawgroup.com

      - and -

   Zachary West, Esq.
   The Law Offices of Berman and Berman, P.A.
   805 NW 13th Street, Suite D
   Gainesville, FL 32601
   Tel: (352) 514-3791
   Email: zwest@thebermanlawgroup.com



FLOWERS FOODS: Court Won't Decertify FLSA Class in Neff Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Geoffrey W. Crawford denies the motion for decertification
of the FLSA class and grants the motion for certification of the
Vermont labor law claims in the lawsuit styled NICK NEFF and
MATTHEW McCREA, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals v. FLOWERS FOODS, INC., CK SALES CO., LLC, and
LEPAGE BAKERIES PARK STREET, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-00254-gwc (D.
Vt.).

The Plaintiffs work as distributors for the Defendants.  The
Plaintiffs deliver bread, snacks, and other baked goods produced by
the Defendants to stores and other retail locations.  Prior to
2012, most Plaintiffs were full-time employees of LePage and
received overtime wages after 40 hours of work each week.

In 2012, Flowers Foods acquired LePage.  Flowers Foods is the
second-largest commercial bakery company in the United States.
Flowers Foods follows a business model in which most distributors
are classified as independent contractors.  In the months following
the acquisition, the Plaintiffs were presented with identical
distribution agreements, which described this new business
arrangement. As independent contractors, they no longer received
overtime pay.

The Plaintiffs have filed suit, claiming that the Defendants
misclassified distributors as independent contractors, thus,
depriving them of overtime wages due under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

A subset of the Plaintiffs, who are located in Vermont have filed
claims under Vermont law seeking compensation for alleged unlawful
deductions from their pay and other damages.  All Plaintiffs also
seek injunctive and declaratory relief establishing their right as
employees to receive overtime pay.  The Plaintiffs move for class
certification of their Vermont law claims.[CC]


FORD MOTOR: Appeal Pending in Transmission Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------
Clifford Atiyeh, writing for Car and Driver, reports that by now it
is a well-publicized issue that Ford's PowerShift dual-clutch
automatic transmission has caused problems for owners of several
model years of its Fiesta and Focus cars. Now, nearly two million
customers stand to get repayment for their trouble in a
class-action lawsuit settlement currently before the U.S. Court of
Appeals, and it could cost Ford in the billions.

The Ford PowerShift transmission in question is found in
2011–2016 Fiesta and 2012–2016 Focus cars. As described by
owners of the vehicles, the primary, recurrent issues are a
shuddering feeling while accelerating from a stop -- like someone
who can't feather the clutch properly on a stick shift -- followed
by a rough 1-2 upshift that again sends a vibration throughout the
vehicle. Owners have reported replacing clutches, output shafts,
and entire transmissions. They've come back for software updates.
More often than not, as described by owners we've spoken to and on
forums across the internet, the problems reappear even after
service technicians claim the transmission is within normal factory
limits.

What's the Problem?
In place of a conventional automatic's torque converter, this
dual-clutch six-speed transmission uses two clutch packs to couple
the engine to the transmission -- one that's engaged when an odd
gear is selected, the other for evens. Dual-clutch gearboxes
typically deliver improved fuel economy and faster shifts than a
traditional automatic. But these transmissions also tend to slip
the clutch like a manual when getting off the line and can shift
rougher than a torque-converter automatic. Exacerbating these
undesirable traits, the Ford uses dry clutches in the interest of
efficiency. Wet clutches, which bathe the friction discs in
hydraulic fluid, offer smoother engagement. It's no coincidence
that the better dual-clutch transmissions -- such as those used by
Audi, BMW, Porsche, and Volkswagen -- use wet clutches. In the case
of the Ford transmission, many owners simply weren't used to
dual-clutch transmission feel. But in the U.S. and across the
world, this transmission's history of needing frequent repairs has
been well documented.

What Has Ford Done about It?
Since its European introduction 10 years ago, Ford has issued more
than 20 technical service bulletins addressing problems with the
PowerShift, code-named DPS6.

In 2014, Ford extended the powertrain warranty on affected Fiesta
and Focus models by an extra two years or 40,000 miles, to seven
years or 100,000 miles total.

Ford first modified the PowerShift transmission in 2012 after the
automaker's scores in J.D. Power and Consumer Reports surveys
dropped. But these issues didn't go away until Ford began getting
sued in 2017. According to then Ford Australia president Graeme
Whickman, speaking to CarAdvice in July 2017, Ford made several
improvements to the PowerShift transmission on vehicles after the
2016 model year. That's not to say customers have never since
reported a similar issue, but by and large, it hasn't affected a
dramatic spread of owners as did earlier models.

Legal Action
With $35 million involved in the pending class-action settlement in
California, that's not much money in the pipeline for the estimated
1.6 million current and 400,000 former owners of these cars in the
United States, many of whose vehicles have needed multiple service
visits and sometimes, multiple new transmissions. Most owners
affected by these transmission problems might get a few hundred
dollars and a coupon toward the purchase of a new Ford. The public
interest group Public Citizen argued that the proposed $35 million
figure is too low, representing a "sweet deal" for the automaker.
However, the maximum $4 billion liability Ford faces from this
lawsuit is theoretical—every owner would have to file, and each
of their cars would have had to be repaired eight times to be
eligible for the maximum cash payment, which is capped at $2325 per
class-action suit member.

That's why a Michigan firm is suing Ford individually for roughly
20,000 owners who opted out of that original class-action lawsuit.
The firm, Stern Law, has based its suits on consumer protection
legislation, including state lemon laws and the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act, and claims it will deliver more money per person than
the class-action suit. The cases are pending. Individuals have
indeed sued Ford for the PowerShift transmission, as reported by
the Free Press, and have won settlements of amounts of three times
or more what their cars were worth brand new. The majority of these
individual state lawsuits have been transferred to the California
class action as part of multi-district litigation rulings.

The automaker failed to overturn a class-action lawsuit in Thailand
in September 2018 -- reportedly the first class-action suit against
a foreign company in Thai history -- that paid nearly 300 owners a
combined $730,000 for defective Focus and Fiesta transmissions.
Ford also issued a formal apology for "the inconvenience caused by
the PowerShift transmission problems" and promised to "work
earnestly to take responsibility for fixing them according to our
customer service procedures," according to the Detroit News.

Earlier in 2018, Ford was fined $7.5 million by Australia's
consumer protection division for "unconscionable and misleading or
deceptive conduct" relating to repairs for the PowerShift. When the
case was filed in 2017, Whickman admitted to CarAdvice that the
company didn't help its customers the way it should have. "We don't
set out to give [a] poor experience to our customers," he said.

What Owners Can Do
It's too late to join the Michigan lawsuit unless you had already
elected to opt out of the pending Ford class-action settlement
before September 5, 2017. By default, everyone named in a
class-action lawsuit is assumed to accept all of the terms, with or
without their knowledge, so once a settlement is paid an owner
cannot later sue individually for the same allegations. Any
individual suit at this point is likely to be transferred to the
class-action suit.

However, regardless of whether you had warranty service done or you
paid out of pocket, the class-action suit will award between $200
and $2375 per person and between $400 and $4650 in discounts toward
the price of a new Ford, depending on how many service visits the
car needed for parts replacements within the transmission. For
software updates only, the settlement will pay $50 for each service
visit up to $600. Ford will also buy back certain cars if the
settlement arbitrator approves the claim, although it will not buy
back cars older than six years.

If you own or lease (or ever owned or leased) one of the subject
vehicles, you need to file a claim, as you are automatically part
of the class if you have not previously opted out. [GN]


FORD MOTOR: Canadian Court Approves Transmission Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Yvonne Colbert, writing for CBC News, reports that there is light
and perhaps money at the end of the tunnel for some owners of Ford
Fiesta and Focus vehicles now that a Canadian court has approved a
class-action settlement over the cars' problem-plagued dual-action
transmissions.

Current owners may be partially refunded what they paid for their
vehicles, according to class-action lawyer Ted Charney, with
compensation determined by how often they were forced to replace
faulty clutches. People who leased may get a total refund on
payments, minus usage.

The settlement, which was approved earlier in May by an Ontario
judge, covers the 2011-2016 Fiesta and the 2012-2016 Focus. It's
estimated 160,000 of the cars were sold in Canada.

Halifax resident Jordan Bonaparte went public in 2016 with his
concerns about the PowerShift dual-clutch transmission. His Focus
had started acting strangely about a month after he bought it in
2013.

"It would go from bumping to, all of a sudden, the car would jerk
forward five or seven feet [1.5 to 2.1 metres]," he said. "The
biggest issue at first was my fear of hitting the car in front of
me or slowing down and having the car behind me hit me."

He was especially concerned because he had purchased a new vehicle
to ensure his new baby would be safe. In the end, after two
transmission replacements and needing a third, he and his wife
stopped driving the Focus because he didn't think it was safe on
the road.

Even previous owners will get something
Bonaparte's story touched a nerve with other owners who shared
their concerns with CBC News and Transport Canada. The problems
included shuddering, delayed acceleration, sudden acceleration and
sudden loss of power.

The federal department said it subsequently received more
complaints about the issue than any other in the past 10 years. As
of May, there have been 1,936 complaints, although the department
said it "is not aware of any injuries or collisions occurring as a
result of the transmission performance in these vehicles."

The settlement also offers what Charney calls "modest relief" for
people like Bonaparte who sold their vehicles rather than continue
to drive a car that didn't seem fixable.

If they had three or more transmission hardware parts replacements,
they may be eligible for $250 or a $500 Ford certificate. The
amount increases as the number of replacements increases to a
maximum of almost $3,000 or an almost $6,000 Ford discount.

Charney said that when negotiating the settlement, he was well
aware transmission replacements only seem to fix the problem for a
period of time.

For current owners who meet certain criteria, Ford must install a
new clutch with a two-year warranty.

This class-action lawsuit differs from others in that there is not
a specific amount of money attached to it. The judge who approved
it suggested it could cost Ford $50 million, but Charney said
"nobody really knows," partly because it also covers those who have
problems in the future, something most class actions do not.

"The program will be open for probably another five years until the
2016 cars are off warranty," he said.

He said it is intended to cover a whole variety of situations
involving people who have the cars over multiple years.

The settlement also includes an option for Ford to buy back
vehicles, at the automaker's discretion.

Owners can get full information from the website of the settlement
administrator, RicePoint. A claims form was expected to be posted
there by the end of May. After that, it's expected to take six to
12 months to process them.

In Australia, Ford was ordered to pay a $10-million penalty in
April 2018 for what the Competition and Consumer Commission called
"unconscionable conduct" in the way it dealt with transmission
complaints about the vehicles. It is one of the largest penalties
handed down by the commission, which it said "reflects the
seriousness of Ford's conduct."

In the U.S., a settlement was reached, but it has been appealed by
some owners who felt it didn't provide enough compensation. A
decision from the courts is expected later this year.

Advice for those who've been wronged
As for the man who blew the whistle on the vehicles, Bonaparte said
he feels proud to have played a part in exposing the problem.

"I didn't think it would lead to these followup stories and people
from all over the country coming forward, but I'm glad it did," he
said.

His advice to others who feel they've been treated unfairly:
"Protect yourself by being thorough, doing your research and
documenting everything and ultimately not giving up."

Transport Canada opened a defect investigation into the vehicles in
November 2016. When asked about the status of the 2½-year
investigation, a spokesperson simply said it's "ongoing." [GN]


FRIENDFINDER NETWORKS: Can Compel Arbitration in Gutierrez Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALEJANDRO GUTIERREZ, Plaintiff, v. FRIENDFINDER
NETWORKS INC., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-05918-BLF (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Jose Division, granted the
Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).

Defendant FriendFinder's wholly-owned subsidiary owns and operates
the website AdultFriendFinder ("AFF"), www.adultfriendfinder.com,
an adult online dating site.  Users of the website are required to
register in order to use the site but otherwise may use the website
for free.  However, users can pay for certain upgrades or to access
certain services.  

As part of the registration process, AFF collects users' personal
information, including names and email addresses, billing
information, and other content the users might submit.  Use of AFF
is governed by the site's Terms of Use.  During the relevant time
period, users did not have to explicitly agree to the Terms in
order to register for or use the site, but that the Terms were
readily accessible to users throughout the site.  AFF has updated
its Terms at various times, including in July 2002, October 2009,
and November 2011.

Plaintiff Gutierrez is a long time user of AFF.  He alleges he
joined the site in 1998, and the Defendant's records indicate he
registered on July 24, 2003.  The Plaintiff continued to use the
site until at least Sept. 6, 2018.  Throughout this time, the
Plaintiff provided personal information to AFF, including his name,
address, credit card numbers, and photos.  He also made 39 credit
card transactions on the site during this time.

The Plaintiff alleges that in October 2016 a hacker or group of
hackers breached the Defendant's system and downloaded two decades
worth of personal information of 339 million AFF users.  Based on
this breach, and the Defendant's alleged failure to prevent and
timely cure it, the Plaintiff brings the putative class action,
alleging the following causes of action: (1) negligence; (2) breach
of implied contract; (3) invasion of privacy; (4) violation of
California's Customer Records Act; (5) violation of California's
Online Privacy Act; and (6) violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL").

The Defendant now moves to compel arbitration and dismiss the
action based on the arbitration provision contained in the Terms.
It argues that the Court must compel arbitration because there was
a binding contract with a valid arbitration clause (embodied in the
Terms) that covers the claims at issue.  The Plaintiff argues that
he never agreed to any contract requiring arbitration and that even
if he had, the contract to arbitrate is unenforceable due to
unconscionability.

Because the Plaintiff had at least inquiry notice of his need to
comply with the Terms in using the website, and he continued to use
the site knowing he was bound by the Terms, Judge Freeman holds
that the Plaintiff accepted the Terms by using the site.  She need
not determine whether reference to the AAA or JAMS rules alone is
sufficient to warrant compelling questions of arbitrability because
of the "validity" language.  However, Brennan v. Opus Bank
demonstrates that incorporation of those rules is certainly a
factor pointing toward a clear and unmistakable delegation of
arbitrability.  Indeed, the Ninth Circuit in Brennan recognized
that the vast majority of the circuits that hold that incorporation
of AAA rules constitutes clear and unmistakable evidence of the
parties' intent do so without explicitly limiting that holding to
sophisticated parties or to commercial contracts.  As such, the
Judge holds that in combination with the language governing
arbitration of validity issues, incorporation of the JAMS and AAA
rules constitutes a clear and unmistakable delegation of questions
of arbitrability.

Because the Judge has held that the Terms clearly and unmistakably
delegate questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator, the only
remaining question is whether the particular agreement to delegate
arbitrability -- the Delegation Provision -- is itself
unconscionable.  She finds that the Plaintiff has not demonstrated
that the delegation provision is substantively unconscionable and
thus unenforceable.

The Defendant primarily asks the Court to compel arbitration and
dismiss all of the Plaintiff's claims because the arbitration
provision covers each of his claims and the Court has discretion to
stay or dismiss.  The Plaintiff does not state a preference on a
stay versus dismissal.  The Judge is not entirely convinced that it
has discretion to dismiss.  Because the arbitrator must determine
whether the parties' arbitration agreement applies to the
particular dispute, the Judge cannot say whether all of the claims
are arbitrable.  None of the courts in Defendant's cited cases
determined that the threshold question of arbitrability is for the
arbitrator. In any event, even if the Court does have such
discretion, the Judge believes that a stay of the litigation is
more appropriate, at least until the arbitrator makes the initial
determination as to arbitrability, so that that statute of
limitations will not run on claims that may ultimately not be
arbitrable.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Freeman granted the Defendant's
motion to compel arbitratio and stayed the action until the
arbitrator determines whether the arbitration provision covers the
claims asserted here. The parties are to submit a joint status
report re arbitration every 120 days from the date of the Order,
informing the Court of the progress of the arbitration.  Within 14
days of the arbitrator's decision as to whether the arbitration
provision applies to the Plaintiff's claims, the parties will
submit a status report to the Court informing it of the
arbitrator's decision.  If the arbitrator determines that each of
the Plaintiff's claims is covered by the arbitration provision, the
Court will dismiss the action.  Otherwise, the action will remain
stayed until the arbitration is completed.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Ue0mIZ from Leagle.com.

Alejandro Gutierrez, Plaintiff, represented by Ari Nathan Cherniak
-- acherniak@hammondlaw.com -- HammondLaw, PC, Julian Ari Hammond
-- jhammond@hammondlawpc.com -- HammondLaw, P.C., Laura L. Ho --
lho@gbdhlegal.com -- Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & Ho, Anne P.
Bellows , Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian and Ho & Polina Brandler,
HammondLaw, P.C.

FriendFinder Networks Inc., Defendant, represented by Margaret Lucy
Goodnough -- lgoodnough@computerlaw.com -- Computerlaw Group LLP,
Christopher Joseph Sargent -- csargent@computerlaw.com --
Computerlaw Group LLP & Jack Russo -- jrusso@computerlaw.com --
Computerlaw Group LLP.


FTS INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Glock Class Suit over IPO
----------------------------------------------------------------
FTS International, 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 purported securities class action suit initiated by
Carol Glock.

On February 22, 2019, Carol Glock filed a purported securities
class action in the 160th Civil District Court of Dallas County,
Texas (Cause No. DC-19-02668) against the Company, certain of its
officers, directors and stockholders, and certain of the
underwriters of the company's initial public offering (IPO).

The complaint is brought on behalf of an alleged class of persons
or entities who purchased the company's common stock in or
traceable to its IPO, and purports to allege claims arising under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated
federal securities laws relating to the disclosure in the
registration statement and prospectus filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission in connection with the company's IPO.

The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification,
damages in an amount in excess of $1.0 million, and reasonable
costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees.

FTS International said, "We are in the preliminary stages of
reviewing the allegations made in the complaint and, as a result,
we cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case, which
we intend to vigorously defend. FTSI has insurance coverage on this
matter."

FTS International, Inc. provides hydraulic fracturing services in
North America. Its services enhance hydrocarbon flow from oil and
natural gas wells drilled by exploration and production companies
(E&P), in shale and other unconventional resource formations. FTS
International, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in
Fort Worth, Texas.


GENERAL MOTORS: Car Owners Sue Over Defective Transmission
----------------------------------------------------------
Keith Shelton, Karen Shelton, Daniel Drain, Wavers Smith, Richard
Freeman, Samuel Ford, Keith Fenske, Colton Kelly and Christopher
Giles, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. General Motors, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00918
(D. Del., May 17, 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, promoting, marketing,
advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the certain GM
vehicles with defective transmissions in breach of warranty and in
violation of various state consumer protection laws.

Plaintiffs are owners of GM vehicles equipped with the Hydra-Matic
8L90 transmission or Hydra-Matic 8L45 transmission which they claim
slip, buck, kick, jerk and harshly engage, suffer abnormal internal
wear, suddenly accelerate, encounter delays in downshifts, delayed
acceleration and difficulty in stopping the vehicle. Said defect
allegedly manifests itself within the limited warranty period or
shortly after the limited warranty period expires. GM has routinely
failed to repair the defect without charge when the defect
manifests. GM has not issued any recall for that matter.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

       Russell D. Paul, Esq.
       Amey J. Park, Esq.
       BERGER MONTAGUE PC
       1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
       Philadelphia, PA 19103
       Tel: (215) 875-3000
       Fax: (215) 875-4604
       Email: rpaul@bm.net

              - and -

       Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
       Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
       Trisha K. Monesi, Esq.
       Mark A. Ozzello, Esq.
       CAPSTONE LAW APC
       1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
       Los Angeles, CA 90067
       Telephone: (310) 556-4811
       Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
       Email: Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
              Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
              Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com


GOGO INC: Bid to Dismiss Pierrelouis Class Action Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gogo 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 styled as, Pierrelouis v. Gogo Inc., is still
pending.

On June 27, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division styled
Pierrelouis v. Gogo Inc., naming the Company, its former Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer and its current Chief
Financial Officer and President, Commercial Aviation as defendants
purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of our securities from
February 27, 2017 through May 4, 2018.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, alleging misrepresentations or omissions by
us purporting to relate to our 2Ku antenna's reliability and
installation and remediation costs. The plaintiffs seek to recover
from us and the individual defendants an unspecified amount of
damages.

In December 2018 the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and in
February 2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss such amended
complaint. In April 2019 the plaintiffs filed a response to the
company's motion. The company intends to file a reply in May 2019
at which time the motion will be submitted to the Court for a
ruling.

Gogo said, "We believe that the claims are without merit and intend
to defend them vigorously. In accordance with Delaware law, we will
indemnify the individual named defendants for their defense costs
and any damages they incur in connection with the suit. We have
filed a claim with the issuer of our Directors' and Officers'
insurance policy with respect to this suit. No amounts have been
accrued for any potential losses under this matter, as we cannot
reasonably predict the outcome of the litigation or any potential
losses."

Gogo Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides inflight broadband
connectivity and wireless entertainment services to the aviation
industry in the United States and internationally. It operates
through three segments: Commercial Aviation North America (CA-NA),
Commercial Aviation Rest of World (CA-ROW), and Business Aviation
(BA).  The company was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois.


GOOGLE INC: Greenberg Traurig Attorneys Discuss Cy Pres Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alan W. Hersh, Esq. -- hersha@gtlaw.com -- and Stephen L. Saxl,
Esq. -- saxls@gtlaw.com -- of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, in an article
for The National Law Review, report that Cy pres awards -- where
money goes to nonprofit organizations instead of class members --
are an increasing and often criticized component of class action
settlements. On March 20, the United States Supreme Court decided
Frank v. Gaos, a case that was expected to be the high court's
first opportunity to address the validity of cy pres settlements.
Although the court ultimately ruled on an unrelated standing issue,
the justices' questions during oral argument and seeming eagerness
to weigh in suggest that the days of large cy pres awards may soon
come to an end.

Overview of Gaos
In Gaos, plaintiffs sued Google for ostensibly failing to warn
customers that their "search terms" were forwarded to the websites
that customers ultimately selected after running an internet
search. There were serious disputes as to whether any plaintiff
could identify an actual injury suffered from this alleged failure
to warn other than the technical violation of the federal statute.

Google settled the case for $8.5 million. Importantly, none of the
settlement went directly to absent class members. Instead, the bulk
of the settlement -- approximately $5 million -- was set up as a cy
pres2 award that would be distributed to various nonprofits, with
another $2 million going to class counsel. One of the absent class
members challenged the settlement, asserting that the cy pres award
is not "fair, reasonable, and adequate" compensation to class
members and, without the cy pres component, class counsels'
attorney's fees were unreasonable. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the
cy pres award, noting that each class member would only be entitled
to "a paltry 4 cents in recovery."

The Supreme Court granted cert to address whether, and under what
circumstances, cy pres awards that provide no direct relief to
class members are appropriate. However, nearly five months after
cert was granted, the Solicitor General filed an amicus brief
arguing that plaintiffs needed to show an identifiable injury, not
just a statutory violation, to have standing. The court ordered
additional briefing on standing and ultimately adopted the
Solicitor General's suggestion, vacated the Ninth Circuit's
opinion, and instructed the Ninth Circuit to address standing.

Thus, although Gaos was advertised as the Supreme Court's first
foray into cy pres awards, it ultimately proved to be the wrong
vehicle for the issue.

What This Means for Class Actions in the Future

As Chief Justice Roberts recognized, cy pres awards "are a growing
feature of class action settlements."3 According to a 2017 article,
the use of cy pres awards were at their highest level ever in 2015
or 2016, the last years covered by the referenced study.4 Moreover,
with the rise of lawsuits like Gaos that relate to electronic
privacy -- where the class size may be millions but any individual
harm is minimal -- cy pres awards are a means of addressing class
harm where the administrative burdens of paying class members are
cost-prohibitive.

However, cy pres settlements have been criticized as a
justification for reaping large attorney's fees while giving
nothing directly to class members. Indeed, Justice Thomas dissented
in Gaos, stating that:

Whatever role cy pres may permissibly play in disposing of
unclaimed or undistributable class funds, . . . cy pres payments
are not a form of relief to the absent class members and should not
be treated as such (including for calculating attorney's fees). . .
. [T]he fact that class counsel and the named plaintiffs were
willing to settle the class claims without obtaining any relief for
the class -- while securing significant benefits for themselves --
strongly suggests that the interests of the class were not
adequately represented.

Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito and Kavanaugh expressed
similar concern during oral argument. In a future case, it thus
appears likely that the current makeup of the Supreme Court would
be likely to at least severely scrutinize large cy pres awards.

Also on appeal from the Ninth Circuit, Perryman v. Romero is
another cert petition pending before the court that presents nearly
identical cy pres issues as Gaos. Perryman presents a different set
of facts regarding class settlement, given that class members
directly received $225,000 in actual settlement, while $3 million
was allocated as a cy pres award to local schools. Furthermore,
class counsel received $8.85 million as their portion of the
settlement -- nearly three times as much as the cy pres recipients
and nearly 40 times as much as all class members. Perryman does not
appear to have any of the standing issues that plagued Gaos.

The responses to the cert petition in Perryman are due in the
coming weeks. Nevertheless, the attorney generals for 15 separate
states have filed an amicus brief in support of the petition, and
opposing cy pres awards. As those attorney generals argue, Perryman
"presents an ideal vehicle for the Court to address when (if ever)
cy pres class action settlement arrangements are acceptable."

Thus, Perryman v. Romero is the case to watch regarding the fate of
cy pres awards. [GN]


GOOGLE INC: Settles Pixel Phone Microphone Defect Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Webb, writing for Business Insider, reports that Google has
agreed to pay people who bought their original Pixel smartphone up
to $500 as a part of a class action settlement, according to a
report from The Verge.

Back in 2017, Google acknowledged that a small percentage of Pixel
devices had defective microphones, which led to hundreds of
complaints and returned devices. However, the device was never
pulled from the market.

A class action lawsuit filed in 2018 criticized Google for
continuing to sell the Pixel in spite of knowledge of the defect,
and claimed that multiple people who returned their defective
devices were given replacements with the same problem.

Google agreed to settle the lawsuit and will pay people who
received a defective replacement up to $500, Verge reports. Those
who dealt with just one defective Pixel could be paid up to $350,
and even Pixel owners who didn't experience any issues could be
paid up to $20. People who used insurance to replace a Pixel can
also be reimbursed for the value.

Google did not immediately respond to Business Insider's request
for comment.

According to the Verge, the settlement is still awaiting
preliminary approval, with a hearing scheduled for June 5. The law
firm handling the case will also be responsible for making sure
Pixel owners get their payouts. People interested in joining the
settlement should visit their website, but it seems to be down at
the moment, likely due to a massive influx of Pixel owners.

The Pixel's defective microphones were impacted by a manufacturing
issue that created a disconnect in the phone's audio hardware. The
Pixel launched in October 2016 and customers began reporting audio
problems right away. Google employees identified the hardware
problem a few months later and made adjustments to its
manufacturing process.

In April, Google also settled a class action lawsuit targeting its
Nexus 6P smartphone. Some Nexus 6P devices suffered from a
"bootloop" issue that forced the phone to constantly restart, and
people who dealt with the issue are entitled to up to $400. Google
partnered with Huawei to launch the Nexus 6P, and the companies
could pay up to $9.75 million to past customers. [GN]


GREATCALL INC: Barnes Sues over Defective Medical Alert Device
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against GreatCall, Inc. and
Best Buy, Co., Inc. for several causes including fraudulent
concealment, breach of express warranty, and a violation of
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act in connection with the
defective medical alert device. The case is captioned SCOTT BARNES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. GREATCALL, INC.; BEST BUY CO., INC.; and DOES 1 to
10, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-04457 (C.D. Cal., May 22, 2019).
Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants' failure to disclose the
defect in the medical alert device has resulted to an ascertainable
loss including, but not limited to, out-of-pocket expenses and
other consequential damages.

Best Buy Co., Inc. is a Minnesota corporation with its principal
place of business at 7601 Penn Ave. S., Richfield, MN. Defendant
Best Buy is the parent corporation of GreatCall, Inc. In August
2018, Best Buy acquired GreatCall, Inc. Defendants manufacture,
market and sell the Defective Medical Alert Device to citizens in
California and throughout the United States, and advertises the
product as the "highest standard in medical alerts." [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brian D. Chase, Esq.
     Jerusalem F. Beligan, Esq.
     Ian M. Silvers, Esq.
     BISNAR | CHASE LLP
     1301 Dove Street, Suite 120
     Newport Beach, CA 92660
     Telephone: (949) 752-2999
     Facsimile: (949) 752-2777
     E-mail: bchase@bisnarchase.com
             jbeligan@bisnarchase.com
             isilvers@bisnarchase.com


GRUMA CORP: Citywide Sues over Independent Distributor Model
------------------------------------------------------------
CITYWIDE CONSULTANTS & FOOD MANAGEMENT, LLC, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. GRUMA
CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation, dba MISSION FOODS CORPORATION;
SMART & FINAL STORES, INC.; STATER BROS. MARKETS; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-04724 (Cal.
Super., May 30, 2019), targets  Defendants' violation of the
Cartwright Act and the Unfair Competition Law.

According to the complaint, Gruma, the world's largest tortilla
maker, contracts with hundreds of delivery drivers to get its goods
to market in California. To avoid employment-related expenses (such
as 40-hour work weeks, days off, Social Security, and disability
insurance), Gruma uses an independent distributor model,
effectuated through a so-called "Store Door Distribution Agreement.
The Distributors cannot change the resale prices to Chain Stores,
i.e., the prices in the database, and the Chain Stores simply will
not negotiate with Distributors.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of itself and the
members of a putative class consisting of all persons or entities
who, between four years before the date of this complaint's filing
through to the present and continuing to the time of trial (the
"Class Period"), are or were signatories to an agreement with Gruma
for the distribution of Products within California (the "Class").

Gruma manufactures and distributes baked goods, such as tortillas,
under brand names including Mission, Guenero, and Calidad.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Jeffrey K. Compton, Esq.
          MARKUN ZUSMAN FRENIERE & COMPTON LLP
          17383 W. Sunset Blvd., Suite A380
          Pacific Palisades, CA 90272-4181
          Telephone: (310) 454-5900
          Facsimile: (310) 454-5970
          E-mail: jcompton@mzclaw.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Weiss, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN WEISS
          10576 Troon Ave.
          Los Angeles, CA 90064-4436
          Telephone: (310) 558-0404
          E-mail: jw@lojw.com

HALLEN CONSTRUCTION: Bid to Certify Lewis Class Held in Abeyance
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DEAN LEWIS and TODD WALLACE individually and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by THE
HALLEN CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., Plaintiffs, v. THE HALLEN
CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., and JOHN DOE BONDING COMPANY, Defendants,
Docket No. 151729/2017 (N.Y. Sup.), Judge Barbara Jaffe of the
Supreme Court for the New York County (i) held in abeyance the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; and (ii) denied the
Defendants' cross-motion.

On July 1, 2010, non-party members of the General Contractors
Association of New York, Inc. entered into a collective bargaining
agreement with non-party International Union of Operating
Engineers, Locals No. 14-14B and No. 15-15A.  On Aug. 22, 2016,
Defendant Hallen and non-party Building, Concrete, Excavating &
Common Laborers' Union Local No. 731 of Greater New York, Long
Island & Vicinity of the Laborers' International Union of North
America entered into a collective bargaining agreement.

On Dec. 1, 2015, non-party National Grid Corporate Services, LLC
and Hallen entered into a utility contract agreement for "Mains &
Services Installation Work in the Brooklyn, Queens and Staten
Island Regions."  On April 13, 2016, Hallen and non-party
Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. revised a previous
utility contract by which Hallen would provide Manhattan keyhole
servic.

On Feb. 21, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed the class action complaint
in which they allege that during their employment with Hallen, they
were not paid prevailing wages as required by the utility
contracts.  In affidavits offered on the motion, they claim that
although they were classified and paid as laborers, they performed
tasks of higher paid operating engineers.

The Defendants assert that as Plaintiffs are members of Local 731,
their claims are governed by the collective bargaining agreement
between it and Hallen.  Theyalso argue that the Plaintiffs do not
state a prevailing wage claim given their acknowledgment that they
were paid proper Local 731 wages and supplements.  According to the
Defendants, they are entitled to summary judgment because Hallen
owes no wages or fringe benefits to employees.  In addition,
despite the grievance provisions of the collective bargaining
agreement, the Plaintiffs never complained to a union or to Hallen
about a misclassification.

The Plaintiffs deny having asserted a cause of action covered by
the collective bargaining agreements.  Rather, they claim that
Hallen breached the utility contracts it had entered into with
Consolidated Edison and National Grid which require that it pay
prevailing wages for work they performed as operating engineers,
and thus, as third-party beneficiaries of the utility contracts,
they have the right to sue in state court.

By notice of motion, the Plaintiffs move pursuant to CPLR 901 and
902 for an order certifying the action as a class action.  The
Defendants oppose.

By notice of cross-motion, the Defendants move pursuant to CPLR
3211(a)(2) and CPLR 3212 for an order dismissing the complaint in
its entirety.  The Plaintiffs oppose.

Judge Jaffe holds that to the extent that the Defendants argue that
Labor Law Section 220 does not apply because a public agency is not
part of the utility contracts and the Plaintiffs' work was not part
of a public works project, they raise this argument for the first
time on reply, and thus, it is not considered.

As to the bid for class certification, she holds that some class
members live in "New York" or "the New York City area," as opposed
to New York County, and that some work was performed in "New York
and Long Island," does not establish that New York County is the
proper venue.  Thus, it is unclear that New York County is the
proper venue for this action. Supplemental briefing on the issue is
thus required.

Accordingly, Judge Jaffe held in abeyance the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification pending supplemental briefing on the issue
of venue.  The Plaintiffs are to submit a brief, no more than five
pages, plus any additional exhibits to be considered, addressing
the sole issue of venue, within 20 days of the date of the
decision.  The Defendants may file a brief in opposition, no more
than five pages, plus any exhibits, within ten days thereafter.  No
reply papers will be accepted without leave of court.  Upon the
Plaintiffs' failure to submit timely the supplemental briefing,
their motion for class certification will be denied.  The Judge
denied the Defendants' cross-motion in its entirety.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2019 Decision and Order is
available at https://is.gd/zvW1eC from Leagle.com.


HONEYWELL SAFETY: McKnight Renews Bid to Certify Class Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned BARBARA MCKNIGHT and SHEILA
ANDERSON, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly
Situated v. HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC. AND HONEYWELL
INTERNATIONAL, INC., DAVID M. COTE, CARL JOHNSON, and MARK R.
JAMES, in their Official and Individual Capacities, Case No.
1:16-cv-00132-WES-PAS (D.R.I.), file with the Court their renewed
motion for notice to be issued to similarly situated individuals
and for conditional certification pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b).

For the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum, the
Plaintiffs ask that the Court:

   (1) conditionally certify the Plaintiffs' Fair Labor
       Standards Act claims as a collective action under
       29 U.S.C. Section 216(b);

   (2) order that notice be issued to all Buyers who have worked
       for Defendants during the last three years by first class
       mail, e-mail or fax, and by visibly posting the notice on
       the premises of Honeywell in the form set forth in
       Exhibit 1; and

   (3) order that the Defendants produce a list of the names,
       last-known mailing and e-mail addresses, and telephone
       numbers for all individuals who currently work and/or
       previously worked at Honeywell as Buyers at any time since
       January 9, 2014.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Louise A. Herman, Esq.
          HERMAN LAW GROUP
          1445 Wampanoag Trail, Suite 104
          East Providence, RI 02915
          Telephone: (401) 277-4110
          Facsimile: (401) 433-0139
          E-mail: lherman@lhermanlaw.com

               - and -

          Amato A. DeLuca, Esq.
          DeLUCA AND WEIZENBAUM, LTD
          199 North Main Street
          Providence, RI 02905
          Telephone: (401) 354-7223
          Facsimile: (401) 453-1501
          E-mail: bud@delucaandweizenbaum.com


JABIL, INC: Walker Seeks Unpaid Overtime & Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
The case, KODY WALKER, individually, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. JABIL, INC., a corporation;
JABIL CIRCUIT, INC., an unknown entity; WOLFE ENGINEERING AND
DESIGN, INC.; JABIL SILVER CREEK, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19-CV-347835 (Cal.
Super., May 21, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to provide
required meal periods, failed to provide required rest periods,
failed to pay overtime wages, failed to pay minimum wages, failed
to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees, failed
to maintain required records, failed to furnish accurate itemized
wage statements, and failed to indemnify employees for necessary
expenditures incurred in discharge of duties.

As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful actions of the
Defednants, the Plaintiff and class members have suffered, and
continue to suffer, from loss of earnings, the lawsuit says.

Jabil Inc. is an American worldwide manufacturing services company.
Headquartered in St. Petersburg, Florida, it is one of the largest
companies in the Tampa Bay area. Jabil has 100 plants in 28
countries, and 170,000 employees worldwide.[BN]

Attorneys for Kody Walker individually, and on behalf of others
similarly situated:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Tagore 0. Subramaniam, Esq.
          Julia Z. Wells, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Leavitt Sues over Talcum-Based Products
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, TERESA ELIZABETH LEAVITT and DEAN J. McELROY, the
Plaintiffs, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC.
(sued individually and as successor-in-interest to JOHNSON &
JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.); IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC.,
formerly known as LUZENAC AMERICA, INC. (sued individually and as
successor-in-interest to WINDSOR MINERALS, INC., AMERICAN TALC
COMPANY, METROPOLITAN TALC CO. INC., and CHARLES MATHIEU INC.);
CYPRUS AMAX MINERALS COMPANY (sued individually, doing business as,
and as successor-in-interest to AMERICAN TALC COMPANY METROPOLITAN
TALC CO. INC., and CHARLES MATHIEU INC.); CYPRUS MINES CORPORATION
(sued individually, doing business as, and as successor-in-interest
to AMERICAN TALC COMPANY, METROPOLITAN TALC CO. INC., and CHARLES
MATHIEU INC.); DELTA LINES, INC.; and DOES 1-100, the Defendants,
Case No. RG17882401 (Cal. Super., May 30, 2019), 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:

          Joseph D. Satterley, Esq.
          Denyse F. Clancy, Esq.
          KAZAN, McCLAIN, SATTERLEY & GREENWOOD
          Jack London Market
          55 Harrison Street, Suite 400
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 302-1000
          Facsimile: (510) 835-4913
          E-mail: jsatterley@kazanlaw.com
                  dclancy@kazanlaw.com

JUMIA TECHNOLOGIES: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on May 14 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced on behalf of purchasers of Jumia
Technologies AG (NYSE:JMIA) American Depositary Shares ("ADSs")
during the period between April 12, 2019 and May 9, 2019 (the
"Class Period"). This action was filed in the Southern District of
New York and is captioned Strugala v. Jumia Technologies AG, et
al., No. 19-cv-4397.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Jumia ADSs during the Class Period to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of
all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead
plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's
ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent
upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from May
15, 2019. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of
Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at
djr@rgrdlaw.com. You can view a copy of the complaint as filed at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/jumia/

The complaint charges Jumia and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Jumia operates a pan-African e-commerce platform.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made
materially false and misleading statements about Jumia and its
business. These statements are alleged to be materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose that: (a) Jumia had
materially overstated its active customers and active merchants;
(b) Jumia's representations about its orders, order cancellations,
undelivered orders and returned orders lacked a sufficient factual
basis and materially overstated the Company's sales; (c) Jumia
failed to sufficiently disclose related party transactions; and (d)
Jumia's financial statements were presented in violation of
applicable accounting standards.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Jumia ADSs during the Class Period (the "Class"). The plaintiff is
represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in
prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving
financial fraud.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- is a national law firm
representing investors in securities litigation. With 200 lawyers
in 10 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history. For five consecutive
years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked the Firm in
its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law firms in both
the amount recovered for shareholders and the total number of class
action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys have helped shape the
securities laws and recovered tens of billions of dollars on behalf
of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing financial recoveries for
defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also advocates for corporate
governance reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for
investors worldwide.  [GN]


JWS CONSTRUCTIONS: Class Action Among Options if Faults Proven
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Garrick, writing for ABC News, reports that young mother Angel
Worthington was less than thrilled to receive a letter telling her
that structural problems had been identified in her Palmerston
apartment block.

The Building Practitioners Board also confirms that an inquiry into
the engineer at the centre of the allegations has now been formed

Living there with her two-year-old son Ashley, she had been named
in the unenviable lottery of about 200 people in nine buildings
across Darwin and Palmerston whose blocks may have been botched in
the design phase.

"I don't think I've been informed enough -- I think I should've
received a call or an email straight away, instead of sending me a
piece of paper in the mailbox," said Ms Worthington, who has been
renting the apartment for six months.

"[The owner] hasn't called me, they haven't texted me, not one
email, just that letter to say things need to be done."

Her apartment block on Tarakan Court in Johnston is run by Venture
Housing Company, which provides low-cost housing to Territorians.

In a statement, Venture said it had "hand-delivered letters to all
its tenants advising them [of the possible structural issues]".

The company said it had now hired a structural engineer to prepare
a "detailed report".

"Venture expects to receive this detailed structural engineer's
report and will advise its tenants of the report's findings," it
said.

Once the report has been handed down, and if repairs were found to
be needed, homeowners could have a better idea about what financial
burdens they could be up against.

Both Venture and the Infrastructure Department have said that none
of the nine buildings had been deemed unsafe.

Board triggers inquiry into engineer
A recent desktop analysis by the department revealed that all nine
buildings had non-compliance issues relating to concrete structures
known as "transfer slabs" -- and that the same engineer responsible
for all of them may have been involved in misconduct by approving
them.

Now, the department has officially referred a complaint to the
Building Practitioners Board to conduct an inquiry into whether
engineer John Scott from JWS Constructions has engaged in
misconduct, which, if proven, could lead to a suspension, fine or
even cancellation of his licence. Currently, he remains registered
as an approved certifier of construction work in the NT.

But action on prosecuting the man allegedly responsible for the
issues could be cold comfort for the homeowners if they end up with
a hefty bill.

An NT parliamentary committee in Darwin on May 14 heard from
departmental officials who confirmed that most of the owners would
not be protected by an NT Government-regulated insurance scheme for
some homeowners.

The Master Builders Fidelity Fund was launched by the NT Government
in 2013 to protect consumers from defects.

"A lot of buildings are not covered by the Fidelity Fund because of
the height of the buildings, and the age of the buildings," said
the department's Mark Meldrum.

Owners may have to push class action
But even if regulations meant the fund wouldn't cover those
affected, there could be scope to take legal action, said Master
Builders NT executive director David Malone.

"So they would still be able to go back and say the building is not
fit for purpose, and be able to take action against the builder and
the building practitioners that might have been involved in that
project."

He said a class action could be the "most likely" outcome for
homeowners if the structural damages were eventually proven and
repairs were required.

"You would expect that if there is a class problem, then you'd
expect to get some kind of class action back," he said.

"But it's probably too early to pre-empt that at this stage,
because we just don't know what the real affect of these issues are
on the ground."

Renter fears the prospect of relocation
One of those on the ground at the Tarakan Court address was renter
Patrick Mossongo, a migrant from Congo with a background in the
construction industry.

He was surprised that the non-compliance issues weren't found
earlier on in the project.

While he remained optimistic things would work out, he said if any
future works meant he would have to move out, it would cause him
and his family upheaval.

"If it comes to have to relocate, maybe it would be difficult,
because to find a new place, I don't think it would be easy in
Darwin," Mr Mossongo said.

The exact date of the Building Practitioners Board's inquiry into
Mr Scott's conduct currently remained unclear. [GN]


KEYW HOLDING CORP: Wheby Sues Over Jacobs Merger Deal
-----------------------------------------------------
Earl M. Wheby Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Keyw Holding Corporation and
its Board of Directors, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01459 (D. Md.,
May 17, 2019), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in
concert from proceeding with, consummating or closing the
acquisition of The KeyW Holding Corporation by Jacobs Engineering
Group Inc. and Atom Acquisition Sub, Inc., rescinding it in the
event defendants consummate the merger, rescissory damages, costs
of this action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's
attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Jacobs is to acquire all of KeyW's outstanding common stock for
$11.25 per share in cash.

The registration statement for the merger failed to include
critical financial analysis performed by its financial advisor,
Guggenheim Securities, LLC including all line items used to
calculate Management Defined Adjusted EBITDA, all line items used
to calculate Adjusted EBITDA, all line items used to calculate
unlevered free cash flow and a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to
GAAP metrics that support the fairness opinions in order to make a
fully informed decision whether to vote in favor of the Proposed
Transaction or seek appraisal needed by the shareholders to make an
informed decision on the merger deal.

KeyW is a national security solutions provider to the Intelligence,
Cyber, and Counterterrorism communities, specializing in cyber,
intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance and analytics. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas J. Minton, Esq.
      3600 Clipper Mill Road, Suite 201
      Baltimore, MD 21211
      Tel: (410) 783-7575
      Email: tminton@charmcitylegal.com

             - and -

      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 295-5310
      Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
      Email: bdl@rl-legal.com
             gms@rl-legal.com

             - and -

      RM LAW, P.C.
      1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Tel: (484) 324-6800
      Email: rm@maniskas.com


KNOXVILLE, TN: Recode May Spur De-Annexation Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The Knoxville Focus reports that so far most reporting on Recode
has been about residential issues and concerns. How will Recode
affect commercial businesses in Knoxville? Recode simply will put
some businesses out of business. Take for example the case of John
Marshall. In 1992 Marshall's business was annexed by the City of
Knoxville. A contract was signed promising city services such as
water, gas, fire protection and sewer. It took many years for
street lights and city water. It took ten years to get natural gas.
There was a fire in one of his buildings in June of 2017.

The fire hydrants could not supply enough water, and the fire
department had to run lines from Dry Gap Pike. To his knowledge no
change has been made to the water lines servicing the hydrants.
After 27 years, his business is still on a septic systems. Marshall
has paid his city property taxes every year without interruption
yet he has not received the services the city contracted that they
would provide.

When the Knoxville-Knox County Planning Commission mailed Marshall
the so-called public notice on Recode he immediately called the
City of Knoxville. He was referred to the planning commission who
then referred him back to the city. Marshall explained that Recode
would zone him out of business. Recode would change his zoning from
C-6 to I-MU which prohibits used car lots. The city told him he
could get a letter from the city grandfathering him on his zoning.
The problem with this is to own a used car lot you have to have a
state license. That license requires you operate your business in a
zone that allows that business. The new Recode I-MU zoning does not
allow his business.

The situation is much worse than that. Marshall asked what would
happen if he sold his property—would the grandfather letter be
transferred to the new owner? The city could not provide an answer.
After 27 years of faithfully paying city property taxes Marshall is
being deprived of his property rights and property value.

Marshall has contacted the mayor of Knoxville and has respectfully
asked to be de-annexed. A single business or person cannot request
de-annexation. This problem opens the city up to federal lawsuits
for restraint of trade and a class action for other businesses to
join a de-annexation lawsuit. How is it in Draft 5 of Recode that
these concerns have not been considered? Why on earth would Recode
put tax-paying businesses out of business?

On the Sunday, May 5th episode of WATE's Tennessee This Week Mayor
Madeline Rogero was interviewed by Blake Stevens of WATE. Stevens
asked the mayor about Recode and her response was that Recode would
be a living document just like the current zoning has been. That it
would be updated every year like the zoning has been for the last
fifty years. Doesn't Mr. Marshall deserve more than that? How can
the city fix losing a state license? It is clear that Recode is not
ready to be voted on. [GN]


L'OREAL USA: Removes Conti Case to Eastern District of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
L'Oreal USA S/D Inc. removes case ANGELA CONTI and JUSTINE MORA,
individuals, on behalf of all persons similarly situated, the
Plainitff, vs. L'OREAL USA S/D INC., a Corporation; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 18CECG00816 (Filed
March 6, 2018), was removed from the California Superior Court,
Fresno County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California on May 30, 2019. The Eastern District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00769-LJO-SKO to the
proceeding.

The case asserts that Defendants violated the California and
Federal law, by failing to pay overtime wages, failing to provide
required meal and rest periods, failing to to provide itemized
statements.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          Angela J. Rafoth, Esq.
          Irene V. Fitzgerald, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          333 Bush Street, 34th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433 1940
          E-mail: arafoth@littler.com
                  ifitzgerald@littler.com

LAMPS PLUS: Baker Sterchi Discusses 9th Cir. Ruling
---------------------------------------------------
Douglas Hill, Esq. -- dhill@bscr-law.com -- of Baker Sterchi Cowden
& Rice LLC, in an article for Lexology, reports that a divided
United States Supreme Court recently handed down the latest in a
series of wins for employers, manufacturers, retailers, and other
businesses looking to use arbitration as a means to mitigate the
risks of possible class-action litigation. This time, in Lamps
Plus, Inc. v. Varela, the Supreme Court overturned the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals, finding that an employer could not be
compelled to arbitrate similar claims by its employees on a
class-wide basis, even though its employment agreement was
ambiguous as to whether the arbitration of similar claims be
conducted on a class-wide basis, instead of individually.

I.  A clear, albeit controversial, trend in favor of individual
arbitration

Arbitration agreements, which are strongly favored under the
Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), can be a powerful tool for
potential class-action defendants, both to mitigate the risks of
potential exposure and to make those risks more predictable. But a
contract is only useful to the extent it can be enforced.
Fortunately for potential defendants, there has been a string of
Supreme Court decisions in recent years empowering businesses to
use arbitration clauses to narrowly define the procedures by which
class-wide claims can be asserted.

These decisions have been controversial, and most have been decided
along roughly the same ideological divide. But there has been a
clear trend in favor of the enforceability of arbitration
agreements that limit or exclude class-wide arbitration actions.

For example, Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp.
was a 2010 case in which the Supreme Court concluded that silence
was no substitute for the requisite "affirmative consent" to class
arbitration, meaning that class-wide arbitration cannot be
compelled based on an agreement that is simply silent as to the
availability of class-wide remedies.   

The following year, in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, the Supreme
Court found that the FAA preempted a California statute providing
that any class-action waiver in a consumer contract was
unconscionable and, therefore, unenforceable. This 5-4 decision
held the state statute was inconsistent with the FAA's "overarching
purpose" of ensuring "the enforcement of arbitration agreements
according to their terms, so as to facilitate informal, streamlined
proceedings."

Then in the 2013 case of American Express Co. v. Italian Colors
Restaurant, SCOTUS rebuffed another attempt to invalidate contracts
that affirmatively waived the right to class arbitration. There,
the Second Circuit had found a class-action waiver in American
Express's merchant agreement to be unenforceable, on the grounds
that individually arbitrating each claim would be prohibitively
expensive, since the costs of the arbitration would almost always
exceed the potential recovery on any one claim. On appeal, a
divided Supreme Court found that this sort of practical analysis
was beyond the courts' authority and ran counter to the principle,
embodied in the FAA and recent case law, that parties should be
free to agree to arbitrate, or not, as they see fit.

And just last year, in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, the high
court—once again split 5-4 along ideological lines—found that
the National Labor Relations Board had overstepped its authority by
finding that the National Labor Relations Act's protection of
employee "concerted activities" taken for their "mutual aid or
protection" gave employees the right to pursue class claims and
displaced the FAA in interpreting arbitration agreements between
employers and employees. Recognizing that whether to arbitrate on
an individual or class-wide basis is one of the "fundamental
attributes" of an arbitration agreement's character, the majority
held that class-action waivers are just as enforceable in
employment agreements as in any other arbitration agreement.

II.  The recent Lamps Plus decision

This brings us to the recent Lamps Plus case, decided on April 24,
2019. It arose from a corporate data breach in which a hacker
gained access to the personal financial and tax information of
1,300 company employees. Many of these employees had been required
by the employer to sign contracts at the start of their employment,
each of which included a clause requiring disputes regarding their
employment to be submitted to binding arbitration. The arbitration
language, however, was ambiguous as to whether similar claims would
be arbitrated in separate proceedings or together, on a class-wide
basis.

Frank Varela was one of the employees whose personal information
had been compromised in the data breach, and he filed a civil
lawsuit in the Central District of California seeking to assert
claims under state and federal law, both individually and as a
representative of a putative class of similarly situated employees.
The employer moved to dismiss the civil case and to compel
arbitration, specifically requesting that arbitration be on an
individual rather than class-wide basis.

The trial court granted the employer's motion to dismiss, but its
order specified that arbitration would proceed on a class-wide
basis. The employer appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed
the trial court's ruling, reasoning that ambiguities in the
employment agreement -- which was mandatory for the employees and
was drafted exclusively by the employer -- should be construed
against the employer and in favor of the employees' right to assert
claims as a class.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari and struck down the lower
courts' rulings. Chief Justice Roberts authored the majority
opinion and was joined by the court's four other
conservative-leaning justices (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and
Kavanaugh). The remaining four justices each filed dissenting
opinions.

The court accepted the Ninth Circuit's conclusion that the
arbitration clause was ambiguous as to whether arbitration would be
conducted individually or on a class-wide basis. Even though the
agreement never specifically mentioned class-wide proceedings, some
of its language -- for example, its statement that arbitration
would be "in lieu of any and all lawsuits or other civil legal
proceedings" -- was "capacious enough to include class
arbitrations" as a potential remedy.

But that ambiguity was not enough to force class-wide arbitration.
Irrespective of state-law principles that ambiguous contractual
language should be construed against its drafter, arbitration
remains "a matter of consent, not coercion," according to the
majority, so there must be an "affirmative contractual basis for
concluding that the parties agreed to class arbitration." Relying
heavily on the Stolt-Nielsen opinion discussed above, the majority
ruled that without a clear expression of the parties' intent to
arbitrate on a class-wide basis, courts cannot force them to do so.
An ambiguous contract is, by its very nature, not a clear
expression of intent. Therefore, each employee's claim was subject
to individual arbitration, rather than a single class-action.

In a scathing dissent, Justice Ginsberg lamented what she sees as
the Court's consistent use of the FAA "to deny employees and
consumers effective relief against powerful economic entities." She
found it ironic for the majority to invoke "the first principle"
that "arbitration is strictly a matter of consent," when employment
agreements like the one at issue here are often presented on a
take-it-or-leave it basis, and she decried the "Hobson's choice
employees face: accept arbitration on their employer's terms or
give up their jobs."

Justice Sotomayor authored a dissent of her own, in which she took
issue with the majority's characterization of class arbitration as
fundamentally different from individual arbitration, characterizing
it as "simply a procedural device," which "an employee who signs an
arbitration agreement should not be expected to realize that she is
giving up."

Justice Kagan's dissent focused on the authorship of the employment
agreement, arguing that it should be construed against its
drafter—the employer—under general principles of contract law
adopted in every state, which are not abrogated by the FAA.

Justice Breyer also authored a dissent, focused largely on the
threshold question of whether the order compelling arbitration a
"final" order was vesting the appellate courts with jurisdiction
even to hear the appeal.

This case fits the mold of recent Supreme Court cases addressing
class arbitration, which have consistently affirmed the validity of
arbitration agreements and pushed back on efforts to limit their
applicability or enforceability. Although the dissenting opinions
evidence just how controversial the use of arbitration clauses
remains, the majority opinion further entrenches arbitration
agreements as a bulwark against class-action liability. Given the
current makeup of the Supreme Court, the trend is unlikely to be
reversed any time soon. [GN]


LESTER B. PEARSON: Sued Over Specialized School Program Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Spector, writing for Global News, reports that a new
class-action lawsuit alleges that parents have been illegally
charged by several Quebec school boards for specialized school
programs.

Lawyers Joey Zukran and Michael Vathilakis submitted an application
to authorize the lawsuit on May 13.

"It's a class action asking for reimbursement of all the sums paid
by parents for the purpose of specialized programs -- for example,
sports-etudes, arts, international programs, et cetera," Zukran
explained.

Among the plaintiffs in the lawsuit is a West Island father who
Zukran says spent $10,000 on a sport-etude program at the Lester B.
Pearson School Board.

"The first year, he paid $4,200. The second year, he paid $5,000,
and it turns out -- and we know this because there were debates and
amendments to the law on May 9 -- it turns out that these amounts
were unlawfully imposed and collected, and we're asking for the
reimbursement for those amounts," said Zukran.

The lawyers adds that dozens of parents have contacted his firm in
the last few days in connection with the lawsuit.

"We're asking the courts to authorize the class action on behalf of
everybody, so on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of Quebec
parents who have paid these fees over the years," he said.

The lawsuit application names school boards all over the province,
including Lester B. Pearson School Board, the English Montreal
School Board (EMSB) and the Commission Scolaire de Montreal.

Education Minister Jean-Francois Roberge said during a National
Assembly commission into Bill 12 that having parents pay for such
programs goes against the right to have a free public education.

He reiterated that argument on May 14.

"With the adoption of this bill, there will be more gratuity than
before and our schools will be more accessible," he insisted during
Question Period.

"Parents will be charged less. Finally, on the question of class
action there will be none, I'm convinced, because the agreement out
of court that was signed, which cost us quite a lot of money,
covered educational services . . . Let's fix the system and offer
the best to our children."

Roberge blames the Liberal Party and the Parti Quebecois for
negligence.

"Since 2007, the law hasn't been fixed, [they] cost us $153
million," he said.

Zukran argues that the government amended and "modified Article 3
of the Education Act to provide a specific exclusion to the
principle of free education."

"The new law says the specialized programs are excluded from the
principle of free education. Now, that law only goes into effect
July 1, 2018 so anyone who would've paid these fees up until then
has done so unlawfully," he told Global News.

A spokesperson for Roberge told Global News that the minister feels
the issue was resolved when a settlement was reached in another
2016 case. Zukran disputed that point, saying the 2016 case related
to parents paying for school supplies.

Roberge refused to comment any further as the matter is before the
courts.

Jim Hendry, a spokesperson for the Lester B. Pearson School Board,
also declined to address the lawsuit.

"At this time, the Lester B. Pearson School Board is not prepared
to speculate on an issue that is in the hands of the court," Hendry
said.

EMSB chair Angela Mancini said the school board has already made
some changes.

"We have adjusted the way in which we charge any fees to our
parents and are now complying to whatever the minister has given us
in terms of guidelines as to what can and cannot be charged,"
Mancini said.

The lawsuit aims to get back over $1 billion collected from parents
for specialized programs across the province -- meaning roughly
$100 per person.

Zukran says that any parent who might have paid these extra fees is
automatically included in the suit. [GN]


LIBERTY MEDIA: MoU Reached in Buchanan Suit
-------------------------------------------
Liberty Media Corporation 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 SIRIUS XM Holdings
entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle the purported
class action suit initiated by Thomas Buchanan.  

On March 13, 2017, Thomas Buchanan, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint
against SIRIUS XM Holdings in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.

The plaintiff in this action alleges that SIRIUS XM Holdings
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA")
by, among other things, making telephone solicitations to persons
on the National Do-Not-Call registry, a database established to
allow consumers to exclude themselves from telemarketing calls
unless they consent to receive the calls in a signed, written
agreement, and making calls to consumers in violation of SIRIUS XM
Holdings' internal Do-Not-Call registry.

The plaintiff is seeking various forms of relief, including
statutory damages of $500 for each violation of the TCPA or, in the
alternative, treble damages of up to $1,500 for each knowing and
willful violation of the TCPA and a permanent injunction
prohibiting SIRIUS XM Holdings from making, or having made, any
calls to land lines that are listed on the National Do-Not-Call
registry or its internal Do-Not-Call registry.

Following a mediation, on January 31, 2019, SIRIUS XM Holdings
entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle this purported
class action suit.  

The settlement is expected to resolve the claims of consumers for
the period October 2013 through January 2019. As part of the
settlement, SIRIUS XM Holdings will agree to pay $25 million into a
non-reversionary settlement fund from which cash to class members,
notice, administrative costs, and attorney's fees and costs will be
paid.  

The settlement also contemplates that SIRIUS XM Holdings will
provide three months of service to its All Access subscription
package for those members of the class that elect to receive it, in
lieu of cash, at no cost to those class members and who are not
active subscribers at the time of the distribution. The
availability of this three-month service option will not diminish
the $25 million common fund.

As part of the settlement, SIRIUS XM Holdings also expects to
implement certain changes relating to its "Do-Not-Call" practices
and telemarketing programs.  Settlement of this matter is subject
to execution of a definitive settlement agreement between the
parties and, among other things, approval by the Court.

This charge is included in the selling, general and administrative
expense line item in the condensed consolidated financial
statements for the three months ended March 31, 2019, but has been
excluded from Adjusted OIBDA for the corresponding period as this
charge does not relate to the on-going performance of the
business.

Liberty Media Corporation, through its subsidiaries, engages in the
media and entertainment businesses primarily in North America and
the United Kingdom. The company operates through SIRIUS XM and
Formula 1 segments. The company is headquartered in Englewood,
Colorado.


LIRON INC: Faces Labrasca Labor Suit in California State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
Liron, Inc. The case is captioned Cindy Labrasca vs. Liron Inc,
Case No. 34-2019-00256445-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty.,
May 14, 2019).

Founded in 1999, Liron, Inc. provides various business services.
Its office is located at 201 S Guild Ave Ste 101 Lodi,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Larry W. Lee, Esq.
     DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
     515 S Figueroa St Ste 1250
     Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316
     Telephone: (213) 488-6555
     Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
     Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com


LOUI AMSTERDAM: Chang Seeks OT Pay, Minimum Wage
------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Loui Amsterdam,
Inc. DBA Cap't Loui and Jihoon Jeong for alleged violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The case is
captioned Andrew Chang, on behalf of himself and all other
Plaintiffs similarly situated known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. Loui
Amsterdam, Inc. DBA Cap't Loui and Jihoon Jeong, Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-03056 (E.D.N.Y., May 22, 2019). Plaintiff Andrew Chang
alleges that the Defendants failed to pay proper minimum and
overtime wages to him. During the course of his employment by
Defendants, Plaintiff regularly worked over eight hours per day and
over 40 hours per week. Defendants did not pay his minimum or
overtime wage properly and they never compensated Plaintiff with
the spread of hours pay. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants'
failure to pay overtime wages was willful and intentional.

Loui Amsterdam, Inc. is a New York corporation doing business as
Cap't Loui, a seafood restaurant located in Manhattan, New York.
The restaurant is owned by Ji Won Jung and managed by Jihoon Jeong.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ryan J. Kim, Esq.
     RYAN KIM LAW
     163-10 Northern Blvd. Suite 205
     Flushing, NY 11358
     E-mail: ryan@RyanKimLaw.com


LYNEER STAFFING: Trejo Seeks Minimum and Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
ANITA TREJO, the Plaintiff, v. LYNEER STAFFING SOLUTIONS, LLC;
EMPLOYERS HR LLC; YUSEN LOGISTICS (AMERICAS) INC.; and DOES 1
through 50, the inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.: 19STCV18725
(Cal. Super., May 30, 2019), seeks penalties in connection with
Defendants' violations of California Labor Code section 2698 et
seq., the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have consistently
maintained and enforced against Plaintiff the following unlawful
policies and practices: willfully refusing to pay Plaintiff for all
hours worked, including minimum and overtime wages; due upon
separation of employment; and willfully refusing to furnish to
Plaintiff accurate itemized wage statements upon payment of wages.

The Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees frequently worked over eight
8 hours per day and/or 40 hours per week. However, the Defendants
failed to compensate Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees the legally
mandated overtime rate for all work performed over eight hours per
day and/or 40 hours per week by, among other things, imposing on
Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees a time "rounding policy" which
was not fair and neutral and which resulted, over a period of time,
in failure to compensate employees properly for all time actually
worked, including minimum wage and/or overtime wages, the lawsuit
says.

Lyneer Staffing operates as an employment agency. The company
offers staffing services in accounting and finance, administrative
and clerical, hospitality, information technology, legal, light
industrial, and medical fields.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          Katherine J. Odenbreit, 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

MARYLAND MUTUAL: Homeowners Allege Realty Rates Price-fixing
------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Williams, Sr., Franklin and Dorothy Robinson, Keith B.
Cook, Terry Gordon, Sr., and Roger and Susan Enochs, on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of the entire class of persons similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Maryland Mutual Mortgage, LLC, Hawk
Mortgage Group, LLC, Corey J. Anderson and Jeffrey T. Hawk,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01464 (D. Md., May 17, 2019), seeks
treble damages for title and settlement services illegally charged,
reasonable attorneys' fees, interest and costs and such other and
further relief.

Plaintiffs are borrowers who currently have or had a residential
mortgage loan originated and/or brokered by Maryland Mutual
Mortgage, LLC and/or Hawk Mortgage Group, LLC secured by their
residential real property. They allege that the Defendants received
and accepted illegal kickbacks in exchange for the assignment and
referral of residential mortgage loans, refinances and reverse
mortgages to All Star Title, Inc., a Maryland-based title and
settlement services company, for title and settlement services in
violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act for price fixing, minimum
pricing and refusal to deal agreements related to the residential
mortgage loans. Plaintiffs also allege racketeering activities over
a period of at least five years in violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act brought about by
laundering kickbacks through third party marketing companies,
creating sham invoice and payment records, fraudulent
representations in marketing materials, false allocation of title
and settlement fees and manipulation of the annual percentage rate
associated with Maryland Mutual and Hawk Mortgage loans, false and
fraudulent representations and omissions in Maryland Mutual and
Hawk Mortgage borrowers' loan documents. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Timothy F. Maloney, Esq.
     Veronica B. Nannis, Esq.
     Megan A. Benevento, Esq.
     JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE
     6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400
     Greenbelt, Maryland 20770
     Telephone: (301) 220-2200
     Facsimile: (301) 220-1214
     Email: tmaloney@jgllaw.com
            vnannis@jgllaw.com
            mbenevento@jgllaw.com

            - and -

     Michael Paul Smith, Esq.
     Melissa L. English, Esq.
     Sarah A. Zadrozny, Esq.
     SMITH, GILDEA & SCHMIDT, LLC
     600 Washington Avenue, Suite 200
     Towson, MD 21202
     Telephone: (410) 821-0070
     Facsimile: (410) 821-0071
     Email: mpsmith@sgs-law.com
            menglish@sgs-law.com
            szadrozny@sgs-law.com


MASSACHUSETTS FINANCIAL: Settles Employees' 401(k) Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that
Massachusetts Financial Services Co. agreed to settle a class
action by employees challenging the affiliated mutual funds in
their 401(k) plans.

The lawsuit accuses MFS of mismanaging the plans, which together
hold more than $500 million, by offering high-cost funds affiliated
with the company and by failing to investigate lower-fee options.
[GN]


MATCH GROUP: Discovery Underway in Candelore Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Match 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 discovery is still
ongoing in the putative state-wide class action suit entitled,
Allan Candelore v. Tinder

On May 28, 2015, a putative state-wide class action was filed
against Tinder in state court in California. Allan Candelore v.
Tinder, Inc., No. BC583162 (Superior Court of California, County of
Los Angeles).  

The complaint principally alleged that Tinder violated California's
Unruh Civil Rights Act by offering and charging users age 30 and
over a higher price than younger users for subscriptions to its
premium Tinder Plus service. The complaint sought certification of
a class of California Tinder Plus subscribers age 30 and over and
damages in an unspecified amount.  

On September 21, 2015, Tinder filed a demurrer seeking dismissal of
the complaint. On October 26, 2015, the court issued an opinion
sustaining Tinder's demurrer to the complaint without leave to
amend, ruling that the age-based pricing differential for Tinder
Plus subscriptions did not violate California law in essence
because offering a discount to users under age 30 was neither
invidious nor unreasonable in light of that age group's generally
more limited financial means.  

On December 29, 2015, in accordance with its ruling, the court
entered judgment dismissing the action. On February 1, 2016, the
plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the judgment, and the
parties thereafter briefed the appeal.  

On January 29, 2018, the California Court of Appeal (Second
Appellate District, Division Three) issued an opinion reversing the
judgment of dismissal, ruling that the lower court had erred in
sustaining Tinder's demurrer because the complaint, as pleaded,
stated a cognizable claim for violation of the Unruh Act.  

Because the company believes that the appellate court's reasoning
was flawed as a matter of law and runs afoul of binding California
precedent, on March 12, 2018, Tinder filed a petition with the
California Supreme Court seeking interlocutory review of the Court
of Appeal's decision.  

On May 9, 2018, the California Supreme Court denied the petition.
The case has been returned to the trial court for further
proceedings and is currently in discovery.

Match Group said, "We believe that the allegations in this lawsuit
are without merit and will continue to defend vigorously against
it."

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

Match Group, Inc. provides dating products worldwide. It operates a
portfolio of brands, including Tinder, Match, PlentyOfFish, Meetic,
OkCupid, OurTime, Pairs, and Hinge, as well as other brands. Match
Group, Inc. offers its dating products through its applications and
Websites in approximately 40 languages. The company was
incorporated in 2009 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Match
Group, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of IAC/InterActiveCorp.


MATCO TOOLS: Bid to Dismiss or Transfer Fleming Labor Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Nothern
District of California denied Matco's motion to dismiss or transfer
the case, JOHN FLEMING, Plaintiff, v. MATCO TOOLS CORPORATION, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00463-WHO (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Fleming brings suit on behalf of himself and a putative
class of other distributors that he asserts were misclassified as
independent contractors, rather than employees, by Defendants Matco
Tools Corp., NMTC, Inc., doing business as Matco Tools, and Fortive
Corp.  Matco manufactures and distributes mechanic's tools and
service equipment. It relies on distributors to make sales and
service calls to existing and prospective customers through mobile
distributorship stores.

Fleming was a distributor for Matco from July of 2012 through
December of 2018.  He claims that, by allegedly misclassifying him
and similarly situated distributors as independent contractors,
Matco has sought to avoid various duties and obligations owed to
employees under California's Labor Code and Industrial Welfare
Commission wage orders, including: the duty to indemnify employees
for all expenses and losses necessarily incurred in connection with
their employment; the duty to pay overtime compensation for hours
worked in excess of eight hours in a day or forty hours a week; the
duty to provide off-duty meal periods; the duty to authorize and
permit paid rest periods; the duty to furnish accurate wage
statements; the duty to pay employees all wages owed upon
termination; and unlawful collection and receipt of earned wages.

According to Matco, Fleming entered into two distributorship
agreements with it in July 2012 and October 2013.  The July 2012
distributorship agreement was amended in October 2013 and November
2016.  The October 2013 distributorship agreement was terminated in
September 2015.  For the purposes of the instant motion, both the
July 2012 agreement and October 2013 are functionally the same.

Matco moves to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, to
transfer the case to the Northern District of Ohio in light of the
above forum selection clause and the arbitration clause contained
in the Distribution Agreement.  If the case is transferred, Matco
will move to compel arbitration once the matter is lodged in the
Northern District of Ohio.

In its briefing, Judge Orrick finds that Matco's only
counterarguments were that (1) the Judge should not consider the
text of the arbitration provision because it is the forum selection
clause that is at issue and (2) the governing law has yet to be
determined.  At the hearing held on April 24, 2019, Matco also
argued (3) that because the severability provision refers to "such
breaches" it only contemplates PAGA claims.  

The Judge has already disposed of Matco's first argument.  Matco's
second argument is not persuasive because the terms of the
arbitration provisions are clear and there is no indication that
his interpretation of their plain terms would differ under either
California or Ohio law.  As to the third argument, the term
"breaches" in the Distribution Agreement is defined to include "all
breaches, claims, causes of action, demands, disputes and
controversies" between Fleming and Matco.  Matco's argument that
"such breaches" would mean only PAGA claims need not be arbitrated
does not make sense given how the Distribution Agreement defines
"breaches."  Because the arbitration provision is void, the FAA
does not preempt Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sectio 20040.5 and the
forum selection clause has no effect.

Matco also argues that Fleming is equitably estopped from
repudiating the forum selection clause because his claims are
inherently intertwined with the Distribution Agreement and his
purported employment relationship with Matco arises from the
Agreement.  The Judge holds this argument fails because the forum
selection clause is inoperative as a matter of law under Section
20040.5.

Because the forum selection clause is void pursuant to Section
20040.5, the Judge must decide whether to transfer the action under
28 U.S.C. 1404(a) for the convenience of parties and witnesses or
in the interest of justice.  In assessing a motion to transfer for
convenience, the Court considers public factors, which go to the
interests of justice, and private factors, which go to the
convenience of the parties and witnesses.  He finds that the forum
selection clause is invalidated by Section 20040.5 and Matco makes
no other arguments in relation to its private interests, the
private interest factors identified by Fleming favor denial of
Matco's motion to transfer.

Finally, the private factors, to a great degree, and the public
factors, to a much lesser extent, favor Fleming.  Matco has failed
to meet the factors outlined in 28 U.S.C. 1404(a).  He will deny
its alternative motion to transfer.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Orrick denied Matco's motion to
dismiss because by the Distribution Agreement's own terms, the
arbitration provision is invalid and Section 20040.5's prohibition
of forum selection clauses in franchise agreements restricting
venue to a forum outside California is not preempted by the FAA.
He denied the motion to transfer.  Matco will answer the complaint
within 15 days.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/DFYcfF from Leagle.com.

John Fleming, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Valerie Jean Brender --
vbrender@rukinhyland.com -- Rukin Hyland & Riggin LLP, Dylan Thomas
Cowart -- dcowart@rukinhyland.com -- Rukin Hyland Riggin LLP,
Jessica Lee Riggin -- jriggin@rukinhyland.com -- Rukin Hyland &
Riggins LLP & Peter Scott Rukin -- prukin@rukinhyland.com -- Rukin
Hyland & Riggin LLP.

Matco Tools Corporation, a Delaware corporation, NMTC, Inc. d/b/a
Matco Tools, a Delaware corporation & Fortive Corporation,
Defendants, represented by Christian Joseph Rowley --
crowley@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Eric Michael Lloyd --
elloyd@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Matthew A. Goodin --
mgoodin@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP.


MAXIM INC: Huguelet Sues over Fraud
-----------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed by Luther Huguelet against
Maxim Inc. and Biglari Holdings Inc. for fraud. The case is
captioned Huguelet v. Maxim Inc. et al, Case No. 1:19-cv-04452-ALC
(S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2019). It is assigned to Hon. Judge Andrew L.
Carter, Jr.

Maxim Inc. is a multimedia company headquartered in New York. The
company owns the MAXIM trademark and publishes the flagship MAXIM
U.S. edition, the leading men's lifestyle magazine, and Maxim.com.
Maxim Inc. has 10 licensed local editions. Biglari Holdings Inc. is
a diversified holding company headquartered in San Antonio, Texas.
Biglari's major subsidiaries include Steak 'n Shake, Maxim
magazine, First Guard Insurance and Western Sizzlin'. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq.
     BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
     888 Seventh Avenue
     New York, NY 10019
     Telephone: (646) 837-7150
     E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com


MCKENNA DUPONT: Faces Phillips Suit over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Mckenna, Dupont,
Higgins & Stone, PC for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Act
(FDCA). The case is captioned PHILLIPS v. MCKENNA, DUPONT, HIGGINS
& STONE, PC, Case No. 2:19-cv-12429-JMV-SCM (D.N.J., May 10, 2019).
This consumer credit-related lawsuit is assigned to Hon. Judge John
Michael Vazquez.

McKenna, Dupont, Higgins & Stone, PC is a law firm in Red Bank, New
Jersey. It provides legal services to Monmouth County families,
businesses, state financial institutions and municipal governments
since 1980. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ryan Leyland Gentile, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF GUS MICHAEL FARINELLA PC
     110 Jericho Turnpike-Suite 100
     Floral Park, NY 11001
     Telephone: (201) 873-7675
     E-mail: rlg@lawgmf.com


MDL 2047: Bid to Apply Remediation Damages Formula Partly Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE CHINESE-MANUFACTURED DRYWALL PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ALL LOUISIANA AMORIN CASES,
Section L (5), Civil Action MDL No. 2047 (E.D. La.), Judge Eldon E.
Fallon of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana granted in part and denied in part the Motion for an
Order Applying the Remediation Damages Formula Adopted by the
Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Related to the June 9, 2015
Damages Hearing to the Claims of Former Owners of Affected
Properties filed by the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee ("PSC").

From 2004 through 2006, a housing boom in parts of the United
States and rebuilding efforts necessitated by Hurricanes Rita and
Katrina in the Gulf South led to a shortage of construction
materials, including drywall.  As a result, drywall manufactured in
China was brought into the United States and used to construct and
refurbish homes in coastal areas of the country, notably the Gulf
and East Coasts.  Sometime after the Chinese drywall was installed,
homeowners began to complain of foul-smelling odors, the corrosion
and blackening of metal wiring, surfaces, and objects, and the
breaking down of appliances and electrical devices in their homes.
Many of these homeowners also began to complain of various physical
afflictions believed to have been caused by the Chinese drywall.

These homeowners then began to file suit in various state and
federal courts against homebuilders, developers, installers,
realtors, brokers, suppliers, importers, exporters, distributors,
and manufacturers who were involved with the Chinese drywall.
Because of the commonality of facts in the various cases, the
litigation was designated as a multidistrict litigation.  Pursuant
to a Transfer Order from the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on June 15, 2009, all federal cases
involving Chinese drywall were consolidated for pretrial
proceedings in MDL 09-2047 before the Court.

Relevant to the Order are the Chinese Defendants.  These Defendants
include the principal Chinese-based Defendant, Taishan, namely,
Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd. and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Taian
Taishan Plasterboard Co., Ltd. ("Taishan Entities").  Other
Chinese-based Defendants include China New Building Materials
Group, China New Building Materials Co., CNBMIT Co. Ltd., CNBM USA
Corp., and United Suntech Craft, Inc., as well as the Beijing New
Building Materials Public Limited Co. and Beijing New Building
Material Group.

The Court's initial inquiry regarding Taishan involved four cases
in the MDL: (1) Germano v. Taishan Gypsum Co. (Case No. 09-6687);
(2) The Mitchell Co. v. Knauf Gips KG (Case No. 09-4115); (3) Gross
v. Knauf Gips KG (Case No. 09-6690); and (4) Wiltz v. Beijing New
Building Materials Public Ltd. (Case No. 10-361).

The Chinese drywall at issue was largely manufactured by two groups
of Defendants: (1) the Knauf Entities and (2) the Taishan Entities.
The litigation has focused on these two entities and their
downstream associates and has proceeded on strikingly different
tracks for the claims against each group.  

On March 15, 2019, the PSC filed a motion seeking an order applying
to the claims of former owners the remediation damages formula
adopted by the Court in its April 21, 2017 Findings of Fact &
Conclusions of Law following the June 9, 2015 damages hearing.  In
its April 21, 2017 Order, the Court reaffirmed its finding in the
Germano litigation that, remediating a Chinese drywall property
requires complete remediation and cleaning.  The Court ultimately
concluded that the total remediation damages awarded would be
calculated by multiplying the under air square footage of the
affected properties by $105.9110 as adjusted by the RS Means
location factor.  Notably, the Court's findings at that time
related to current property owners.

In moving the Court to extend the April 21, 2017 damages finding to
former property owners, the PSC points out that these Plaintiffs
were current owners when they sustained the damage and when they
filed suit in the case.  Moreover, the PSC contends, many
Plaintiffs have since been forced to sell their properties during
the decade-long, protracted Chinese Drywall proceedings because of
the Defendants' dilatory litigation tactics.  Accordingly, the PSC
argues, any Plaintiff who was a current owner when suit was brought
and when the first defaults were entered against Taishan in 2009
should be considered a current owner for purposes of calculating
damages in these default proceedings.

In support of their position, the PSC points to the Court's Rule
55(b)(2) proceeding in which the Court awarded Plaintiffs Deborah
and William Morgan remediation damages, among other damages,
despite their having declared bankruptcy.  The PSC contends that,
their home having been foreclosed on, the Morgans were essentially
former owners.  The PSC further notes that, in Germano, the Court
entered judgment for both current owners and former owners based on
the same formulaic methodology to calculate remediation damages.

In opposition, the Defendants argue the make-whole analysis for
current owners, who can use the estimated repair costs to restore
their properties, is much different than the analysis needed for
former owners, who no longer have property to repair.  They aver
the June 9, 2015 damages hearing was properly limited to current
owners only, because the type of damages suffered differ as to
prior owners.  The Defendants submit, were the measure of damages
the same for current and former owners, there would have been no
reason to segregate and delay the damages calculation for the
second group.  Because former owners can no longer repair the
property, the Defendants argue the formula for damages designed to
estimate repair costs cannot be applied equally as to them.

As an initial matter, Judge Fallon begins its analysis by noting
the differences in the group of Plaintiffs the order relates to.
First, he finds no difficulty in extending the remediation damages
calculation to the subgroup of former owners who remediated their
properties prior to relinquishing ownership of their homes.  These
Plaintiffs unquestionably are entitled to recoup remediation
damages.  Thus, the issue before the Court is whether to extend the
remediation damages calculation to prior owners who were owners at
the time the damage was sustained and at the time suit was filed,
but who did not remediate their properties prior to losing
possession thereof.

The Judge finds that pursuant to the subsequent purchaser rule,
absent evidence that the former owners assigned their personal
right to sue the Defendants for the damages sustained to their
home, these former owners maintain the same right to sue the
Defendants for damages as the current owners.  Because the Court's
damage calculation is based on the cost of remediation, however,
and former owners cannot remediate their homes, former and current
owners do not stand in the same position with respect to proving
the actual damages they incurred.

Had the Defendants not chosen a course of "delay, delay, delay,"
which in many cases caused the property owners to lose their
property and become former owners, the process of ascertaining the
fair market value of a house before the defected drywall was
installed and its value thereafter might not have been a difficult
one.  But the reality is that these injuries were sustained more
than 10 years ago to homes sold or foreclosed upon many years ago.
Calculating the diminution in value of the homes at issue many
years after the fact presents a Herculean task made so as a
consequence of the Defendants' actions.

In addition, because remediating the home prior to sale or
foreclosure likely would have restored the home's value, the cost
of remediating that property informs the Court's analysis of its
diminution damages.  Thus, with respect to homes that were sold
without first being remediated, the Judge concludes the remediation
damages calculation will serve as a rebuttable presumption of a
prior owner's diminution damages.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Fallon granted in part and denied
in part PSC's Motion.  To the extent the PSC moves to extend the
remediation damages calculation to former owners who remediated
their homes prior to relinquishing ownership of the property, the
motion is granted.  For the former owners who did not remediate
their homes prior to relinquishing ownership of the property, the
motion is denied in part and granted in part, and the Judge
concludes the remediation damage formula for these owners, when
introduced into evidence, creates a rebuttable presumption of their
diminution damage calculation.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2019 Order & Reasons is
available at https://is.gd/XX1WXd from Leagle.com.

Lynn C Greer, Special Master, pro se.

Plaintiff, Plaintiff, represented by Russ M. Herman --
rherman@hhklawfirm.com -- Herman, Herman & Katz, LLC & Leonard A.
Davis -- ldavis@hhklawfirm.com -- Herman, Herman & Katz, LLC.

Homebuilders and Installers Steering Committee, Defendant,
represented by Phillip A. Wittmann -- pwittmann@stonepigman.com --
Stone, Pigman, Walther, Wittmann, LLC.

Insurer Steering Committee, Defendant, represented by Judy Y.
Barrasso -- JBarrasso@BarrassoUsdin.com -- Barrasso, Usdin,
Kupperman, Freeman & Sarver, LLC.

Defendant, Defendant, represented by Kerry J. Miller --
kmiller@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell &
Berkowitz & Andrew J Brien -- brien@carverdarden.com -- Carver,
Darden, Koretzky, Tessier, Finn, Blossman & Areaux.

Defendant, Liaison Counsel for Taishan, BNMB entities, and CNBM
entities, Defendant, represented by Harry Rosenberg --
harry.rosenberg@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar, LLP.


MDL 2741: Denson Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned JEFFREY DENSON v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No.
4:19-cv-00975, was transferred on May 15, 2019, 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).

The California District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02588
to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled
In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation, MDL No.
3:16-md-02741-VC.

The lawsuits in the litigation arise from the Plaintiffs' alleged
Roundup(R)-related injuries.  The Plaintiffs seek damages for the
injuries they allegedly suffered as a direct and proximate result
of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient
glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN AND CROUPPEN P.C.
          One Metropolitan Square
          211 N. Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com


MDL 2741: Mincks Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled DEBRA MINCKS, Executrix on behalf of the
ESTATE OF LARRY MINCKS, (deceased) v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No.
4:19-cv-00648, was transferred on May 14, 2019, 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).

The California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02576-VC to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled
In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation, MDL No.
3:16-md-02741-VC.

The lawsuits in the litigation arise from the Plaintiffs' alleged
Roundup(R)-related injuries.  The Plaintiffs seek damages for the
injuries they allegedly suffered as a direct and proximate result
of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient
glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN AND CROUPPEN P.C.
          One Metropolitan Square
          211 N. Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com


MDL 2741: Parsons Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled KENNETH J. PARSONS, an individual v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, Case No. 2:19-cv-00462, was transferred on May 15, 2019,
from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(San Francisco).

The California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02577-VC to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled
In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation, MDL No.
3:16-md-02741-VC.

The lawsuits in the litigation arise from the Plaintiffs' alleged
Roundup(R)-related injuries.  The Plaintiffs seek damages for the
injuries they allegedly suffered as a direct and proximate result
of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient
glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Corrie J. Yackulic, Esq.
          CORRIE YACKULIC LAW FIRM PLLC
          705 Second Avenue, #1300
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 787-1915
          Facsimile: (206) 299-9725
          E-mail: Corrie@cjylaw.com

               - and -

          Doug Purcell, Esq.
          PURCELL LEGAL & MEDIATION SERVICES, PLLC
          7127 196th St. SW., Suite 201
          Lynnwood, WA 98036
          Telephone: (425) 774-0444
          Facsimile: (425) 771-2711
          E-mail: dpurcell@purcelllegal.com


MDL 2741: Rawls Suit Consolidated in Roundup Products Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled SCOTT RAWLS v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No.
1:19-cv-01630, was transferred on May 14, 2019, from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco).

The California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-02580-VC to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled
In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation, MDL No.
3:16-md-02741-VC.

The lawsuits in the litigation arise from the Plaintiffs' alleged
Roundup(R)-related injuries.  The Plaintiffs seek damages for the
injuries they allegedly suffered as a direct and proximate result
of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient
glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justyn D. Alioto, Esq.
          MILLS & HOOPES, LLC
          1550 N. Brown Road, Suite 130
          Lawrenceville, GA 30043
          Telephone: (770) 513-8111
          Facsimile: (770) 513-8150
          E-mail: justyn@millshoopeslaw.com

               - and -

          Jason Edward Ochs, Esq.
          OCHS LAW FIRM, PC
          690 US 89, Suite 206
          PO Box 10944
          Jackson, WY 83001
          Telephone: (307) 739-3959
          Facsimile: (307) 235-6910
          E-mail: Jason@ochslawfirm.com


MDL 2777: $59MM Attorneys' Fees Awarded in EcoDiesel Marketing Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE CHRYSLER-DODGE-JEEP ECODIESEL(R) MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, Case No.
17-md-02777-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S.
District Court for the Nothern District of California, San
Francisco Division, granted the Class Plaintiffs' Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement and Attorneys' Fees and Costs
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) and 23(h) and Pretrial Order Nos. 3 and
4.

The Settlement, along with the interrelated US-CA Consent Decree,
provides an emissions repair for approximately 100,000 vehicles,
offers an extended warranty covering all vehicles receiving that
repair, and compensates class members with cash payments ranging
from $990 to $3,075.

The Class Counsel requests an award of $59 million in attorneys'
fees and $7 million in costs for work arising from the claims
resolved by the Settlement.  The Defendants have agreed to pay this
amount in addition to compensation to the Class.  The Plaintiffs
request a service award of $5,000 to be paid by the Defendants in
addition to the Settlement compensation.

Following the Court's Preliminary Approval Order, notice has been
sent to the Class via a Court-approved notice program, and the
Class has had an opportunity to respond.  Having considered the
Parties' briefs and accompanying submissions, comments from the
Class, and presentations at the hearing on these matters, for the
reasons stated in granting preliminary approval and for the reasons
stated at the hearing, Judge Chen finds that the fees and costs are
reasonable, whether a percentage method or lodestar method is used.
The requested service award is the presumptive service award in
this District, and is reasonable under the facts of the case, in
which the representative Plaintiffs participated actively in the
litigation, including sitting for depositions, completing detailed
questionnaires, and searching for and producing responsive
documents.

Accordingly, the Judge certified the Settlement Class and granted
the Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement.  He fully and
finally approves the Settlement in the form contemplated by the
Settlement Agreement.  He directed the consummation of the
Settlement pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Settlement
Agreement.

The Jude confirmed the appointment of (i) the Lead Plaintiffs'
Counsel and the members of the PSC listed in Pretrial Order No. 3
as the Settlement Class Counsel; (ii) the Settlement Class
Representatives listed in Exhibit A to the Class Plaintiffs' Motion
for Preliminary Approval; and (iii) the Angeion Group as the Claims
and Notice Administrator.

Judge Chen granted the Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees
and costs, and awarded the Class Counsel $59 million in attorneys'
fees and $7 million in costs to be paid by the Defendants in
addition to the compensation available to the Class, and to be
allocated by the Lead Counsel among the PSC firms and additional
counsel performing work under Pretrial Order Nos. 3 and 4.  The
Settlement Class Representatives service awards of $5,000 each,
also to be paid by the Defendants in addition to the compensation
available to the Class, are approved.

A separate judgment consistent with the Order will issue pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/4tJkkX from Leagle.com.

Jose Chavez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica Thompson --
jessicat@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana E.
Scarlett -- shanas@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, E. Powell Miller --
epm@millerlawpc.com -- The Miller Law Firm, P.C., James E. Cecchi
-- jcecchi@carellabyrne.com -- Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody
& Agnello, P.C., Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg -- jgoldenberg@gs-
legal.com -- Goldenberg Schneider, LPA, Lindsey H. Taylor --
ltaylor@carellabyrne.com -- Carella Byrne, Peter B. Fredman --
peter@peterfredmanlaw.com -- Law Office of Peter Fredman & Sharon
S. Almonrode -- ssa@millerlawpc.com -- The Miller Law Firm, P.C.

Benjamin Greenberg, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated & Andrew Loescher, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice,
E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm, P.C., James E. Cecchi,
Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., Jeffrey Scott
Goldenberg, Goldenberg Schneider, LPA, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella
Byrne & Sharon S. Almonrode, The Miller Law Firm, P.C.

Miguel Fragoso, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Derek William
Loeser -- dloeser@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback, LLP,
Gretchen Freeman Cappio -- gcappio@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller
Rohrback, LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey Greg Lewis --
jlewis@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Lynn Lincoln
Sarko -- lsarko@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro
hac vice, Ryan McDevitt -- rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller
Rohrback L.L.P., Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice, Benjamin L. Bailey --
bbailey@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey and Glasser, LLP, E. Powell
Miller, The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Elizabeth Joan Cabraser --
ecabraser@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
James E. Cecchi, Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello,
P.C., James Gerard Stranch, IV -- gerards@bsjfirm.com --
Branstetter Stranch & Jennings, Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg,
Goldenberg Schneider, LPA, Joe P. Leniski, Jr. --
joeyl@bsjfirm.com -- Branstetter Stranch Jennings, PLLC, Lesley
Elizabeth Weaver -- Lweaver@bfalaw.com -- Bleichmar Fonti & Auld
LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella Byrne, Lisa Faye Petak --
lpetak@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P. & Sharon S.
Almonrode, The Miller Law Firm, P.C.

Mathue Fasching, Plaintiff, represented by Lynn Lincoln Sarko ,
Keller Rohrback L.L.P., James E. Cecchi, Carella Byrne Cecchi
Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James Gerard Stranch, IV,
Branstetter Stranch & Jennings, Jeffrey Greg Lewis, Keller
Rohrback L.L.P. & Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella Byrne.

Thomas McGann, Jr. & Joseph Neupert, Plaintiffs, represented by
Derek William Loeser, Keller Rohrback, LLP, Gretchen Freeman
Cappio, Keller Rohrback, LLP, pro hac vice, Lynn Lincoln Sarko,
Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice, Ryan McDevitt, Keller
Rohrback L.L.P., Benjamin L. Bailey, Bailey and Glasser, LLP,
Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
James E. Cecchi, Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello,
P.C., James Gerard Stranch, IV , Branstetter Stranch & Jennings,
Jeffrey Greg Lewis , Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Joe P. Leniski, Jr,
Branstetter Stranch Jennings, PLLC, Lesley Elizabeth Weaver,
Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella Byrne &
Lisa Faye Petak, Keller Rohrback L.L.P.

Bryan Muckenfuss & John Radziewicz, Plaintiffs, represented by
Joseph F. Rice -- jrice@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, pro
hac vice, Benjamin L. Bailey, Bailey and Glasser, LLP, Elizabeth
Joan Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, James E.
Cecchi, Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James
Gerard Stranch, IV, Branstetter Stranch & Jennings, Jeffrey Greg
Lewis, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Branstetter
Stranch Jennings, PLLC, Lesley Elizabeth Weaver, Bleichmar Fonti
& Auld LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella Byrne & Lisa Faye Petak,
Keller Rohrback L.L.P.

Satyanam Singh & Binh Quoc Tran, Plaintiffs, represented by
Benjamin L. Bailey, Bailey and Glasser, LLP, Elizabeth Joan
Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, James E.
Cecchi, Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James
Gerard Stranch, IV, Branstetter Stranch & Jennings, Jeffrey Greg
Lewis, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Branstetter
Stranch Jennings, PLLC, Lesley Elizabeth Weaver, Bleichmar Fonti
& Auld LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella Byrne & Lisa Faye Petak,
Keller Rohrback L.L.P.

Luke Kitchel, Plaintiff, represented by Peter Prieto --
pprieto@podhurst.com -- Podhurst Orseck, P.A., pro hac vice,
David Brian Fernandes -- dfernandes@baronbudd.com -- Baron &
Budd, P.C., David S. Stellings -- DSTELLINGS@lchb.com -- Lieff
Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein, pro hac vice, Elizabeth Joan
Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Kevin R.
Budner -- kbudner@lchb.com -- Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann and
Bernstein, LLP, Mark P. Pifko -- MPifko@baronbudd.com -- Baron
and Budd PC, Paul J. Geller -- pgeller@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Phong-Chau Gia Nguyen -
- pgnguyen@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
Rachel Lynn Jensen, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Roland K.
Tellis -- rtellis@baronbudd.com -- Baron Budd, P.C. & Wilson
McClelland Dunlavey -- wdunlavey@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser.

Gregory Wilkerson, Joseph Moynihan, Mark Richards, Timothy Green,
Jeff Parisi, Adam Burwell, Louis Bodie, Jamie Broom, Walter Swan,
Craig McCully, Aaron Carter, Daniel Brown, Nelson Delgado, Bobby
Reichert, Christopher Mattingly, Micah Martin, Leslie Ghrist,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated &
Michah Williams, Plaintiffs, represented by Peter Prieto,
Podhurst Orseck, P.A., pro hac vice, David Brian Fernandes, Baron
& Budd, P.C., Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, Kevin R. Budner, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann and
Bernstein, LLP, Mark P. Pifko, Baron and Budd PC, Paul J. Geller,
Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Phong-Chau Gia
Nguyen, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Rachel Lynn
Jensen, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Roland K. Tellis, Baron
Budd, P.C. & Wilson McClelland Dunlavey, Lieff Cabraser.

Travis Morgan, Plaintiff, represented by Peter Prieto , Podhurst
Orseck, P.A., pro hac vice, David Brian Fernandes, Baron & Budd,
P.C., Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, Kevin R. Budner, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann and
Bernstein, LLP, Mark P. Pifko, Baron and Budd PC, Paul J. Geller,
Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Phong-Chau Gia
Nguyen, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Rachel Lynn
Jensen, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Roland K. Tellis,
Baron Budd, P.C.

FCA US LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendant,
represented by Amie Adelia Vague -- avague@lightfootlaw.com --
Lightfoot Franklin & White, Kyle Allen Niemi --
niemik@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, Samuel H.
Franklin -- sfranklin@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin &
White LLC, Wesley B. Gilchrist -- wgilchrist@lightfootlaw.com --
Lightfoot Franklin & White LLC, Darrell Scott Cafasso --
cafassod@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan Cromwell LLP, Gary G. Hebert --
ghebert@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey Stafford, Marshall Thomas
Cox -- mcox@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey Stafford, Robert J.
Giuffra, Jr. -- giuffrar@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell
LLP, pro hac vice, Sharon L. Nelles -- nelless@sullcrom.com --
Sullivan and Cromwell LLP & William B. Monahan --
monahanw@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice.

Robert Bosch GmbH, a corporation organized under the laws of
Germany, Defendant, represented by Matthew D. Slater --
mslater@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb Steen and Hamilton LLP.

Robert Bosch LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company,
Defendant, represented by Matthew D. Slater, Cleary Gottlieb
Steen and Hamilton LLP & Carmine D. Boccuzzi, Jr. --
cboccuzzi@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP.

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., Defendant, represented by Amie
Adelia Vague, Lightfoot Franklin & White, Kyle Allen Niemi,
Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, Robert J. Giuffra, Jr., Sullivan and
Cromwell LLP, Samuel H. Franklin, Lightfoot Franklin & White LLC,
Wesley B. Gilchrist, Lightfoot Franklin & White LLC & William B.
Monahan, Esq., Sullivan & Cromwell, pro hac vice.

Melvin McConnell, Defendant, represented by James C. Shah,
Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Andrew Sciolla, Pogust
Braslow & Millrood LLC & Harris L. Pogust, Pogust Braslow &
Millrood, LLC.

VM Motori S.p.A., VM North America, Inc. & Sergio Marchionne,
Defendants, represented by Robert J. Giuffra, Jr. --
giuffrar@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP.

Brandon Automotive, Inc., a Colorado Corporation, doing business
as Brandon Dodge on Broadway, Defendant, represented by Rebecca
Jean Boyle, Dietze & Davis, P.C.

Brandon Automotive, Inc., a Colorado Corporation, Defendant,
represented by William A. Rogers, III, Dietze & Davis, P.C.

Michael Everett Heygood, Movant, pro se.

The People of the State of California, Interested Party,
represented by Jon F. Worm, Office of the Attorney General.


MDL 2777: Consent Decree Issued in EcoDiesel Marketing Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco Division, has issued a
Consent Decree in the case, IN RE: CHRYSLER-DODGE-JEEP ECODIESEL
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION,
UNITED STATES, Plaintiff, v. FCA US LLC, FIAT CHRYSLER AUTOMOBILES
N.V., V.M. MOTORI S.P.A., and V.M. NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendants.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff, v. FCA US LLC, FIAT
CHRYSLER AUTOMOBILES N.V., V.M. MOTORI S.P.A., and V.M. NORTH
AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-md-02777-EMC, No.
3:17-cv-3446-EMC (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff United States of America, on behalf of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, filed a complaint in the action on
May 23, 2017, against FCA US LLC ("FCA"), Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
N.V., V.M. Motori S.P.A., and V.M. North America, Inc. ("U.S.
Complaint") alleging that the Defendants violated Sections
203(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the Clean Air Act, and that FCA US LLC,
V.M. Motori S.P.A., and V.M. North America, Inc. violated Sections
203(a)(3)(A) and (3)(B) of the Clean Air Act, with regard to
approximately 103,828 model year ("MY") 2014 to 2016 Ram 1500 and
MY 2014 to 2016 Jeep Grand Cherokee vehicles equipped with 3.0
liter EcoDiesel engines.  The Defendants have determined that the
actual number of Subject Vehicles manufactured is 101,482.

The U.S. Complaint alleges that each Subject Vehicle contains, as
part of the electronic control module, certain software functions
and calibrations that cause the emission control system of those
vehicles to perform differently (i.e., to underperform or shut off)
during normal vehicle operation and use than during emissions
testing. The U.S. Complaint alleges that these software functions
and calibrations are undisclosed "Auxiliary Emission Control
Devices" ("AECDs") in violation of the Act and that they are also
prohibited Defeat Devices under the Act.  The U.S. Complaint also
alleges that during normal vehicle operation and use, the Subject
Vehicles emit increased levels of NOx. The U.S. Complaint alleges
and asserts four claims for relief related to the presence of the
Defeat Devices in the Subject Vehicles.

The People of the State of California, by and through the
California Air Resources Board ("CARB"), and Xavier Becerra,
Attorney General of the State of California, filed a complaint on
Jan. 9, 2019, against FCA US LLC, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V.,
V.M. Motori S.P.A., and V.M. North America, Inc. alleging that, in
connection with the certification, marketing, distribution, and
sale of approximately 14,000 Subject Vehicles in California, the
Defendants violated 42 U.S.C. Section 7604(a)(1); California Health
and Safety Code Sections 43016, 43017, 43151, 43152, 43153, 43154,
43205, 43211, and 43212; 13 C.C.R. Sections 1961, 1961.2, 1965,
1968.2, and 2037, and the 40 C.F.R. sections incorporated therein
by reference; and California Business and Professions Code Sections
17200 et seq., 17500 et seq., and 17580.5.

The California Complaint alleges, in relevant part, that each
Subject Vehicle contains, as part of the electronic control module,
certain software functions and calibrations that cause the emission
control system of those vehicles to perform differently (i.e., to
underperform or shut off) during normal vehicle operation and use
as compared to during emissions testing.  It alleges that these
software functions and calibrations are undisclosed AECDs in
violation of California and federal law, and that they are also
prohibited Defeat Devices under California and federal law.  The
California Complaint also alleges that during normal vehicle
operation and use, the Subject Vehicles emit increased levels of
NOx.  It seeks, among other things, civil penalties, injunctive
relief, mitigation, costs and other equitable relief related to the
presence of the Defeat Devices in the Subject Vehicles.

In 2017, EPA and CARB issued a Certificate of Conformity and an
Executive Order, respectively, for the EcoDiesel Jeep Grand
Cherokees and Ram 1500s for MY 2017.  As a result, to remedy the
alleged violations in the Subject Vehicles, the Defendants proposed
to update the software and calibrations in the Subject Vehicles
with software and calibrations substantially similar to the MY 2017
certified configuration.  They installed a modified MY 2017
configuration, known as the "Final Carryback Configuration," on a
number of test vehicles and conducted testing over an eight-month
period in accordance with an agreed-upon protocol approved by EPA
and CARB in December of 2017.  Based upon the results of this
testing, as well as independent testing conducted by EPA and CARB
at their own facilities, the regulating agencies determined the
Final Carryback Configuration, together with other modifications
unique to MY 2014, to be an appropriate repair for the Subject
Vehicles, provided that the Defendants comply with the terms and
conditions set forth in the Consent Decree.

The Parties recognize, and the Court by entering the Consent Decree
finds, that the Consent Decree has been negotiated by the Parties
in good faith and will avoid litigation among the Parties, and that
the Consent Decree is fair, reasonable, and in the public interest.
Before the taking of any testimony, without the adjudication or
admission of any issue of fact or law except as provided and with
the consent of the Parties, Judge issued the Consent Decree.

The obligations of the Consent Decree apply to and are binding upon
the United States and California, and upon the Defendants and any
of Defendants' successors, assigns, or other entities or persons
otherwise bound by law.  The Defendants' obligations to comply with
the requirements of this Consent Decree are joint and several.
They will do all things within their power and authority to ensure
that any legal successor or assign of any Defendant will remain
jointly and severally liable for the payment and other performance
obligations thereunder.  They will provide a copy of the Consent
Decree to the members of their respective Boards of Directors and
their executives whose duties might reasonably include compliance
with, or oversight over compliance with, any provision of the
Decree.

Terms used in the Consent Decree that are defined in the Act or in
regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act will have the meanings
assigned to them in the Act or such regulations, unless otherwise
provided in the Decree.  Likewise, except as provided herein, terms
that are defined in the California Health and Safety Code or in
CARB regulations promulgated pursuant to the California Health and
Safety Code will have the meanings assigned to them in the
California Health and Safety Code or such regulations, unless
otherwise provided in the Decree.

Within 30 days after the Effective Date, Defendants will pay the
total sum of $305 million as a civil penalty, together with
interest accruing from the date on which the Consent Decree is
lodged with the Court, at the rate specified in 28 U.S.C. Section
1961 as of the Date of Lodging.  Of the amount set forth, the
Defendants will pay $262.3 million, plus the interest due thereon,
to the United States by FedWire Electronic Funds Transfer ("EFT")
to the U.S. Department of Justice account, in accordance with
instructions provided to the Defendants by the Financial Litigation
Unit ("FLU") of the United States Attorney's Office for the
Northern District of California after the Effective Date.  The
payment instructions provided by the FLU will include a
Consolidated Debt Collection System ("CDCS") number, which the
Defendants will use to identify all payments required to be made in
accordance with the Consent Decree.

At the time of payment, the Defendants will send notice that
payment has been made: (i) to EPA; (ii) to the United States; and
(iii) to EPA in accordance with Section XIV.  Such notice will
state that the payment is for the civil penalty owed pursuant to
the Consent Decree in In re: Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep Ecodiesel
Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation and
will reference Civ. No. 3:17-md-02777-EM, the CDCS Number and DJ #
90-5-2-1-11607.

Of the amount set forth, the Defendants will pay $42.7 million,
plus the interest due thereon, to CARB by check, accompanied by a
Payment Transmittal Form (which CARB will provide to the addressee
listed in Paragraph 10 after the Effective Date), mailed to: Air
Resources Board, Accounting Branch P.O. Box 1436 Sacramento, CA
95812-1436.

The Defendants are responsible for any bank charges incurred for
processing wire transfers.  Except as otherwise provided by the
Consent Decree, penalties paid to CARB will be deposited into the
Air Pollution Control Fund and used by CARB to carry out its duties
and functions.  The Defendants will not deduct any penalties paid
under this Decree pursuant to the Section or Section VIII
(Stipulated Penalties), or any recall rate payments made, in
calculating their federal, state, or local income tax.

The Defendants will disclose all AECDs in the Final Carryback
Configuration by listing and describing them in the AECD Disclosure
Document in accordance with 40 C.F.R. Section 86.1844-01(d)(11),
and, in the event that they identify any AECDs not initially listed
in such AECD Disclosure Document, they will submit to EPA and CARB
an update of the AECD Disclosure Document by no later than 180 days
from the Effective Date.  The Defendants will not use the update
procedure to modify the Final Carryback Configuration.  No AECD
listed in the AECD Disclosure Document or in the update will be a
Defeat Device.  EPA and CARB will follow their respective
regulatory procedures, including those set forth in 40 C.F.R.
Section86.1809-01, and may use any screening tests that they deem
appropriate to determine whether a Defeat Device exists in the
Final Carryback Configuration or in any other modification made to
the Subject Vehicles after the Effective Date.

To the extent that any MY 2014-16 Jeep Grand Cherokee or Ram 1500
vehicle equipped with a 3.0 liter EcoDiesel engine has never been
introduced into commerce and, therefore, remains the property of
one or more Defendants, such vehicle will not be sold, leased,
imported, or otherwise introduced into commerce, unless and until
the Defendants have installed the Approved Emissions Modification
on such vehicle.  No vehicle that receives the Approved Emissions
Modification will count toward meeting the National Recall Target
or California Recall Target.

The Defendants will establish an Emissions Modification Recall
Program in accordance with the requirements of the Section VI.B.
Under the program, they will offer and, if accepted, provide the
Approved Emissions Modification, together with the applicable
disclosures and applicable warrantiesto Eligible Owners and
Eligible Lessees of Subject Vehicles that meet the eligibility
requirements set forth under the Consent Decree.  The Recall
Program will have the goal of implementing the Approved Emissions
Modification on at least 85% of all Subject Vehicles, both in the
United States and in the State of California, by no later than the
2-year anniversary of the Effective Date.

The Consent Decree constitutes the final, complete, and exclusive
agreement and understanding among the Parties with respect to the
settlement embodied in the Decree and supersedes all prior
agreements and understandings, whether oral or written, concerning
the settlement embodied herein.  Other than deliverables that are
subsequently submitted and approved pursuant to thes Decree, the
Parties acknowledge that there are no representations, agreements,
or understandings relating to the settlement other than those
expressly contained in this Consent Decree.

Upon approval and entry of the Consent Decree by the Court, the
Consent Decree will constitute a final judgment of the Court as to
the United States, California, and the Defendants.  Judge Chen
finds finds that there is no just reason for delay and therefore
enters the judgment as a final judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54
and 58.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/5cXGBW from Leagle.com.

Jose Chavez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica Thompson --
jessicat@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana E.
Scarlett -- shanas@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, E. Powell Miller --
epm@millerlawpc.com -- The Miller Law Firm, P.C., James E. Cecchi
-- jcecchi@carellabyrne.com -- Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody
& Agnello, P.C., Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg -- jgoldenberg@gs-
legal.com -- Goldenberg Schneider, LPA, Lindsey H. Taylor --
ltaylor@carellabyrne.com -- Carella Byrne, Peter B. Fredman --
peter@peterfredmanlaw.com -- Law Office of Peter Fredman & Sharon
S. Almonrode -- ssa@millerlawpc.com -- The Miller Law Firm, P.C.

Benjamin Greenberg, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated & Andrew Loescher, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice,
E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm, P.C., James E. Cecchi,
Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., Jeffrey Scott
Goldenberg, Goldenberg Schneider, LPA, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella
Byrne & Sharon S. Almonrode, The Miller Law Firm, P.C.

Miguel Fragoso, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Derek William
Loeser -- dloeser@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback, LLP,
Gretchen Freeman Cappio -- gcappio@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller
Rohrback, LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey Greg Lewis --
jlewis@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Lynn Lincoln
Sarko -- lsarko@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro
hac vice, Ryan McDevitt -- rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller
Rohrback L.L.P., Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice, Benjamin L. Bailey --
bbailey@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey and Glasser, LLP, E. Powell
Miller, The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Elizabeth Joan Cabraser --
ecabraser@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
James E. Cecchi, Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello,
P.C., James Gerard Stranch, IV -- gerards@bsjfirm.com --
Branstetter Stranch & Jennings, Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg,
Goldenberg Schneider, LPA, Joe P. Leniski, Jr. --
joeyl@bsjfirm.com -- Branstetter Stranch Jennings, PLLC, Lesley
Elizabeth Weaver -- Lweaver@bfalaw.com -- Bleichmar Fonti & Auld
LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella Byrne, Lisa Faye Petak --
lpetak@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P. & Sharon S.
Almonrode, The Miller Law Firm, P.C.

Mathue Fasching, Plaintiff, represented by Lynn Lincoln Sarko ,
Keller Rohrback L.L.P., James E. Cecchi, Carella Byrne Cecchi
Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James Gerard Stranch, IV,
Branstetter Stranch & Jennings, Jeffrey Greg Lewis, Keller
Rohrback L.L.P. & Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella Byrne.

Thomas McGann, Jr. & Joseph Neupert, Plaintiffs, represented by
Derek William Loeser, Keller Rohrback, LLP, Gretchen Freeman
Cappio, Keller Rohrback, LLP, pro hac vice, Lynn Lincoln Sarko,
Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice, Ryan McDevitt, Keller
Rohrback L.L.P., Benjamin L. Bailey, Bailey and Glasser, LLP,
Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
James E. Cecchi, Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello,
P.C., James Gerard Stranch, IV , Branstetter Stranch & Jennings,
Jeffrey Greg Lewis , Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Joe P. Leniski, Jr,
Branstetter Stranch Jennings, PLLC, Lesley Elizabeth Weaver,
Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella Byrne &
Lisa Faye Petak, Keller Rohrback L.L.P.

Bryan Muckenfuss & John Radziewicz, Plaintiffs, represented by
Joseph F. Rice -- jrice@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, pro
hac vice, Benjamin L. Bailey, Bailey and Glasser, LLP, Elizabeth
Joan Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, James E.
Cecchi, Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James
Gerard Stranch, IV, Branstetter Stranch & Jennings, Jeffrey Greg
Lewis, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Branstetter
Stranch Jennings, PLLC, Lesley Elizabeth Weaver, Bleichmar Fonti
& Auld LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella Byrne & Lisa Faye Petak,
Keller Rohrback L.L.P.

Satyanam Singh & Binh Quoc Tran, Plaintiffs, represented by
Benjamin L. Bailey, Bailey and Glasser, LLP, Elizabeth Joan
Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, James E.
Cecchi, Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James
Gerard Stranch, IV, Branstetter Stranch & Jennings, Jeffrey Greg
Lewis, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Branstetter
Stranch Jennings, PLLC, Lesley Elizabeth Weaver, Bleichmar Fonti
& Auld LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella Byrne & Lisa Faye Petak,
Keller Rohrback L.L.P.

Luke Kitchel, Plaintiff, represented by Peter Prieto --
pprieto@podhurst.com -- Podhurst Orseck, P.A., pro hac vice,
David Brian Fernandes -- dfernandes@baronbudd.com -- Baron &
Budd, P.C., David S. Stellings -- DSTELLINGS@lchb.com -- Lieff
Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein, pro hac vice, Elizabeth Joan
Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Kevin R.
Budner -- kbudner@lchb.com -- Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann and
Bernstein, LLP, Mark P. Pifko -- MPifko@baronbudd.com -- Baron
and Budd PC, Paul J. Geller -- pgeller@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Phong-Chau Gia Nguyen -
- pgnguyen@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
Rachel Lynn Jensen, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Roland K.
Tellis -- rtellis@baronbudd.com -- Baron Budd, P.C. & Wilson
McClelland Dunlavey -- wdunlavey@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser.

Gregory Wilkerson, Joseph Moynihan, Mark Richards, Timothy Green,
Jeff Parisi, Adam Burwell, Louis Bodie, Jamie Broom, Walter Swan,
Craig McCully, Aaron Carter, Daniel Brown, Nelson Delgado, Bobby
Reichert, Christopher Mattingly, Micah Martin, Leslie Ghrist,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated &
Michah Williams, Plaintiffs, represented by Peter Prieto,
Podhurst Orseck, P.A., pro hac vice, David Brian Fernandes, Baron
& Budd, P.C., Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, Kevin R. Budner, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann and
Bernstein, LLP, Mark P. Pifko, Baron and Budd PC, Paul J. Geller,
Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Phong-Chau Gia
Nguyen, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Rachel Lynn
Jensen, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Roland K. Tellis, Baron
Budd, P.C. & Wilson McClelland Dunlavey, Lieff Cabraser.

Travis Morgan, Plaintiff, represented by Peter Prieto , Podhurst
Orseck, P.A., pro hac vice, David Brian Fernandes, Baron & Budd,
P.C., Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, Kevin R. Budner, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann and
Bernstein, LLP, Mark P. Pifko, Baron and Budd PC, Paul J. Geller,
Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Phong-Chau Gia
Nguyen, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Rachel Lynn
Jensen, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Roland K. Tellis,
Baron Budd, P.C.

FCA US LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendant,
represented by Amie Adelia Vague -- avague@lightfootlaw.com --
Lightfoot Franklin & White, Kyle Allen Niemi --
niemik@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, Samuel H.
Franklin -- sfranklin@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin &
White LLC, Wesley B. Gilchrist -- wgilchrist@lightfootlaw.com --
Lightfoot Franklin & White LLC, Darrell Scott Cafasso --
cafassod@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan Cromwell LLP, Gary G. Hebert --
ghebert@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey Stafford, Marshall Thomas
Cox -- mcox@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey Stafford, Robert J.
Giuffra, Jr. -- giuffrar@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell
LLP, pro hac vice, Sharon L. Nelles -- nelless@sullcrom.com --
Sullivan and Cromwell LLP & William B. Monahan --
monahanw@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice.

Robert Bosch GmbH, a corporation organized under the laws of
Germany, Defendant, represented by Matthew D. Slater --
mslater@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb Steen and Hamilton LLP.

Robert Bosch LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company,
Defendant, represented by Matthew D. Slater, Cleary Gottlieb
Steen and Hamilton LLP & Carmine D. Boccuzzi, Jr. --
cboccuzzi@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP.

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., Defendant, represented by Amie
Adelia Vague, Lightfoot Franklin & White, Kyle Allen Niemi,
Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, Robert J. Giuffra, Jr., Sullivan and
Cromwell LLP, Samuel H. Franklin, Lightfoot Franklin & White LLC,
Wesley B. Gilchrist, Lightfoot Franklin & White LLC & William B.
Monahan, Esq., Sullivan & Cromwell, pro hac vice.

Melvin McConnell, Defendant, represented by James C. Shah,
Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Andrew Sciolla, Pogust
Braslow & Millrood LLC & Harris L. Pogust, Pogust Braslow &
Millrood, LLC.

VM Motori S.p.A., VM North America, Inc. & Sergio Marchionne,
Defendants, represented by Robert J. Giuffra, Jr. --
giuffrar@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP.

Brandon Automotive, Inc., a Colorado Corporation, doing business
as Brandon Dodge on Broadway, Defendant, represented by Rebecca
Jean Boyle, Dietze & Davis, P.C.

Brandon Automotive, Inc., a Colorado Corporation, Defendant,
represented by William A. Rogers, III, Dietze & Davis, P.C.

Michael Everett Heygood, Movant, pro se.

The People of the State of California, Interested Party,
represented by Jon F. Worm, Office of the Attorney General.


MDL 2804: Daytona Likely to Join Opioid Crisis Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eileen Zaffiro-Kean, writing for The Dayton Beach News-Journal,
reports that twenty years after a wave of opioid addiction first
started rolling across the country, governments and healthcare
agencies nationwide have responded with a flood of lawsuits
targeting the drugs' manufacturers and distributors.

One sweeping federal class action lawsuit based in Ohio has 1,600
plaintiffs so far. On May 15, the Daytona Beach City Commission was
set to consider making the city plaintiff No. 1,601, joining the
suit zeroing in on seven manufacturers and seven distributors of
the highly addictive drugs that have shattered lives across the
United States. The suit is going after prescription drug giants
such as Purdue Pharma and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and opioid
distributors including McKesson and Cardinal Health.

The governments of Volusia County, Daytona Beach Shores, St.
Augustine, Oviedo and Sanford have already joined the lawsuit in
U.S. District Court in Cleveland, Ohio. Three other Florida cities
and 10 additional Florida counties are also plaintiffs.

If the class action lawsuit is successful, the plaintiffs could
collectively be awarded millions of dollars -- or even billions.
The money would be deemed compensation for years of emergency
medical care and police intervention on drug-related crimes such as
pharmacy robberies -- like the one that took place just three weeks
ago at a Daytona Beach Walgreens.

The monetary award would also be for past and future costs of
treatment programs as well as addiction-related public information
campaigns, child protective services, foster care, treatment of
prisoners and medical care of children born with neonatal
abstinence syndrome.

If Daytona Beach becomes one of the plaintiffs, it will be at no
cost to the city. Attorneys representing Daytona Beach would only
be paid for their expenses and work if the city is awarded damages.
The lawyers would get a percentage of any money sent to Daytona
Beach that would be determined by a contingent fee retainer
agreement city commissioners was set to vote on May 15.

Police Chief Craig Capri is all for going to war against the opioid
epidemic, which he said has been especially destructive in Daytona
Beach over the past year. One recent weekend alone, five or six
people overdosed and three died, Capri said. Local addicts are
using oxycodone and heroin laced with the extremely powerful
painkiller fentanyl, the chief said.

"It's a shame," Capri said. "People get hooked and they just can't
fight it. It's overpowering."

Governments in the lawsuit asking to be compensated for dealing
with the addiction crisis must be able to show where their money
was spent. Capri said he could track police calls for drug-related
crimes, and possibly the number of times Narcan was used to try to
revive someone who overdosed. Each dose of Narcan costs about $80,
he said.

"Drugs are the root cause of a lot of problems and crime," Capri
said. "My recommendation is to use (any court award money) for
prevention, education and treatment. You can't put a price on a
human life."

If Daytona Beach decides to join the legal action, the city will be
represented by attorneys based in Melbourne, Lake Mary, West Palm
Beach, Ohio and Maryland. The legal team proposes bringing a cause
of action against the drug manufacturers under the Florida Unfair
or Deceptive Trade Practices Act, as well as claims of public
nuisance, fraud and unjust enrichment. For the distributors, the
team is looking at bringing claims of negligence and public
nuisance.

Melbourne attorney Michael Kahn and Lake Mary attorney James
Vickaryous, two of the lawyers who would represent Daytona Beach,
were expected to be at the May 15 meeting to explain the lawsuit
and proposal to involve the city. The team of attorneys would
investigate the merits of Daytona Beach's claims; draft and file a
complaint; handle all pre-trial, discovery and motion proceedings;
retain expert witnesses; try the case; and handle all briefs and
arguments of an appeal.

One key part of Daytona Beach joining the lawsuit centers on the
four-page contingent fee retainer agreement that lays out the
amount of the city's award that would go to the attorneys. If the
claims are settled prior to Daytona Beach filing a complaint, 10
percent of the gross amount of a court award would go to the
attorneys representing Daytona Beach. If the claims are settled
prior to the first day of a trial, 20 percent of the gross amount
earmarked for Daytona Beach would go to the lawyers. The share
would rise to 22.5 percent if there is a trial, and 25 percent
after any post-judgement appeal regardless of who brings the
appeal.

The proposed agreement also says that in addition to the contingent
fee, the city would use its court award money to reimburse the
retained attorneys for the full amount of their expenses to
represent Daytona Beach.

Kahn, a civil trial lawyer, believes the class action lawsuit has
about an 80 percent chance of settling. If it doesn't, trials could
start in October, he said. Kahn also is the attorney Daytona Beach
hired to write up new panhandling regulations that nearly wiped out
that problem in the city this spring.

Lawsuits against the drug companies have been coming for 15 years
and contend that prescription opioid makers grossly misrepresented
the risks of long-term use of the drugs. The suits accuse opioid
distributors of failing to properly monitor suspicious orders of
the drugs.

Because so many lawsuits were filed in the past few years, the
federal court system ordered all of the opioid suits to be
consolidated into the multi-district litigation in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

Accusers say deceptive marketing efforts by the pharmaceutical
industry began in the late 1990s and encouraged physicians to
prescribe long-term and high-dose opioids for the treatment of
chronic, non-cancer pain while misrepresenting the risks associated
with misuse and addiction. They allege the pharmaceutical industry
paid physicians, created professional societies to advocate for the
widespread use of opioids to treat chronic pain, and sponsored
scientific articles, medical conferences and seminars which
encouraged the use of opioid medications.

The plaintiffs attorneys contend the drug companies used
profit-motivated campaigns that led to massive over-prescription of
opioid pain medications, and caused widespread physical and
psychological dependence. They also claim wholesale distributors of
opioids, who are statutorily obligated to develop and maintain
procedures to investigate and report drug diversion, neglected
their obligations. They argue that the wholesale distributors
should have notified the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and
state entities regarding suspicious opioid purchases that included
orders of unusual size and frequency.

Those failures enabled the creation of Florida's pill mills, helped
spur the development of a substantial black market for prescription
opioids, and sparked a resurgence in the use of other illicit drugs
including heroin and fentanyl, according to the attorneys. [GN]


MDL 2885: Andrews Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled MORRIS ANDREWS JR. v. 3M COMPANY, Case No.
8:19-cv-01047, was transferred on May 14, 2019, from the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola).

The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-01460-MCR-GRJ to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS EARPLUG PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 3:19-md-02885-MCR-GRJ.

All actions in the litigation involve common factual questions
arising out of allegations that the Defendants' Combat Arms
earplugs (Dual-ended Combat Arms(TM) earplugs, Version 2 CAEv.2)
were defective, causing the Plaintiffs to develop hearing loss
and/or tinnitus.  Issues concerning the design, testing, sale, and
marketing of the Combat Arms earplugs are common to all
actions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roberto Martinez, Esq.
          Francisco R. Maderal, Esq.
          COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A.
          255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 476-7400
          Facsimile: (305) 476-7444
          E-mail: bob@colson.com
                  frank@colson.com

               - and -

          William E. Robertson, Jr., Esq.
          KIRK PINKERTON, P.A.
          240 South Pineapple Avenue, 6th Floor
          Sarasota, FL 34236
          Telephone: (941) 364-2400
          Facsimile: (941) 364-249
          E-mail: wrobertson@kirkpinkerton.com


MDL 2885: Brock Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned ROBERT BROCK v. 3M COMPANY, Case No.
1:19-cv-21689, was transferred on May 14, 2019, from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola).

The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-01476-MCR-GRJ to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS EARPLUG PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 3:19-md-02885-MCR-GRJ.

All actions in the litigation involve common factual questions
arising out of allegations that the Defendants' Combat Arms
earplugs (Dual-ended Combat Arms(TM) earplugs, Version 2 CAEv.2)
were defective, causing the Plaintiffs to develop hearing loss
and/or tinnitus.  Issues concerning the design, testing, sale, and
marketing of the Combat Arms earplugs are common to all
actions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roberto Martinez, Esq.
          Francisco R. Maderal, Esq.
          Lazaro Fields, Esq.
          COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A.
          255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 476-7400
          Facsimile: (305) 476-7444
          E-mail: bob@colson.com
                  frank@colson.com
                  laz@colson.com


MDL 2885: Cousino Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled BRADLY COUSINO v. 3M COMPANY, Case No.
0:19-cv-01160, was transferred on May 14, 2019, from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola).

The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-01462-MCR-GRJ to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS EARPLUG PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 3:19-md-02885-MCR-GRJ.

All actions in the litigation involve common factual questions
arising out of allegations that the Defendants' Combat Arms
earplugs (Dual-ended Combat Arms(TM) earplugs, Version 2 CAEv.2)
were defective, causing the Plaintiffs to develop hearing loss
and/or tinnitus.  Issues concerning the design, testing, sale, and
marketing of the Combat Arms earplugs are common to all
actions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yvonne M. Flaherty, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          E-mail: ymflaherty@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Roberto Martinez, Esq.
          Francisco R. Maderal, Esq.
          COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A.
          255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 476-7400
          Facsimile: (305) 476-7444
          E-mail: bob@colson.com
                  frank@colson.com


MDL 2885: Fleuricourt Suit Included in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled GABRIELITA FLEURICOURT v. 3M COMPANY, Case No.
0:19-cv-61100, was transferred on May 14, 2019, from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola).

The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-01475-MCR-GRJ to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS EARPLUG PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 3:19-md-02885-MCR-GRJ.

All actions in the litigation involve common factual questions
arising out of allegations that the Defendants' Combat Arms
earplugs (Dual-ended Combat Arms(TM) earplugs, Version 2 CAEv.2)
were defective, causing the Plaintiffs to develop hearing loss
and/or tinnitus.  Issues concerning the design, testing, sale, and
marketing of the Combat Arms earplugs are common to all
actions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roberto Martinez, Esq.
          Francisco R. Maderal, Esq.
          Lazaro Fields, Esq.
          COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A.
          255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 476-7400
          Facsimile: (305) 476-7444
          E-mail: bob@colson.com
                  frank@colson.com
                  laz@colson.com


MDL 2885: Grant Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled ANDRE GRANT v. 3M COMPANY, Case No.
8:19-cv-01046, was transferred on May 14, 2019, from the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola).

The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-01459-MCR-GRJ to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS EARPLUG PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 3:19-md-02885-MCR-GRJ.

All actions in the litigation involve common factual questions
arising out of allegations that the Defendants' Combat Arms
earplugs (Dual-ended Combat Arms(TM) earplugs, Version 2 CAEv.2)
were defective, causing the Plaintiffs to develop hearing loss
and/or tinnitus.  Issues concerning the design, testing, sale, and
marketing of the Combat Arms earplugs are common to all
actions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roberto Martinez, Esq.
          Francisco R. Maderal, Esq.
          COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A.
          255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 476-7400
          Facsimile: (305) 476-7444
          E-mail: bob@colson.com
                  frank@colson.com

               - and -

          William E. Robertson, Jr., Esq.
          KIRK PINKERTON, P.A.
          240 South Pineapple Avenue, 6th Floor
          Sarasota, FL 34236
          Telephone: (941) 364-2400
          Facsimile: (941) 364-249
          E-mail: wrobertson@kirkpinkerton.com


MDL 2885: Hanson Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned SAMUEL HANSON v. 3M COMPANY, Case No.
0:19-cv-01161, was transferred on May 14, 2019, from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola).

The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-01463-MCR-GRJ to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS EARPLUG PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 3:19-md-02885-MCR-GRJ.

All actions in the litigation involve common factual questions
arising out of allegations that the Defendants' Combat Arms
earplugs (Dual-ended Combat Arms(TM) earplugs, Version 2 CAEv.2)
were defective, causing the Plaintiffs to develop hearing loss
and/or tinnitus.  Issues concerning the design, testing, sale, and
marketing of the Combat Arms earplugs are common to all
actions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yvonne M. Flaherty, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          E-mail: ymflaherty@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Roberto Martinez, Esq.
          Francisco R. Maderal, Esq.
          COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A.
          255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 476-7400
          Facsimile: (305) 476-7444
          E-mail: bob@colson.com
                  frank@colson.com


MDL 2885: Hudgens Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled GREG HUDGENS v. 3M COMPANY, Case No.
0:19-cv-01164, was transferred on May 14, 2019, from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola).

The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-01464-MCR-GRJ to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS EARPLUG PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 3:19-md-02885-MCR-GRJ.

All actions in the litigation involve common factual questions
arising out of allegations that the Defendants' Combat Arms
earplugs (Dual-ended Combat Arms(TM) earplugs, Version 2 CAEv.2)
were defective, causing the Plaintiffs to develop hearing loss
and/or tinnitus.  Issues concerning the design, testing, sale, and
marketing of the Combat Arms earplugs are common to all
actions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yvonne M. Flaherty, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          E-mail: ymflaherty@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Roberto Martinez, Esq.
          Francisco R. Maderal, Esq.
          COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A.
          255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 476-7400
          Facsimile: (305) 476-7444
          E-mail: bob@colson.com
                  frank@colson.com


MDL 2885: Hughes Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled TODD HUGHES v. 3M COMPANY, Case No.
8:19-cv-01045, was transferred on May 14, 2019, from the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola).

The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-01458-MCR-GRJ to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS EARPLUG PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 3:19-md-02885-MCR-GRJ.

All actions in the litigation involve common factual questions
arising out of allegations that the Defendants' Combat Arms
earplugs (Dual-ended Combat Arms(TM) earplugs, Version 2 CAEv.2)
were defective, causing the Plaintiffs to develop hearing loss
and/or tinnitus.  Issues concerning the design, testing, sale, and
marketing of the Combat Arms earplugs are common to all
actions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roberto Martinez, Esq.
          Francisco R. Maderal, Esq.
          COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A.
          255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 476-7400
          Facsimile: (305) 476-7444
          E-mail: bob@colson.com
                  frank@colson.com

               - and -

          William E. Robertson, Jr., Esq.
          KIRK PINKERTON, P.A.
          240 South Pineapple Avenue, 6th Floor
          Sarasota, FL 34236
          Telephone: (941) 364-2400
          Facsimile: (941) 364-249
          E-mail: wrobertson@kirkpinkerton.com


MDL 2885: Hulsey Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled JASON HULSEY v. 3M COMPANY, AEARO HOLDINGS, LLC,
AEARO INTERMEDIATE, LLC, AEARO, LLC, and AEARO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00635, was transferred on May 14, 2019, from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida
(Pensacola).

The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-01474-MCR-GRJ to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS EARPLUG PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 3:19-md-02885-MCR-GRJ.

All actions in the litigation involve common factual questions
arising out of allegations that the Defendants' Combat Arms
earplugs (Dual-ended Combat Arms(TM) earplugs, Version 2 CAEv.2)
were defective, causing the Plaintiffs to develop hearing loss
and/or tinnitus.  Issues concerning the design, testing, sale, and
marketing of the Combat Arms earplugs are common to all
actions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bobby J. Bell, Jr., Esq.
          Ashley Paige Caraway, Esq.
          Tyler C. Vail, Esq.
          HOLLIS, WRIGHT, CLAY & VAIL, P.C.
          2201 Morris Avenue
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 324-3600
          Facsimile: (205) 324-3636
          E-mail: bob@hollis-wright.com
                  paigec@hollis-wright.com
                  tylerv@hollis-wright.com


MDL 2885: Jacobs Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned BRYAN JACOBS v. 3M COMPANY, Case No.
8:19-cv-01042, was transferred on May 14, 2019, from the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola).

The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-01456-MCR-GRJ to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS EARPLUG PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 3:19-md-02885-MCR-GRJ.

All actions in the litigation involve common factual questions
arising out of allegations that the Defendants' Combat Arms
earplugs (Dual-ended Combat Arms(TM) earplugs, Version 2 CAEv.2)
were defective, causing the Plaintiffs to develop hearing loss
and/or tinnitus.  Issues concerning the design, testing, sale, and
marketing of the Combat Arms earplugs are common to all
actions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roberto Martinez, Esq.
          Francisco R. Maderal, Esq.
          COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A.
          255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 476-7400
          Facsimile: (305) 476-7444
          E-mail: bob@colson.com
                  frank@colson.com

               - and -

          William E. Robertson, Jr., Esq.
          KIRK PINKERTON, P.A.
          240 South Pineapple Avenue, 6th Floor
          Sarasota, FL 34236
          Telephone: (941) 364-2400
          Facsimile: (941) 364-249
          E-mail: wrobertson@kirkpinkerton.com


MDL 2885: Robinson Suit Consolidated in 3M Earplug Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled JEREMIAH ROBINSON v. 3M COMPANY, Case No.
8:19-cv-01041, was transferred on May 14, 2019, from the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola).

The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-01457-MCR-GRJ to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS EARPLUG PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 3:19-md-02885-MCR-GRJ.

All actions in the litigation involve common factual questions
arising out of allegations that the Defendants' Combat Arms
earplugs (Dual-ended Combat Arms(TM) earplugs, Version 2 CAEv.2)
were defective, causing the Plaintiffs to develop hearing loss
and/or tinnitus.  Issues concerning the design, testing, sale, and
marketing of the Combat Arms earplugs are common to all
actions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roberto Martinez, Esq.
          Francisco R. Maderal, Esq.
          COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A.
          255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 476-7400
          Facsimile: (305) 476-7444
          E-mail: bob@colson.com
                  frank@colson.com

               - and -

          William E. Robertson, Jr., Esq.
          KIRK PINKERTON, P.A.
          240 South Pineapple Avenue, 6th Floor
          Sarasota, FL 34236
          Telephone: (941) 364-2400
          Facsimile: (941) 364-249
          E-mail: wrobertson@kirkpinkerton.com


MDL 2885: Rowe Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled VERNON ROWE v. 3M COMPANY, Case No.
8:19-cv-01040, was transferred on May 14, 2019, from the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola).

The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-01455-MCR-GRJ to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS EARPLUG PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 3:19-md-02885-MCR-GRJ.

All actions in the litigation involve common factual questions
arising out of allegations that the Defendants' Combat Arms
earplugs (Dual-ended Combat Arms(TM) earplugs, Version 2 CAEv.2)
were defective, causing the Plaintiffs to develop hearing loss
and/or tinnitus.  Issues concerning the design, testing, sale, and
marketing of the Combat Arms earplugs are common to all
actions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roberto Martinez, Esq.
          Francisco R. Maderal, Esq.
          COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A.
          255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 476-7400
          Facsimile: (305) 476-7444
          E-mail: bob@colson.com
                  frank@colson.com

               - and -

          William E. Robertson, Jr., Esq.
          KIRK PINKERTON, P.A.
          240 South Pineapple Avenue, 6th Floor
          Sarasota, FL 34236
          Telephone: (941) 364-2400
          Facsimile: (941) 364-249
          E-mail: wrobertson@kirkpinkerton.com


MDL 2885: Wilson Suit Consolidated in 3M Earplug Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned JEFFREY WILSON v. 3M COMPANY, Case No.
9:19-cv-80585, was transferred on May 14, 2019, from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola).

The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-01477-MCR-GRJ to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS EARPLUG PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 3:19-md-02885-MCR-GRJ.

All actions in the litigation involve common factual questions
arising out of allegations that the Defendants' Combat Arms
earplugs (Dual-ended Combat Arms(TM) earplugs, Version 2 CAEv.2)
were defective, causing the Plaintiffs to develop hearing loss
and/or tinnitus.  Issues concerning the design, testing, sale, and
marketing of the Combat Arms earplugs are common to all
actions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roberto Martinez, Esq.
          Francisco R. Maderal, Esq.
          Lazaro Fields, Esq.
          COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A.
          255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 476-7400
          Facsimile: (305) 476-7444
          E-mail: bob@colson.com
                  frank@colson.com
                  laz@colson.com

               - and -

          William E. Robertson, Jr., Esq.
          KIRK PINKERTON, P.A.
          240 South Pineapple Avenue, 6th Floor
          Sarasota, FL 34236
          Telephone: (941) 364-2400
          Facsimile: (941) 364-249
          E-mail: wrobertson@kirkpinkerton.com


MELT BAR: Clark Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
--------------------------------------------
Eugene Clark, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Melt Bar and Grilled Holdings, LLC, and Melt Bar and
Grilled, Inc., collectively dba Melt Bar and Grilled, Case No.
1:19-cv-00728 (N.D. Ohio, April 02, 2019), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The action seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and all allowable
damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs under the FLSA for
the Plaintiff and all current or former assistant kitchen manager
or manager in training who worked more than 40 hours as a
salary-paid Manager in any workweek at any of the Defendants'
locations.

The Plaintiff worked as an Assistant Kitchen Manager, including his
salary-paid training period as a Manager in Training to become
validated for an assistant manager position, from approximately
December 2017 until approximately August 2018.

The Defendants owned and operated 13 restaurant locations in Ohio
and run each Melt Bar and Grilled restaurant identically, or
substantially similar in any location with the same kind of food
and beverage products as well as service. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bethany A. Hilbert, Esq.
      C. Andrew Head, Esq.
      HEAD LAW FIRM, LLC
      4422 N Ravenswood Ave
      Chicago, IL 60640
      Tel: (404) 924-4151
      Fax: (404) 796-7338
      E-mail: bhilbert@headlawfirm.com
              ahead@headlawfirm.com


METRO BANK: Amann Sues over Accounting Errors
---------------------------------------------
The case, JOSEPH AMANN, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. METRO BANK PLC, VERNON W.
HILL, II, CRAIG DONALDSON, MIKE BRIERLEY, AND DAVID ARDEN, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-04739 (C.D. Cal., May 30, 2019), seeks
to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of
the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of
Metro Bank from March 6, 2018 through May 1, 2019, both dates
inclusive.

On January 23, 2019, Metro Bank revealed that it misclassified the
risk of hundreds of millions of pounds of loans. Metro Bank issued
a press release "Metro Bank Announces FY 2018 Results Preview And
Trading Update". On this news, shares of Metro Bank plummeted
$10.00 per share or nearly 35% to close at $18.80 per share on
January 23, 2019, damaging investors, the lawsuit says.

On January 31, 2019, the Financial Times published the article,
"Metro Bank bosses under fire over accounting error" which reported
that the realization of the accounting errors was not based on
Metro Bank's own self reporting, as they previously framed it, but
rather in response to the e Prudential Regulation Authority's
concerns with Metro Bank's loans.

It was also announced that the Company's profits were cut in half
and a number of large customers ended their relationship with Metro
Bank due to the previous misclassification of the loans. Multiple
media reports revealed this disclosure, including the Financial
Times published an article entitled, "Big customers desert Metro
Bank over accounting error". On this news, shares of Metro Bank
plummeted $1.95 per share, or over 18.6%, over the next two trading
days to close at $8.50 per share on May 3, 2019,
damaging investors.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785-2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

MIAMI INT'L: Gomez Sues Alleging Violations of Disabilities Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRES GOMEZ v. MIAMI INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF ART & DESIGN,
INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-21757-RNS (S.D. Fla., May 2, 2019), is
brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Mr. Gomez, a blind individual, brings this civil rights class
action against the Defendant for allegedly offering and maintaining
Internet Web sites (http://www.artinstitutes.edu/)and
(http://www.artinstitutes.edu/miami/)that are not fully accessible
and independently usable by visually impaired individuals.

Miami International University of Art & Design, Inc., is Florida
Profit Corporation, with its principal place in Miami, Florida.
The Defendant either directly or through its subsidiaries and/or
partners and affiliates, owns, operates and/or maintains Miami
International University of Art & Design located in Miami, Florida.
The Defendant also owns, operates, and maintains its integrated
Web sites for its educational institution, Miami International
University of Art & Design.

The Defendant is an educational institution.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
          Beverly Virues, Esq.
          GARCIA-MENOCAL & PEREZ, P.L.
          4937 S.W. 74th Court
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 553-3464
          Facsimile: (305) 553-3031
          E-mail: ajperez@lawgmp.com
                  bvirues@lawgmp.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Damasco Suit Moved to Eastern District of New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Toni Damasco, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.,
the Defendant, Case No. 600178/2019, was removed from the Supreme
Court, Suffolk County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York (Central Islip) on May 30, 2019. The Eastern
District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03217 to
the proceeding. The suit demands $501,000 and alleges Fair Debt
Collection Act violation.

Midland Credit Management, Inc., a licensed debt collector, assists
customers in resolving past-due financial obligations through
various education and payment plans. The company was founded in
1953 and is based in San Diego, California. Midland Credit
Management, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Encore Capital Group,
Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Attorneys for Midland Credit Management, Inc.:

          Ellen Beth Silverman, Esq.
          Matthew B. Corwin, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULLERTSON
          800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 471-6229
          Facsimile: (212) 935-1166
          E-mail: esilverman@hinshawlaw.com
                  mcorwin@hinshawlaw.com

MIDWEST INVESTORS: Baldwin Suit Alleges BIPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Carolyn Baldwin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Midwest Investors Group, Inc. dba Metro Staffing, Inc.,
and Metro Staffing, Inc., Case No. 2019CH04285 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook
Cty., April 02, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

The Plaintiff brings this action over the Defendants' invasive
program relying on the capture, collection, storage and use of its
workers' fingerprints, without written informed consent, in direct
violation of the Illinois BIPA.

The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of the State of Illinois.
The Defendants employed the Plaintiff in 2017.

The Defendants are staffing agencies that specialize in light
industrial and professional staffing services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas M. Ryan, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C.
      35 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 650
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel: (312) 726 3400


MINDSHARE VENTURES: Davis Sues over Unwanted Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Davis, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. Mindshare Ventures LLC, d/b/a AtlasRTX, and
Trendmaker Homes, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-01961
(S.D. Tex., May 30, 2019), alleges that AtlasRTX violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, by using an automatic telephone
dialing system to deliver non-emergency advertising and marketing
text messages to telephone numbers assigned to a cellular telephone
service without prior express written consent.

The Plaintiff is the regular and sole user of her cellular
telephone number—(214) 471-XXXX. On February 7, 2019, at 3:22 pm,
Plaintiff received text message on her cellular telephone. The
purpose of the text message that AtlasRTX and Trendmaker sent to
Plaintiff's cellular telephone number was to advertise and market
Trendmaker's business, according to the complaint.

The Plaintiff suffered actual harm as a result of AtlasRTX and
Trendmaker's text message in that she suffered an invasion of
privacy, an intrusion into her life, and a private nuisance.

AtlasRTX and Trendmaker, as a matter of pattern and practice, use
an automatic telephone dialing system to send text messages, absent
prior express written consent, to telephone numbers assigned to a
cellular telephone service, the lawsuit says.

AtlasRTX is a computer software company, based in Park City, Utah,
and operated by Mindshare Ventures LLC, which is a consulting
company also based in Park City, Utah.  Trendmaker is a home
builder based in Houston, Texas. Trendmaker operates as a
subsidiary of Tri Pointe Group, Inc. Tri Pointe Group, Inc. is a
publicly traded company, based in Irvine, California, and listed on
the New York Stock Exchange as TPH.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the proposed class:

          Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1540
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 803-1578
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com

MINED MINDS: Former West Virginia Students File Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Anderson, writing for Observer-Reporter, reports that a
nonprofit that started in Waynesburg in 2015 is facing a
class-action lawsuit in West Virginia after students alleged Mined
Minds didn't follow through on promises to get them coding jobs.

Mined Minds was started by married couple Jonathan Graham and
Amanda Laucher, technology consultants in Chicago. They started the
nonprofit in Pennsylvania and West Virginia with the hope of
teaching the unemployed and former coal industry employees how to
do computer coding.

According to national news reports, including a Sunday New York
Times article, about 60 of the former West Virginia students
involved with the nonprofit have filed a class-action lawsuit
against Mined Minds.

The Times article quoted several students who took a free Mined
Mines class in Beckley, W.Va., who claimed they were told they
would be paid for the class. The students also claimed they were
promised apprenticeships within the company upon graduation, and
eventually tech jobs.

The students involved in the lawsuit told the Times that while they
had invested time and money, putting their lives on hold with the
hopes of finding better career paths, Mined Minds never came
through on those promises.

Laucher, a native of Nemacolin, said in an email on May 13 that she
is "unable to comment" due to the ongoing lawsuit.

"What we will say is that there have been no new developments in
this lawsuit which is more than 18 months old," she wrote.
"Depositions have been taken and we believe their filing has no
merit. Class remains ongoing."

"A note about the NYT story itself," she continued. "Because we are
unable to comment to the press, the publication states many
inaccuracies."

Laucher included in her email a three-page student contract that
every student must sign when entering the program. The contract
states that the full-time training lasts up to 32 weeks and demands
students commit 40 hours a week to studying. The contract also
states that students won't receive payments from Mined Minds and
that the program isn't "a replacement for college or university
education."

"There is no job or further training opportunity guaranteed upon
completion of the training," the contract states.

Mined Minds had received grant money in 2017 as part of a contract
with the Southwest Corner Workforce Development Board and the
Washington-Greene County Job Training Agency. The $702,400 Mined
Minds received came from the Appalachian Regional Commission.

Amy Gatts, WGCJTA president, said Mined Minds wasn't in
Pennsylvania long before they moved to West Virginia.

"They trained a couple people here then moved into West Virginia,"
she said.

Gatts said Mined Minds was having licensing issues with the state,
which ordered them to cease operations until obtaining a license to
run a school.

"But it was free, they weren't charging anybody," Gatts said.
"They're still training people and they're getting jobs."

Both Gatts and Jeff Nobili, project manager for the Southwest
Corner Workforce Development Board, defended Mined Mines, saying
the national news articles had "discrepancies," and that they are
only aware of two plaintiffs involved in the lawsuit.

Former students and employees quoted in the Times article alleged
that the couple's "company gatherings" involved heavy drinking in
party-like atmospheres, and that apprentices and employees were
fired for unjust reasons.

But Nobili said he never saw that type of unprofessionalism when
working with Mined Minds.

"Whenever we hear about something like this, we take it very
seriously and we talk to our contractors," he said. "I don't know
where all those stories come from. That's not something that I've
experienced dealing with Mined Minds."

He also said that students his organization monitored while going
through the program received the training they were promised.

"If they were let go it was for business reasons," he said. "We
don't tell our contractors how to run their business."

Nobili said the development board's contract with Mined Minds was
expected to end in May. He said the grant had been extended, but
he's not sure whether Mined Minds will be included in that
extension.

"That's not stemming from this article necessarily, but from
whether they're able to operate under the publicity they're
getting," he said. [GN]


MONSANTO CO: Pinson Sues in Missouri Over Injuries From Roundup
---------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS PINSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF SUSAN STROIA
(DECEASED) v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-01237 (E.D. Mo.,
May 14, 2019), is an action for damages allegedly suffered by the
Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's
negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing,
advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide
Roundup (R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place
of business in St. Louis, Missouri.  Monsanto is a multinational
agricultural biotechnology corporation and the world's leading
producer of glyphosate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN AND CROUPPEN P.C.
          One Metropolitan Square
          211 N. Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Geich Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
NICK GEICH, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants,
Case No. 4:19-cv-01529 (E.D. Mo., May 30, 2019), seeks to recover
damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result
of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active
ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles W. Miller, Esq.
          HEYGOOD, ORR & PEARSON
          6363 N. State Highway 161, Ste. 450
          Irving, TX 75038
          Telephone: (214) 237-9001
          Facsimile: (214) 237-9002
          E-mail: charles@hop-law.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Rodriguez Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
---------------------------------------------------------------
LETICIA RODRIGUEZ, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00355-JES-MRM (S.D. Fla., May 30,
2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew T. Kagan, Esq.
          KAGAN LEGAL GROUP
          295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6
          Palmanova Plaza
          Humacao, PR 00791
          Telephone: (939) 220-2424
          Facsimile: (939) 220-2477
          E-mail: andrew@kaganlegalgroup.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth P. Kagan, Esq.
          KAGAN LAW FIRM
          8191 College Pkwy Suite 303,
          Fort Myers, FL 33919
          Telephone: (239) 466-1161
          Facsimile: (239) 466-7226
          E-mail: liz@kagan-law.com

               - and -

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

MURRAY-DARLING BASIN: Irrigators File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Rosie King, writing for ABC News, reports that a group of nine
Murray irrigators has lodged a class action in the Supreme Court of
New South Wales against the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA),
claiming its negligent water management has caused them severe
financial losses totalling $750 million.

Chris Brooks, who farms in Barooga in the southern Riverina, is
spearheading the claim and said it had come out of frustration more
than anything else.

"We've been backed into a corner and, as usual, we have no choice
now but to come out fighting and our last resort is court action.

"It's a bit like the old bully in the playground -- he'll keep
taking your play lunch right up until you give him a smack in the
nose and it's just got to that stage, unfortunately."

The Murray-Darling Basin Authority was contacted by the ABC but
declined the request for comment.

Claims of massive waste
The group claims the negligence of the Murray-Darling Basin
Authority meant 850,000 megalitres of water from Murray River dams
was wasted rather than allocated to their properties.

"We've met with the MDBA and we've got data that we've been
collecting for some time outlining the water they've lost and the
water they've wasted by running those high river flows through the
choke," Mr Brooks said.

"It's about 850,000 megalitres, which was our allocation, and those
losses were credited to our account even though they were incurred
sending the water down the river.

"The only reason they needed to send a massive amount down the
river is because the same organisation -- the MDBA -- drained the
Menindee Lakes from a flood two years ago which was also
unnecessary and bad management, we will claim.

"It's damaged the environment. It's damaged our economic capacity.
And it's damaged communities. There was no need for it.

Although the class action is only nine irrigators-strong now, Mr
Brooks said he expected that number to skyrocket.

"We expect all the growers -- all 2,200 landholders in the southern
Riverina area -- to join this class action because they're entitled
to make a claim," he said.

A call for change
The $750 million figure was devised using simple maths, according
to Mr Brooks.

"That's the profits we would have made had we been given our fair
share of allocation."

As well as damages, the group is calling for the Murray-Darling
Basin Plan to be paused and reviewed.

"It's economically and environmentally doing damage and that wasn't
what it was drafted for," he said.

"There needs to be a better method of evenly distributing the water
throughout the north, the south and the middle.

"At this stage it's not the case, so we've taken action to bring
more attention to the issue."

A political move?
Mr Brooks has made no effort to hide his support -- vocal and
financial -- for the independent candidate in the seat of Farrer,
Kevin Mack, who will face off against Liberal MP Sussan Ley at the
federal election.

Yet Mr Brooks said the timing of the class action being lodged was
not another tactic aimed at ousting Ms Ley.

Mr Brooks said he would see this class action to the end no matter
who wins the seat.

"I don't know how long it's going to take, or how much money, but
we're in for a fight and we're in for a pound," he said.

"Our future depends on it, and for our children, so we're committed
and we're pretty confident that step-by-step we'll make a change
and all will be well again." [GN]


NANTHEALTH INC: Bid for Class Certification in Deora Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
NantHealth, 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 in the
case, Deora v. NantHealth, Inc., 2:17-cv-01825, filed an opposition
to class certification.

In March 2017, a number of putative class action securities
complaints were filed in U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, naming as defendants the Company and
certain of its current or former executive officers and directors.


These complaints have been consolidated with the lead case
captioned Deora v. NantHealth, Inc., 2:17-cv-01825.

In June 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint, which generally alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by making material misrepresentations in
NantHealth's initial public offering (IPO) registration statement
and in subsequent public statements.

In particular, the complaint refers to various third-party articles
in alleging that defendants misrepresented NantHealth's business
with the University of Utah, donations to the university by
non-profit entities associated with our founder Dr. Soon-Shiong,
and orders for GPS Cancer. The lead plaintiffs seek unspecified
damages and other relief on behalf of putative classes of persons
who purchased or acquired NantHealth securities in the IPO or on
the open market from June 1, 2016 through May 1, 2017.

In March 2018, the court largely denied Defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. In September 2018, the
lead plaintiffs filed a motion for certification of two plaintiff
classes. In April 2019, Defendants filed an opposition to class
certification.

NantHealth said, "We believe that the claims lack merit and intend
to vigorously defend the litigation."

NantHealth, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
healthcare technology company in the United States and
internationally. The company was founded in 2010 and is
headquartered in Culver City, California. NantHealth, Inc. is as a
subsidiary of NantWorks, LLC.


NANTHEALTH INC: Case Management Conference Set for Sept. 17
-----------------------------------------------------------
NantHealth, 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 next case
management conference in the case, Bucks County Employees
Retirement Fund v. NantHealth, Inc., is scheduled for September 17,
2019.

In May 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed in
California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, asserting claims for
violations of the Securities Act based on allegations similar to
those in Deora.

That case is captioned Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund v.
NantHealth, Inc., BC 662330. The parties have agreed to stay the
case until the next case management conference, scheduled for
September 17, 2019.

NantHealth said, "We believe that the claims lack merit and intend
to vigorously defend the litigation."

NantHealth, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
healthcare technology company in the United States and
internationally. The company was founded in 2010 and is
headquartered in Culver City, California. NantHealth, Inc. is as a
subsidiary of NantWorks, LLC.


NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal Initiated in Gulino Discrimination Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment
entered on April 30, 2019, in the lawsuit entitled Gulino, et al.
v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
originally filed a class action complaint on Nov. 8, 1996, alleging
that the LAST-1 exam violated Title VII.  The Plaintiffs, a group
of African-American and Latino teachers in the New York City public
school system, alleged that the Defendant, the Board of Education
of the City School District of the City of New York, violated Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et
seq., by requiring the Plaintiffs to pass certain racially
discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a license to
teach in New York City public schools.

The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of
Education, et al., Case No. 19-1341, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Amarilis Ramirez Peralta is represented by:

          Joshua S. Sohn, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          180 Maiden Lane
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 806-1245
          E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com

Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the New York City School
District of the City of New York is represented by:

          Zachary W. Carter, Esq.
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-1000
          E-mail: zcarter@law.nyc.gov


NEW YORK: Appeals Order in Gulino Discrimination Suit to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment
issued on April 2, 2019, in the lawsuit styled Gulino, et al. v.
Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
originally filed a class action complaint on Nov. 8, 1996, alleging
that the LAST-1 exam violated Title VII.  The Plaintiffs, a group
of African-American and Latino teachers in the New York City public
school system, alleged that the Defendant, the Board of Education
of the City School District of the City of New York, violated Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et
seq., by requiring the Plaintiffs to pass certain racially
discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a license to
teach in New York City public schools.

The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of
Education, et al., Case No. 19-1327, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Cynthia F. Carter-Richards  is represented by:

          Joshua S. Sohn, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          180 Maiden Lane
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 806-1245
          E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com

Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the New York City School
District of the City of New York is represented by:

          Zachary W. Carter, Esq.
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-1000
          E-mail: zcarter@law.nyc.gov


NEW YORK: Appeals S.D.N.Y. Judgment in Gulino Discrimination Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment
dated April 30, 2019, entered in the lawsuit titled Gulino, et al.
v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of
Education, et al., Case No. 19-1339, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
originally filed a class action complaint on Nov. 8, 1996, alleging
that the LAST-1 exam violated Title VII.  The Plaintiffs, a group
of African-American and Latino teachers in the New York City public
school system, alleged that the Defendant, the Board of Education
of the City School District of the City of New York, violated Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et
seq., by requiring the Plaintiffs to pass certain racially
discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a license to
teach in New York City public schools.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Asuncion Orsini is represented by:

          Joshua S. Sohn, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          180 Maiden Lane
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 806-1245
          E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com

Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the New York City School
District of the City of New York is represented by:

          Zachary W. Carter, Esq.
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-1000
          E-mail: zcarter@law.nyc.gov


NEW YORK: Disability Advocates File Class Action Against MTA
------------------------------------------------------------
Colby Hamilton, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
Disability advocates seek to bring the Metropolitan Transportation
Authority to task over what they claim is a systemic failure to
build required accessibility features into rehabilitated stations.

Advocates filed the class action suit in the Southern District of
New York on May 15, following a significant legal win for many of
the same groups in March. In that decision granting partial summary
judgment for the plaintiffs, U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos of
the Southern District of New York found the agency was required
under the Americans with Disabilities Act to include reasonable
accessibility improvements when stations were being redone,
regardless of the cost, and should have done so during a
rehabilitation project in the Bronx.

Following the partial summary judgment order, the suit has moved
towards discovery, with expert reports and exhibitions scheduled
through the end of July.

The office of the U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman of the Southern
District of New York is an intervenor in the suit. Following Ramos'
ruling in favor of the disability advocates, Berman said the MTA
was "on notice" for including accessibility improvements like
elevators in station improvements.

A spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office declined to comment on
the office's intentions regarding the latest suit.

Advocates now hope to win a similar result, only across the
nation's largest public transit system.

"The MTA's actions clearly demonstrate that they value amenities
like Wi-Fi over serving passengers with disabilities," Michelle
Caiola, managing director of litigation for one of the plaintiffs.
"MTA has a longstanding pattern of ignoring their ADA obligations
when altering stations, harming not only those with disabilities,
but all New Yorkers who benefit from elevator access, including
parents with strollers and senior citizens. Its disregard and
negligence should no longer be tolerated."

The suit claims the MTA has an "ongoing discriminatory practice of
renovating New York City subway stations without installing
elevators or other stair-free routes in blatant violation" of the
ADA. Advocates and transit users with mobility disabilities have
been pushing "for decades" for the transit authority on making
accessibility improvements to stations during renovations,
according to the complaint.

Advocates claims some three-quarters of stations in the New York
City subway system are inaccessible to people with disabilities.
This, they say, despite decades of renovations at stations where
ADA-required accessibility improvements should have been included.

A spokesman for the MTA did not immediately respond to a request
for comment.

Joining DRA's legal team for the plaintiffs is Sheppard, Mullin,
Richter & Hampton partner Daniel Brown --
dlbrown@sheppardmullin.com [GN]


NEW YORK: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Decision in Gulino Bias Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment
issued on April 2, 2019, in the lawsuit styled Gulino, et al. v.
Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of
Education, et al., Case No. 19-1336, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
originally filed a class action complaint on Nov. 8, 1996, alleging
that the LAST-1 exam violated Title VII.  The Plaintiffs, a group
of African-American and Latino teachers in the New York City public
school system, alleged that the Defendant, the Board of Education
of the City School District of the City of New York, violated Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et
seq., by requiring the Plaintiffs to pass certain racially
discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a license to
teach in New York City public schools.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Olive Trought is represented by:

          Joshua S. Sohn, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          180 Maiden Lane
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 806-1245
          E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com

Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the New York City School
District of the City of New York is represented by:

          Zachary W. Carter, Esq.
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-1000
          E-mail: zcarter@law.nyc.gov


NEW YORK: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of S.D.N.Y. Ruling in Gulino Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment
entered on April 2, 2019, in the lawsuit titled Gulino, et al. v.
Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of
Education, et al., Case No. 19-1328, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
originally filed a class action complaint on Nov. 8, 1996, alleging
that the LAST-1 exam violated Title VII.  The Plaintiffs, a group
of African-American and Latino teachers in the New York City public
school system, alleged that the Defendant, the Board of Education
of the City School District of the City of New York, violated Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et
seq., by requiring the Plaintiffs to pass certain racially
discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a license to
teach in New York City public schools.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Theresa Eason  is represented by:

          Joshua S. Sohn, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          180 Maiden Lane
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 806-1245
          E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com

Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the New York City School
District of the City of New York is represented by:

          Zachary W. Carter, Esq.
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-1000
          E-mail: zcarter@law.nyc.gov


NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in Walfish Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Fred Walfish filed an appeal from a Court ruling issued
in his lawsuit entitled Fred Walfish v. Northwestern Mutual Life
Insurance Co., et al., Case No. 2-16-cv-04981, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 24,
2019, the District Court issued an Opinion granting the Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment.

Mr. Walfish is an insurance agent, who was associated with the
Defendants.  The Plaintiff filed a one-count putative class action
complaint alleging that Northwestern's method of compensating
agents violates the New Jersey Wage Payment Law (NJWPL).  According
to the complaint, the Defendants misclassified him and other
insurance agents as independent contractors and deducted certain
expenses from their commissions in violation of the NJWPL.

The appellate case is captioned as Fred Walfish v. Northwestern
Mutual Life Insurance Co., et al., Case No. 19-2105, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant FRED WALFISH, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Lucas Buzzard, Esq.
          JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
          32 Broadway, Suite 601
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (202) 215-5526
          E-mail: lucas@jk-llp.com

Defendants-Appellees NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. and
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL INVESTMENT SERVICES are represented by:

          Terry D. Johnson, Esq.
          Sean P. Lynch, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          502 Carnegie Center
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (609) 919-6611
          E-mail: terry.johnson@morganlewis.com
                  sean.lynch@morganlewis.com


OAKLEY INC: Accused by Haggar Suit of Violating Disabilities Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elia Haggar, Kyo Hak Chu and Valerie Brooks, individually and on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Oakley,
Inc., a Washington corporation and Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Case
No. 2:19-cv-03800-GW-E (C.D. Cal., May 2, 2019), is brought over
alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Oakley, Inc., was founded in 1975 and is based in Foothill Ranch,
California.  Oakley operates as a subsidiary of Luxottica Group
S.p.A.  The names and identities of the Doe Defendants are
currently unknown.

Oakley manufactures and distributes sunglasses, prescription lenses
and frames, goggles, apparel, footwear, and accessories in the
United States and internationally.  The Company offers apparel for
men and women, including sweaters and hoodies, jackets and vests,
polo t-shirts, pants, shorts, and board shorts; sunglasses, such as
polarized, prizm, sports sunglasses, and youth sunglasses; and
accessories, such as bags, snow helmets, footwear, gloves, belts,
and footwear.  Oakley also offers its products through retailers
and online.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Babak Bobby Saadian, Esq.
          Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
          E-mail: bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com


ONEMAIN HOLDINGS: Aug. 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

AFSHIN GALESTAN, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ONEMAIN HOLDINGS, INC., JAY N.
LEVINE and SCOTT T. PARKER,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-01016-VM

CLASS ACTION

SUMMARY NOTICE

TO:      ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED THE
COMMON STOCK OF ONEMAIN HOLDINGS, INC. ("ONEMAIN") DURING THE
PERIOD FROM FEBRUARY 25, 2016 TO NOVEMBER 7, 2016, INCLUSIVE

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, that a
hearing will be held on August 9, 2019, at 10:00 a.m., before the
Honorable Victor Marrero, United States District Judge, at the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street,
New York, NY 10007, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the
proposed Settlement of the above-captioned Action, as set forth in
the settlement agreement reached between the parties, consisting of
Nine Million Dollars ($9,000,000.00) in cash, should be approved as
fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Members of the Class; (2)
whether the release by Class Members of claims as set forth in the
settlement agreement should be authorized; (3) whether the proposed
plan to distribute the settlement proceeds (the "Plan of
Allocation") is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (4) whether the
application by Plaintiff's counsel for an award of attorneys' fees
and expenses and any award to Plaintiff pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
§78u-4(a)(4) should be approved; and (5) whether the Judgment, in
the form attached to the settlement agreement, should be entered.

Please note that the date, time and location of the settlement
hearing are subject to change without further notice.  If you plan
to attend the hearing, you should check the docket or contact Lead
Counsel (identified below) to be sure that no change to the date,
time or location of the hearing has been made.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED ANY OF THE COMMON STOCK OF ONEMAIN
DURING THE PERIOD FROM FEBRUARY 25, 2016 TO NOVEMBER 7, 2016,
INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS
LITIGATION.

If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed
Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of
Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim"), you may obtain copies by
writing to OneMain Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o
Epiq Class Action and Claims Solutions, P.O. Box 6006, Portland, OR
97228-6006, or on the internet at
www.OneMainSecuritiesSettlement.com.

If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of
the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim by mail
(postmarked no later than August 13, 2019) or submitted
electronically (no later than August 13, 2019), establishing that
you are entitled to recovery.  Unless the deadline is extended,
your failure to submit your Proof of Claim by the above deadline
will preclude you from receiving any payment from the Settlement.

If you are a Class Member and you desire to be excluded from the
Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is
postmarked no later than July 19, 2019, in the manner and form
explained in the detailed Notice, referred to above.  All Members
of the Class who do not timely and validly request exclusion from
the Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action
pursuant to the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement.

Any objection to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation of
settlement proceeds, or the fee and expense application must be
mailed to each of the following recipients, such that it is
received no later than July 19, 2019:

CLERK OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN
UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007

Lead Counsel:
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
ROBERT M. ROTHMAN
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747

Defendants' Counsel:
CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN
& HAMILTON LLP
JARED GERBER
One Liberty Plaza
New York, NY 10006

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE OR DEFENDANTS
REGARDING THIS NOTICE.  If you have any questions about the
Settlement, you may contact Lead Counsel at the address listed
above.

DATED:  May 15, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


PANALPINA WORLD: CCOIC Appeals Decision in Precision Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Objector China Chamber of International Commerce filed an appeal
from a District Court order dated April 5, 2019, in the lawsuit
entitled Precision Associates, Inc., et al. v. Panalpina World
Transport (Holding) Ltd., et al., Case No. 08-cv-42, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case
involves a lawsuit claiming that certain freight forwarding
companies secretly agreed to prices for their freight forwarding
services worldwide, including on routes in the U.S. and between the
U.S. and China, Hong Kong, Japan, Taiwan, India, Germany, the UK
and other parts of Europe.

The appellate case is captioned as Precision Associates, Inc., et
al. v. Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd., et al., Case No.
19-1312, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees Precision Associates, Inc., et al., are
represented by:

          W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          120 South 6th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Christopher Lovell, Esq.
          LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP
          61 Broadway
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 608-1900
          Facsimile: (212) 719-4775
          E-mail: clovell@lshllp.com

               - and -

          Imtiaz A. Siddiqui, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
          1 Liberty Plaza
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 201-6820
          E-mail: isiddiqui@cpmlegal.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees Kiroku Kato and Masa Nakamura are represented
by:

          Derek Howard, Esq.
          MINAMI TAMAKI, LLP
          360 Post Street
          San Francisco, CA 94109
          Telephone: (415) 788-9000
          E-mail: dhoward@minamitamaki.com

Plaintiff-Appellee NORMA Pennsylvania, Inc., is represented by:

          Sharon Almonrode, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          950 West University Drive
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          E-mail: ssa@millerlawpc.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees Class Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James Sabella, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          485 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 722-8520
          E-mail: jsabella@gelaw.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd., I-Pulse Co., Ltd.,
Sunward International, Inc., Yamaha Motor Distribution Latin
America, Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A., Yamaha Motor
Manufacturing Corporation of America, Yamaha Jet Boat Manufacturing
U.S.A., AKA Tennessee Watercraft, Inc., Yamaha Motor Powered
Products Co., Ltd. and Yamaha Motor Engineering Co., Ltd., are
represented by:

          Philip J. O'Beirne, Esq.
          STEIN MITCHELL MUSE CIPOLLONE & BEATO LLP
          1100 Connecticut Avenue
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 661-0942
          E-mail: pobeirne@steinmitchell.com

Intervenor Hewlett-Packard Company is represented by:

          James Michael Altieri, Esq.
          DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
          1177 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 248-3180
          E-mail: james.altieri@dbr.com

Intervenor Dell, Inc., is represented by:

          James B. Niehaus, Esq.
          FRANTZ WARD LLP
          127 Public Square
          2500 Key Center
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 515-1660
          E-mail: jniehaus@frantzward.com

Intervenors Sony Electronics, Inc., and Sony Supply Chain Solutions
(Americas), Inc., are represented by:

          Gina Marie Bassi, Esq.
          BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM USA CORPORATION
          900 Ridgebury Road
          Ridgefield, CT 06877
          Telephone: (203) 791-6836

Objector-Appellant China Chamber of International Commerce is
represented by:

          Erica Oleszczuk Evans, Esq.
          GOLDSTEIN & RUSSELL, P.C.
          7475 Wisconsin Avenue
          Bethesda, MD 20814
          Telephone: (202) 362-0636
          E-mail: eoevans@goldsteinrussell.com


PANE EVINO: Gonzalez et al Seek Minimum Wage and OT Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
The case, MANUEL SARABIA GONZALEZ, MARTIN PEREZ MORALES, RICARDO
PALILLERO, JOSE TORRES MIGUEL, MAYNOR RIGOBERTO TOC PABLO, AUCAY
PESANTEZ SEGUNDO VICTORIANO, DEIVIS DAVILA MELENDEZ AND EDWIN
GUARDADO GARCIA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. ERVIN ROSENFELD AND PANE EVINO
RESTAURANT, INC., the Defendants, Case No.: 1:19-cv-03015-LDH-RML
(E.D.N.Y., May 21, 2019), seeks to recover minimum wage and
overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New
York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs are current employees of Defendants. They were
ostensibly employed as bussers, servers, runners, cooks and
dishwashers.

According to the complaint, the Defendants maintained a policy and
practice of requiring Plaintiffs and other employees to work in
excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and
overtime compensation required by federal and state law and
regulations. Further Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs the
required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which they had to
work over 10 hours a day.

The Defendants employed the policy and practice of disguising
Plaintiffs' actual duties in payroll records to avoid paying
Plaintiffs at the minimum wage rate, and to enable them to pay
Plaintiffs at the lower tip-credited rate by designating them
bussers, servers, runners, cooks and dishwashers instead of
non-tipped employees.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Robert J. Renna, Esq.
          ROBERT J. RENNA, P.C.
          26 Court Street, Suite 303
          Brooklyn, NY 11242
          Telephone: (718) 422-1003
          Facsimile: (718) 422-1156

PETLAND INC: Blumenauer Sues over Automated Marketing Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Petland, Inc. for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The
case is captioned JEREMY BLUMENAUER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PETLAND, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-61292 (S.D. Fla., May 22, 2019).

Plaintiff Jeremy Blumenauer alleges that the Defendant is engaged
in sending marketing text messages that provide different types of
offers and savings for future purchases without first obtaining
express written. These messages were sent using mass-automated
technology through a third-party company hired by Defendant to send
marketing text messages on Defendant's behalf en masse.
Accordingly, Blumenauer seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's
illegal conduct. He also seeks statutory damages on behalf of
himself and members of the class, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of
Defendant.

Petland, Inc. owns and operates 131 retail stores across the
nation, particularly in Florida. These retail stores sell animal
and/or pet goods and supplies. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

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


PHELAM HALLIMAN: Johnson Files Appeal in Suit Sup. Ct. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A notice of appeal has been filed in Johnson, Aplts v. Phelan
Hallinan & Schmieg. in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on May 30,
2019.

The case is captioned Johnson, Eric, Johnson, EdElla, Appellants v.
Phelan Hallinan & Schmieg LLP, Appellee, Case No. 26WAP2019

The case type is stated as "Mortgage Foreclosure".

Phelan Hallinan & Schmieg, LLP was founded in 1975. The Company's
line of business includes providing full service legal advice.[BN]

The Appellants are represented by:

     Malakoff, Michael P.
     437 Grant Street, Suite 200, the Frick Building
     Pittsburgh, PA 15219
     Phone: (412) 281-4217

          - and -

     Bart, Jonathan J.
     Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer PA
     1500 John F Kennedy Blvd Ste 910
     Philadelphia, PA 19102-1742
     Phone: (215) 636-4466


PHH MORTGAGE: Cabral TCPA Case Goes to District of Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------------
PHH Mortgage Corporation removes the case, THOMAS CABRAL, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, the Defendant, from the Massachusetts
Superior Court, Bristol County Case No. 1973CV00379 (Filed April
23, 2019), to the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on May 30, 2019. The District of Massachusetts Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-11207 to the proceeding.

The Defendant removes the case because there is complete diversity
of citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000.

The complaint alleges PHH initiated more than two calls per week to
Plaintiff in violation of M.G.L. c. 93A, sections 2, 9 and 940 CMR
sections 7.04(1)0.2. The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages
(including punitive damages), declaratory, and injunctive relief;
as well as attorneys' fees and costs.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff:

          Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW, LLC
          43 Danbury Road
          Wilton, CT 06897
          E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com

Attorneys for the Defendant:

          Amv B. Hackett, Esq.
          Richard Briansky, Esq.
          ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC
          Two International Place, 16th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: 617.342.6800
          Facsimile: 617.342.6899
          E-mail: rbriansky@eckertseamans.com
                  ahackett@eckertseamans.com

POSTMATES: Faces Class Action in New York Over Fees
---------------------------------------------------
Carrie Bradon, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that an
individual is suing Postmates in a class action lawsuit alleging
that it charged more than it claimed and failed to uphold its
delivery guarantee.

Jamie Feld, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated filed a complaint on in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York against Postmates Inc.,
alleging violation of New York's General Business Law, unjust
enrichment.

The plaintiff downloaded the defendant's application as she
believed that it could deliver anything anytime anywhere, which is
what the defendant claims, the suit says.

However, the defendant's claims were not accurate, leading to the
damage of the plaintiff, the suit says. The defendant has both a
delivery and service fee, the latter of which is a hidden fee that
is not clearly advertised, the suit claims.

The plaintiff would not have downloaded the defendant's app had she
known that the claims about delivery were false and that the
service fee was a part of the service, the suit says.

The plaintiff is seeking trial by jury, equitable relief, order
certifying the action as class action, restitution of all monies
wrongfully obtained, actual and punitive damages, attorneys' fees,
court costs and relief deemed fit. The plaintiff is represented by
Matthew N. Bobrow in New York.

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Case number 1:19-CV-03899 [GN]


RALPHS GROCERY: McCorkle Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Angela McCorkle, on behalf of herself and all aggrieved employees
v. Ralphs Grocery Company, Food 4 Less of California, Inc., and
Does 1 to 50, Case No. 37-2019-00017163 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego
Cty., April 02, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants failed to provide paid and lawful off-duty rest
periods, timely meal periods, and accurate wage statements in
violation with the labor code, asserts the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident of California and worked for the
Defendants in San Diego County.

The Defendant Ralphs Grocery is an Ohio Corporation with its
principle place of business located at 1100 W. Artesia Boulevard,
Compton, California 90220.

The Defendant FOOD 4 LESS is a California corporation, with its
principle place of business located at 1100 W. Artesia Boulevard,
Compton, California 90220. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
      MELMED LAW GROUP P.C.
      1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
      Los Angeles, CA 90035
      Tel: (310) 824-3828
      Fax: (310) 862-6851
      E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com

          - and -

      Craig J. Ackermann, Esq.
      ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C.
      1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
      Los Angeles, CA 90035
      Tel: (310) 277-0614
      Fax: (310) 277-0635
      E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com


REAL TIME: Berry Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------
Brett Charles Berry, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Real Time Resolutions, Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-02172 (D.
Ariz., April 2, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant negligently, knowingly and
willfully attempted to collect incorrect amounts from Plaintiff in
violation of the FDCPA.

The Plaintiff is a natural person residing in State of Arizona, and
is a consumer as defined by the FDCPA.

The Defendant is in the business of collecting debts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. McGlothlin, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2633 E. Indian School Road, Ste. 460
      Phoenix, AZ 85016
      Tel: (602) 265-3332
      Fax: (602) 230-4482
      E-mail: david@westcoastlitigation.com


RGS FINANCIAL: Tataru's Bid to Certify Class Under Advisement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr., has taken under advisement the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the lawsuit titled
Gabriel Tataru v. RGS Financial, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-06106 (N.D.
Ill.).

The Defendant's response to the Motion is due by June 18, 2019, and
the Plaintiff's reply is due by July 9, 2019.

Once the motion is fully briefed, the Court will rule via CM/ECF
notice and set a future date as appropriate.[CC]


ROBINS JEAN RETAIL: Haggar et al. Alleges ADA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Robins Jean Retail,
Inc. for violations of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The case is captioned Elia Haggar et al v. Robins Jean Retail, Inc.
et al, Case No. 2:19-cv-04089-SVW-PLA (C.D. Cal., May 10, 2019).
The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Stephen V. Wilson.

Founded by Robin Chretien, Robins Jean Retail currently maintains
ten flagship stores in the top shopping destinations Beverly Hills,
CA. Soho, New York; Laguna Beach, CA; Garden State Plaza, Paramus,
NJ; Park City, Utah, Orlando, Florida and the first Robin's Jean
international store in Vancouver, Canada. In 2016, new locations
have opened in Beverly Center in Los Angeles, CA and Telluride, CO
and Roosevelt Field, Garden City, NY. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
     WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
     3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90010
     Telephone: (213) 381-9988
     Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
     E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com

             - and –

     Babak Bobby Saadian, Esq.
     WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
     3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90010
     Telephone: (213) 381-9988
     Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
     E-mail: bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com


ROGAR MANAGEMENT: McGrath Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premium
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert McGrath, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
employees, Plaintiff, v. Rogar Management & Consulting of Florida
LLC and Javier Rodriguez, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-21998 (S.D.
Fla., May 17, 2019), seeks to recover overtime premium pay,
liquidated damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Rogar owned and operated a General Contractor, Highway and Street
Construction business in Miami where McGrath worked as a
laborer/machine operator. Rogar allegedly failed to compensate him
at rate of one and one-half times his regular rate for all hours
worked in excess of forty hours in a single work week. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 318-0268
      Facsimile: (954) 327-3016
      Email: afrisch@forthepeople.com


S & H CONSTRUCTION: Salazar Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HECTOR SALAZAR, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. S & H CONSTRUCTION BUILDER CORPORATION, a
California Corporation, dba S & D DRYWALL; SERGIO HURTADO, an
individual, dba S & D DRYWALL; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No.
12STCV15310 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 2, 2019), seeks to
recover alleged unpaid wages, including overtime, and penalties
under the California Labor Code.

The Defendants operate a construction business that specializes in
drywall installation.  The Plaintiff does not know the true names
or capacities of the Doe Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
          Andrew J. Rowbotham, Esq.
          Brittaney D. de la Torre, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292-2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com
                  arowbotham@haineslawgroup.com
                  bdelatorre@haineslaewgroup.com


SCHENKER INC: Lane Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------
Schenker, Inc., removed on May 14, 2019, the class action lawsuit
entitled Jerrod Lane, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown v. Schenker, Inc., Case No.
2019L000512, from Madison County, Illinois, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois (East St. Louis).

The nature of suit is stated as other personal injury.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00507 to the
proceeding.

Plaintiff Jerrod Lane, of Chicago, Illinois, appears pro se.[BN]

Defendant Schenker, Inc., is represented by:

          Lillian Theresa Talbot Manning, Esq.
          Patricia J. Martin, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON L.P.
          600 Washington Ave., Suite 900
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 659-2000
          Facsimile: (314) 659-2099
          E-mail: lmanning@littler.com
                  pmartin@littler.com


SCHWANS COMPANY: Miller PI Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Miller v. Schwans Company, et al.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-02551, was transferred on May 2, 2019, from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
(Jacksonville).

The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-00501-TJC-JBT to the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as health care/pharmaceutical personal
injury product liability.[BN]

Plaintiff Joanne Miller, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
          LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2527
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (516) 343-0542
          E-mail: joshua@levinepstein.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Duggar, Esq.
          MICHAEL J. DUGGAR, PA
          PO Box 192
          Christmas, FL 32709-0192
          Telephone: (321) 251-7766
          Facsimile: (321) 206-5090
          E-mail: mduggar@cfl.rr.com

               - and -

          Spencer I. Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          505 Northern Boulevard, Suite 311
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 303-0552
          Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

Defendants Schwan's Company, Schwan's Consumer Brands, Inc.,
Schwan's Food Service, Inc., and SFC Global Supply Chain, Inc., are
represented by:

          August Theodore Horvath, Esq.
          FOLEY HOAG LLP
          1540 Broadway, 23rd floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (646) 927-5544
          E-mail: ahorvath@foleyhoag.com

               - and -

          Michele Leo Hintson, Esq.
          Thomas McDonnell, Esq.
          SHUMAKER, LOOP & KENDRICK, LLP
          101 E Kennedy Blvd., Suite 2800
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 229-7600
          Facsimile: (813) 229-1660
          E-mail: mhintson@slk-law.com
                  tmcdonnell@slk-law.com


SEDANOS MARKET: Garcia Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------
Eduardo Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Sedanos Market, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-22014 (S.D. Fla., May 17, 2019), seeks unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, and costs and reasonable
attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Sedanos Market, Inc. operates as "Sedanos Supermarket" where Shaikh
worked as a non-exempt employee. He claims to be denied overtime
wages for hours rendered in excess of 40 hours per work week. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Manuel Arthur Mesa, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MESA & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
      The Concord Building
      66 West Flagler Street, PH 1
      Miami, Florida 33130
      Telephone: (305) 863-1000
      Fax: (305) 863-1022
      Email: mesalaw@aol.com
             jessy@mesalaw.net
             toledo@meslaw.net


SEQUIUM ASSET: Activities on Howard's Bid to Certify Class Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William E. Duffin granted the Plaintiff's motion to stay
further proceedings on the motion for class certification filed in
the lawsuit titled CAROL HOWARD v. SEQUIUM ASSET SOLUTIONS LLC,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00719-WED (E.D. Wisc.).

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

On May 14, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint.  At
the same time, the Plaintiff filed what the Court commonly refers
to as a "protective" motion for class certification.  In this
motion, the Plaintiff moved to certify the class described in the
complaint but also moved the court to stay further proceedings on
that motion.

In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011),
the court suggested that class-action plaintiffs "move to certify
the class at the same time that they file their complaint."  "The
pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts to
buy off the named plaintiffs."  However, because parties are
generally unprepared to proceed with a motion for class
certification at the beginning of a case, the Damasco court
suggested that the parties "ask the district court to delay its
ruling to provide time for additional discovery or
investigation."[CC]


SERVIS ONE: Maryland Court OKs Class Notice in Dolphus Labor Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RE: Anthony Dolphus, et al., v. Servis One, Inc. D/B/A
BSI Financial Services, Civil Action No. GLR-16-1075 (D. Md.),
Judge George L. Russell, III of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of
Class Notice and approved the Plaintiffs' Notice for mailing to the
putative class members.

Judge Russell concludes that the Plaintiffs' Notice comports with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B) and the Court's March
11, 2019 Order, and provides fulsome information to the potential
class members regarding the claims and procedure involved in the
case.

Within 14 days, Servis One will produce to the third-party
Administrator a list containing the full name, last known
residential address, and last known e-mail address of every person
who worked as an Asset Manager for Servis One from three years
prior to the filing of the Complaint to the present.  Within seven
days of receiving that list, the Administrator will distribute the
Plaintiffs' Notice to the people on the list.  Any request for
exclusion must be submitted to the Administrator within 30 days of
the distribution of the Plaintiffs' Notice.

Despite the informal nature of the Memorandum, it will constitute
an Order of the Court, and the Clerk is directed to docket it
accordingly.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2019 Memorandum is available
at https://is.gd/RNMpFP from Leagle.com.

Christopher Smith, Paul Dickson, Reginald Smith, Danielle Hannah,
Gregory E. Sherrard, Ifedolapo Daramola, Paul A. McCarthy, Justin
Meyer, Cheryl Graham, Jacqueline Wyndham, Richard Adams, Laura
Goodman & Jacqueline Dolphus, Plaintiffs, represented by Benjamin
L. Davis, III, Law Offices of Peter T. Nicholl & Kelly Anne Burgy,
Law Offices of Peter T. Nicholl.

Servis One, Inc. D/B/A BSI Financial Services, Defendant,
represented by Justin C. Eller -- Justin.Eller@jacksonlewis.com --
Jackson Lewis P.C..


SGS NORTH AMERICA: Tamimi Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned JD Tamimi, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SGS North America, Inc.,
and Does 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 30-2019-01064123
(Cal. Super., April 16, 2019), was removed to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on May 17,
2019 under Case No. 19-cv-04319.

Tamimi seeks compensatory damages, economic and/or special damages,
penalties, restitution, unpaid wages and benefits, attorneys' fees,
costs and interest pursuant to California Labor Code.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jessica L Campbell, Esq.
      Kashif Haque, Esq.
      Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq.
      Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
      AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
      9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
      Irvine, CA 2618
      Telephone: (949) 379-6250
      Facsimile: (949) 379-6251

SGS is represented by:

      Bradley Schwan, Esq.
      Rachael Lavi, Esq.
      LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
      2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
      Telephone: (310) 553-0308
      Facsimile: (310) 553-5583
      Email: bschwan@littler.com
             rlavi@littler.com


SMART & FINAL STORES: Shahandeh Hits Unpaid OT, Missed Breaks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sodabeh Shahandeh, as an individual, and on behalf of all similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff, Smart & Final Stores LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 19-cv-00949 (C.D. Cal., May 17, 2019), seeks redress for
failure to provide meal periods, rest periods, minimum wages,
overtime, complete and accurate wage statements.  The Plaintiffs
seek reimbursement of business-related expenses resulting from
unfair business practices, waiting time penalties for unpaid wages
due upon termination and for violation of the California Labor
Code, California Business and Professions Code, including
declaratory relief, damages, penalties, equitable relief, costs and
attorneys' fees.

Shahandeh worked for Smart & Final Stores, as a cashier and general
grocery stores assistant at their facilities located at 34091
Doheny Park Road, Capistrano Beach, California from April 2016 to
May 17,2018.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SQUARE INC: Ruark Sues over Mishandling of Patient's Medical Data
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Square, Inc. for
negligence and violations of the California Customer Records Act
and the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act under the
California Civil Code. The case is captioned A. TRENT RUARK,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. SQUARE, INC. a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00024742-CU-BT-CTL (Cal. Super., San
Diego Cty., May 14, 2019.

Plaintiff A. Trent Ruark brings this class action lawsuit on behalf
of himself and other individuals whose protected personal and
medical information has been compromised as a result of Square's
negligent approach to medical billing.  Ruark asserts that the
Square's acts and practices constitute unlawful and unfair business
practices, in violation of the Unfair Competition Law of the
California Business and Professions Code. Plaintiff alleges that
Square failed to adequately secure the privacy of patients' medical
information. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief requiring Square to
implement and maintain effective security practices that comply
with regulations designed to prevent and remedy these types of data
breaches, as well as restitution, damages, and other relief.

Square is a payment processing company based in San Francisco,
California. The company markets several software and hardware
point-of-sale solutions and credit card processing services for
small to mid-size businesses. It provides credit card processing
services to healthcare providers and provides electronic invoices
for those healthcare providers which contains protected personal
and medical information. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq.
     Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
     FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP
     550 West C St., Suite 1760
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: (619) 238-1333
     Facsimile: (619) 238-5425


STAGE STORES: Bid for Corrective Notice in Crosby FLSA Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MAYA CROSBY and DENEEN PATTON, on behalf of themselves
and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. STAGE STORES,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00503 (M.D. Tenn.), Judge Waverly
D. Crenshaw, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee, Nashville Division, denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Corrective Notice.

The Plaintiffs initially sought certification of a collective
class, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"),
consisting of all past and present employees of Stage who held
various associate-level positions at Stage stores.  On Dec. 5,
2018, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Court-Authorized
Notice Pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLS, and ordered Stage to:
(1) provide the Plaintiffs' counsel with a list of the contact
information (names, addresses, and email addresses) for putative
class members; and (2) confer with the Plaintiffs' counsel to
arrive at an agreeable proposed Notice and Consent form.

The parties filed a proposed Notice and Consent form, which
informed putative class members, among other things, that: (1)
federal law prohibited an employer (i.e., Stage) from firing or in
any way retaliating against them because of their participation in
the lawsuit; and (2) any questions or additional information should
be directed to the Plaintiffs' counsel.  The Court approved the
proposed Notice and Consent form and it was disseminated among the
putative class members.

Subsequently,  the Plaintiffs filed the instant motion seeking: (1)
authorization to provide corrective notice to the putative
collective class; (2) prohibition of further discussion between
Stage and putative collective members regarding the lawsuit; (3) a
requirement that Stage issue a corrective communication to its
managers; and (4) extension of the opt-in period by thirty (30)
days from the issuance of the corrective notice.  In support, their
counsel filed three declarations: (1) her own declaration; (2) a
declaration from Susan Gilson; and (3) a declaration from Taylor
Washington.

The Plaintiffs contend that Stage's unilateral communications with
putative class members have undermined the Court's ability to
control the ongoing collective action.  They argue that, as relief,
the Court should first order that Stage, its District Managers, and
other agents cease communications with both the putative class
members and the opt-in Plaintiffs.  In addition to banning further
communications between Stage and its agents and the class members,
the Plaintiffs seek corrective notices to be issued by Stage to its
managers and putative opt-in Plaintiffs.

Stage responds that the Plaintiffs' motion is a transparent attempt
to market the litigation and wrongfully extend the opt-in period.
It argues that the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated clear evidence
of abuse or coercion sufficient to justify a restriction on its
communications with employees.  Further, Stage contends that the
Plaintiffs' allegations of retaliation are speculative at best.  It
maintains that the communications described in the Plaintiffs'
motion, particularly its HR Department's calls to the potential
opt-in Plaintiffs, were appropriate and do not justify the
extraordinary relief that the Plaintiffs seek.  Accordingly, Stage
requests that the Court denies the Plaintiffs' motion.

Judge Crenshaw holds that abusive practices that have been
considered sufficient to warrant a protective order include
communications that coerce prospective class members into excluding
themselves from the litigation; communications that contain false,
misleading or confusing statements; and communications that
undermine cooperation with or confidence in the class counsel.  In
the instant case, notwithstanding Miller's questions to Gilson,
there is insufficient evidence that Stage engaged in the type of
abusive practices that would warrant a protective order from the
Court.  Further, although the Judge acknowledges that a past or
present employment relationship between the parties increases the
risk that communications between them will have a coercive effect,
there is no evidence that the alleged improper communications
actually resulted in eligible employees electing not to opt-in.
Indeed, the supporting declarations from actual employees indicates
that they both decided to opt in to the lawsuit.

At bottom, the Judge concludes that the Plaintiffs' scant
evidentiary support, at most, demonstrates that there is a mere
possibility of abuse, which is insufficient for the Court to impose
the extraordinary relief they seek.  Therefore, she will decline to
exercise its discretion to issue a corrective notice.  However, the
Judge does not condone, and Stage should address, Miller's
impropriety noted.

Accordingly, for the reasons set out, Judge Crenshaw denied the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Corrective Notice.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and
Order is available at https://is.gd/RU2zu1 from Leagle.com.

Maya Crosby & Deneen Patton, on behalf of themselves and all those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Charles P. Yezbak,
III , Yezbak Law Offices, Deirdre Anne Aaron , Outten & Golden LLP,
Elizabeth Stork -- estork@outtengolden.com -- Outten & Golden LLP,
Laura Iris Mattes -- imattes@outtengolden.com -- Outten & Golden
LLP & Molly Brooks -- mb@outtengolden.com -- Outten & Golden LLP.

Stage Stores Inc., Defendant, represented by John H. Lassetter --
jlassetter@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Lyndsey M.
Marcelino -- lmarcelino@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. &
Malcolm Levy Leatherman -- lleatherman@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, P.C..


STELARIS FOODS: Shortchanges Drivers' Wages, Rivera Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Nelson Rivera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Stelaris Foods 369, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 19-cv-01470, (D. P.R., May 17, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages, damages, costs, attorneys' fees, civil penalties,
declaratory and/or injunctive relief and/or any such other relief
as mandated by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Stelaris operates Papa John's franchise locations in Puerto Rico
where Rivera worked as a delivery driver. Defendants failed to
adequately reimburse delivery drivers for their delivery expenses,
thereby rendering their compensation below the minimum wage rate,
says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     FRANCISCO E. COLON-RAMIREZ, Esq.
     COLON RAMIREZ LLC
     PO Box 361920
     San Juan, PR 00936-1920
     Tel.: (888) 760-1077
     Fax: (305) 507-1920
     Email: fecolon@colonramirez.com

            - and -

     Keith Altman, Esq.
     EXCOLO LAW, PLLC
     26700 Lahser Road, Suite 401
     Southfield, MI 48033
     Tel: (516)456-5885
     Email: kaltman@excololaw.com


STURM FOODS: Court Denies Bid to Relabel Subclass in Suchanek Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LINDA SUCHANEK, RICHARD McMANUS, CAROL CARR, PAULA
GLADSTONE, EDNA AVAKIAN, CHARLES CARDILLO, BEN CAPPS, DEBORAH
DIBENEDETTO, and CAROL RITCHIE, Plaintiffs, v. STURM FOODS, INC.
AND TREEHOUSE FOODS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 11-CV-565-NJR-RJD
(S.D. Ill.), Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel of the U.S. District Court
for Southern District of Illinois denied the Defendants' Motion to
Relabel, Decertify and Dismiss Modified Package Subclass.

On Nov. 3, 2015, the Court certified a class as to, all persons or
consumers that during the Class Period, from September of 2010, up
through the date the case is certified and notice is disseminated,
who purchased the Defendants' Grove Square Coffee ("GSC") products
in Alabama, California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, North
Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee.

The Plaintiffs assert two theories of liability: (1) by affirmative
statements, the GSC packaging misleads purchasers into believing
GSC is all ground coffee; and (2) by omission, the GSC packaging
misleads purchasers as to the ratio of instant and microground
coffee in GSC.

In 2011, the Defendants released a different version of the
packaging at issue.  The first version stated the product was
"Soluble & Microground," while the second version stated the
product was "Instant & Microground."

In January 2015, the Defendants moved to decertify the class,
arguing, in part, the class definition is overly broad, and
certification should have been denied, because the class is not
limited to consumers who purchased the Original Packaging.  At that
time, and to date, the Plaintiffs have not identified any class
member who purchased the Modified Packaging.

On July 3, 2018, the Court issued an Order laying out the trial
plan, dividing the class into 18 subclasses, to account for the two
versions of packaging and the nine different laws governing the
Plaintiffs' claims proceeding to jury trial.

On April 18, 2019, the Defendants filed a Motion to Relabel,
Decertify and Dismiss Modified Package Subclass.  They argue the
Plaintiffs have not identified any class member who purchased the
Modified Packaging and, thus, do not have standing to bring those
claims.  Also, the Defendants argue the Named Plaintiffs' claims
are not typical of absent class members who purchased the Modified
Packaging.  The Plaintiffs object, and contend that the Modified
Packaging was similarly misleading to the Original Packaging, so
they have standing to assert claims of the absent class members.

Judge Rosenstengel finds that the Original and Modified Packaging
contained the same product, had virtually identical packaging, and
allegedly contained the same misrepresentation and/or omission
regarding the amount of instant coffee in GSC.  The Court has
already held that Plaintiffs have standing to represent absent
class members who purchased the Modified Packaging, and that the
class meets the typicality requirement under Rule 23.  The Court's
July 2018 Order was not intended to imply otherwise.

Instead, the Judge finds that the Court's creation of various
subclasses in its July 2018 Order was merely for trial management
purposes, pursuant to the Court's broad authority under Rule 23(d)
to issue orders that determine the course of proceedings or
prescribe measures to prevent undue repetition or complication in
presenting evidence or argument odeal with r similar procedural
matters.  Rule 23(d) authorizes the Court to create subclasses for
management purposes when there is no fundamental conflict
underlying the class claims, and the subclasses are created to
expedite resolution of the case by segregating certain factual and
legal questions which are common to some members of the larger
class.  When a subclass is appropriate under Rule 23(d), it is
unnecessary to evaluate it under Rule 23(c)(4) for commonality,
numerosity, typicality, and adequacy of representation.
Accordingly, the class does not need a new named subclass
representative.

For these reasons, Judge Rosenstengel denied the Defendants' Motion
to Relabel, Decertify and Dismiss Modified Package Subclass.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2019 Memorandum and Order is
available at https://is.gd/YtxnyQ from Leagle.com.

Linda Suchanek, Plaintiff, represented by Randy L. Gori --
randy@gorijulianlaw.com -- Gori Julian and Associates P.C.. Linda
Suchanek, Plaintiff, represented by Chelsea Lauren Fischer --
cfischer@gorijulianlaw.com -- Gori Julian and Associates P.C., D.
Todd Mathews -- todd@gorijulianlaw.com -- Gori, Julian &
Associates, PC, David Michael Rosenberg-Wohl -- david@hrw-law.com
-- Hershenson Rosenberg-Wohl, Megan Myers Arvola, Gori --
mmyers@gorijulianlaw.com -- Julian & Associates, PC & Peter H.
Burke -- pbourke@burkeharvey.com -- Burke Harvey LLC.

Richard McManus, Plaintiff, represented by D. Todd Mathews, Gori,
Julian & Associates, PC, David Michael Rosenberg-Wohl, Hershenson
Rosenberg-Wohl, Joseph Allen Schreiber, Burke Harvey LLC, Peter H.
Burke, Burke Harvey LLC & W. Todd Harvey, Burke Harvey LLC.

Carol Carr, Plaintiff, represented by D. Todd Mathews, Gori, Julian
& Associates, PC, David Michael Rosenberg-Wohl, Hershenson
Rosenberg-Wohl, & Peter H. Burke, Burke Harvey LLC.

Paula Gladstone, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarily situated. Consolidated from case 11-1068-GPM, Plaintiff,
represented by D. Todd Mathews, Gori, Julian & Associates, PC,
David Michael Rosenberg-Wohl, Hershenson Rosenberg-Wohl A
Professional Corporation, Michael H. Maizes, Maizes & Maizes LLP &
Peter H. Burke, Burke Harvey LLC.

Edna Avakian, Charles Cardillo, Ben Capps, Deborah Dibenedetto &
Carol J. Ritchie, Plaintiffs, represented by D. Todd Mathews,
Gori,
Julian & Associates, PC, David Michael Rosenberg-Wohl, Hershenson
Rosenberg-Wohl A Professional Corporation, Michael H. Maizes,
Maizes & Maizes LLP & Peter H. Burke, Burke Harvey LLC.

Sturm Foods, Inc., Defendant, represented by Aaron J. Weinzierl,
Foley & Lardner, Craig S. Fochler -- cfockler@foley.com -- Foley &
Lardner, Jaclyne D. Wallace -- jwallace@foley.com -- Foley &
Lardner, Patrick G. Walker -- pwalker@farris-law.com -- Farris
Bobango Branan, PLC & Richard Spencer Montei -- rmontei@folwy.com
-- Foley & Lardner.

Treehouse Foods, Inc., Defendant, represented by Aaron J.
Weinzierl, Foley & Lardner, Craig S. Fochler, Foley & Lardner,
Jaclyne D. Wallace, Foley & Lardner & Richard Spencer Montei, Foley
& Lardner.


TD AMERITRADE: Illinois Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that
on May 13, 2019, Judge Charles P. Kocoras of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed with
prejudice a putative class action against TD Ameritrade and an
investment advisory company as barred by the Securities Litigation
and Uniform Standards Act ("SLUSA"). Gray v. TD Ameritrade, Inc.,
No. 18 C 00419, 2019 WL 2085136 (N.D. Ill.
May 13, 2019). Plaintiffs asserted state common law and statutory
claims based on allegations that defendants had placed investors
into trading strategies that had been misrepresented as
conservative. The Court held that because plaintiffs' claims
coincided with a covered securities transaction, they were
prohibited under SLUSA.

Plaintiffs alleged that a TD Ameritrade representative recommended
an investment advisor and endorsed that advisor's options trading
strategy. In particular, plaintiffs alleged that defendants made a
series of false representations, including that the options trading
strategy could be expected to produce a 4-6% return on investment
net of all fees, that the strategy "works in both up and down
markets," that even if there were down months the strategy "will
make an annual profit," and that the strategy would realize profits
"[a]s sure as a clock ticks." Id. at *1-2. Plaintiffs alleged that
the strategy, in fact, resulted in "staggering losses" to
themselves and the putative class, thereby giving rise to claims
for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, money had and
received, and a violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act. Id. at *2.

SLUSA prohibits bringing (1) a covered class action (2) based on
state law (3) that alleges a misrepresentation or omission of
material fact, or the use of any manipulative or deceptive device
or contrivance (4) in connection with the purchase or sale of (5) a
covered security. Id. at *3. Plaintiffs conceded that the first
three elements were present, so the Court focused exclusively on
whether the challenged conduct was "in connection with the purchase
or sale of" a "covered security." Id.

The Court rejected plaintiffs' arguments that defendants' alleged
misrepresentations were made in connection with plaintiffs'
decision to retain defendants, as opposed to plaintiffs' purchase
of a security, and that plaintiffs had not been capable of making
decisions "in connection with" the purchase of securities because
defendants had complete discretion to make trading decisions. To
the contrary, the Court held, a plaintiff need not personally make
an investment decision to satisfy the "in connection with"
requirement; the alleged fraud merely has to coincide with a
covered securities transaction. Id. at *4 (citing, inter alia,
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit, 547 U.S. 71,
81 (2006)). The Court concluded that plaintiffs' allegations
"certainly coincide with a securities transaction because such a
transaction is the foundation for their claim" and the alleged
misrepresentations were the "catalyst" for plaintiffs to hire the
investment advisor to engage in securities transactions on their
behalf. Id.

The Court also rejected plaintiffs' argument that the "covered
security" element of SLUSA was not met because the allegations were
with regard to an investment strategy as a whole. Citing the same
Supreme Court precedent, the Court emphasized that SLUSA should not
be read too narrowly. Considering the "practical implications" of
plaintiffs' argument, the Court held that any misrepresentation
regarding the success or failure of a trading strategy, where that
strategy involves transactions in covered securities, satisfies the
"covered securities" element for SLUSA preclusion of state-law
claims. Id. at *5.

The Court further determined that dismissal with prejudice was
appropriate where SLUSA preclusion applies, although it noted that
SLUSA would not prevent plaintiffs from pursuing non-class claims
against defendants, which in this case would be subject to
arbitration under the parties' agreement. [GN]


TELUS COMMS: Business Members Can't Be Part of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Annie (Qurrat-ul-ain) Tayyab, Esq. -- atayyab@agmlawyers.com -- of
Affleck Greene McMurtry LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that
in a close, 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada recently
reinforced the primacy of arbitration agreements. The Court held
that if businesses are parties to a standard form contract
containing an arbitration provision, they cannot join a class
action relating to that contract, even with consumers against whom
the same arbitration provision cannot be enforced. In TELUS
Communications Inc. v Wellman, the Court held that business members
of a proposed class action were required to arbitrate their
disputes. They could not litigate their cases in court as part of a
class action brought on behalf of consumers. [GN]


TRANS BAY CABLE: Coleman et al. Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, GREG COLEMAN and RICHARD BOU, on behalf of their own and
on behalf of former employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
TRANS BAY CABLE LLC, STEVEN POWELL, and DOES 1 through 25,
Defendants, Case No. C19-00312 (Filed on Feb. 14, 2019), was
transferred from the Contra Costa County Superior Court to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on May 22, 2019. The complaint asserts four causes of
action against Trans Bay Cable LLC:

     -- wrongful discharge in violation of Labor Code;

     -- wrongful termination in violation of public policy;

     -- violation of the Unfair Competition Law under the
California Business and Professions Code; and

     -- intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The material transactions set forth in this complaint occurred
within the boundaries of the Presidio, a federal enclave. Such
reason gives rise to federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section
1331. Pursuant to Section 1331, federal courts have original
jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution,
laws, or treaties of the United States.

Trans Bay Cable LLC operates a 53-mile direct current electrical
transmission cable with fiber optic communication cables buried in
the San Francisco Bay. Its headquarters and principal place of
operation is located in the Presidio of San Francisco, with an
address of One Letterman Drive, C5-100 San Francisco, California.
[BN]

Attorneys for Defendant:

     Todd K. Boyer, Esq.
     BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP
     660 Hansen Way
     Palo Alto, CA 94304-1044
     Telephone: +1 (650) 856 2400
     Facsimile: +1 (650) 856 9299
     E-mail: todd.boyer@bakermckenzie.com


TRI-CITY MEDICAL: Faces Gerson Labor Suit over Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against the Tri-City
Medical Center ASC Operators, LLC and the Tri-City Hospital
Foundation for their failure to timely pay wages to terminated
employees and for their failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements in violation of the California Labor Code. The case is
captioned MARGOT GERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. TRI-CITY MEDICAL CENTER ASC
OPERATORS, LLC, dba TRI-CITY MEDICAL CENTER, a California Limited
Liability Company; TRI-CITY HOSPITAL FOUNDATION, a California
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 37-2019-00024821-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., May
14, 2019). Accordingly, Plaintiff Margot Gerson seeks relief
including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit.

The Defendants are all California corporations and/or limited
liability companies with their principal place of business in San
Diego County, California, with their headquarters located at 4002
Vista Way, Oceanside, CA 92056. They employ hourly employees,
including nurses, social workers, and clerical and technical staff.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael D. Singer, Esq.
     J. Jason Hill, Esq.
     COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
     605 C Street, Suite 200
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: (619) 595-3001
     Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
     E-mail: msinger@ckslaw.com
             jhill@ckslaw.com


UNITED STATES: Two Immigrants Classes Certified in Jimenez Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Mark L. Wolf allowed the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification in the lawsuit titled LILIAN PAHOLA CALDERON JIMENEZ
AND LUIS GORDILLO, ET AL., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Petitioners-Plaintiffs v. KEVIN McALEENAN, ET
AL., Respondents-Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10225-MLW (D.
Mass.).

Kevin K. McAleenan is the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security.

More specifically, for the purposes of Counts 1 (Immigration and
Nationality Act and Applicable Regulations), 3 (Equal Protection
under the United States Constitution), and 4 (Administrative
Procedure Act), the court certifies a class under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), defined as:

     [A]ny United States citizen and his or her noncitizen spouse
     who (1) has a final order of removal and has not departed
     the United States under that order; (2) is the beneficiary
     of a pending or approved 1-130, Petition for Alien Relative,
     filed by the United States citizen spouse; (3) is not
     "ineligible" for a provisional waiver under 8 C.F.R. Section
     212.7(e)(4)(i) or (vi); and (4) is within the jurisdiction
     of Boston Immigration and Customs Enforcement-Enforcement
     and Removal Operations ("ICE-ERG") field office (comprising
     Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont, New
     Hampshire, and Maine).

The representatives of the class are Oscar Rivas, Celina
Rivera Rivas, Lucimar De Souza, Sergio Francisco, Deng Gao, and
Amy Chen.

For the purposes of Count 2 (Due Process under the United States
Constitution, other than detention), the court certifies a
sub-class, defined as:

     [A]ny United States citizen and his or her noncitizen spouse
     who (1) has a final order of removal and has not departed
     the United States under that order; (2) is the beneficiary
     of an approved 1-130, Petition for Alien Relative, and
     conditionally approved 1-212, Application for Permission to
     Reapply for Admission into the United States After
     Deportation or Removal; (3) is not "ineligible" for a
     provisional waiver under 8 C.F.R. Section 212.7 (e)(4)(i) or
     (vi) ; and (4) is within the jurisdiction of Boston ICE-ERO
     field office (comprising Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
     Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine).

The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is denied with respect to Counts
1 (Immigration and Nationality Act and Applicable Regulations), 3
(Equal Protection under the United States Constitution), and 4
(Administrative Procedure Act) of the Plaintiffs' Amended
Complaint.

The Court reserves judgment on the contention that citizen spouses
have a liberty interest in remaining in the United States with
their alien spouses and, therefore, a right to Due Process before
their alien spouses are removed.

Judge Wolf also ruled that the parties shall confer and report
regarding whether they have agreed to settle this case or to
request jointly that it be stayed.  The parties may also request
more time to confer.

If the case is to proceed, the parties shall address: whether
notice should be directed to class members under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(c)(2) (A) and, if so, how; when the Court should
decide the appropriate definition of a class with respect to the
Plaintiffs' detention-related claims (Counts 5 and 6); and the
nature of the limited discovery to be conducted by July 31, 2019.

If there are disagreements concerning the scope of such limited
discovery, the parties shall explain their respective positions.
The parties shall order the transcript of the May 16, 2019 hearing
and lobby conference.[CC]


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Roper Moves to Certify Class Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled ANGELA ROPER and RENEE
JOHNSON, for themselves and all others similarly situated v.
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., VERIZON PENSYLVANIA LLC and CELLCO
PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS, Case No. 5:18-cv-05270-EGS
(E.D. Pa.), move the Court under the "opt-in" mechanism for
collective actions provided by the Fair Labor Standards Act to
enter their proposed order:

   -- granting conditional certification;

   -- authorizing the dissemination of their proposed Class
      Notice to all full-time, hourly, phone-based Customer
      Service or Sales employees who have worked for Defendants
      in any week during the maximum limitations period; and

   -- providing additional relief.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David J. Cohen, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP
          604 Spruce Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 873-4836
          E-mail: dcohen@stephanzouras.com

               - and -

          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com


VERSUM MATERIALS: Robert Files Suit Over Merck Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------------
Maury Robert, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Versum Materials, Inc., Seifollah Ghasemi,
Jacques Croisetiere, Guillermo Novo, Yi Hyon Paik, Thomas J.
Riordan, Susan C. Schnabel and Alejandro D. Wolff, Defendants, Case
No. 19-cv-00922 (D. Del., May 17, 2019), seeks to enjoin defendants
and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating or closing the acquisition of Versum by Merck KGaA
through Merck's wholly owned subsidiary EMD Performance Materials
Holding, Inc., and rescinding it in the event defendants consummate
the merger. The Plaintiff further seeks rescissory damages, costs
of this action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's
attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Versum stockholders will receive $53.00 in cash for each share of
Versum common stock they own.

According to the complaint, the registration statement for the
merger failed to include critical financial analysis performed by
its financial advisor, Lazard Freres & Co. LLC including all the
data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that
support the fairness opinions in order to make a fully informed
decision whether to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction or
seek appraisal needed by the shareholders to make an informed
decision on the merger deal.

Versum is a global specialty materials company providing
high-purity chemicals and gases, delivery systems, services and
materials expertise in the global semiconductor and display
industries. Merck is a German corporation into healthcare, life
science and performance materials. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
      O'KELLY ERNST & JOYCE, LLC
      901 N. Market Street, Suite 1000
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 778-4000
      Email: rernst@oelegal.com

             - and -

      Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
      Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
      Kelly K. Moran, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
      New York, New York 10036
      Tel: (212) 682-3025

             - and -

      Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq.
      BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE P.C.
      885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
      New York, New York 10022
      Telephone: (212) 308-5858
      Facsimile: (212) 486-0462
      Email: fortunato@bespc.com


VIEGA LLC: Prime Source Sues Over Copper Press Fitting Price-fixing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Prime Source Plumbing and Heating Corp., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Viega LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00842, (M.D. Pa., May 15, 2019), is an
antitrust action directed at Viega's anti-competitive conduct in
the markets for copper press fittings and carbon steel press
fittings, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton
Act.

Viega is a privately-owned company that manufactures, imports and
sells fittings in the United States. Viega has allegedly coerced
wholesale distributors not to buy copper press fittings from
competition and refuses to sell its carbon steel press fittings
unless a wholesale distributor also purchases its copper press
fittings and agrees not to purchase copper press fittings from
other competitors.

Prime Source is a Wisconsin business located in La Crosse,
Wisconsin who has made purchases of Viega copper press fittings
from one or more Viega wholesale distributors in the last four
years. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
      Daniel Gallucci, Esq.
      Joseph N. Roda, Esq.
      NASTLAW LLC
      1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Tel: 215-923-9300
      Fax: 215-923-9302
      Email: dnast@nastlaw.com
             dgallucci@nastlaw.com
             JNRoda@NastLaw.com

             - and -

      Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
      Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
      Michelle J. Looby, Esq
      Joshua J. Rissman, Esq.
      Mickey Stevens, Esq.
      GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
      220 South Sixth Street #2600
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Tel: (612) 333-8844
      Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
             dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
             mlooby@gustafsongluek.com
             jrissman@gustafsongluek.com
             mstevens@gustafsongluek.com

            - and -

      Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
      EDELSON & ASSOCIATES, LLC
      3 Terry Drive, Suite 205
      Newtown, PA 18940
      Telephone: (215) 867-2399
      Email: Medelson@edelson-law.com

             - and -

      Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq.
      REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
      W-1050 First National Bank Building
      332 Minnesota Street
      St. Paul, MN 55101
      Tel: (651) 287-2100
      Fax: (651) 287-2103
      Email: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com

             - and -

      Kevin Landau, Esq.
      Evan Rosin, Esq.
      TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
      80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
      New York, NY 10038
      Telephone: (212) 931-0704
      Email: klandau@tcllaw.com
             erosin@tcllaw.com

             - and -

      Charles Kocher, Esq.
      Simon Paris, Esq.
      Patrick Howard, Esq.
      SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT BENDESKY, PC
      120 Gibraltar Road, Suite 218
      Horsham, PA 19044
      Tel: (215) 575-3985
      Email: ckocher@smbb.com
             sparis@smbb.com
             phoward@smbb.com


VIKING CRUISES: Faces Viking Sky Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nick Blenkey, writing for MarineLog, reports that Viking Cruises
faces a class action lawsuit claiming punitive damages following
the March 24 incident in which some 479 passengers were evacuated
by helicopter from the cruise ship Viking Sky when it lost power in
gale force winds off the Norwegian coast.

The suit has been filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, by Miami law firm Lipcon,
Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman on behalf of plaintiffs Axel and
Lauren Freudmann, representing a potential class of up to 1,000
plaintiffs.

In its complaint, the law firm asserts that Viking "negligently
sailed through notoriously perilous waters into the path of a Bomb
Cyclone where, due to the Defendant's negligence, the vessel lost
power leaving the vessel adrift to be battered by high seas and
winds as it drifted towards dangerous reefs."

The complaint asserts that the cruise ship departed on its voyage
"despite the consensus by numerous weather forecasting agencies'
warning of extremely severe winds of Storm 10 gale force
capabilities expected in the vessel's intended and actual path."

"As forecasted by numerous weather forecasting agencies," says the
complaint, "by the early morning of Saturday, March 23, 2019, the
Storm 10 gale force winds and rough seas were battering the vessel
so severely that passengers were unable to stand in their
staterooms and were being thrown out of their beds; causing various
injuries to passengers, including Plaintiffs FREUDMANN."

"Hundreds of passengers, including Plaintiffs FREUDMANN, were
subjected to hours of terror, unsanitary conditions, lack of
ventilation, and trauma as they feared for their lives a result of
the cruise traveling through extremely severe -- all of which could
have been easily avoided if Defendants VIKING simply waited to sail
until after the severe winter storm passed or rerouted the ship so
that the passengers were not exposed to the dangerous weather
conditions," asserts the complaint." As a result of Defendant's
VIKING's negligence, passengers sustained physical and emotional
injuries"

"Tellingly," says the complaint, "two Hurtigruten cruise ships
delayed their departure from their respective port of calls on
March 22, 2019, in order to avoid sailing through the worst of the
bomb cyclone the Viking Sky sailed through." [GN]


VITALE'S ITALIAN: Court Refuses to Certify Torres' FLSA Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge Ray Kent denied without prejudice the
Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a collective
action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act filed in the
lawsuit captioned EMILIO TORRES v. VITALE'S ITALIAN RESTAURANT,
INC., SALVATORE VITALE, and BELINDA PIERSON, Case No.
1:18-cv-00547-PLM-RSK (W.D. Mich.).

Judge Kent notes that the Plaintiff has provided three different
definitions of the proposed class for conditional certification.

In the plaintiff's memorandum filed in support of the Motion refers
to the employees of all of the Defendants (i.e., Vitale's Italian
Restaurant, Inc., Salvatore Vitale, and Belinda Pierson) before the
filing of the complaint on May 15, 2018:

     All of Defendants' current and former employees who are not
     or were not paid time-and-a-half for hours worked in excess
     of 40 hours during a workweek before the filing of this
     Complaint up to the present.

The Court concludes that the Plaintiff's claim is not substantially
similar to other employees identified in any of the proposed class
definitions.  The Plaintiff's claim is different from the other
members of the proposed class.[CC]


VORTENS INC: Court Grants Prelim Approval of Cone Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEVEN CONE, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. VORTENS, INC.,
SANITARIOS LAMOSA S.A. DE C.V. and PORCELANA CORONA DE MEXICO, SA.
DE C.V., Defendant, MARK AND AMBER FESSLER, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v.
VORTENS, INC., SANITARIOS LAMOSA S.A. DE C.V. and PORCELANA CORONA
DE MEXICO, SA. DE C.V., Defendant, Case Nos. 4:17-CV-001-ALM-KPJ,
4:19-CV-248-ALM-KPJ (S.D. Tex.), Judge Amos L. Mazzant of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division,
granted the parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class
Action Settlement and Memorandum in Support.

The action arises from alleged manufacturing and/or marketing
defects in certain ceramic Vortens toilet tanks.  The Plaintiffs'
Second Amended Complaint and Class Action is the operative
complaint.  The toilet tanks at issue were manufactured, designed,
produced, and distributed by Sanitarios Lamosa, now known as
Porcelana Corona.  As a result of their claimed damages, the
Plaintiffs have alleged four causes of action against the
Defendant: (1) strict products liability; (2) breach of implied
warranty; (3) negligence; and (4) violations of the Texas Deceptive
Trade Practices Act ("DTPA").  They seek injunctive relief and
monetary damages against the Defendant, including exemplary
damages, treble damages under the Texas DTPA, and attorneys' fees.


The Plaintiffs also seek to represent a putative class defined as
all owners of Vortens toilet tank models #3464, #3412, #3404,
#3425, and #3436 manufactured by the Defendant between 2004 thorugh
2012.  After a mediation conference on Aug. 28, 2018, the parties
reached a partial settlement with respect to past and current
owners of Vortens tank model #3412 and #3464 manufactured between
Jan. 1, 2011, through Dec. 31, 2011, who previously expended funds
to repair and replace tanks.  However, no agreement was reached
regarding tank owners that experienced property damage as a result
of a cracked 2011 tank, or as to tanks manufactured in years other
than 2011, or as to any other tank models.

After a mediation conference on Oct. 16, 2018, the parties further
resolved claims brought by owners of tank models #3412 and/or #3464
manufactured between Jan. 1, 2011, and Dec. 31, 2011, providing
relief to class members that incurred property damage other than to
the product itself.  The parties were unable to reach agreement
regarding the remaining claims, and the Plaintiffs' Second Motion
for Class Certification with respect to those remaining claims is
currently pending before the Court.

In the pending Motion for Preliminary Approval, the parties seek
Preliminary Approval of a proposed partial class action settlement
comprised of owners of tank models #3412 and/or #3464, manufactured
between Jan. 1, 2011, and Dec. 31, 2011.  On April 2, 2019, the
Court entered an order severing the claims in the 2011 Settlement,
from the remaining claims which are pending conditional
certification.

Following entry of the Magistrate Judge's Report, the parties filed
a Joint Notice of Waiver of Written Objections to the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation Regarding the preliminary
Approval of Settlement Agreement.  In the Joint Notice of Waiver,
all parties waived the 14-day objection period pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(C).

Came on for consideration the report of the United States
Magistrate Judge in the action, the matter having been referred to
the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636.  On April
25, 2019, the report of the Magistrate Judge was entered,
containing proposed findings of fact and recommendations that the
parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval.

Having received the Report of the United States Magistrate Judge,
and no objections thereto having been timely filed, Judge Mazzant
is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the
Magistrate Judge are correct and adopts the Magistrate Judge's
report as the findings and conclusions of the Court.  He granted
preliminary approval of the Stipulated Settlement, as he finds the
terms fair, reasonable and adequate.  

He provisionally certified the matter as a class action, for the
purposes of settlement only, of the claims asserted on behalf of
certain owners of Affected Toilet Tanks manufactured in 2011,
pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which
class is defined as a ll owners of Vortens toilet tank models #3464
or #3412 manufactured between Jan. 1, 2011 - Dec. 31, 2011.

The Class Definition is further refined pursuant to the following
relief eligibility:

     a. Replacement and Installation Subclass: All owners of a
Vortens tank model #3412 or #3464 manufactured between Jan. 1, 2011
and Dec. 31, 2011 that (1) have not cracked; or (2) experienced a
crack from which no other property damage occurred.

     b. Damages Subclass: All owners of a Vortens tank model #3412
or #3464 manufactured between Jan. 1, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2011 that
fractured between date of manufacture and present (date of
certification) and resulted in property damages.

With respect to the 2011 Class Representatives, the Judge appointed
Plaintiffs Charles and Michelle Handly and Kevin Reuss as the
representatives of the proposed 2011 Settlement Class.  He approved
the proposed Service Award to each 2011 Class Representative.  With
respect to the Class Counsel, he appointed N. Scott Carpenter,
Esq., and Rebecca Bell-Stanton, Esq., of Carpenter & Schumacher,
2701 N. Dallas Parkway, Suite 570, Plano, Texas 75093, as Class
Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g) to represent the
interests of the proposed 2011 Settlement Class.

The Judge has reviewed the Notice Plan and procedure for
disseminating notice of the proposed settlement to the 2011
Settlement Class as set forth in the Stipulated Settlement and
approved the Notice Plan.   As set forth in the Stipulated
Settlement, Settlement Administration, which includes the costs and
expenses incurred in providing notice to the 2011 Settlement Class
in addition to claims administration, will be paid by the
Defendant.  The Class Counsel are awarded reasonable costs incurred
in the prosecution of the Action and pursuit of the Settlement and
must timely file sufficient proof of such costs in accordance with
the Deadlines assigned.  The Class Counsel are furthermore required
to submit proper Application for payment of attorneys' fees in
accordance with the terms of the Stipulated Settlement in a timely
manner as provided.

The Judg authorized the Parties to retain Epiq to effectuate the
Notice Plan as the Notice Provider and further as the Claims
Administrator.  Epiq will provide all the forms of Notice within21
days of the order.  The Notice Provider will provide a Certificate
Statement of Substantial Completion of the initial launch of the
Notice Plan 30 days after the Notice Date.

No later than 45 days after Preliminary Approval, the Class Counsel
will file with the Court and post on the Settlement Website their
application for payment of attorneys' fees and expenses.  This
filing may be updated no later than 10 days prior to the Final
Fairness Hearing.  

No later than 110 days after Preliminary Approval, the Court will
schedule the Final Approval Hearing.

Any 2011 Settlement Class Member who intends to object to the
proposed settlement must do so no later than 60 days after the
Notice Date.  A Settlement Class Member who wishes to opt out of
the Damages Settlement Class must do so not later than 45 days
after the Notice Date.
In Accordance with the Stipulated Settlement and exhibits attached
thereto, the preliminarily approved 2011 Settlement will be
administered according to its terms pending the Final Approval
Hearing.

The deadlines arising under the Stipulated Settlement and include
but are not limited to:

     1. The Notice Plan will be initiated within 21 days after
Preliminary Approval.

     2. The Class Counsel will file with the Court and post on the
Settlement Website their application for payment of attorneys' fees
and proof of expenses within 45 after Preliminary Approval.

     3. All Opt-Out Forms requesting exclusion from the 2011
Settlement Class must be postmarked and sent to the Claims
Administrator,  the Class Counsel and the Counsel for the Defendant
within 45 days of the Notice Date.

     4. All Objections to the Settlement must be filed with the
Court and sent to the Claims Administrator, the Class Counsel and
the Counsel for the Defendant within 60 days of the Notice Date.
Objecting individuals must make themselves available for deposition
in their county of residence within 10 days of the service of the
Objection.

     5. No later than 15 days prior to the Final Approval Hearing,
the Parties will file all papers in support of the application for
final approval of the settlement and/or opposition to any timely
Objections received.

     6. A Final Fairness Hearing will be scheduled within
approximately 110 days after Preliminary Approval, or as the
Court's schedule permits.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Mazzant granted the Motion for
Preliminary Approval, and the 2011 Settlement Class is
preliminarily approved as set forth.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2019 Memorandum is available
at https://is.gd/LNDl9u from Leagle.com.

Mark Fessler, on Behalf of Themselves and Those Similarly Situated,
Amber Fessler, on Behalf of Themselves and Those Similarly
Situated, Andrew Hocker, on Behalf of Themselves and Those
Similarly Situated, Kevin Reuss, on Behalf of Themselves and Those
Similarly Situated, Matthew Carreras, on Behalf of Themselves and
Those Similarly Situated, Charles Handly, on Behalf of Themselves
and Those Similarly Situated, Michelle Handly, on Behalf of
Themselves and Those Similarly Situated, Aaron Stone, on Behalf of
Themselves and Those Similarly Situated, Stacey Stone, on Behalf of
Themselves and Those Similarly Situated, Daniel Sousa, on Behalf of
Themselves and Those Similarly Situated & Sharon Sousa, on Behalf
of Themselves and Those Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, represented
by Nathan Scott Carpenter -- scarpenter@cstriallaw.com -- Carpenter
& Schumacher PC & Rebecca Elizabeth Bell Stanton --
rstanton@cstriallaw.com -- Carpenter & Schumacher PC.

Porcelana Corona De Mexico, S.A. DE C.V., formerly known as
Sanitarios Lamosa S.A. DE C.V., Defendant, represented by Melissa
Dorman Matthews -- mmatthews@hartlinebarger.com -- Hartline Barger
LLP, Angela Skaggs Gordon -- agordon@hartlinebarger.com -- Hartline
Barger LLP, Darrell Lee Barger -- agordon@hartlinebarger.com --
Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP & Lauren Abigail Foreman --
aforeman@hartlinebarger.com -- Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer, LLP.


WABCO HOLDINGS: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP on May 13 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District
of Delaware, Case No. 1:19-cv-00729-CFC, on behalf of shareholders
of WABCO Holdings Inc. ("WABCO" or the "Company") (WBC) who have
been harmed by WABCO's and its board of directors' (the "Board")
alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the
proposed merger (the "Proposed Merger") of the Company with ZF
Friedrichshafen AG ("ZF").

On March 28, 2019, the Board caused the Company to enter into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Merger Agreement") under which WABCO
shareholders will have the right to receive $136.50 in cash for
each share of WABCO stock they own (the "Merger Consideration").

The complaint alleges that the Form PREM14A filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") violates Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act because it provides materially
incomplete and misleading information about the Company and the
Proposed Merger, including information concerning the Company's
financial projections and analysis, on which the Board relied to
recommend the Proposed Merger as fair to WABCO shareholders.

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

Take Action

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

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from May 13, 2019, the date of this notice.  Any
member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member.  If you wish to discuss
this action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact:

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


WELLCARE HEALTH: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on May 14 disclosed that it has filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware on behalf of holders of WellCare Health Plans,
Inc. ("WellCare") (NYSE: WCG) common stock in connection with the
proposed acquisition of WellCare by Centene Corporation ("Centene")
announced on March 27, 2019 (the "Complaint"). The Complaint, which
alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against
WellCare, its Board of Directors (the "Board"), and Centene, is
captioned Kent v. WellCare Health Plans, Inc., Case No.
1:19-cv-00865 (D. Del.).

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

On March 26, 2019, WellCare entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Centene. Pursuant to the terms
of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of WellCare will receive 3.38
shares of Centene stock and $120.00 per share in cash (the
"Proposed Transaction").

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

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than July 9, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

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


WEST PARK HD: Oberg Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Oberg and William Wunsch, on behalf of themselves, and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. West Park HD, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01120 (N.D. Ohio, May 17, 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.

West Park HD operate a FedEx delivery service where Oberg worked as
a driver. He claims that he did not receive proper overtime wages
within the last three years. [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


WEST VIRGINIA: Richards Sues Human Resources over ADA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed by Kenneth Richards against
West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (WVDHHR) and
Bill Crouch for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA). The case is captioned Richards v. West Virginia Department
of Health and Human Resources et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00397
(S.D.W. Va., May 15, 2019).

WVDHHR is a state government agency tasked to provide effective
health and human services in West Virginia. The agency promotes
advances in medicine, public health, and social services. Bill
Crouch currently serves as the Director of WVDHHR. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gary M. Smith, Esq.
     MOUNTAIN STATE JUSTICE
     325 Willey Street
     Morgantown, WV 26505
     Telephone: (304) 326-0188
     Facsimile: (304) 326-0189
     E-mail: gary@msjlaw.org


WESTERN REFINING: Schmidtberger Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Delmar Schmidtberger, an individual, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Western Refining Retail, LLC and
Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-04300
(C.D. Cal. May 17, 2019), seeks unpaid overtime wages and interest
thereon, redress for failure to authorize or permit required meal
periods, statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage
statements, waiting time penalties in the form of continuation
wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon
separation of employment, reimbursement of business-related
expenses, failure to maintain time-keeping records, injunctive
relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees,
costs and interest under California Labor Code and applicable
Industrial Wage Orders. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
      Launa Adolph, Esq.
      MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
      1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
      Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
      Telephone: (310) 531-1900
      Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
      Email: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
             ladolph@maternlawgroup.com


WILLIS, TX: Court Affirms Dismissal of Garcia's Claims
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LUIS GARCIA, ET AL., Petitioners, v. CITY OF WILLIS,
LEONARD REED, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS [MAYOR] OF THE CITY OF
WILLIS, JAMES NOWAK IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHIEF OF POLICE OF
THE CITY OF WILLIS, HECTOR FORESTIER, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY OF WILLIS, Respondents, Case No. 17-0713
(Tex.), Judge Jeffrey V. Brown of the Supreme Court of Texas
affirmed the court of appeals' judgment dismissing Garcia's
claims.

Garcia sued the City of Willis on behalf of himself and "others
similarly situated."  All members of the putative class paid a
civil penalty for violating a city ordinance that created a
photographic traffic-signal enforcement system that penalizes
red-light infractions caught on camera.  

Garcia's suit seeks injunctive and declaratory relief holding that
(1) the ordinance and its enabling state statutes are
unconstitutional, (2) the ordinance violates statutory requirements
for local red-light camera enforcement, and (3) the city acted
ultra vires in levying a fine against Garcia and the other
plaintiffs.  He further seeks a refund of the citation he paid
through either a claim for reimbursement or a
constitutional-takings claim.  The city answered, filed a plea to
the jurisdiction, and argued Garcia's claims are barred by
governmental immunity, official immunity, failure to exhaust
administrative remedies, res judicata, and collateral estoppel, and
that exclusive jurisdiction rests in the municipal court.

The trial court denied the city's jurisdictional plea, and the city
took an interlocutory appeal.  It then re-urged its argument that
Garcia was required to exhaust administrative remedies before
filing suit. Garcia responded that exhaustion is not required due
to the constitutional nature of his claims and because the city
acted ultra vires in collecting red-light camera fines without
first conducting a statutorily required traffic-engineering study.

The court of appeals rejected Garcia's arguments, relying on
Edwards v. City of Tomball, in holding that Transportation Code
chapter 707 directs cities to establish an "exclusive"
administrative regime that claimants must exhaust before filing
suit in district court.  Because Garcia did not seek relief through
an administrative hearing, the court of appeals reasoned, the trial
court had no jurisdiction to hear his claims.  It further held that
Garcia's reimbursement claim is barred by governmental immunity --
notwithstanding that it was raised in a request for declaratory
relief -- because Garcia's claim seeks reimbursement for the fines
he and the other petitioners had paid.  Accordingly, the court of
appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, rendered judgment
dismissing Garcia's claims, and denied Garcia's request to replead.
The Court granted Garcia's petition for review.

On appeal to the Court, Garcia and the City maintain their
respective positions.  But the State of Texas, appearing as amicus
curiae, urges a third approach.  The state argues that Garcia lacks
standing to bring claims for prospective relief -- his declaratory
and injunctive claims -- because he has fully resolved his citation
by paying the civil penalty and faces no future injury from the law
he challenges.  And while Garcia does have standing to pursue his
reimbursement claims, the state continues, those claims cannot
overcome governmental immunity because he cannot allege he paid his
fine under duress.  Specifically, the state argues that Garcia
could have invoked an administrative-hearing process that would
have automatically delayed enforcement of his fine.

Judge Brown agrees with the state.  He holds that because Garcia
paid his fine and does not argue he will likely continue to incur
red-light violations, he lacks standing to bring his claims for
prospective relief.  As to his reimbursement claim, the Judge holds
governmental immunity applies because Garcia is unable to show he
paid the fine under duress.  Based on these holdings, he need not
resolve whether Garcia was generally required to exhaust his
administrative remedies.  But the Judge holds that Garcia was at
least required to seek administrative relief before filing a
takings claim in district court.  He further agrees with the court
of appeals' conclusion that an amended pleading would not cure the
defects in Garcia's claims.  He affirmed the court of appeals'
judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2019 Opinion is available at
https://is.gd/Rfyf2t from Leagle.com.

Jared Fox, for Amicus Curiae, Pro Se.

George A. Staples, Jr. , Wayne K. Olson, James Donovan, for City of
Round Rock, City of Irving, City of Elgin, City of El Paso, City of
Watauga, City of Haltom City, City of Amarillo, City of Sugar Land,
City of Bastrop, City of Longview, League City, City of Killeen
City of Grand Prairie, City of Richland Hills, City of Balcones
Heights, City of Mesquite, City of Marshall, City of Denton, City
of Burleson, City of Balch Springs, City of North Richland Hills
and City of Hutto, Amicus Curiae.

Todd B. Marshall, for Amicus Curiae, Pro Se.

Patricia LeCompte Hayden, Eric C. Farrar, Larry L. Foerster, Scott
Bounds, for Leonard Reed, City of Willis, James Nowak and Hector
Forestier, Respondents.

Terry K. Cox, for Amicus Curiae, Pro Se.

Morelia Banuelos, for Amicus Curiae, Pro Se.

Edwin P. Voss, Jr., for The City of Roanoke, Texas, Amicus Curiae.

John D. Stone, Patricia A. Stone , for Stone & Stone Texas Lawyers,
Amicus Curiae.

Gregory Ronald Cook, for Amicus Curiae, Pro Se.

Atty. Gen. W. Kenneth Paxton, Jr., Jeffrey C. Mateer, Kyle D.
Hawkins, Andrew B. Davis, for State of Texas, Amicus Curiae.

Edwin P. Voss, Jr., for The Town of Little Elm, Texas, Amicus
Curiae.

Russell J. Bowman, Scott A. Stewart, for Luis Garcia, Petitioner.


WORK-MODE INC: Trego Sues over Late Termination Notice
------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Wood-Mode Inc. for
violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act
of 1988 (WARN Act). The case is captioned CURTIS TREGO on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WOOD-MODE
INC, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00852-MWB (M.D. Fla., May 15,
2019). Plaintiff Curtis Trego was an employee of the Defendant
until he was terminated as part of, or as a result of a mass layoff
and/or plant closing ordered by the Defendant. As such, Plaintiff
alleges that Wood-Mode Inc. is liable under the WARN Act for the
failure to provide the Plaintiff and the other similarly situated
former employees at least 60 days' advance written notice of
termination, as required by the WARN Act. Plaintiff also asserts
that the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and the other
similarly situated employees their respective wages, salary,
commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday pay and accrued vacation for
60 days following their respective terminations and failed to make
401(k) contributions and provide them with health insurance
coverage and other employee benefits.

Wood-Mode, Inc. is a manufacturer of luxury custom cabinets for
kitchens, bath rooms, living rooms, entertainment areas, offices
and hobbies, and others. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James Huggett, Esq.
     MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
     300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 800
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Telephone: (302) 888-1112
     Facsimile: (302) 888-1119
     E-mail: jhuggett@margolisedelstein.com

             - and -

     Michael R. Miller, Esq.
     MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
     170 S. Independence Mall W., Suite 400E
     Philadelphia, PA 19106
     Telephone: (215) 922-1100
     Facsimile: (215) 922-1772
     E-mail: mmiller@margolisedelstein.com


WORLD WIDE TECHNOLOGY: Young Suit Transferred to S.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Young v. World Wide Technology LLC, Case No. 2019L 000337
(Filed on March 11, 2019), was transferred from the Madison County
Circuit Court to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois on May 10, 2019. In this complaint, Plaintiff
Connie Young cites the Defendant's violation of the Biometric
Information Privacy Act. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Staci
M. Yandle. Moreover, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-00496-SMY-GCS to the proceeding.

Founded in 1990, World Wide Technology LLC has grown from a small
product reseller into a technology solution provider with $11.2
billion in annual revenue and more than 5,000 employees. The
company serves the technology needs of large public and private
organizations around the globe, including many of the world's
best-known brands. [BN]

Attorneys for Defendant:

     Darci F. Madden, Esq.
     BRYAN CAVE - ST. LOUIS
     211 North Broadway
     One Metropolitan Square, Suite 3600
     St. Louis, MO 63102
     Telephone: (314) 259-2000
     E-mail: dfmadden@bryancave.com

             - and -

     Robert T. Ebert
     BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON, ET AL. - ST. LOUIS
     One Metropolitan Square
     211 North Broadway, Suite 3600
     St. Louis, MO 63102
     Telephone: (314) 259-2000
     Facsimile: (314) 259-2020
     E-mail: rtebert@bryancave.com

             - and -

     Lauren J. Caisman, Esq.
     BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON, ET AL. - CHICAGO
     161 North Clark Street
     Suite 4300
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Telephone: (312) 602-5000
     Facsimile: (312) 698-7479
     E-mail: lauren.caisman@bclplaw.com


ZILLOW GROUP: Correa Suit Transferred to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case, NICOLE CORREA on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ZILLOW GROUP, INC., a Washington
Corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
30-2019-01057872-CU-OE-CXC (Filed on March 18, 2019), was
transferred from the Orange County Superior Court to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on May
15, 2019.

In the complaint, Plaintiff Nicole Correa asserts six violations of
the California Labor Code: unlawful deductions of wages; failure to
pay minimum wage; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to furnish
and timely and accurate itemized wage statements; failure to keep
required payroll records; and failure to pay all compensation due
upon discharge. The United States District Court for the Central
District of California assigned Case No. 8:19-cv-00921 to the
proceeding.

Headquartered in Seattle, Washington, Zillow Group, Inc. is an
online database that houses a portfolio of the largest and most
vibrant real estate and home-related brands on the web and mobile.
[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Aashish Y. Desai, Esq.
     Adrianne De Castro, Esq.
     DESAI LAW FIRM, P.C.
     3200 Bristol St., Suite 650
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626
     Telephone: (949) 614-5830
     Facsimile: (949) 271-4190
     E-mail: aashish@desai-law.com
             adrianne@desai-law.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

     Karin Morgan Cogbill, Esq.
     LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
     50 W San Fernando St, 7th Fl
     San Jose, CA 95113
     Telephone: (408) 998-4150
     Facsimile: (408) 288-5686
     E-mail: kcogbill@littler.com


[*] AdvoFin Builds Class Action Against Online Casinos
------------------------------------------------------
Litigation Finance Journal reports that AdvoFin, an Austrian
litigation funder, is building a class action against online
casinos on behalf of customers who lost more than EUR3,000 over the
past 2.5 years. [GN]


[*] Insurers Respond to Rising Levels of Securities Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Chiglinsky, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that
stung by near-record levels of federal securities class-action
lawsuits, firms that insure company executives are taking action.

Rates for directors-and-officers policies are rising in response to
heightened levels of litigation that typically involve allegations
of misleading investors. American International Group Inc.
estimates that the industry took in about $4 billion in premiums
from public-company clients in the U.S. for such policies last
year, which is dwarfed by the estimated $6.1 billion in losses that
insurers faced from them. [GN]


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 43,200 Claims v. Goodyear Tire Pending at Mar. 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company has 43,200 pending
asbestos-related claims at March 31, 2019, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "We are a defendant in numerous lawsuits
alleging various asbestos-related personal injuries purported to
result from alleged exposure to asbestos in certain products
manufactured by us or present in certain of our facilities.
Typically, these lawsuits have been brought against multiple
defendants in state and federal courts.  To date, we have disposed
of approximately 147,500 claims by defending, obtaining the
dismissal thereof, or entering into a settlement.  The sum of our
accrued asbestos-related liability and gross payments to date,
including legal costs, by us and our insurers totaled approximately
US$542 million through March 31, 2019 and US$541 million through
December 31, 2018."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/4kpvyt


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l Defends 3,688 Claims at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp. is defending 3,688 asbestos-related
claims as of March 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "Albany International Corp. is a defendant in
suits brought in various courts in the United States by plaintiffs
who allege that they have suffered personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos-containing paper machine clothing synthetic
dryer fabrics marketed during the period from 1967 to 1976 and used
in certain paper mills.

|We anticipate that additional claims will be filed against the
Company and related companies in the future, but are unable to
predict the number and timing of such future claims.  Due to the
fact that information sufficient to meaningfully estimate a range
of possible loss of a particular claim is typically not available
until late in the discovery process, we do not believe a meaningful
estimate can be made regarding the range of possible loss with
respect to pending or future claims and therefore are unable to
estimate a range of reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts
already accrued for pending or future claims.

"While we believe we have meritorious defenses to these claims, we
have settled certain claims for amounts we consider reasonable
given the facts and circumstances of each case.  Our insurance
carrier has defended each case and funded settlements under a
standard reservation of rights.  As of March 31, 2019 we had
resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 37,759 claims.  The
total cost of resolving all claims was US$10.3 million.  Of this
amount, almost 100% was paid by our insurance carrier, who has
confirmed that we have approximately US$140 million of remaining
coverage under primary and excess policies that should be available
with respect to current and future asbestos claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/3cTVN8


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l Still Faces Mount Vernon Mills Cases
------------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp. is still defending in some asbestos
cases as the "successor in interest" to Mount Vernon Mills,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "In some of these asbestos cases, the Company
is named both as a direct defendant and as the "successor in
interest" to Mount Vernon Mills ("Mount Vernon").  We acquired
certain assets from Mount Vernon in 1993.  Certain plaintiffs
allege injury caused by asbestos-containing products alleged to
have been sold by Mount Vernon many years prior to this
acquisition.  Mount Vernon is contractually obligated to indemnify
the Company against any liability arising out of such products.  We
deny any liability for products sold by Mount Vernon prior to the
acquisition of the Mount Vernon assets.  Pursuant to its
contractual indemnification obligations, Mount Vernon has assumed
the defense of these claims.  On this basis, we have successfully
moved for dismissal in a number of actions."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/3cTVN8


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Inc. Still Defends Lawsuits at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
AMETEK, Inc. still defends itself in a number of asbestos-related
lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019.

AMETEK states, "The Company (including its subsidiaries) has been
named as a defendant in a number of asbestos-related lawsuits.
Certain of these lawsuits relate to a business which was acquired
by the Company and do not involve products which were manufactured
or sold by the Company.  In connection with these lawsuits, the
seller of such business has agreed to indemnify the Company against
these claims (the "Indemnified Claims").

"The Indemnified Claims have been tendered to, and are being
defended by, such seller.  The seller has met its obligations, in
all respects, and the Company does not have any reason to believe
such party would fail to fulfill its obligations in the future.

"To date, no judgments have been rendered against the Company as a
result of any asbestos-related lawsuit.  The Company believes that
it has good and valid defenses to each of these claims and intends
to defend them vigorously."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/UicEz4


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Concerns Confirmed for Mill Residents
---------------------------------------------------------------
In March, residents of Lupton City, a neighborhood of Chattanooga,
Tennessee, that live near an abandoned yarn mill had their fears
confirmed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA
established that asbestos is indeed present in the partially
demolished industrial site that had sat vacant for years and is
surrounded by homes on three sides and a golf course on the other.

The contaminated site became the property of the city and Hamilton
County just a few years ago when the previous owner lost it due to
property tax issues. Local media reports announced that local,
state, and federal authorities were working on plans to clean-up
the site soon, but some local residents have expressed concerns
over possible exposure to asbestos in the air in their
neighborhood.

Asbestos was frequently used in many older buildings constructed up
until the late 1970s.  It can be found in building materials
ranging from insulation, roofing, and siding to vinyl floor tiles,
cement sheets, and adhesives to name just a few of the many common
asbestos-containing materials.

"Old buildings and industrial sites frequently contain asbestos and
other hazards that may include lead-based paints and even PCBs,"
said Joe Frasca, Senior Vice President of Marketing at EMSL
Analytical, Inc. "An active or abandoned demolition site could be
an exposure risk for anyone who enters the property and even for
neighbors living nearby if winds blow these materials or
contaminated dust onto their properties if the proper safety
precautions are not in place. At EMSL, we offer environmental
testing services for asbestos, lead, PCBs, and other potential
hazards that may be present in these situations. Testing can be
conducted not only in the facilities in question, but also from
surrounding areas, such as nearby neighborhoods."

EMSL Analytical has also sponsored an educational video about
demolition projects and air quality concerns that can be seen at:
http://youtu.be/iEc924Xq3ds

To learn more about testing for asbestos, lead, PCBs, or other air
quality, environmental, occupational, health and safety issues,
please visit www.EMSL.com, call (800) 220-3675 or email
info@EMSL.com . For access to test kits, visit
www.EMSLTestKits.com

                   About EMSL Analytical, Inc.

EMSL Analytical is one of the leading testing laboratories with
over 46 locations throughout the United States and Canada. EMSL is
a nationally recognized and locally focused provider specializing
in fast laboratory results for mold, bacteria, Legionella, USP 797,
pathogens, asbestos, lead, soot, char and ash from fires, VOC’s,
odors, radon, formaldehyde, indoor air quality, microbiology,
environmental, industrial hygiene, radiological, food, beverage,
and consumer products and material testing services for the
identification of unknown substances. EMSL services both
professionals and the general public. EMSL maintains an extensive
list of accreditations from leading organizations as well as state
and federal regulating bodies including, but not limited to A2LA,
AIHA LAP, LLC. (AIHA EMLAP, AIHA IHLAP, AIHA ELLAP), NVLAP, CDC
ELITE, CPSC, CA ELAP, NY ELAP, TX DOH, NJDEP, and multiple other
state accrediting agencies. Please visit our website at
www.EMSL.com for a complete listing of accreditations. In addition,
EMSL carries a wide range of Sampling Equipment and Investigative
Products for environmental professionals.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Beaver Falls Couple Sues Over Asbestos Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Bradon, writing for PennRecord, reported that a Beaver Falls
couple are suing a mine safety company alleging that the husband
was diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease because of exposure
during his career.

David Malcolm Eaton and Phyllis Rosalie Allice Eaton recently filed
a complaint in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas against
Mine Safety Appliance Co. alleging negligence.

According to the complaint, David Malcolm Eaton was exposed to
asbestos dust while working for the defendant from 1968 to 1989.
The suit states David Malcolm Eaton was diagnosed with asbestosis
in March 2018 and the plaintiffs allege the diagnosis is the result
of his occupational exposure to asbestos during his career.

The plaintiffs allege the defendant failed to require the use of
appropriate precautions to minimize exposure to asbestos.

The plaintiffs are seeking $35,000, attorneys' fees and court
costs. The plaintiffs are represented by Michael J. Gallucci of
Savinis, Kane & Gallucci LLC in Pittsburgh.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brandon Drying Defends 7,709 Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp.'s subsidiary, Brandon Drying Fabrics,
Inc., continues to face 7,709 asbestos-related claims as of March
31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019.

Albany International states, "The Company's subsidiary, Brandon
Drying Fabrics, Inc. ("Brandon"), is also a separate defendant in
many of the asbestos cases in which Albany is named as a defendant,
despite never having manufactured any fabrics containing asbestos.
While Brandon was defending against 7,709 claims as of March 31,
2019, only eleven claims have been filed against Brandon since
January 1, 2012, and no settlement costs have been incurred since
2001.  Brandon was acquired by the Company in 1999, and has its own
insurance policies covering periods prior to 1999.  Since 2004,
Brandon's insurance carriers have covered 100% of indemnification
and defense costs, subject to policy limits and a standard
reservation of rights."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/3cTVN8


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Class Action Signals Asbestos-Level Health Crisis
------------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Horan, writing for The Saturday Paper, reported that at least
135 stonemasons have been diagnosed with the potentially deadly
lung disease, silicosis, prompting fears of an asbestos-level
health crisis. Silicosis occurs when silica dust particles are
inhaled during the "dry cutting" of the engineered stone product,
used for stone benchtops, and damage the lungs.

Stonemasons from Queensland and Victoria have joined a national
class action by Slater and Gordon against manufacturers of the
stone product. The Slater and Gordon spokesperson said benchtop
suppliers did not adequately convey risks or implement safety
precautions. At least one person involved in the class action has
died from the disease, and 15 more cases are considered terminal.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Construction Firm Fined GBP176,500 for Removal
---------------------------------------------------------------
PBC Today reported that a construction company and its director
have been fined over GBP170,000 after failing to ensure the safe
removal of asbestos during demolition work
Greater Manchester Magistrates' Court heard how Sherwood Homes
Limited was the client responsible for the demolition of Crowton
Mill in Northwich. Peter Kiely was a director of the company when
the results of an asbestos survey conducted in January 2017 were
received that identified the presence of asbestos containing
materials on the site. The extra work required to remove the
asbestos increased the estimated costs and timescale for the
completion of the demolition.

An investigation carried out by the Health and Safety Executive
(HSE) discovered that Sherwood Homes Limited failed to ensure
suitable contractors were used to carry out the asbestos removal
work and demolition of the mill in February 2017. No record of a
notification to HSE to remove asbestos had been received for the
site. No details of how the asbestos containing materials were
removed or how they were disposed of were provided to HSE.

Sherwood Homes Limited had previous enforcement by HSE, including
prosecution in 2018 in relation to their role as a construction
client.

Sherwood Homes Limited was found guilty to breaching regulation
4(1) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015.
The company was fined GBP170,000 and ordered to pay costs of
GBP10,406.

Company director Peter Kiely pleaded guilty to breaching section 37
of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, in relation to the
company's failure of regulation 4(1) of the Construction (Design
and Management) Regulations 2015. Peter Kiely was fined GBP6,500
and ordered to pay costs of GBP700.

HSE Inspector David Norton said: "Asbestos is responsible for
thousands of deaths in the UK every year but it only becomes
dangerous when it is broken up and fibres are released into the
air. Asbestos should only be removed by specialist contractors.

"Sherwood Homes Ltd and Peter Kiely put workers at risk by not
following the correct safety procedures. Companies should be aware
that HSE will not hesitate to take appropriate enforcement action
against those that fall below the required standards."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA to Remove Asbestos Debris From Tire Plant
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Barker, writing for Joplin Globe, reported that the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency will begin working to remove
asbestos-tainted debris piles from the former B.F. Goodrich tire
plant in Miami as part of an emergency action.

In partnership with the Oklahoma Department of Environmental
Quality, the EPA is hosting a community meeting from 6:30 to 8 p.m.
in the Miami Civic Center, 129 Fifth Ave. NW, to discuss the
cleanup and removal of tons of asbestos-containing debris at the
plant site. The goal is to remove the debris over the next three to
four months, which will be disposed of at an approved landfill.

Rebecca Jim, executive director of the LEAD Agency nonprofit
organization in Miami, said everyone within a mile radius of the
plant received a letter informing them of the meeting.

"They're going to tear down two buildings and get rid of all of the
rubble piles," Jim said. "The rubble piles all have friable
asbestos, which means it could become airborne and hurt people.
It's slow, but it's going to be thorough. If we can get the
immediate work done on removing exposure to asbestos, it's really
important."

The plant began operating in the mid-1940s and shut down in 1986.
The EPA completed an assessment of approximately 60-acres at the
site in search of asbestos-containing material in the demolition
piles, utility pits and buildings in late 2018. Asbestos removal at
the site was halted in late 2014 after the property owner declared
Chapter 11 bankruptcy the following year.

Several debris piles and structures at the plant site contain
asbestos and have become a human health issue as trespassers
continue to break into the site. The oven building, the powerhouse
and the small brick office at the front property have high levels
of asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Cleared of Negligence in Mechanic's Death
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reported that a Washington state federal court found no
evidence that Ford Motor Co. or Dana Companies LLC was negligent in
the mesothelioma death of a former automotive mechanic and shipyard
inspector who used the companies' asbestos-laden products.

U.S. District Judge James L. Robart said in his opinion that there
is no evidence that shows that Patrick Jack could have saved his
own life from the mesothelioma that killed him had the suppliers of
the asbestos-containing equipment publicized the potential health
dangers, even following his employment with them.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Still Defends Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand Public Limited Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that more than 75 percent of
the open and active claims against the Company at March 31, 2019
are non-malignant or unspecified disease claims.

The Company states, "Certain wholly-owned subsidiaries and former
companies of ours are named as defendants in asbestos-related
lawsuits in state and federal courts.  In virtually all of the
suits, a large number of other companies have also been named as
defendants.  The vast majority of those claims have been filed
against either Ingersoll-Rand Company or Trane U.S. Inc. (Trane)
and generally allege injury caused by exposure to asbestos
contained in certain historical products sold by Ingersoll-Rand
Company or Trane, primarily pumps, boilers and railroad brake
shoes.  None of our existing or previously-owned businesses were a
producer or manufacturer of asbestos.

"The Company engages an outside expert to perform a detailed
analysis and project an estimated range of the Company's total
liability for pending and unasserted future asbestos-related
claims.  In accordance with ASC 450, the Company records the
liability at the low end of the range as it believes that no amount
within the range is a better estimate than any other amount.
Asbestos-related defense costs are excluded from the liability and
are recorded separately as services are incurred.  The methodology
used to prepare estimates relies upon and includes the following
factors, among others:

   * the outside expert's interpretation of a widely accepted
forecast of the population likely to have been occupationally
exposed to asbestos;

   * epidemiological studies estimating the number of people likely
to develop asbestos-related diseases such as mesothelioma and lung
cancer;

   * the Company's historical experience with the filing of
non-malignancy claims and claims alleging other types of malignant
diseases filed against the Company relative to the number of lung
cancer claims filed against the Company;

   * the outside expert's analysis of the number of people likely
to file an asbestos-related personal injury claim against the
Company based on such epidemiological and historical data and the
Company's claims history;

   * an analysis of the Company's pending cases, by type of disease
claimed and by year filed;

   * an analysis of the Company's history to determine the average
settlement and resolution value of claims, by type of disease
claimed;

   * an adjustment for inflation in the future average settlement
value of claims, at a 2.5% annual inflation rate, adjusted downward
to 1.0% to take account of the declining value of claims resulting
from the aging of the claimant population; and

   * an analysis of the period over which the Company has and is
likely to resolve asbestos-related claims against it in the future
(currently projected through 2053).

"At March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, over 75 percent of the
open and active claims against the Company are non-malignant or
unspecified disease claims.  In addition, the Company has a number
of claims which have been placed on inactive or deferred dockets
and expected to have little or no settlement value against the
Company."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/jQPcXx


ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Ordered to Pay $300MM in Olson Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Berkeley Lovelace Jr., writing for CNBC, reported that Johnson &
Johnson was ordered to pay $300 million in punitive damages to a
woman who blamed her rare asbestos-related cancer on the company's
talc-based products, the company confirmed.

The decision brings the total award in the case to $325 million.
The New York state jury earlier this month awarded $25 million to
the woman, Donna Olson, 66, and her husband in compensatory
damages. That same day jurors in a similar case in South Carolina
cleared the company of liability.

"With this verdict, yet another jury has rejected J&J's misleading
claims that its talc was free of asbestos," said Jerome Block, the
lead trial attorney in the New York case. "The internal J&J
documents that the jury saw, once more laid bare the shocking truth
of decades of cover-up, deception and concealment by J&J of the
asbestos found in talc baby powder."

J&J faces more than 13,000 talc-related lawsuits. The consumer
products company, which makes everything from Tylenol to Aveeno
lotions, denies allegations that its talc causes cancer. It said
numerous studies and tests by regulators worldwide have shown that
its talc is safe and asbestos-free.

"This trial suffered significant legal and evidentiary errors which
Johnson & Johnson believes will warrant a reversal on appeal," J&J
said in a statement to CNBC. "Decades of tests by independent
experts and academic institutions repeatedly confirm that Johnson's
Baby Powder does not contain asbestos or cause cancer."

"Of all the verdicts against Johnson & Johnson that have been
through the appellate process, every one has been overturned," the
company added.

J&J relaunched its iconic namesake baby product line last summer to
reverse a decline in J&J's baby care unit. While trusted for
decades, the 124-year-old brand had fallen out of touch with
consumers, namely millennial moms, who opted instead for cleaner,
natural products from trendy upstart brands.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J, Colgate Created "Severe Health Hazard"
------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reported that attorneys representing a woman alleging
Johnson & Johnson and Colgate-Palmolive's talcum products caused
her mesothelioma asked a California jury to award her tens of
millions of dollars during trial closings, arguing the companies
knew cancer-causing asbestos was in their products for decades and
they posed a "severe health hazard."

During trial in Oakland, California, Patricia Schmitz's attorney,
Joseph Satterley of Kazan McClain Satterly & Greenwood, argued that
internal documents show that J&J tried to suppress, remove or
destroy asbestos in its baby powder and Shower to Shower talc
products since the 1960s.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaman Corp. Still Faces Suits at March 29
----------------------------------------------------------
Kaman Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 29, 2019, that based on information currently available, it
does not believe that the resolution of any currently pending
asbestos-related matters will have a material adverse effect on its
business, financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows.

The Company states, "Like many other industrial companies, the
Company and/or one of its subsidiaries may be named as a defendant
in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos integrated into certain products sold or distributed by
the Company and/or the named subsidiary.  A substantial majority of
these asbestos-related claims have been covered by insurance or
other forms of indemnity or have been dismissed without payment.
The rest have been resolved for amounts that are not material to
the Company, either individually or in the aggregate.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/adsi3I


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lanier Law's $4.69-Bil. Win Named 2018 Top Verdict
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Lanier Law Firm's $4.69 billion trial win on behalf of 22 women
who alleged that decades of daily use of Johnson & Johnson's
asbestos-laden talcum powder caused their ovarian cancer is the
largest verdict delivered in the U.S. in 2018, The National Law
Journal reports.

Each year the legal publication's VerdictSearch research affiliate
compiles court records to determine the nation's largest verdicts,
based on actual jury awards. National Law Journal editors also
search online news sources and databases to ensure the accuracy of
the list.

"We are honored to receive this recognition on behalf of our
clients," said Mark Lanier, founder of The Lanier Law Firm. "We
continue to believe that public awareness and scrutiny will inspire
government regulators, the cosmetics industry, and Johnson &
Johnson itself to acknowledge the inherent dangers of talc
products. We hope that will lead to warning labels on these
products or their removal from store shelves."

While there have been other trials in which juries have determined
that talc products tainted with asbestos caused mesothelioma
cancer, this case marked the first talc-related ovarian cancer
verdict in the United States. Jurors heard evidence that Johnson &
Johnson's Baby Powder and Shower to Shower brands have been laced
with asbestos for decades, challenging representations J&J made to
the Food and Drug Administration and other national and
international agencies.

In addition to Mr. Lanier, the trial team included firm attorneys
Rachel Lanier, Dr. Robert Leone, Michael Akselrud, and Monica
Cooper. Co-counsel Eric D. Holland of the Holland Law Firm in St.
Louis, Missouri, was also integrally involved in the trial.

The Lanier Law Firm has offices in Houston, Oklahoma City, New
York, and Los Angeles. For close to 30 years, the firm has worked
tirelessly to find unique solutions to its clients' unique needs.
The firm is composed of more than 60 skilled attorneys, practicing
in a broad array of areas, including business fraud, asbestos
exposure, commercial litigation, personal injury, oil and gas
litigation, among others. Visit http://www.lanierlawfirm.com

Media Contact:

     J.D. Cargill
     Tel: (713) 659-5200
     Email: jdc@lanierlawfirm.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mineralogist Says No Asbestos in J&J Baby Powder
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Sammon, writing for Northern California Record, reported that
a mineralogist called by attorneys defending Johnson & Johnson said
there was no asbestos found in the baby powder he tested from talc
mines in Italy and Vermont.

"Do you have an opinion whether asbestos was found in Cashmere
Bouquet containers?" asked Peter Mularczyk, attorney for Johnson &
Johnson.

"Asbestos has not been found," responded Matthew Sanchez,
mineralogist with the R.J. Lee Group, a Pennsylvania materials
testing lab.

The trial in the Alameda County Superior Court is being streamed
live via Courtroom View Network.

Plaintiff Patricia Schmitz sued Johnson & Johnson for its baby
powder and Colgate-Palmolive for its Cashmere Bouquet, an adult
face powder product, claiming her 40-year use of the products
allegedly tainted with asbestos caused her to develop mesothelioma,
a deadly cancer of the lungs.

Sanchez has been called by defendant lawyers in part to counter the
testimony of William Longo, a Georgia microscope researcher who
testified for plaintiff lawyers saying he had found asbestos in
samplings of the powder.

"What have you been asked to do?" Mularczyk asked.

"To look at source mines used for talc in both Cashmere Bouquet and
Johnson & Johnson," Sanchez said.

"Do you have an opinion of the mines Colgate-Palmolive used?"
Mularczyk asked.

"You would not expect to find asbestos in those mines," Sanchez
said.

Talc powder for use in the products was acquired in Italy, North
Carolina, Vermont and since 2003 in China.

Sanchez said asbestos had not been found from samples taken from
Cashmere Bouquet containers.

He agreed that testing was done with a variety of tools, including
the use of X-ray diffraction to determine crystal structure, a
polarized light microscope (PLM), transmission electron microscope
(TEM), and scanning electron microscope (SEM).

"Can a non-asbestos rock be crushed and form asbestos?" Mularczyk
asked.

"No," Sanchez answered.

An issue in the trial and in past asbestos trials has been that of
cleavage fragments, crushed rock particles generated in the milling
process of talc, a mined mineral. Defendant attorneys claim
cleavage particles are not asbestos and not toxic. Plaintiff
attorneys contend they can be asbestos.

Sanchez disputed Longo's findings, saying because cleavage
fragments can be long and thin in size and shape like asbestos
fibers, Longo had misidentified cleavage fragments as asbestos
fibers.

"If it was greater than 3-to-1 (length to width) in ratio, they
(Longo) called it asbestos," Sanchez said. "If it was less than
3-to-1 they called it cleavage fragments."

"Can you misidentify?" Mularczyk asked.

"Yes, you will get false positives," Sanchez said.

Sanchez said Longo had also misidentified cummingtonite, a
non-asbestos amphibole mineral, as anthopolite, a form of asbestos.
In addition, he agreed Longo had misidentified fibers as bundles
common in asbestos when they were actually not bundles.

Alex Calfo, attorney for Johnson & Johnson, asked Sanchez if
asbestos had been found in mines in Italy or Vermont.

"No," Sanchez said.

Sanchez said he had found non-asbestos serpentine minerals and
chloride, which are not dangerous.

Calfo asked if Longo and another plaintiff witness, Lee Poye of the
J3 Resources testing lab in Houston, were geologists or
mineralogists.

Sanchez agreed they were not.

"Is it your understanding that Longo and Poye have not been to the
talc mines?"

"That's correct," Sanchez said.

During his testimony, Longo touted use of the concentration method
of testing talc powder. The testing, developed in the 1970s, uses
talc powder spun in a tube filled with heavy liquid to separate
talc from heavier materials, which sink to the bottom and can be
analyzed by a microscope.

Officials of Johnson & Johnson declined to use the method saying it
was ineffective, while critics of the company alleged that J&J
officials were disturbed the technique was too sensitive and might
find asbestos in the powder.

Sanchez said the heavy liquid separation method had flaws, for
example an inability to spot chrysotile, a form of asbestos.

He agreed with Calfo's statement that not a single government
agency had adopted concentration as a testing technique, nor had a
number of scientists.

"Yes," Sanchez said. "You need to identify what you separate
correctly. If you try to separate chrysotile (using concentration)
you ignore amphiboles. If you try to separate amphiboles you ignore
chrysotile."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pollution Exemption Clears Insurer from Obligation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for the St. Louis Record, reported that a
federal judge has determined Insurance Co. of North America (INA)
owes no money to Zurich American Insurance Co. stemming from the
settlement of an asbestos claim.

Both companies provided coverage for Anheuser-Busch during the time
period in which the underlying plaintiff's asbestos exposure
allegedly occurred. It was Zurich that settled and paid the claim
on behalf of Anheuser-Busch in 2014, after which it sued INA over
allegations of equitable contribution, subrogation and unjust
enrichment. INA asserted a defense of failure to include all
necessary parties, prompting Zurich to add the beer company as a
defendant, only for it to be dismissed from the suit on May 8,
2018.

In an opinion issued May 21, Judge Catherine Perry of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri said both
parties moved for summary judgment. She explained the underlying
lawsuit, Cotter v. Am. Insulation Corp., was a 2008 wrongful death
claim from the wife of a former brewery employee who alleged she
contracted mesothelioma from asbestos fibers her husband carried
home from work on his clothing.

Perry pointed to a 2017 Missouri Court of Appeals opinion in Nooter
Corp. v. Allianz Underwriters Insurance holding a "targeted
insurer" that covers an entire loss can seek contributions from
other "trigged insurers," as well as recovery standards allowing
one insurer to recover the excess it may have paid from another.

INA maintained the policies it wrote for Anheuser-Busch had a
pollution exclusion, but Zurich said INA waived its right to assert
that exclusion when failed to plead it as an affirmative defense.
INA said it made such a pleading in its 12th affirmative defense.
Perry noted the burden of proving the exclusion lies with INA, then
explained how it met that burden.

"There is no ambiguity in the terms of the policy, which plainly
bars coverage for the types of asbestos claims raised in the Cotter
case," Perry wrote, adding Zurich's arguments about the ambiguity
of the policy regarding whether asbestos is an irritant or a
contaminant fail because "the policy is not rendered ambiguous as a
matter of law merely because asbestos is not explicitly listed in
the exclusion."

Perry said the Missouri Supreme Court, in a 2017 opinion in Doe Run
Residential Corp. v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance, said
an insurer's pollution exemption precluded coverage connected to
alleged lead pollution even though the exemption language didn't
explicitly mention lead.

Zurich also argued INA's exemption was insufficient because it
addresses pollutants discharged in the atmosphere, whereas the
wrongful death suit alleged contact with asbestos fibers on
clothing. Perry said that argument failed because the type of
contaminant release alleged "clearly and unambiguously constitutes
a release 'in the atmosphere' because it occurred outside the
confines of the brewery's building. (Zurich) offers no explanation
-- nor could it -- of how the asbestos could travel from inside the
brewery and come into contact with the decedent without also being
released into the "atmosphere.'"

INA also had to demonstrate how the alleged discharge of asbestos
fibers was neither sudden nor accidental, but Zurich didn't contest
whether INA demonstrated its burden of proof on that issue.
Further, Perry wrote, the Anheuser-Busch "allegedly had knowledge
of the dangers posed by the toxic dust when it released from the
brewery and of the need for hygienic procedures to protect from
these dangers, but failed and refused to implement any safety
procedures, such as laundry services, to protect those at risk from
these dangers."

Finding the pollution exemption meant INA had no obligation to
contribute to the policy, regardless of the timing of the
underlying complaint or exposure, Perry granted INA's motion for
summary judgment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Estimates $70.2MM Liability
---------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation estimates US$70.2 million liability as of March
31, 2019, for all current and future asbestos-related claims
through 2058, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019.

As of March 31, 2019, the projected asbestos-related insurance
receivables were US$63.8 million.

The Company states, "We recognize a liability for asbestos-related
contingencies that are probable of occurrence and reasonably
estimable.  In connection with the recognition of liabilities for
asbestos-related matters, we record asbestos-related insurance
receivables that are deemed probable.

"The liability projection period covers all current and future
claims through 2058, which represents the expected end of our
asbestos liability exposure with no further ongoing claims expected
beyond that date.  This conclusion was based on our history and
experience with the claims data, the diminished volatility and
consistency of observable claims data, the period of time that has
elapsed since we stopped manufacturing products that contained
encapsulated asbestos and an expected downward trend in claims due
to the average age of our claimants, which is approaching the
average life expectancy.

"To date, the defense and settlement costs of our asbestos-related
product liability litigation have been substantially covered by
insurance.  We have identified continuous coverage for primary,
excess and umbrella insurance from the 1950s through the mid-1980s,
except for a period in the early 1960s, with respect to which we
have entered into an agreement for primary, but not excess or
umbrella, coverage.  In addition, we have entered into a cost
sharing agreement with most of our primary, excess and umbrella
insurance carriers to facilitate the ongoing administration and
payment of claims by the carriers.  The cost sharing agreement may
be terminated by any party, but will continue until a party elects
to terminate it.  As of the filing date for this report, the
agreement has not been terminated, and no carrier had informed us
it intended to terminate the agreement.  During 2018, we received
notices that primary coverage for a period of eight years and
excess coverage for a period of three years had been exhausted.  In
the three months ended March 31, 2019, we incurred an immaterial
amount of indemnity and defense costs, primarily related to the
period.  We expect to exhaust individual primary, excess and
umbrella coverages over time, and there is no assurance that such
exhaustion will not accelerate due to additional claims, damages
and settlements or that coverage will be available as expected.

"The amounts recorded for the asbestos-related liability and the
related insurance receivables are based on facts known at the time
and a number of assumptions.  However, projecting future events,
such as the number of new claims to be filed each year, the average
cost of disposing of such claims, the length of time it takes to
dispose of such claims, coverage issues among insurers and the
continuing solvency of various insurance companies, as well as the
numerous uncertainties surrounding asbestos litigation in the
United States, could cause the actual liability and insurance
recoveries for us to be higher or lower than those projected or
recorded."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/454TFF


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Had 789 Pending Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation continues to face 789 asbestos-related product
liability claims as of March 31, 2019, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "We, like many other industrial companies, have
been named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits filed in courts
across the country by persons alleging personal injury from
exposure to products containing asbestos.  We have never mined,
milled, manufactured or marketed asbestos; rather, we made and
provided to industrial users a limited number of products that
contained encapsulated asbestos, but we stopped manufacturing these
products in the late 1980s.  Most of the claims filed against us
involve numerous defendants, sometimes as many as several hundred.

"For the three months ended March 31, 2019, 34 claims were
dismissed and 4 claims were settled.  Settlements totaled
approximately US$0.5 million for the three months ended March 31,
2019."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/454TFF


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Units Still Face 9 Claims at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Transocean Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019, that nine plaintiffs have claims pending in
Louisiana against the Company's subsidiaries at March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "In 2004, several of our subsidiaries were
named, along with numerous other unaffiliated defendants in
complaints filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi,
and in 2014, a group of similar complaints were filed in Louisiana.
The plaintiffs, former employees of some of the defendants,
generally allege that the defendants used or manufactured asbestos
containing drilling mud additives for use in connection with
drilling operations, claiming negligence, products liability,
strict liability and claims allowed under the Jones Act and general
maritime law.  The plaintiffs generally seek awards of unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, but the court-appointed special
master has ruled that a Jones Act employer defendant, such as us,
cannot be sued for punitive damages.

"At March 31, 2019, nine plaintiffs have claims pending in
Louisiana, in which we have or may have an interest.  We intend to
defend these lawsuits vigorously, although we can provide no
assurance as to the outcome.  We historically have maintained broad
liability insurance, although we are not certain whether insurance
will cover the liabilities, if any, arising out of these claims.
Based on our evaluation of the exposure to date, we do not expect
the liability, if any, resulting from these claims to have a
material adverse effect on our condensed consolidated statement of
financial position, results of operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/gm0Zor


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Diagnosed with Cancer Secure Cash Benefits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leeville Daily Leader reported that plant workers employed before
1981 diagnosed with various cancers are entitled to special
benefits. Lung cancer, esophageal cancer, laryngeal cancer,
pharyngeal cancer, stomach cancer, colon cancer, rectal cancer, and
mesothelioma are frequently caused by asbestos exposure.
Asbestos-laced products were used for decades at Dow Chemical.
Neither employees nor management were aware of the asbestos risk.

Asbestos is a mineral that in its natural state is harmless. It
becomes harmful when it is pulled apart or ground up into flexible
fibers. Then, when inhaled or swallowed, microscopic asbestos
fibers may be permanently affixed to body tissue. Over many years,
these fibers may cause genetic changes that can lead to cancer.
According to the National Cancer Institute, "It can take from 10 to
40 years or more for asbestos-related cancers to appear."

To compensate cancer victims and the families of deceased cancer
victims, Federal Bankruptcy Courts have required asbestos
manufacturers to set aside hundreds of millions of dollars in
private trusts. Through these trusts, cancer victims can receive
money damages by the filing of timely, detailed, and accurate
claims.

Norris Injury Lawyers has announced a specific initiative to assist
Dow Chemical employees in recovering money set aside for them in
these asbestos trusts. Cancer victims or the families of deceased
victims who worked at the plant before 1981 may call 800-478-9578
for a free evaluation of their claim. Additional information is
available at getnorris.com/asb



                            *********

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 ***