CAR_Public/190618.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, June 18, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 121

                            Headlines

ACAPULCO MEXICATESSEN: Juarez Seeks OT Pay, Minimum Wage
AKORN INC: Data Integrity Securities Litigation Ongoing
ALASKA AIR: Appeals Ruling in Flight Attendants' Suit
AMNEAL PHARMA: Appeal in Williams Class Suit Ongoing
AMNEAL PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Digoxin-Related Class Suit Pending

AMNEAL PHARMA: Opposition in Opana ER(R) Suit Due Aug. 8
AMNEAL PHARMA: Settlement Reached in Sergeants Benevolent Suit
ANGI HOMESERVICES: Bid to Amend Costello Complaint Pending
ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV: Gamboa Seeks to Recover Unlawful Deductions
AQUANTIA CORP: Sabatini Balks at Merger Deal with Marvell

ASTEC INDUSTRIES: City of Taylor General Employees Suit Ongoing
BABCOCK & WILCOX: Kent Seeks More Info on Revised Credit Agreement
BIOTIME INC: Continues to Defend Lampe Class Action
BLOOMFIELD, MI: Youmans Appeals Cir. Ct. Order to Mich. App. Ct.
BLUE SKY: Enters Receivership Amid Class Actions

CAPITAL ONE: Rodriguez Sues over Unauthorized Credit Inquiries
CARDINAL HEALTH: Bellwether Trial in Opioid Suits Set for October
CARTUS CORPORATION: Pereltsvaig Seeks Unpaid Wages
CATALDO 54: Escorcia Suit Alleges NYLL and FLSA Violations
CELLULAR SALES: Proskauer Rose Discusses Class Certification Denial

CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Faces WildHorse Merger-Related Class Suits
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Settlement of Oklahoma Suits Approved
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Suit v. FTS International in Texas Ongoing
CIOX HEALTH: Court Grants Bids for Judgment on Pleadings in Ortiz
CONAM MANAGEMENT: Bid to Modify Discovery Order in Cuevas Denied

CONCENTRIX CORP: Knight Moves to Certify Call Center Agents Class
CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE: Slam Dunk Sues over Breach of Contract
COOK COUNTY, IL: Dismissal of 1st Amended Acevedo Suit Affirmed
COUSINS PROPERTIES: Investors Challenge TIER REIT Merger
COVIA HOLDINGS: Consolidated Class Suit over Merger Deal Dismissed

CROSS TIMBERS: Trustee to Review Chieftain Royalty Suit Settlement
DELIVERCLUB INC: Warren Sues over Unwanted Telemarketing Messages
DOMINION ENERGY: Awaits Court's Decision on Fairness Hearing
DOMINION ENERGY: Metzler Lawsuit on SCANA Merger Remains Pending
DOMINION ENERGY: RICO Class Action Remains Pending

DOMINION ENERGY: Santee Cooper Ratepayers Class Suit Still Pending
DUKE ENERGY: Denies Employee Benefit Plans, Pridy et al., say
EMC INSURANCE: Faces Class Action in Iowa State Court
ENDO INT'L: Settlement in Principle Reached in Miss. PERS Suit
FIRST BANCORP: Next Hearing in Torres Suit Set for September 2019

FIRST DATA: Skulsky Sues Board for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
FISHER-PRICE: Wray Files Suit Over Dangerous Sleepers
FLOWERS FOODS: FLSA Class in Carr Suit Gets Final Certification
FORD MOTOR: Lied About Fuel-Efficiency Testing Practices
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Corvette Faulty Wheels

GHS INTERACTIVE: Miholich Sues over Unwanted Cellular Phone Calls
GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: Appeal in Transient Tax-Related Suit Ongoing
GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: June 2019 Final Settlement Fairness Hearing
HAIN CELESTIAL: 2nd Amended Complaint Filed in Securities Suit
HAIN CELESTIAL: Agrees to Stay Consolidated Stockholder Class Suit

HERTZ LOCAL: Removes Moore Case to S.D. California
HOLLISTER CO: Haggar et al. Sue over Website's Limited Access
HOMEFED CORPORATION: Wolf Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
HUDSON'S BAY: Court Narrows Claims in 2nd Amended Rudolph Suit
HYUNDAI: Faces Class Action Over Elantra Piston Defect

IDT ENERGY: Bid to Quash Subpoena in Mackey TCPA Suit Partly Okayed
IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Bid to Consolidate Odeh & Choi Suits Pending
IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Wins Dismissal of Consolidated Fergus Suit
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Amended Complaint Filed in Batres Class Action
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Appeal Ongoing in Timm Class Action

IMPAC MORTGAGE: Bid to Arbitrate Riggin's Class Suit Granted
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Continues to Defend McNair Class Action
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Notice of Appeal Filed in Marentes Class Suit
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Parties in Baker Suit Ink Settlement
INNOVATIVE COURIER: Rutledge Seeks Overtime Pay for Drivers

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Wilson Talc Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
JONES BENITEZ: Rios Sues over Pregnancy Discrimination
LAMP PLUS: Mintz Attorney Discusses Supreme Court Ruling
LOCK HAVEN: Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment in Robb Suit Denied
MASSAGE ENVY: Lapa Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.

MASSAGE ENVY: Lapa Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif.
MCCLATCHY CO: Third Phase Trial in Sawin Case to Start June 20
MDL 1566: Court Remands Arandell and New Page Claims to W.D. Wis.
MDL 2244: Court Vacates Conditional Transfer Order in Cardoza Suit
MDL 2493: Court Denies Bid to Remand Bank v. Alliance Security

MDL 2626: Alcon Vision Lawsuit Moved to Middle District of Florida
MDL 2669: Court Remands Doe Suit to Southern Dist. of Mississippi
MDL 2672: Feinman Suit Moved to Northern District of California
MDL 2738: Kannady, et al. Suit Moved to District of New Jersey
MDL 2750: Goodwin and Lo Re Suits Moved to District of New Jersey

MDL 2768: Lakeland Regional vs. Howmedica Moved to Massachusetts
MDL 2800: Luciano vs. Equifax Informational Moved to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2801: Avnet v. Panasonic Moved to Northern Dist. of California
MDL 2804: 13 Suits Transferred to Northern District of Ohio
MDL 2807: 2 Suits vs. Sonic Corp. Moved to Northern Dist. of Ohio

MDL 2873: 3 Suits vs. 3M Co., et al. Transferred to South Carolina
MDL 2879: Mann Suit v. Starwood Hotels Moved to Maryland District
MDL 2885: Norman Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation
MDL 2887: 6 Suits vs. Hill's Pet Nutrition Moved to Kansas
MDL 2888: Court Denies Motion to Centralize 3 ABMS Antitrust Suits

MDL 2889: Court Denies Bid to Centralize 5 Equinor Royalty Suits
MDL 2890: Court Denies Bid to Centralize Pay Discrimination Suit
MDL 2892: Court Denies Bid to Centralize Suits vs. GemCap Lending
MDL 2893: Enginuity Withdraws Bid for Centralization
MDL 2894: Court Denies Bid to Centralize 4 Grille Trademark Suit

MEDICAL GUARDIAN: Perrong Sues over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Class Action Over Defective Radiators Tossed
MERCK: Fosamax Case Decision Expected to Set Precedent
MONSANTO CO: Brizendine Seeks Damages for Roundup-related Injuries
MONSANTO CO: Faces Kendrick Suit Over Roundup-related Injuries

MONSANTO CO: Faces Thirstrup Suit Over Damages From Using Roundup
MONSANTO CO: Indelicato Sues Over Injuries From Roundup Exposure
MONSANTO CO: Martin Sues Over Injuries From Roundup Exposure
MONSANTO CO: Ponzini Sues Over Lymphoma From Using Roundup
MONSANTO CO: Roundup Caused Lymphoma, Reed Suit Says

MOVIE GRILL CONCEPTS: Tate Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Class Actions Over Commissions Pending
NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: Cal. App. Flips Timlick FDCPA Suit Dismissal
NATIONAL VISION: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit vs. FirstSight Pending
NATIONAL VISION: Remand of Cal. Wage & Hour Class Action Sought

NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Mulquin Class Action in Calif. Ongoing
NERDWALLET INC: Bunting Suit Alleges ADA Violation
NEW YORK, NY: Removes Reaves Harassment Suit to E.D. New York
OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Appeal in Securities Class Action Underway
OSMOTICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Shumacher Class Suit

PERRIGO CO: Baton Class Suit in Tel Aviv Stayed
PERRIGO CO: Settlement of Eltroxin Litigation Wins Court Approval
PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend IV Saline Solution Class Suit
PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Lipitor-Related Antitrust Suits
PFIZER INC: Faces Class Suits Related to Adalimumab Biosimilars

PFIZER INC: Hormone Therapy Consumer Class Action Ongoing
PFIZER INC: Wyeth Still Defends Class Suit over Effexor XR Sales
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: 9th Cir. Grants Petition for Leave to Appeal
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Appeal in TX Consolidated Class Suit Pending
POOL & PATIO: Bobola Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

PORSCHE: Wants Cayenne Coolant Leak Class Action Dismissed
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Putnam Sues over Debt Collection Practices
PROFESSIONAL TRANS: Removes Oglesby Case to D. South Carolina
PULMAN CAPPUCINO & PULLEN: Faces White's FDCA Suit in Texas
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Vieyra Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info

QUINTANA ENERGY: Unit Still Defends Class Suit over FLSA Violation
RADIUS GLOBAL: Reyes Sues over Debt Collection Practices
RAYMOND JAMES: Agreement in Principle Reached in Wistar Class Suit
RAYMOND JAMES: Settlement Reached in Brink Class Suit
RENT-A-CENTER INC: Hall Settlement Finally Approved

RENT-A-CENTER INC: Russell Suit v. Acceptance Now Ongoing
RENT-A-CENTER INC: Settlement Reached in Blair Class Action
ROCKWELL MEDICAL: Still Defends Too & Spock Consolidated Suit
SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Awaits Final OK of Settlement in Parmelee Suit
SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Mexican Govt Bonds Suit Pending

SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Merits Discovery in Deka Suit Remains Stayed
SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Ponsa-Rabell Suit v. SSLLC Ongoing
SGS NORTH AMERICA: Tamimi Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
SKECHERS USA: Continues to Defend Wilk Class Action
SKECHERS USA: Court Sets Briefing Schedule on Dismissal Bid

SKECHERS USA: Faces Guzman Class Suit in California
SKECHERS USA: Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan Suit Ongoing
SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Hartsock Class Suit
SWAN FINANCIAL: Guillory Seeks OT, Minimum Pay for Loan Officers
TG THERAPEUTICS: Reinmann Suit Voluntarily Dismissed

THINK FINANCE: Scheff Declaration Struck from Gibbs RICO Suit
TIDELANDS HEALTH: Sawyer Asserts Medical Leave Act Breach
TIME TO EAT DINER: Thomas' Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot
TIVITY HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Weiner Class Suit Ongoing
TRU-FLEX METAL: Adams Moves to Certify Classes of Pro-Flex Buyers

UNITED STATES: Kowalski Suit Transferred to C.D. Illinois
UNITED STATES: Passut Sues Dept. of Education Over ACICS Fiasco
UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Judge Scola Recuses Himself from Class Action
VAN RU CREDIT: Horvath Sues over Debt Collection Practices
VENATOR MATERIALS: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Class Suits

VISION PRECISION HOLDINGS: Martinez Faces Labor Suit in Calif.
VOYA RETIREMENT: Bid to Drop Goetz Class Suit Still Pending
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Ayala Suit Moved From S.D. Texas to D. Arizona
WELTMAN WEINBERG: Gardner Sues over Debt Collection Practices
WESLEY APARTMENT: Seeks 11th Cir. Review of Ruling in Whelan Suit

WOOD-MODE: Faces Class Action Over WARN Act Violation

                            *********

ACAPULCO MEXICATESSEN: Juarez Seeks OT Pay, Minimum Wage
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Acapulco
Mexicatessen, Inc. for California Labor Code violations and unfair
business practices stemming from its failure to pay minimum and
straight time wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to
provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods,
failure to maintain accurate records of hours worked and meal
periods, failure to timely pay all wages to its terminated
employees, failure to indemnify necessary business expenses, and
failure to furnish accurate wage statements. The case is captioned
ANA JUAREZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. ACAPULCO MEXICATESSEN, INC. a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
19STCV17974 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 23, 2019).

Plaintiff Ana Juarez seeks to recover unpaid wages, attorneys'
fees, costs of suit, and any other relief as the court may deem
equitable and appropriate.

Established in 1945, Acapulco Mexicatessen, Inc. offers a complete
line of fresh tortillas available in a variety of flavors including
Flour and Traditional (Mexican corn) style, along with tostadas and
chips made with real premium quality Nixtamal. The company is based
in Los Angeles, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kane Moon, Esq.
     Allen Feghali, Esq.
     MOON & YANG, APC
     1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880
     Los Angeles, CA 90017
     Telephone: (213) 232-3128
     Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
     E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
             allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com


AKORN INC: Data Integrity Securities Litigation Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Akorn, 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 Court has held that the Data
Integrity Securities Litigation and Wickstrom action are related
and extended the discovery and pretrial deadlines.

On March 8, 2018, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
putative class action complaint entitled Joshi Living Trust v.
Akorn, Inc. et al., in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint named as defendants the Company, Chief Executive
Officer Rajat Rai, Chief Financial Officer Duane Portwood and Chief
Accounting Officer Randall Pollard.

The complaint alleged that defendants made materially false or
misleading statements and/or material omissions by failing to
disclose sooner the existence of investigations into data integrity
at the Company.

The Complaint sought, among other things, an award of damages,
attorneys' fees and expenses. The Company disputes these claims.

On May 31, 2018, the Court issued an order appointing Gabelli & Co.
Investment Advisors, Inc. and Gabelli Funds, LLC as lead plaintiffs
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"),
approving their selection of lead counsel and liaison counsel and
amending the case caption to In re Akorn, Inc. Data Integrity
Securities Litigation (the "Data Integrity Securities Litigation").


On June 14, 2018, lead plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the PSLRA
stay of discovery. On June 22, 2018, the Company filed a memorandum
in opposition to the motion to lift the PSLRA stay. On June 26,
2018, the Court denied the motion to lift the PSLRA stay, subject
to entry of a preservation order.

On September 5, 2018, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
against the Company, Rajat Rai, Duane A. Portwood, Mark M.
Silverberg, Alan Weinstein, Ronald M. Johnson, Brian Tambi, John
Kapoor, Kenneth S. Abramowitz, Adrienne L. Graves, Steven J. Meyer
and Terry A. Rappuhn.

The amended complaint asserts (i) claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Fraud Claims")
against Defendants Akorn, Rai, Portwood, Silverberg, Weinstein,
Johnson and Tambi; and (ii) claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Proxy Claims") against
defendants Akorn, Rai, Kapoor, Weinstein, Abramowitz, Graves,
Johnson, Meyer, Rappuhn and Tambi.

The amended complaint alleges that, during a class period from
November 3, 2016, to April 20, 2018, defendants knew or recklessly
disregarded widespread institutional data integrity problems at
Akorn's manufacturing and research and development facilities,
while making or causing Akorn to make contrary misleading
statements and omissions of material fact concerning the Company's
data integrity at its facilities.

The amended complaint alleges that corrective information was
provided to the market on two separate dates, causing non-insider
shareholders to lose over $1.07 billion and $613 million in value
respectively. The amended complaint seeks an award of equitable
relief and damages.

On October 29, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation and joint
motion providing for the dismissal of certain claims and
defendants. On October 30, 2018, the Court granted the parties'
motion, dismissing the Proxy Claims without prejudice; dismissing
defendants Kapoor, Abramowitz, Graves, Meyer and Rappuhn without
prejudice; and dismissing Defendant Silverberg with prejudice.

On December 19, 2018, the remaining defendants filed an answer to
the amended complaint, disputing the plaintiffs' remaining
allegations.

On February 21, 2019, Plaintiff Johnny Wickstrom, a purported
shareholder of the Company, filed a putative class action complaint
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint names as defendants the Company, Rajat Rai and Duane
Portwood.

The complaint alleged that defendants made materially false or
misleading statements and/or material omissions concerning its
compliance with U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
regulations and that those misstatements were corrected when the
Company disclosed its receipt from the FDA of a warning letter at
the Company's facility in Decatur, Illinois. The complaint seeks,
among other things, an award of damages, attorneys' fees and
expenses.

On March 8, 2019, the parties in the Data Integrity Securities
Litigation filed a proposed stipulation which sought, among other
things: (i) leave to file a second amended class action complaint,
which would extend the end date of the alleged class period from
November 3, 2016, through September 28, 2018; (ii) to consolidate
the Wickstrom complaint into the Data Integrity Securities
Litigation for all purposes; and (iii) to extend the existing
discovery schedule in order to permit time to mediate lead
plaintiffs' claims and to conduct additional discovery related to
the expanded class period.

On March 12, 2019, counsel for Wickstrom filed a letter with the
Court seeking leave to file an opposition to the lead plaintiffs'
request to consolidate the Wickstrom complaint into the Data
Integrity Securities Litigation.

On March 25, 2019, counsel for Wickstrom filed a memorandum in
opposition to the lead plaintiffs' stipulation. On March 26, 2019,
lead plaintiffs filed a reply in further support of their request
for consolidation.

During a March 27, 2019 conference, the Court found that the
Wickstrom action was related to the Data Integrity Securities
Litigation and ordered oral argument for April 22, 2019, on lead
plaintiffs' requests to file a second amended complaint and to
consolidate the Wickstrom complaint.

Following the March 27, 2019 hearing, the Court entered an order
finding the Data Integrity Securities Litigation and Wickstrom
action to be related and requesting the reassignment of the
Wickstrom action. The Court also extended the discovery and
pretrial deadlines.

Akorn, Inc., a specialty generic pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, and markets generic and branded prescription
pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter (OTC) consumer health products,
and animal health pharmaceuticals in the United States and
internationally. The company operates in two segments, Prescription
Pharmaceuticals and Consumer Health. Akorn, Inc. was founded in
1971 and is headquartered in Lake Forest, Illinois.


ALASKA AIR: Appeals Ruling in Flight Attendants' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Alaska Air Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the Company is seeking
an appellate court ruling in the flight attendants' class action
suit.

In 2015, three flight attendants filed a class action lawsuit
seeking to represent all Virgin America flight attendants for
damages based on alleged violations of California and City of San
Francisco wage and hour laws. The court certified a class of
approximately 1,800 flight attendants in November 2016. The Company
believes the claims in this case are without factual and legal
merit.

In July 2018, the Court granted in part Plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment, finding Virgin America, and Alaska Airlines, as a
successor-in-interest to Virgin America, responsible for various
damages and penalties sought by the class members.

On February 4, 2019, the Court entered final judgment against
Virgin America and Alaska Airlines in the amount of approximately
$78 million. It did not award injunctive relief against Alaska
Airlines.

The Company is seeking an appellate court ruling that the
California laws on which the judgment is based are invalid as
applied to national airlines pursuant to the U.S. Constitution and
federal law and for other employment law and improper class
certification reasons.

Alaska Air said, "The Company remains confident that a higher court
will respect the federal preemption principles that were enacted to
shield inter-state common carriers from a patchwork of state and
local wage and hour regulations such as those at issue in this case
and agree with the Company's other bases for appeal. For these
reasons, no loss has been accrued."

Alaska Air Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
passenger and cargo air transportation services. The company
operates through three segments: Mainline, Regional, and Horizon.
The company was founded in 1932 and is based in Seattle,
Washington.


AMNEAL PHARMA: Appeal in Williams Class Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the appeal in the class
action suit initiated by Emielou Williams is ongoing.

On August 3, 2017, Plaintiff Emielou Williams filed a class action
complaint in the Superior Court for the State of California in the
County of Alameda on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated against Impax alleging violation of California Business
and Professions Code section 17200 by violating various California
wage and hour laws, and seeking, among other things, declaratory
judgment, restitution of allegedly unpaid wages, and disgorgement.


On October 10, 2017, Impax filed a Demurrer and Motion to Strike
Class Allegations. On December 12, 2017, the Court overruled
Impax's Demurrer to Plaintiff's individual claims. However, it
struck all of Plaintiff's class allegations.

On March 13, 2018, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint once
again including the same class allegations. The Company filed a
Demurrer and Motion to Strike Class Allegations on April 12, 2018.


On September 20, 2018, the Court again struck Plaintiff's class
allegations; Plaintiff has appealed this most recent order to the
California State Court of Appeal.

Plaintiff filed her opening appellate brief on February 22, 2019,
and Impax's brief in response was filed on April 18, 2019.

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic
and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and
therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and
Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
based in Bridgewater, New Jersey.


AMNEAL PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Digoxin-Related Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, 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 are
awaiting a court's decision on a motion to dismiss the class action
suit related to the price fixing of the generic drug digoxin.

On April 17, 2017, Lead Plaintiff New York Hotel Trades Council &
Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund filed an
amended class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated against Impax and four current or former
Impax officers alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. Plaintiff
asserts claims regarding alleged misrepresentations about three
generic drugs.

Its principal claim alleges that Impax concealed that it colluded
with competitor Lannett Corp. to fix the price of generic drug
digoxin, and that its digoxin profits stemmed from this collusive
pricing.

Plaintiff also alleges that Impax concealed from the market
anticipated erosion in the price of generic drug diclofenac and
that Impax overstated the value of budesonide, a generic drug that
it acquired from Teva.

On June 1, 2017, Impax filed its motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On September 7, 2018, the Court granted Impax's motion,
dismissing plaintiffs' claims without prejudice and with leave to
amend their complaint.

Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint October 26, 2018. Impax
filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on December
6, 2018; plaintiffs' opposition thereto was filed on January 17,
2019; and Impax's reply in support of its motion to dismiss was
filed on February 7, 2019.

A hearing before the Court on the motion to dismiss took place on
May 2, 2019.

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic
and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and
therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and
Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
based in Bridgewater, New Jersey.


AMNEAL PHARMA: Opposition in Opana ER(R) Suit Due Aug. 8
--------------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, 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'
oppositions to class certification and rebuttal expert reports in
Opana ER(R) Antitrust, are due to be filed by August 8, 2019.

From June 2014 to April 2015, 14 complaints styled as class actions
on behalf of direct purchasers and indirect purchasers (also known
as end-payors) and several separate individual complaints on behalf
of certain direct purchasers (the "opt-out plaintiffs") were filed
against the manufacturer of the brand drug Opana ER(R) and Impax.

The direct purchaser plaintiffs comprise Value Drug Company; Meijer
Inc. The end-payor plaintiffs comprise the Fraternal Order of
Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund; Wisconsin Masons'
Health Care Fund; Massachusetts Bricklayers; Pennsylvania Employees
Benefit Trust Fund; International Union of Operating Engineers,
Local 138 Welfare Fund; Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity
Company d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana; Kim
Mahaffay; and Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare
Trust Fund.

The opt-out plaintiffs comprise Walgreen Co.; The Kroger Co.;
Safeway, Inc.; HEB Grocery Company L.P.; Albertson's LLC; Rite Aid
Corporation; Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp.; and CVS Pharmacy, Inc.

On December 12, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (the "JPML") ordered the pending class
actions transferred to the Northern District of Illinois for
coordinated pretrial proceedings, as In Re Opana ER Antitrust
Litigation (MDL No. 2580).

(Actions subsequently filed in other jurisdictions also were
transferred by the JPML to the Northern District of Illinois to be
coordinated or consolidated with the coordinated proceedings, and
the District Court likewise has consolidated the opt-out
plaintiffs’ actions with the direct purchaser class actions for
pretrial purposes.)

In each case, the complaints allege that Endo engaged in an
anticompetitive scheme by, among other things, entering into an
anticompetitive settlement agreement with Impax to delay generic
competition of Opana ER(R) and in violation of state and federal
antitrust laws.

Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages
and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution.
Discovery, including expert discovery, is ongoing.

On March 25, 2019, plaintiffs filed motions for class certification
and opening expert reports. Defendants' oppositions to class
certification and rebuttal expert reports are due to be filed by
August 8, 2019. No trial date has been scheduled.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the
claims asserted with respect to the litigation. However, any
adverse outcome could negatively affect the Company and could have
a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations,
cash flows and/or overall financial condition.

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic
and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and
therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and
Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
based in Bridgewater, New Jersey.


AMNEAL PHARMA: Settlement Reached in Sergeants Benevolent Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, 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 has reached
a settlement in principle with plaintiffs in Sergeants Benevolent
Association Health & Welfare Fund v. Actavis, PLC, et. al., subject
to execution of definitive documentation.

In August 2015, a complaint styled as a class action was filed
against Forest Laboratories (a subsidiary of Actavis plc) and
numerous generic drug manufacturers, including Amneal, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
involving patent litigation settlement agreements between Forest
Laboratories and the generic drug manufacturers concerning generic
versions of Forest's Namenda IR product.

The complaint (as amended on February 12, 2016) asserts federal and
state antitrust claims on behalf of indirect purchasers, who allege
in relevant part that during the class period they indirectly
purchased Namenda(R) IR or its generic equivalents in various
states at higher prices than they would have absent the defendants'
allegedly unlawful anticompetitive conduct.

Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages
and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution.

On September 13, 2016, the Court stayed the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs' claims pending factual development or resolution of
claims brought in a separate, related complaint by direct
purchasers (in which the Company is not a defendant). On September
10, 2018, the Court lifted the stay, referred the case to the
assigned Magistrate Judge for supervision of supplemental,
non-duplicative discovery in advance of mediation to be scheduled
in 2019.

The parties thereafter participated in supplemental discovery, as
well as supplemental motion-to-dismiss briefing. On December 26,
2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part motions to
dismiss the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' claims.

On January 7, 2019, Amneal, its relevant co-defendants, and the
indirect purchaser plaintiffs informed the Magistrate Judge that
they had agreed to mediation, which occurred in April 2019.

The Company has reached a settlement in principle with plaintiffs,
subject to execution of definitive documentation.

The amount of the settlement is not expected to be material to the
Company's consolidated financial statements.

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic
and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and
therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and
Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
based in Bridgewater, New Jersey.


ANGI HOMESERVICES: Bid to Amend Costello Complaint Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
ANGI Homeservices 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 motion for leave to
file a second amended complaint in Costello et al. v. HomeAdvisor,
Inc. et al., is still pending.

In July 2016, a putative class action, Airquip, Inc. et al. v.
HomeAdvisor, Inc. et al., No. l:16-cv-1849, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado.

The complaint, as amended in November 2016, alleges that our
HomeAdvisor business engages in certain deceptive practices
affecting the service professionals who join its network, including
charging them for substandard customer leads or failing to disclose
certain charges.

The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class consisting
of all HomeAdvisor service professionals since October 2012,
asserts claims for fraud, breach of implied contract, unjust
enrichment and violation of the federal RICO statute and the
Colorado Consumer Protection Act ("CCPA"), and seeks injunctive
relief and damages in an unspecified amount.

In December 2016, HomeAdvisor filed a motion to dismiss the RICO
and CCPA claims. In September 2017, the court issued an order
granting the motion and dismissing those claims. In October 2017,
HomeAdvisor filed an answer denying the material allegations of the
remaining claims in the complaint.

In May 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a
second amended complaint that would add nine new named plaintiffs,
five new defendants (including ANGI Homeservices), and 55 new
claims, most of them for various alleged violations of the laws of
nine separate states. In June 2018, HomeAdvisor opposed the motion
on grounds including that it was filed more than one year after the
court’s deadline to amend pleadings.

In July 2018, the plaintiffs' counsel filed a separate putative
class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado, Costello et al. v. HomeAdvisor, Inc. et al., No.
1:18-cv-1802, on behalf of the same nine proposed new plaintiffs in
the Airquip case, naming as defendants HomeAdvisor, ANGI
Homeservices and IAC (as well as an unrelated company), and
asserting 45 claims largely duplicative of those asserted in the
proposed second amended complaint in the Airquip case.

In November 2018, the judge presiding over the Airquip case issued
an order consolidating the two cases to proceed before him under
the caption In re HomeAdvisor, Inc. Litigation.

In January 2019, the plaintiffs renewed their motion for leave to
file a second amended complaint. In February 2019, the defendants
filed their opposition to the motion on various grounds. The motion
remains pending, discovery in the case is well under way and the
issue of class certification remains to be litigated.

ANGI Homeservices said, "The Company believes that the allegations
in this lawsuit are without merit and will continue to defend
vigorously against them."

ANGI Homeservices Inc. operates a digital marketplace for home
services, connecting millions of homeowners with home service
professionals in North America and Europe. The company was formerly
known as Halo TopCo, Inc. and changed its name to ANGI Homeservices
Inc. in May 2017. ANGI Homeservices Inc. was incorporated in 2017
and is headquartered in Golden, Colorado. ANGI Homeservices Inc. is
a subsidiary of IAC/InterActiveCorp.


ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV: Gamboa Seeks to Recover Unlawful Deductions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against GOLDEN ROAD BREWERY
for violations of the California Labor Code and relevant California
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order. The case is captioned
ALEX GAMBOA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV WORLDWIDE, INC. D/B/A
GOLDEN ROAD BREWERY, Defendant, Case No. 19STCV17429 (Cal. Super.,
Los Angeles Cty.)

Plaintiff Alex Gamboa alleges that the Defendant failed to provide
meal and rest periods, failed to pay all wages and overtime, failed
to provide accurate wage statements, and made unlawful deductions
to the wages of its employees. Defendant has allegedly implemented
a practice of requiring employees to perform work during their
legally mandated meal and rest periods without premium
compensation. The Defendants has also maintained policies and
procedures designed to reduce labor costs by reducing or minimizing
the amount of compensation paid to its employees, especially
overtime compensation.

Anheuser-Busch Inbev Worldwide, Inc. d/b/a Golden Road Brewery is a
Delaware Corporation with a headquarters and service of process
address listed as 818 W. 7th Street, Los Angeles, California. The
company is engaged in the restaurant and brewery business. [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
     E-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com
             trk@classactionlaw.com

             - and -

     Jesse L. Young, Esq.
     SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
     One Towne Square, Suite 1700
     Southfield, MI 48076
     Telephone: (248) 355-0300
     Facsimile: (248) 436-8453
     E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com

             - and -

     Jessica R. Doogan, Esq.
     Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
     BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE WENTZ MCINERNEY PEIFER LLP
     250 East Broad Street, 10th Floor
     Columbus, OH 43215
     Telephone: (614) 221-4221
     Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
     E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
             jdoogan@barkanmeizlish.com


AQUANTIA CORP: Sabatini Balks at Merger Deal with Marvell
---------------------------------------------------------
ERIC SABATINI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. AQUANTIA CORP., LIP-BU TAN, FARAJ
AALAEI, DMITRY AKHANOV, BAMI BASTANI, KEN PELOWSKI, GEOFFREY G.
RIBAR, SAM SRINIVASAN, and ANDERS SWAHN, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01020-UNA (D. Del., May 31, 2019), alleges that Defendants
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 in connection with a Proxy Statement.

The action stems from a proposed transaction announced on May 6,
2019, pursuant to which Aquantia Corp. will be acquired by Marvell
Technology Group Ltd. and Antigua Acquisition Corp. On May 6, 2019,
Aquantia's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger with Marvell. Pursuant to the terms of
the Merger Agreement, Aquantia's stockholders will receive $13.25
in cash for each share of Aquantia common stock they own.

On May 29, 2019, defendants filed a proxy statement with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the
Proposed Transaction. The Proxy Statement omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders
the Proxy Statement false and misleading, the lawsuit says.

Aquantia considers itself a leader in the design, development, and
marketing of advanced, high-speed communications ICs for Ethernet
connectivity in the Data Center, Enterprise Infrastructure, Access,
and Automotive markets. The Company's products are designed to
cost-effectively deliver leading-edge data speeds for use in the
latest generation of communications infrastructure to alleviate
network bandwidth bottlenecks caused by the growth of global IP
traffic.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

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

ASTEC INDUSTRIES: City of Taylor General Employees Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Astec Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, City of Taylor General
Employees Retirement System v. Astec Industries, Inc., et al.

The Company and certain of its current and former executive
officers have been named as defendants in a putative shareholder
class action lawsuit filed on February 1, 2019, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

The action is styled City of Taylor General Employees Retirement
System v. Astec Industries, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-00024-PLR-CHS.

The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"),
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and
misleading statements and that the individual defendants are
control person under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The complaint was filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased
shares of the Company's stock between July 26, 2016 and October 22,
2018 and seeks monetary damages on behalf of the purported class.

The Company disputes these allegations and intends to defend this
lawsuit vigorously. The Company is unable to estimate the possible
loss or range of loss at this time.

Astec Industries, Inc. designs, engineers, manufactures, and
markets equipment and components for the road building, aggregate
processing, geothermal, water, oil and gas, and wood processing
industries in the United States and internationally. The company
was founded in 1972 and is based in Chattanooga, Tennessee.


BABCOCK & WILCOX: Kent Seeks More Info on Revised Credit Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL KENT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. BABCOCK & WILCOX ENTERPRISES, INC., MATTHEW
E. AVRIL, HENRY E. BARTOLI, KENNETH SIEGEL, CYNTHIA S. DUBIN, BRIAN
R. KAHN, ALAN HOWE, BRYANT RILEY, and KENNETH YOUNG, Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01032-UNA (D. Del., June 3, 2019) is an action
stemming from a proposed transaction announced on April 5, 2019,
pursuant to which the Board of Directors of Babcock & Wilcox
Enterprises, Inc. caused the Company to amend its credit agreement
with its current lenders, whereby B. Riley FBR, Inc., which owns
6.5% of the Company's outstanding shares, has joined the facility
and has arranged an additional $150 million in secured financing
through a last out term loan, and has agreed to provide an
uncommitted incremental credit facility of up to another $15
million.

In connection with the amendment, the Company agreed to seek
shareholder approval to increase the number of its authorized
shares, execute within six months a $50 million rights offering at
$0.30 per share (the proceeds of which will be used for repayment
of a portion of the new debt) and, immediately thereafter, exchange
$35.1 million of the last out term loan held by Vintage Capital
Management LLC ("Vintage"), which owns 17.8% of the Company's
outstanding shares, for common stock at $0.30 per share, issue
approximately 16.7 million warrants, each to purchase one share of
common stock for $0.01 per share, and execute a 1:10 reverse stock
split. On May 13, 2019, defendants filed a proxy statement with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission, which seeks
stockholder approval of the Proposed Transaction and scheduled a
stockholder vote for June 14, 2019.

The complaint asserts that the Proxy Statement omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders
the Proxy Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, plaintiff
alleges that defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Proxy
Statementt.

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

Babcock is a global leader in energy and environmental technologies
and services for the power and industrial markets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


BIOTIME INC: Continues to Defend Lampe Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
BioTime, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Lampe v. Asterias
Biotherapeutics, Inc. et al.

On March 8, 2019, the company acquired the remaining ownership
interests in Asterias Biotherapeutics, Inc. via merger.

On February 19, 2019, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed (captioned Lampe v. Asterias Biotherapeutics, Inc. et
al., Case No. RG19007391) in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Alameda challenging the Asterias Merger.

On May 3, 2019, an amended class action complaint (the "Amended
Complaint") was filed. The Amended Complaint names BioTime, Patrick
Merger Sub, Inc., the Asterias board of directors, one member of
BioTime's board of directors, and certain stockholders of both
BioTime and Asterias.

The action was brought by two purported stockholders of Asterias,
on behalf of a putative class of Asterias stockholders, and asserts
breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting claims under
Delaware law.

The Amended Complaint alleges, among other things, that the process
leading up to the Asterias Merger was conflicted and inadequate,
and that the proxy statement filed by Asterias with the Securities
and Exchange Commission omits certain material information, which
allegedly renders the information disclosed materially misleading.


The Amended Complaint seeks, among other things, is that a class be
certified, the recovery of monetary damages, and attorneys' fees
and costs.

BioTime believes that the allegations lack merit and intends to
vigorously defend all claims asserted.

BioTime, Inc., a clinical-stage biotechnology company, focuses on
developing and commercializing therapies for the treatment of
degenerative diseases in the United States and internationally.
BioTime, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Alameda,
California.


BLOOMFIELD, MI: Youmans Appeals Cir. Ct. Order to Mich. App. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jamila Youmans filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the
lawsuit styled JAMILA YOUMANS v. CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF BLOOMFIELD,
Case No. 2016-152613-CZ, in the Oakland Circuit Court.

The appellate case is titled JAMILA YOUMANS v. CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF
BLOOMFIELD, Case No. 348791, in the Michigan Court of Appeals.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 7,
2019, Defendant Charter Township of Bloomfield filed an appeal from
a Court order issued in the lawsuit.  That appellate case is
captioned as JAMILA YOUMANS v. CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF BLOOMFIELD, Case
No. 348614.

The Class Action Reporter previously reported that both sides of
the class action lawsuit, which arises from water and sewer bills
in Bloomfield Township, are declaring victory after an Oakland
County Circuit Court judge issued an opinion in July 2018.

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

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

          Edward F. Kickham, III, Esq.
          KICKHAM HANLEY PLLC
          300 Balmoral Centre
          32121 Woodward Avenue
          Royal Oak, MI 48073-0943
          Telephone: (248) 544-1500
          Facsimile: (248) 544-1501
          E-mail: ekickham@kickhamhanley.com

Defendant-Appellee CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF BLOOMFIELD is represented
by:

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

BLUE SKY: Enters Receivership Amid Class Actions
------------------------------------------------
David Chau, writing for ABC, reports that Blue Sky Alternative
Investments has fallen into receivership and been suspended from
trading on the Australian share market.

The Brisbane-based fund manager, which manages $2.8 billion in
investments, appointed Pilot Partners as its voluntary
administrators on May 20.

It came after the former market darling breached the conditions of
a $50 million lifeline provided by US hedge fund Oaktree Capital
Management -- which then led to Oaktree appointing KordaMentha as
Blue Sky's receivers.

Blue Sky was required to maintain a minimum level of cash earnings
(before interest and tax).

In February, the company reported a half-year loss of $26 million
and warned shareholders that it was at risk of breaching the terms
of its Oaktree loan.

At its peak, Blue Sky was worth almost $1.2 billion, when its share
price was $14.70 in late December 2017.

But its market value plummeted to just $14 million within
one-and-a-half years, with its shares last trading at 18 cents.

"Our objective during the first phase of the receivership is to
stabilise the business as a strategic assessment is undertaken,"
Mark Korda, one of the receivers, said.

"The appointment will not affect the day-to-day operating
activities of Blue Sky and its investment management business
subsidiaries."

Why is Blue Sky in trouble?
"The appointment follows a period of significant instability and
uncertainty for all stakeholders, including further commentary
regarding possible class actions, turnover of senior corporate
executives and departure of certain limited partners," KoredaMentha
wrote in a statement.

Over the past year, short-sellers and market analysts expressed
serious concerns about Blue Sky charging its customers excessive
fees and exaggerating the value of assets that it has managed,
including Vinomofo and Shoes of Prey -- a footwear retailer that
collapsed earlier this year.

It led to Blue Sky shedding $800 million in market value within
months in early-2018.

This also prompted an investigation by the Australian Securities
and Investments Commission (ASIC), about whether the fund manager
had breached its continuous disclosure obligations.

The corporate regulator, however, issued Section 33 notices under
the ASIC Act, requiring Blue Sky to hand over documents as part of
the investigation.

"The company has received confirmation from ASIC that it does not
propose to take any further action in respect of the section 33
notice," Blue Sky told investors on May 15.

But there is still the possibility ASIC may re-open its
investigations.

"ASIC has reserved its rights to take further action if further
information concerning the matter comes to ASIC's attention," Blue
Sky said.

Potential class actions
Several major law firms including Shine Lawyers, Gadens and Piper
Alderman are trying to recruit disgruntled investors to be
plaintiffs in potential class actions against the fund manager.

"In a report published by Glaucus Research Group on 27 March 2018 .
. . Blue Sky has been accused of grossly exaggerating its assets
under management, misrepresenting the performance of its
investments and collecting management fees far in excess of its
entitlements," Gadens partner Simon Theodore said.

"These are serious allegations which raise grave concerns about
possible breaches of the Corporations Act, ASIC Act and the ASX
Listing Rules.

"Gadens is currently investigating whether Blue Sky and/or any of
its officers have failed to comply with their statutory obligations
and have misled the market."

The fund manager's related entity -- the Blue Sky Alternative
Access Fund (BSAAF) -- is not in receivership or administration.

However, BSAAF shares tumbled on May 20, closing 5.8 per cent lower
at 73 cents. [GN]


CAPITAL ONE: Rodriguez Sues over Unauthorized Credit Inquiries
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, GLORIA RODRIGUEZ, Individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL ONE, N.A., the
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-01021-CAB-JLB (S.D. Cal., May 31,
2019), seeks to recover damages arising out of Defendant's
systematic unauthorized credit inquiries.

According to the complaint, the Defendant acquired Plaintiff's
credit information through an unauthorized inquiry of Plaintiff's
"consumer reports" as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C.
1681a(d)(1). Sometime before December 1, 2017, Plaintiff incurred a
financial obligation (the "Debt") to Defendant. This financial
obligation arose from a loan that 15 Defendant extended to
Plaintiff.  Subsequently, Plaintiff filed Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in
San Diego.  On or around December 1, 2017, the Debt was discharged
pursuant to a court order that was mailed to Defendant by the
bankruptcy court. The order advised Defendants that the Debt had
been discharged. Following the bankruptcy, Plaintiff no longer had
an account with Defendant. Despite the fact that Plaintiff did not
have an account with Defendant and Plaintiff's Debt was ordered
discharged on December 1, 2017, on December 23 27, 2017, Defendant
submitted an unauthorized account review credit report inquiry to
Experian. Upon review of Plaintiff's Experian credit report,
Plaintiff discovered Defendant's unauthorized credit inquiry.
Accordingly, Defendant's inquiry was unauthorized and illegal.
After Plaintiff received the above referenced discharge order,
there was no debt owed to Defendant and no account with Defendant
by operation of the bankruptcy. Defendant accessed Plaintiff's
private and confidential information without Plaintiff's consent or
a permissible purpose. Much like trespassing on real property, an
invasion of privacy may not cause monetary damages, but it is an
invasion none the less. Privacy is a long-protected right in the
United States and Plaintiff has suffered concrete harm resulting
from Defendant's willful invasion of privacy, the lawsuit says.

The United States Congress has also found the banking system is
dependent upon fair and accurate credit reporting. Inaccurate
credit reports directly impair the efficiency of the banking
system, and unfair credit reporting methods undermine the public
confidence, which is essential to the continued functioning of the
banking system.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act seeks to insure fair and accurate
reporting, promote efficiency in the banking system, and protect
consumer privacy. The FCRA seeks that consumer reporting agencies
exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality,
and a respect for the consumer's right to privacy because consumer
reporting agencies have assumed such a vital role in assembling and
evaluating consumer credit and other information on consumers.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART, APC
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

          Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 222-7429
          Facsimile: (866) 431-3292
          E-mail: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com

CARDINAL HEALTH: Bellwether Trial in Opioid Suits Set for October
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cardinal Health, 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 a bellwether trial in
the Opioid-related suits is set to begin in October 2019.

Pharmaceutical wholesale distributors, including the company, have
been named as defendants in over 2,000 lawsuits relating to the
distribution of prescription opioid pain medications.

These lawsuits have been filed in various federal, state, and other
courts by a variety of plaintiffs, primarily counties,
municipalities and other political subdivisions.

Plaintiffs also include unions and other health and welfare funds,
hospital systems and other healthcare providers, as well as
individuals.

Of these lawsuits, 63 are purported class actions.

The lawsuits seek equitable relief and monetary damages based on a
variety of legal theories including various common law claims, such
as negligence, public nuisance and unjust enrichment as well as
violations of controlled substance laws, the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act and various other statutes.

These lawsuits also name pharmaceutical manufacturers, retail
pharmacy chains and other entities as defendants.
The vast majority of these lawsuits were filed in U.S. federal
court and have been transferred for consolidated pre-trial
proceedings in a Multi-District Litigation proceeding in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

The court, among other things, has ordered that a bellwether trial
begin in October 2019. In December 2018, the court denied
distributor defendants' motions to dismiss the complaints
associated with the bellwether case.

In addition, 15 state attorneys general have filed lawsuits against
distributors, including the company, in various state courts, and
43 state attorneys general, including 8 that have filed suit, have
formed a multi-state task force to investigate the manufacturing,
distribution, dispensing and prescribing practices of opioid
medications.

The company has received requests related to this multi-state
investigation, as well as separate civil investigative demands,
subpoenas or requests for information from these and other state
attorneys general offices. The company is cooperating with the
offices conducting these investigations.

In connection with these proceedings, distributors continue to
engage in discussions with various parties, including state
attorneys general and representatives of the MDL plaintiffs,
regarding possible resolution.

The company is vigorously defending itself in all of these
opioid-related matters.

Cardinal Health said, "Given the uncertainty surrounding these
lawsuits and investigations, we are unable to predict their outcome
or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses."

Cardinal Health, Inc. operates as an integrated healthcare services
and products company in the United States and internationally. It
provides medical products and pharmaceuticals, and solutions that
enhance supply chain efficiency for hospitals, healthcare systems,
pharmacies, ambulatory surgery centers, clinical laboratories, and
physician offices. Cardinal Health, Inc. was founded in 1979 and is
headquartered in Dublin, Ohio.


CARTUS CORPORATION: Pereltsvaig Seeks Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------
ASYA PERELTSVAIG, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CARTUS CORPORATION, a
Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 19CV348335 (Cal.
Super., May 31, 2019), seeks damages including unpaid wages and
unreimbursed business expenses; statutory penalties for the failure
to issue itemized wage statements or failure to issue accurate
itemized wage statements under the California Labor Code.

During the Class Period, the Defendant was Plaintiff's and Class
Members' employer. However, Defendant willfully misclassified
Plaintiff and Class Members as independent contractors in violation
of Labor Code section 226.8. As a result, Defendant failed to
compensate Class Members for all of their time spent performing
work-related activities in violation of Labor Code section 1194 and
IWC Wage Order No. 4-2001, section 4; and failed to reimburse Class
Members for their necessarily incurred business expenses in
violation of Labor Code section 2802 and the express terms of their
contracts with Defendant.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Julian Hammond, Esq.
          Polina Brandler, Esq.
          Ari Cherniak, Esq.
          HAMMONDLAW, P.C.
          1829 Reisterstown Rd., Suite 410
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Telephone: (310) 601-6766
          Facsimile: (310) 295-2385
          E-mail: JHammond@hammondlawpc.com
                  pbrandler@hammondlawpc.com
                  ACherniak@hammondlawpc.com

CATALDO 54: Escorcia Suit Alleges NYLL and FLSA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Eulalio Ayala Escorcia aka Gonzalo, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, v. Cataldo 54 Inc. dba Cataldo's,
Salvatore Cataldo and Cecilia Cataldo, Case No. 1:19-cv-01940 (E.D.
N.Y., April 03, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants failed to provide accurate wage statements, minimum
wage, spread of hours compensation and timely payment of wages.

The Plaintiff was employed as a delivery worker by the Defendants
from approximately June 2015 until on or about March 22, 2019.

The Defendants own and manage an Italian restaurant, located at 554
Vanderbilt Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11238 under the name "Cataldo's".
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CELLULAR SALES: Proskauer Rose Discusses Class Certification Denial
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Shear, Esq. -- sshear@proskauer.com -- and Nicole
Eichberger, Esq. -- neichberger@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer Rose
LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that on April 26, 2019, the
Northern District of New York held that a group of Plaintiffs
failed to satisfy their burden to establish commonality and
predominance under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and failed to sustain their
burden that they were similarly situated to continue as a FLSA
collective with respect to their misclassification claims under
state and federal law. Jan P. Holick Jr., et al. v. Cellular Sales
of New York, LLC, Case No. 1:12 CV-584 (NAM/DJS), 2019 WL 1877176
(N.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2019). The Court determined that individualized
issues predominated the resolution of the question as to whether a
group of merchants, who contracted with Cellular Sales of New York
to sell cellular service plans, devices, and accessories through
various corporate entities, were independent contractors under New
York law and the FLSA.

In 2010 and 2011, Cellular Sales of New York (CSNY), an authorized
dealer that markets and sells cellular phone products and services
in New York State, contracted with more than three hundred
corporate entities, owned by many of the Named and Opt-in
Plaintiffs, to sell cell phone service plans, devices, and
accessories. These corporate entities and individuals who performed
services for those entities were classified as independent
contractors. CSNY paid commissions to those corporate entities for
products and services sold under the contracts. Plaintiffs' claimed
that they were incorrectly classified as independent contractors.
In order to determine whether the merchants had indeed been
misclassified, discovery was conducted into the degree of control,
if any, CSNY exercised over the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs gave varying
accounts of their ability to set their own work schedules, ability
to work outside the retail stores, tax classifications, investment
in equipment, supplies, and advertising, and use and hiring of
other individuals.

In resolving Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and CSNY's
motion to decertify the collective, the Court held that Plaintiffs
could not satisfy the commonality requirement of Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because the amount of control CSNY
exerted over each Plaintiff was highly individualized. Although the
Court noted that Plaintiffs' failure to satisfy Rule 23(a)'s
commonality requirement was lethal to Plaintiffs' motion, the Court
also held that Plaintiffs' individualized proof failed to satisfy
Rule 23(b)'s predominance requirement. The Court then turned to
whether Plaintiffs could sustain their FLSA collective action,
determining that in light of the highly individualized,
plaintiff-specific analysis required to adjudicate each claim,
Plaintiffs and the collective were not similarly situated. The
Court rejected Plaintiffs' arguments that a common scheme of
uniform classification under the Sales Agreements was enough to
satisfy the FLSA's similarly situated standard. The Court stated:
"[B]lanket classification decisions and uniform corporate policies
do not on their own render plaintiffs similarly situated."

The Court's ruling underscores the necessity of class discovery,
even following an initial collective certification under FLSA
Sec.216(b). It is plaintiffs' burden to show that class and
collective certification are warranted. As the Supreme Court stated
in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011): "[t]he
class action is an exception to the usual rule that litigation is
conducted by and on behalf of the individual named parties." [GN]


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Faces WildHorse Merger-Related Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy 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 WildHorse Resource
Development Corporation has been named as a defendant in
merger-related class action suits.

On February 1, 2019, the company acquired WildHorse Resource
Development Corporation ("WildHorse"), an oil and gas company with
operations in the Eagle Ford Shale and Austin Chalk formations in
southeast Texas for approximately 717.4 million shares of the
company's common stock and $381 million in cash.

The company funded the cash portion of the consideration through
borrowings under the Chesapeake revolving credit facility. In
connection with the closing, the company acquired all of
WildHorse's debt.

In January 2019, putative class action lawsuits were filed in U.S.
District Courts for the Southern District of New York against
WildHorse and other defendants.

The lawsuits generally allege various violations of the Exchange
Act in connection with the disclosure contained in the joint proxy
statement/prospectus filed in connection with the Merger.

The lawsuits seek rescission of the Merger or rescissory damages
and, in each case, attorney's fees, costs and interest.

Chesapeake  said, "We intend to vigorously defend these claims."

Chesapeake Energy Corporation engages in the acquisition,
exploration, and development of properties for the production of
oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids (NGL) from underground
reservoirs in the United States. Chesapeake Energy Corporation was
founded in 1989 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Settlement of Oklahoma Suits Approved
--------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy 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 the settlement in all
Oklahoma civil class action antitrust cases has been approved.

In 2016, putative class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma and in Oklahoma
state courts, and an individual lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court of Kansas, in each case against the company and
other defendants.

The lawsuits generally allege that, since 2007 and continuing
through April 2013, the defendants conspired to rig bids and
depress the market for the purchases of oil and natural gas
leasehold interests and properties in the Anadarko Basin containing
producing oil and natural gas wells.

The lawsuits seek damages, attorney's fees, costs and interest, as
well as enjoinment from adopting practices or plans that would
restrain competition in a similar manner as alleged in the
lawsuits.

On April 12, 2018, the company reached a tentative settlement to
resolve substantially all Oklahoma civil class action antitrust
cases for an insignificant amount. The final fairness hearing was
held on April 25, 2019 and the settlement was approved.

Chesapeake Energy Corporation engages in the acquisition,
exploration, and development of properties for the production of
oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids (NGL) from underground
reservoirs in the United States. Chesapeake Energy Corporation was
founded in 1989 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Suit v. FTS International in Texas Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy 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 the company and FTS
International, Inc. continue to defend a putative class action suit
in Texas.

In February 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
District Court of Dallas County, Texas against FTS International,
Inc. ("FTSI"), certain investment banks, FTSI's directors including
certain of the company's officers and certain shareholders of FTSI
including the company.

The lawsuit alleges various violations of Sections 11 (with respect
to certain of the Company's officers in their capacities as
directors of FTSI) and 15 (with respect to such officers and the
company) of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with public
disclosure made during the initial public offering of FTSI.

The suit seeks damages in excess of $1,000,000 and attorneys' fees
and other expenses.

Chesapeake said, "We intend to vigorously defend these claims."

Chesapeake Energy Corporation engages in the acquisition,
exploration, and development of properties for the production of
oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids (NGL) from underground
reservoirs in the United States. Chesapeake Energy Corporation was
founded in 1989 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.


CIOX HEALTH: Court Grants Bids for Judgment on Pleadings in Ortiz
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HECTOR ORTIZ, in his capacity as the Temporary
Administrator for the Estate of VICKY ORTIZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CIOX HEALTH
LLC, as successor in interest of IOD INC., and THE NEW YORK AND
PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL, Defendants, Case No. 17cv4039 (DLC) (S.D.
N.Y.), Judge Denise Cote of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted the Defendants' Oct. 31, 2018
motions for judgment on the pleadings.

Ortiz brings the proposed class action against CIOX and the New
York and Presbyterian Hospital ("NYPH").  He seeks damages and
injunctive relief arising out of the Defendants' alleged violations
of New York Public Health Law Section 18, which prohibits health
care providers from charging qualified persons more than $0.75 per
page for copies of their medical records.

The facts as alleged in the First Amended Complaint have been
described in an Opinion of Feb. 22, 2018.  Ortiz, through her
attorney, made a written request to NYPH for her medical records in
October 2016.  The request indicated that, pursuant to Section
18(2)(e), NYPH could not charge Ortiz more than $0.75 per page.
NYPH's contractor, a predecessor in interest to CIOX, charged Ortiz
$1.50 per page for her medical records.  Ortiz paid the bill and
subsequently filed the class action.  Shortly thereafter, CIOX
unilaterally refunded Ortiz's credit card the amount charged above
the $0.75 statutory maximum.

The February 2018 Opinion dismissed several counts of the FAC but
allowed a single claim, for a violation of Section 18(2)(e), to go
forward.  On May 14, 2018, Ortiz's counsel informed the Court that
Ortiz had died.  An Order of October 16 granted the Plaintiff's
application to substitute Hector Ortiz, in his capacity as
temporary administrator of the Ortiz estate, as the party
Plaintiff.

On October 31, CIOX and NYPH filed motions for judgment on the
pleadings or to dismiss the remaining cause of action.  NYPH and
CIOX assert that the Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue either
damages or injunctive relief, that Section 18(2)(e) does not accord
a private right of action, that the Plaintiff's proposed class is
overbroad, and that CIOX's copying costs are not at issue in the
litigation.  Because Section 18(2)(e) does not accord a private
right of action, only the first two claims are addressed.

Judge Cote finds that the Defendants are correct.  Section 18 does
not contain any express grant of a private right of action.  Where
a statute does not expressly provide for a private right of action,
a plaintiff can seek civil relief in a plenary action based on a
violation of the statute only if a legislative intent to create
such a right is fairly implied in the statutory provisions and
their legislative history.  It is for the courts to determine, in
light of those provisions, particularly those relating to sanction
and enforcement, and their legislative history what the Legislature
intended.

At issue is whether, by prohibiting health care providers from
charging more than $0.75 per page in connection with inspecting or
copying medical records, the Legislature implied a private right of
action.  The text, structure, and legislative history of Section
18(2)(e) do not permit a finding that New York's Legislature
intended to create a private right of action.

Because there is no private right of action under Secton 18, Judge
Cote granted the Defendants' motions for judgment on the pleadings,
and dismissed the case.  The Clerk of the Court is directed to
close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 7, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/k1Qwqi from Leagle.com.

Hector Ortiz, in his capacity of Temporary Administrator of the
Estate of Vicky Ortiz, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by George Volney Granade
-- mreese@reesellp.com -- Reese Richman LLP, Lowell Jay Sidney,
Lowell J Sidney & Michael Robert Reese, Reese Richman, LLP.

IOD Inc. & CIOX HEALTH LLC, successor in interest, Defendants,
represented by Jodyann Galvin jgalvin@hodgsonruss.com, Hodgson Russ
LLP & Kathryn Anne Tiskus -- ktiskus@hogsonruss.com -- Hodgson
Russ, LLP.

The New York And Presbyterian Hospital, Defendant, represented by
John Houston Pope -- jhpope@ebglaw.com -- Epstein, Becker & Green,
P.C..


CONAM MANAGEMENT: Bid to Modify Discovery Order in Cuevas Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELIZABETH CUEVAS, as an individual and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CONAM MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION, a California corporation; and does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18cv1189-GPC (LL) (S.D. Cal.),
Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California (i) overruled the Plaintiff's Objections to
the Magistrate Judge's discovery order filed on March 14, 2019, and
(ii) denied her motion to modify or set aside the discovery order.

On June 6, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint on behalf of
herself and other similarly situated employees of Defendant ConAm
for its failure to pay overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), and failure to timely pay overtime wages as
required by 29 C.F.R. Section 778.106.  

She filed the case as a collective action pursuant to Section 16(b)
of the FLSA on behalf of the class of a ll persons who are or have
been employed by the Company in the United States as non-exempt
employees at any time from June 6, 2015, through the present, who
received overtime pay and nondiscretionary incentive pay, including
without limitation, bonuses.

On Dec. 21, 2017, the Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant to work
as a non-exempt leasing agent/professional at a residential
property located in Reno, Nevada.  The Defendant is a property
management and real estate investment company with locations
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff claims that she and the collective action members who
opt-in to the lawsuit worked in excess of 40 hours per work week
and were entitled to overtime pay which Defendant does not dispute.
She claims the that Defendant willfully failed to pay her and the
collective action members their full overtime pay.

In addition, the Complaint asserts that the Defendant failed to
properly calculate the correct regular rate of pay for purposes of
paying overtime.  Specifically, it did not calculate and/or factor
non-discretionary bonuses into the Plaintiff and the collective
action members' regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating
overtime pay.  The non-discretionary bonuses include, but are not
limited to, the "Winner's Circle" bonus.  According to the
Complaint, the Plaintiff and collective action members are due
additional overtime pay.

On Feb. 21, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a motion to compel seeking
further written responses and documents to her discovery requests.
The Defendant filed a response on Feb. 28, 2019.  A reply was filed
by the Plaintiff on March 7, 2019.  On March 14, 2019, the
Magistrate Judge granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's
motion to compel discovery responses.  On March 28, 2019, the
Plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the Magistrate Judge's ruling
denying her discovery requests as they relate to her First Set of
Requests for Production of Documents ("RPD") Nos. 1, 5-10, and her
First Set of Requests for Admissions ("RFA") Nos. 9-11.  The
Defendant filed an opposition on April 18, 2019.  A reply was filed
by the Plaintiff on April 26, 2019.

Judge Curiel holds he need not make a determination on which
pre-certification discovery rule to applies because the Plaintiff
does not seek the identity of putative members but instead
primarily seeks policy documents related to the Defendant's other
bonus programs.  The First Set of RPD seeks policy documents
applicable to non-exempt employees relating to the calculation of
any and all bonuses or any other non-discretionary incentive pay,
the timing of payment of the bonuses and when they are calculated.
The RFA's seek an admission that Defendant does not use the U.S.
Department of Labor's formula for calculating overtime, that it
does not pay its employees either overtime adjustment timely and
does not pay its employees their overtime true-ups.  These
discovery requests concern the merits of the Plaintiff's claims
which courts have held are not relevant during pre-certification
discovery.  Her requests are not relevant to limited
pre-certification discovery seeking to identify similarly situated
employees or to define the class.  Therefore, the Judge concludes
that the discovery the Plaintiff now seeks is premature and denied
without prejudice her motion to compel discovery responses to the
Plaintiff's First Set of RFP Nos. 1, 5-10 and First Set of RFA Nos.
9-11 which may later be sought if the class is conditionally
certified.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 7, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/oRDPff from Leagle.com.

Elizabeth Cuevas, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Majed Dakak --
mdakak@kbslaw.com -- Kesselman Brantly Stockinger LLP & Dennis
Sangwon Hyun -- dhyun@hyunlegal.com -- Hyun Legal.

ConAm Management Corporation, a California corporation, Defendant,
represented by Adam P. KohSweeney -- akohsweeney@omm.com --
O'Melveny & Meyers LLP.


CONCENTRIX CORP: Knight Moves to Certify Call Center Agents Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled JACQLYN KNIGHT, AQUANETTA
WRIGHT, and LAPRINCESS JUNE, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals v. CONCENTRIX CORPORATION, a
wholly-owned subsidiary of SYNNEX CORPORATION, Case No.
4:18-cv-07101-KAW (N.D. Cal.), move the Court to enter an order,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act:

   1. conditionally certifying this case as a collective action
      for a class defined as:

      All current and former Call Center Agent employees, or
      other job titles performing the same or similar job duties,
      who worked more than forty hours per week for Concentrix at
      any time in the last three years and were not paid overtime
      for every hour worked. "At Home" Call Center Agents are
      excluded from the Class;

   2. approving the proposed Court-Authorized Notice and Consent
      to Sue form;

   3. compelling Concentrix Services US, Inc. to produce, within
      14 days of the Order granting this Motion, the full name,
      last known address, and last known email address (work
      email address if a current employee of Concentrix, personal
      e-mail address if a former employee of Concentrix) to
      Plaintiffs' Counsel;

   4. permitting the Plaintiffs' Counsel to send, within 14 days
      of receipt of the Class List from Concentrix, the
      Court-Authorized Notice and Consent to Sue form via U.S.
      Mail and Electronic Mail to putative Class Members;

   5. permitting Opt-in Plaintiffs to file their Consents to Sue
      using an electronic signature service;

   6. allowing 90 days for putative Class members to return their
      Consent to Sue form to the Plaintiffs' Counsel for filing
      with the Court; and

   7. allowing the Plaintiffs' Counsel to send U.S. Mail and/or
      Electronic Mail reminder notice at the 45th day of the
      Notice Period.

The Court will commence a hearing on July 18, 2019, at 1:30 p.m.,
to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
          Molly E. Nephew, Esq.
          Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
          JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
          444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (612) 436-1800
          Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
          E-mail: tbecker@johnsonbecker.com
                  mnephew@johnsonbecker.com
                  jrusch@johnsonbecker.com

               - and -

          Mark E. Burton, Jr., Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
          711 Van Ness, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102-3229
          Telephone: (415) 568-2555
          Facsimile: (415) 568-2556
          E-mail: mburton@audetlaw.com


CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE: Slam Dunk Sues over Breach of Contract
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Connecticut General
Life Insurance Company for breach of contract and for common law
conversion. The case is captioned SLAM DUNK, LLC, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs.
CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-21996-MGC (S.D. Fla., May 16, 2019).

Plaintiff Slam Dunk, LLC alleges that Defendant breached the
contract by deducting cost of insurance (COI) charges calculated
from COI rates not based on expectations of future mortality
experience. These overcharges include, but are not limited to, the
excess COI charges that Defendant deducted by not reducing COI
rates based on improved mortality. In addition, Plaintiff claims
that the Defendants' failure to decrease COI rates also violated
the contracts' requirement that Defendant review COI rates at least
once every year because any such review would have shown the need
to decrease COI rates based on the improved mortality.

Slam Dunk, LLC is a limited liability company organized and
existing under the laws of Florida, with a principal place of
business in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

Connecticut General Life Insurance Company is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of Connecticut, having its
principal place of business in Bloomfield, Connecticut. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Edward M. Mullins, Esq.
     R. Hugh Lumpkin, Esq.
     Matthew B. Weaver, Esq.
     Christina D. Olivos, Esq. Esq.
     REED SMITH LLP
     1001 Brickell Bay Drive, Suite 900
     Miami, FL 33131
     Telephone: 786-747-0200
     Facsimile: 786-747-0299
     E-mail: hlumpkin@reedsmith.com
             mweaver@reedsmith.com
             colivos@reedsmith.com

             - and -

     Richard Giller, Esq.
     Douglas C. Rawles, Esq.
     Ashley Jordan, Esq.
     REED SMITH LLP
     355 South Grand Avenue, 28th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Telephone: (213) 457-8000
     Facsimile: (213) 457-8080
     E-mail: rgiller@reedsmith.com
             drawles@reedsmith.com
             ajordan@reedsmith.com
             kellena@reedsmith.com

             - and -

     Casey Laffey, Esq.
     Reed Smith LLP
     599 Lexington Avenue, 22nd Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     E-mail: jmccarroll@reedsmith.com
             claffey@reedsmith.com


COOK COUNTY, IL: Dismissal of 1st Amended Acevedo Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSEPH ACEVEDO, ENRIQUE MEZA, and TAMARA WUERFFEL, as
Individuals and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. THE COOK COUNTY SHERIFF'S MERIT BOARD; JAMES P.
NALLY, Chairman; BYRON BRAZIER, Vice-Chairman; JOHN J. DALICANDRO,
Secretary; GRAY MATEO-HARRIS, Board Member; VINCENT T. WINTERS,
Board Member; JENNIFER BAE, Board Member; PATRICK BRADY, Board
Member; KIM R. WIDUP, Board Member; THOMAS J. DART, Sheriff of Cook
County in His Official and Individual Capacity; and THE COUNTY OF
COOK, a Unit of Local Government and Indemnor,
Defendants-Appellees, (Joseph Acevedo, Plaintiff-Appellant), Case
No. 1-18-1128 (Ill. App.), Judge Aurelia Pucinski of the U.S.
Appellate Court of Illinois for the First District, Second
Division, affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Acevedo's first
amended complaint with prejudice.

In the putative class action, Acevedo, on his own behalf and on
behalf of those similarly situated, alleges that employment
termination decisions issued by the Cook County Sheriff's Merit
Board were void because the Board was illegally constituted at the
time it issued those decisions.

On Jan. 12, 2015, the Board issued a decision terminating Acevedo's
employment as a Cook County correctional officer.  Acevedo filed an
action for direct review under the Review Law, and on Feb. 24,
2016, the trial court affirmed the Board's decision.

Over a year later, on May 18, 2017, Acevedo instituted the present
action.  Five months later, on Oct. 3, 2017, he, joined by Meza and
Wuerffel, filed their FAC.  In that FAC, Acevedo alleged that he
was a former Cook County correctional officer, whose employment was
terminated by Board decision on Jan. 12, 2015.  He further alleged
that his Board decision terminating his employment was null and
void because the Board was illegally constituted at the time, in
that former Board member John R. Rosales had not been properly
appointed under the Cook County Sheriff's Merit Board Act.  Meza
alleged that he was also a former Cook County correctional officer,
whose termination by the Board was null and void because the Board
was illegally constituted at the time, in that Defendants Gray
Mateo-Harris and Patrick Brady had been appointed for terms of less
than six years.  Wuerffel alleged that she was a former Cook County
Sheriff's police sergeant, whose termination by the Board was null
and void because the Board was illegally constituted at the time,
in that Brady had been appointed for a term of less than six years.


The three named Plaintiffs also alleged, on behalf of those unnamed
class members similarly situated, that any other terminations or
suspensions by the Board in which Rosales, Mateo-Harris, and Brady
participated were null and void, as were any terminations or
suspensions by the Board in which defendants Byron Brazier, John J.
Dalicandro, and Kim R. Widup participated, as their appointments
were improperly retroactively approved.  The Plaintiffs sought a
declaration that the Board's decisions were null and void and that
they were entitled to "make-whole relief," including reinstatement
and back pay.  They also sought declarations that their
terminations by an illegally constituted board violated their
rights to due process and equal protection, damages, attorney fees,
and costs.

Shortly after the filing of the first amended complaint, the
Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which the trial
court entered and continued.  In December 2017, Meza and Wuerffel
voluntarily dismissed their claims against the Defendants.

On Jan.y 12, 2018, Defendant Dart filed an amended motion to
dismiss the FAC pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code.  Defendants
the County of Cook and the Board joined in Dart's motion to
dismiss.  A hearing was held on the Defendants' motion to dismiss.
After hearing arguments from the parties, the trial court issued
its ruling, granting the Defendants' motion.  In doing so, it
acknowledged that its jurisdiction over administrative review cases
is strictly limited to that permitted by the Review Law and that it
lacked original jurisdiction over any action seeking any form of
administrative review, such as Acevedo's class action claims for
declaratory judgment.  Concluding that Acevedo's claims were, at
their core, claims for administrative review and that they were not
brought pursuant to the Review Law, the trial court determined that
it lacked jurisdiction.

Not seeking to remedy the defects found by the trial court but
instead wanting only to include additional allegations of fact
regarding improper appointments to the Board for purposes of
appeal, Acevedo requested that he be granted leave to amend his
complaint.  The trial court granted his request.  Thereafter,
Acevedo filed a second amended complaint, which removed certain
Board members as Defendants, added different Board Defendants, and
modified its allegations regarding appointments.

The Defendants moved to strike or dismiss the SAC.  At the hearing
on that motion, the trial court concluded that it would confuse the
record to allow the matter to go up on appeal with two complaints
naming different parties and containing different allegations.
Therefore, it granted the Defendants' motion to strike the SAC and
modified its dismissal of the FAC to be with prejudice.

Thereafter, Acevedo instituted this appeal.  On appeal, he argues
that the trial court erred in dismissing his FAC on the basis that
it lacked jurisdiction because all actions taken by the illegally
constituted Board were void and void actions may be attacked at any
time, either directly or collaterally.  He also argues that the
Defendants' other arguments raised in support of their motion to
dismiss are without merit.  In addition to reiterating the
arguments they made in the trial court, the Defendants respond on
appeal by arguing that Acevedo's claims are barred by the de facto
officer doctrine.

Judge Pucinski agrees with the Defendants that the de facto officer
doctrine bars Acevedo's claims.  Because the putative class was
never certified and because no other named Plaintiffs remained
after the dismissal of Acevedo's claims, dismissal of the entire
complaint was appropriate.

She concludes that Acevedo's claim that the Board's decision
terminating his employment was null and void due to Rosales'
improper appointment is barred by the de facto officer doctrine,
and thus, he was unable to state a cause of action against the
Defendants.  In turn, because Acevedo does not have a valid cause
of action against the Defendants, and because the other named
Plaintiffs -- Meza and Wuerffel -- voluntarily dismissed their
claims, the trial court properly dismissed the FAC in its
entirety.

For these reasons, Judge Pucinski affirmed the judgment of the
circuit court of Cook County.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 7, 2019 Opinion is available at
https://is.gd/7azlxg from Leagle.com.


COUSINS PROPERTIES: Investors Challenge TIER REIT Merger
--------------------------------------------------------
Cousins Properties Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company has been
named as a defendant in lawsuits related to its merger deal with
TIER REIT, Inc.

On March 25, 2019, the Company and TIER REIT, Inc. entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to
which TIER will merge with and into a subsidiary of the Company
(the "Merger").

On May 1, 2019, a purported TIER, stockholder filed a putative
stockholder class action against TIER and the members of the TIER
board of directors challenging the disclosures made in connection
with the Merger.

The lawsuit is captioned Martin v. TIER REIT, INC., et al., No.
1:19-CV-01292, and is pending in the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland.

On May 3, 2019, a purported TIER stockholder filed a putative
stockholder class action against TIER, the members of the TIER
board of directors, and the Company also challenging the
disclosures made in connection with the Merger.

The lawsuit is captioned Franchi v. TIER REIT, Inc. et al., No.
1:19-CV-01310, and is also pending in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland.

The complaints generally allege that the registration statement
filed in connection with the Merger of which this joint proxy
statement/prospectus forms a part fails to disclose certain
allegedly material information in violation of Section 14(a) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder.

The alleged omissions relate to (i) the existence of certain
provisions in confidentiality agreements entered into between TIER
and alternative bidders during the strategic sales process; (ii)
certain financial projections and GAAP reconciliations for TIER and
the Company; and (iii) certain financial analyses performed by
TIER's financial advisor.

Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the Defendants from proceeding with the
Merger and seek damages in the event the transaction is
consummated.

TIER and the Company are reviewing the complaints and have not yet
formally responded to them, but believe that Plaintiffs'
allegations are without merit and intend to defend against them
vigorously.

Cousins said, "However, litigation is inherently uncertain and
there can be no assurance regarding the likelihood that TIER's and
the Company's defense of the actions will be successful.
Accordingly, at this time, the Company is not able to determine if
the outcome of these matters will have a material adverse effect on
the liquidity, results of operations, business, or financial
condition of the Company. Additional lawsuits arising out of the
Merger may also be filed in the future."

Cousins Properties Incorporated is a fully integrated,
self-administered and self-managed real estate investment trust
(REIT). The Company, based in Atlanta, GA and acting through its
operating partnership, Cousins Properties LP, primarily invests in
Class A office towers located in high-growth Sun Belt markets.
Founded in 1958, Cousins creates shareholder value through its
extensive expertise in the development, acquisition, leasing and
management of high-quality real estate assets.


COVIA HOLDINGS: Consolidated Class Suit over Merger Deal Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Covia Holdings 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 the Court has granted
final approval of a settlement and dismissed the consolidated class
action suit against Fairmount Santrol.

On June 1, 2018 (the "Merger Date"), Unimin Corporation ("Unimin")
completed its previously announced merger transaction (the
"Merger") with Fairmount Santrol Holdings Inc. ("Fairmount
Santrol"). Upon closing of the Merger, Fairmount Santrol was merged
into a wholly owned subsidiary of Unimin and ceased to exist as a
separate corporate entity. The combined entities began operating
as Covia. Fairmount Santrol common stock was delisted from the New
York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") prior to the market opening on June 1,
2018 and Covia commenced trading under the ticker symbol "CVIA" as
of that date.

Beginning on April 24, 2018, alleged stockholders of Fairmount
Santrol filed class actions against Fairmount Santrol and its
directors in the United States District Courts for the Northern
District of Ohio and for the District of Delaware.  

The lawsuits generally alleged that Fairmount Santrol and its
directors violated the federal securities laws by issuing
misleading disclosures in connection with the Merger. The lawsuits
sought, among other things, to enjoin the special meeting at which
stockholders of Fairmount Santrol were scheduled to vote on, among
other items, a proposal to adopt the Merger agreement.  

The Delaware lawsuit was transferred to the Northern District of
Ohio and all lawsuits were consolidated.

On May 15, 2018, pursuant to a memorandum of understanding between
counsel for the plaintiffs and counsel for the defendants,
Fairmount Santrol disseminated additional information to Fairmount
Santrol stockholders through a Current Report on Form 8-K. Also on
May 15, 2018, the plaintiffs withdrew their pending motions for a
preliminary injunction.  

On June 1, 2018, after the holders of the majority of the
outstanding shares of Fairmount Santrol voted to approve the
Merger, the Merger was effected pursuant to the Merger agreement.
On November 9, 2018, the parties executed a stipulation of
settlement.  

On May 3, 2019, the Court granted final approval of the settlement
and dismissed the litigation.  

Covia Holdings Corporation provides diversified mineral-based and
material solutions for the industrial and energy markets. The
company operates through two segments, Energy and Industrial. The
company also operates mining facilities in the United States,
Mexico, Canada, China, and Denmark. Covia Holdings Corporation was
founded in 1970 and is headquartered in Independence, Ohio.


CROSS TIMBERS: Trustee to Review Chieftain Royalty Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Timbers Royalty Trust 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 Trustee intends to
review any claimed reductions in payment to the Trust based on the
facts and circumstances of the settlement in the class action suit
entitled, Chieftain Royalty Company v. XTO Energy Inc.

A federal district court approved the settlement of a royalty class
action lawsuit against XTO Energy Inc. (Chieftain Royalty Company
v. XTO Energy Inc.) in March 2018. In July 2018, the class
plaintiffs submitted their plan to allocate the settlement funds
among members of the class. After that plan of allocation was
approved, XTO Energy advised the Trustee that, based upon that
plan, approximately $40,000 should be allocated to the Trust as
additional production costs.

The Trustee has objected to similar claims relating to the
Chieftain settlement with respect to another trust for which it
serves as trustee (the Hugoton Royalty Trust) pursuant to a demand
for arbitration styled Simmons Bank (successor to Southwest Bank
and Bank of America, N.A.) vs. XTO Energy Inc. through the American
Arbitration Association seeking a declaratory judgment that the
Chieftain settlement is not a production cost and that XTO Energy
is prohibited from charging the settlement as a production cost
under the conveyance or otherwise reducing the Hugoton Royalty
Trust's payments now or in the future as a result of the Chieftain
litigation.

Therefore, the Trustee and XTO have agreed that XTO will defer
making the accounting entries to allocate to the Trust its
proportional share of the Chieftain settlement until the panel in
the pending arbitration issues its final award on the Trustee's
request for a declaratory judgment. The Trustee intends to review
any claimed reductions in payment to the Trust based on the facts
and circumstances of the settlement.

Cross Timbers Royalty Trust operates as an express trust in the
United States. It holds 90% net profits interests in certain
producing and nonproducing royalty and overriding royalty interest
properties in Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico; and 75% net profits
interests in certain working interest properties in Texas and
Oklahoma. The company was founded in 1991 and is based in Dallas,
Texas.


DELIVERCLUB INC: Warren Sues over Unwanted Telemarketing Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT WARREN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. DELIVERCLUB INC., a Delaware Profit
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-01328-CEH-AEP (M.D.
Fla., May 31, 2019), seeks to secure redress for Defendant's
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is an online food
delivery service. To promote its services, Defendant engages in
unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the
process.

On or about January 29, 2019, Defendant sent the following
telemarketing text message to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number
ending in 3384. The Defendant's text message was transmitted to
Plaintiff's cellular telephone, and within the time frame relevant
to this action. Defendant's text message constitutes telemarketing
because it encourages the future purchase or investment in
property, goods, or services, i.e., promoting its delivery service
to Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal
conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment,
aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of
individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf
of himself and members of the class, and any other available legal
or equitable remedies.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class:

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

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          19495 Biscayne Blvd No. 607
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: 305 975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

DOMINION ENERGY: Awaits Court's Decision on Fairness Hearing
------------------------------------------------------------
Dominion Energy South Carolina, 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 Dominion Energy
South Carolina, Inc. (DESC) and SCANA Corporation (SCANA) are
awaiting the court's approval of a class action settlement.

In May 2018, a consolidated complaint against Dominion Energy South
Carolina, Inc. (DESC), SCANA Corporation (SCANA) and the State of
South Carolina was filed in the State Court of Common Pleas in
Hampton County, South Carolina (the DESC Ratepayer Case).

In September 2018, the court certified this case as a class action.
The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that DESC was negligent
and unjustly enriched, breached alleged fiduciary and contractual
duties and committed fraud and misrepresentation in failing to
properly manage the NND Project, and that DESC committed unfair
trade practices and violated state anti-trust laws.

The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that DESC may not
charge its customers for any past or continuing costs of the NND
Project, sought to have SCANA and DESC's assets frozen and all
monies recovered from Toshiba and other sources be placed in a
constructive trust for the benefit of ratepayers and sought
specific performance of the alleged implied contract to construct
the NND Project.

In December 2018, the State Court of Common Pleas in Hampton County
entered an order granting preliminary approval of a class action
settlement and a stay of pre-trial proceedings in the DESC
Ratepayer Case.

The settlement agreement, contingent upon the closing of the SCANA
Combination, provided that SCANA and DESC would establish an escrow
account and proceeds from the escrow account would be distributed
to the class members, after payment of certain taxes, attorneys'
fees and other expenses and administrative costs.

The escrow account would include (1) up to $2.0 billion, net of a
credit of up to $2.0 billion in future electric bill relief, which
would inure to the benefit of the escrow account in favor of class
members over a period of time established by the South Carolina
Commission in its order related to matters before the South
Carolina Commission related to the NND Project, (2) a cash payment
of $115 million and (3) the transfer of certain DESC-owned real
estate or sales proceeds from the sale of such properties, which
counsel for the DESC Ratepayer Class estimate to have an aggregate
value between $60 million and $85 million. At the closing of the
SCANA Combination, SCANA and DESC funded the cash payment portion
of the escrow account.

The court has scheduled a fairness hearing on the settlement in May
2019.

Dominion Energy said, "Any distribution from the escrow account is
subject to court approval. As a result, in the first quarter of
2019, DESC recorded a charge of $157 million ($118 million
after-tax), reflected in impairment of assets and other charges in
the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss).

Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc. generates, transmits,
distributes, and sells electricity. It owns gas, coal, nuclear,
hydro, and solar generating facilities. The company also purchases,
sells, and transports natural gas. The company was formerly known
as South Carolina Electric & Gas Company and changed its name to
Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc. in April 2019. The company was
founded in 1924 and is based in Cayce, South Carolina. Dominion
Energy South Carolina, Inc. is a subsidiary of SCANA Corporation.


DOMINION ENERGY: Metzler Lawsuit on SCANA Merger Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dominion Energy South Carolina, 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 Metzler
lawsuit over a merger transaction remains pending.

In February 2018, a purported class action was filed against
certain former directors of SCANA Corporation (SCANA) and the
company (DESC) and Dominion Energy in the State Court of Common
Pleas in Richland County, South Carolina (the Metzler Lawsuit).

The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that defendants violated
their fiduciary duties to shareholders by executing a merger
agreement that would unfairly deprive plaintiffs of the true value
of their SCANA stock, and that Dominion Energy aided and abetted
these actions.

Among other remedies, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin and/or rescind
the merger. In February 2018, Dominion Energy removed the case to
the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina and
filed a Motion to Dismiss in March 2018.

In August 2018, the case was remanded back to the State Court of
Common Pleas in Richland County. Dominion Energy appealed the
decision to remand to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit, where the appeal has been consolidated with another
lawsuit regarding the Merger Agreement to which DESC is not a
party. This case is pending.

DESC cannot currently estimate the financial statement impacts of
this matter, but there could be a material impact to its results of
operations, financial condition and/or cash flows.

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

Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc. generates, transmits,
distributes, and sells electricity. It owns gas, coal, nuclear,
hydro, and solar generating facilities. The company also purchases,
sells, and transports natural gas. The company was formerly known
as South Carolina Electric & Gas Company and changed its name to
Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc. in April 2019. The company was
founded in 1924 and is based in Cayce, South Carolina. Dominion
Energy South Carolina, Inc. is a subsidiary of SCANA Corporation.


DOMINION ENERGY: RICO Class Action Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------
Dominion Energy South Carolina, 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 that the
purported class action against SCANA Corporation, Dominion Energy
South Carolina, Inc. (DESC) and certain former executive officers,
are still pending.

In January 2018, a purported class action was filed, and
subsequently amended, against SCANA Corporation (SCANA), Dominion
Energy South Carolina, Inc. (DESC) and certain former executive
officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina.

The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that SCANA, DESC and the
individual defendants participated in an unlawful racketeering
enterprise in violation of The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO) and conspired to violate RICO by
fraudulently inflating utility bills to generate unlawful proceeds.
The DESC Ratepayer Class Action settlement contemplates dismissal
of claims by DESC ratepayers in this case against DESC, SCANA and
their officers. This case is pending.

DESC cannot currently estimate the financial statement impacts of
this matter, but there could be a material impact to its results of
operations, financial condition and/or cash flows.

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

Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc. generates, transmits,
distributes, and sells electricity. It owns gas, coal, nuclear,
hydro, and solar generating facilities. The company also purchases,
sells, and transports natural gas. The company was formerly known
as South Carolina Electric & Gas Company and changed its name to
Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc. in April 2019. The company was
founded in 1924 and is based in Cayce, South Carolina. Dominion
Energy South Carolina, Inc. is a subsidiary of SCANA Corporation.


DOMINION ENERGY: Santee Cooper Ratepayers Class Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dominion Energy South Carolina, 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 purported
class action suit initiated by Santee Cooper is still pending.

In September 2017, a purported class action was filed by Santee
Cooper ratepayers against Santee Cooper, ominion Energy South
Carolina, Inc. (DESC), Palmetto Electric Cooperative, Inc. and
Central Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. in the State Court of
Common Pleas in Hampton County, South Carolina (the Santee Cooper
Ratepayer Case).

The allegations are substantially similar to those in the DESC
Ratepayer Case. The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the
defendants may not charge the purported class for reimbursement for
past or future costs of the NND Project.

In March 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint including
as additional named defendants certain then current and former
directors of Santee Cooper and SCANA.

In June 2018, Santee Cooper filed a Notice of Petition for Original
Jurisdiction with the Supreme Court of South Carolina.

In December 2018, Santee Cooper filed its answer to the plaintiffs'
fourth amended complaint and filed cross claims against DESC. This
case is pending.

DESC cannot currently estimate the financial statement impacts of
this matter, but there could be a material impact to its results of
operations, financial condition and/or cash flows.

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

Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc. generates, transmits,
distributes, and sells electricity. It owns gas, coal, nuclear,
hydro, and solar generating facilities. The company also purchases,
sells, and transports natural gas. The company was formerly known
as South Carolina Electric & Gas Company and changed its name to
Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc. in April 2019. The company was
founded in 1924 and is based in Cayce, South Carolina. Dominion
Energy South Carolina, Inc. is a subsidiary of SCANA Corporation.


DUKE ENERGY: Denies Employee Benefit Plans, Pridy et al., say
-------------------------------------------------------------
DARRELL PRIDY, GREGORY NABORS, MICHAEL SANDERS, and RANDALL ABSTON,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-00468 (M.D. Tenn., May 31, 2019), alleges that Defendant
wrongfully denied Plaintiffs' accrued sick leave and short-term
disability benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security.
Act. The Plaintiffs also sue Defendant under the Tennessee Human
Rights Act for discrimination on the basis of age.

The Plaintiffs were employees of Duke Energy and/or its
predecessors and has participated in various employee benefit
plans, including welfare benefit plan for Duke Energy employees
providing sick leave and short-term disability benefits.

According the complaint, the Defendant was and continues to be a
party to a collective bargaining agreement with Local 702. The
collective bargaining agreements over the years have created or
incorporated a number of employee benefit plans.  ne such benefit
is a sick leave and short-term disability benefit. The collective
bargaining agreement in effect from 1989 to 1992 between the
Company and Local 702 established a sick leave and short-term
disability benefit plan.  The Plan allowed a participant to accrue
sick leave days as they worked for the Company and bank those
accumulated days. The 1989 CBA refers to this accrued leave account
as a "sickness allowance." Upon information and belief, employees
participating in the Plan actively accrued sick leave time until
December 31, 2004. The collective bargaining agreement between the
Company and Local 702 in effect from August 1999 to August 2004 is
the last agreement to provide for accrual of banked Plan hours,
which is also contained in Section X, the lawsuit says.

Duke Energy is one of the largest electric power holdings companies
in the United States, providing electricity to 7.6 million retail
customers in the United States. Duke Energy owns and operates
numerous diverse power generation assets in North America. As of
December 31, 2017, Duke Energy had operating revenues of $23.6
billion, owned assets of $138 billion, and employed 29,060
individuals.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Esq.
          Karla M. Campbell, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          The Freedom Center
          223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 254-8801
          E-mail: joeyl@bsjfirm.com
                  karlac@bsjfirm.com

EMC INSURANCE: Faces Class Action in Iowa State Court
-----------------------------------------------------
EMC Insurance Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company has been
named as a defendant in a class action suit in the state court in
Iowa.

On March 22, 2019, a lawsuit was filed in state court in Iowa
relating to the November 15, 2018 proposal by Employers Mutual to
acquire all outstanding shares of stock in the Company not already
owned by Employers Mutual.  

The lawsuit was filed as a purported class action, and names as
defendants Employers Mutual and the five individual directors of
the Company.  

The lawsuit alleges that the proposal is unfair to the Company's
minority shareholders, and seeks an unspecified amount of damages.


Employers Mutual and the Company and its directors deny all
allegations of wrongdoing set forth in the lawsuit.

The Company believes that Directors, Officers and Organization
Liability Coverage is in place that should be sufficient to cover
any finding of liability.

EMC Insurance Group Inc., an insurance holding company, provides
property and casualty insurance, and reinsurance products in the
United States. It operates through two segments, Property and
Casualty Insurance, and Reinsurance. The company was founded in
1974 and is based in Des Moines, Iowa. EMC Insurance Group Inc. is
a subsidiary of Employers Mutual Casualty Company.


ENDO INT'L: Settlement in Principle Reached in Miss. PERS Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International plc 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
case, Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v. Endo
International plc, informed the court that they had reached a
settlement in principle.

In February 2017, a putative class action entitled Public
Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v. Endo International
plc was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County,
Pennsylvania by an institutional purchaser of shares in the
Company's June 2, 2015 public offering, on behalf of itself and all
similarly situated purchasers.

The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 against Endo, certain of its current and
former directors and officers, and the underwriters who
participated in the offering, based on certain disclosures about
Endo's generics business.

In March 2017, defendants removed the case to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

In August 2017, the court remanded the case back to the Chester
County Court of Common Pleas. In October 2017, plaintiff filed an
amended complaint. In December 2017, defendants filed preliminary
objections to the amended complaint. The court denied those
preliminary objections in April 2018. Plaintiff filed its motion
for class certification in July 2018.

In April 2019, the parties informed the court that they had reached
a settlement in principle. The settlement in principle would
provide the investor class $50 million in exchange for a release of
their claims; the settlement is subject to court approval. As a
result, during the first quarter of 2019, the Company recorded an
increase of approximately $50 million to its accrual for loss
contingencies.

As the Company's insurers have agreed to fund the foregoing
settlement, the Company also recorded a corresponding insurance
receivable of approximately $50 million during the first quarter of
2019, which is included in Prepaid expenses and other current
assets in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Endo International plc manufactures and sells generic and branded
pharmaceuticals in the United States, Canada, and internationally.
The company was founded in 1920 and is headquartered in Dublin,
Ireland.


FIRST BANCORP: Next Hearing in Torres Suit Set for September 2019
-----------------------------------------------------------------
First BanCorp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the court overseeing
the case, Ramirez Torres, et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico,
et al., has scheduled the next hearings for September 2019.

FirstBank Puerto Rico has been named defendant in a punitive class
action complaint, filed in February 2017 at the Court of First
Instance in San Juan, Puerto Rico.

The Complaint seeks damages and preliminary injunctive relief on
behalf of the purported class against Banco Popular de Puerto Rico
and other financial institutions with insurance agency subsidiaries
in Puerto Rico.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have been unjustly enriched by
failing to reimburse them for "good experience" commissions
allegedly paid by Antilles Insurance Company and Puerto Rico Home
Insurance Company.

In March 2017, FirstBank Puerto Rico filed a Motion to Dismiss and
a Motion for Declaratory Judgment and Third-Party Complaint against
Antilles Insurance Company and the Insurance Commissioner's Office.


All other co-defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint and
opposed the request for preliminary injunctive relief.  

Antilles Insurance Company filed a Motion against the Third-Party
Complaint filed by FirstBank Puerto Rico, which FirstBank Puerto
Rico opposed.

The Insurance Commissioner's Office filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment. In July 2017, the Court issued a Judgment granting the
Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendants, dismissing the Complaint
with prejudice, except the Third-Party Complaint filed by FirstBank
Puerto Rico which was dismissed without prejudice.

In August 2017, Plaintiffs filed an appeal before the Puerto Rico
Court of Appeals and FirstBank Puerto Rico and other co-defendants
filed their Oppositions to Plaintiffs appeal.

In March 2018, the Court of Appeals entered a Judgment revoking the
lower court's Judgment. One co-defendant filed for reconsideration,
which was denied, and all other co-defendants filed their
respective Petitions of Certiorari before the Puerto Rico Supreme
Court, which also denied review. Co-defendants have filed for
reconsideration.

All Motions for Reconsideration were denied, and the case was
remanded to the Court of First Instance for the continuation of
proceedings.

A Class certification hearing scheduled for May 2, 2019 was changed
to a status hearing. Parties discussed their respective positions,
specifically that prior to celebrating any other hearing, it is
imperative that the Court enters to resolve FirstBank's suit
seeking Declaratory Judgment. The Court has scheduled next hearings
for September 2019.

First BanCorp. is a diversified financial holding company
headquartered in San Juan, Puerto Rico offering a full range of
financial products to consumers and commercial customers through
various subsidiaries. First BanCorp. is the holding company of
FirstBank Puerto Rico ("FirstBank" or the "Bank") and FirstBank
Insurance Agency. The company is based in Santurce, Puerto Rico.


FIRST DATA: Skulsky Sues Board for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alan Skulsky, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Frank Bisignano, Joseph Plumeri, Henrique de Castro,
Henry R. Kravis, Heidi G. Miller, James E. Nevels, Scott C. Nuttal,
Tagar C. Olson, and Barbara A. Yastine, Case No. 2019-0255 (Del.
Ch., April 03, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for
breaches of fiduciary duties.

This is a stockholder class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf
of similarly situated First Data stockholders against the First
Data Board for breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of
state law arising out of their efforts to effectuate the merger of
First Data with Fiserv pursuant to an unfair process and for an
unfair price.

On January 16, 2019, First Data announced that it had entered into
a definitive merger agreement, pursuant to which a direct, wholly
owned subsidiary of Fiserv will merge with and into First Data with
First Data surviving as a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of
Fiserv.

According to the complaint, First Data stockholders will receive
only 0.303 of a share of Fiserv common stock for each share of
First Data common stock that they own.  The Proposed Merger fails
to maximize shareholder value and to protect the interests of First
Data's stockholders. Instead, Defendants engaged in a process that
was designed to benefit controlling stockholder KKR & Co. Inc.

The Plaintiff is a continuous stockholder of First Data.

The Defendants are the members of the Board of Directors of First
Data Corporation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
      COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
      The Brandywine Building
      1000 West Street, 10th Floor
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 984-3800


FISHER-PRICE: Wray Files Suit Over Dangerous Sleepers
-----------------------------------------------------
RENEE WRAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FISHER-PRICE, INC.; and MATTEL, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01603 (D. Colo., June 4, 2019) seeks
damages and all other relief available under law and equity from
Fisher-Price and its corporate parent Mattel, including punitive
damages for their appalling and unconscionable misconduct.

The Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper is an inclined infant
"sleeper" that Defendants FISHER-PRICE, INC. , and MATTEL, INC.,
until April 12, 2019, marketed as suitable for all-night or
prolonged sleep. Not only is "Sleeper" in the name of the product,
but the boxes in which the Rock 'n Play Sleepers were sold, and
other materials used to promote them, prominently exclaim, "Baby
can sleep at a comfortable incline all night long!" and make
similar statements about its fitness for prolonged and nighttime
sleep. This marketing was dangerously false and misleading, as the
product is not safe for all-night or prolonged sleep for infants,
asserts the complaint.

The Defendant contends that the Rock 'n Play Sleeper is inherently
unsafe as a sleeper and unfit for its intended use. Its use poses a
number of serious safety risks that have led to many documented
instances of infant deaths and injuries. By positioning an infant
at a 30-degree incline, the Rock 'n Play Sleeper significantly
increases the risk that the infant's head will slip into a
dangerous position, tilt to constrict the windpipe and/or cause the
infant's face to become pressed against the padded fabric in the
sleeper and block airflow, which the infant may be unable to
correct. This increases the risk of death by asphyxiation. In
addition, because Defendants advise parents to keep babies strapped
in restraints overnight while sleeping on an incline, the Rock 'n
Play Sleeper increases the infant's risk of developing flat head
(plagiocephaly) and twisted neck (torticollis) syndromes,
conditions that often require babies to wear expensive head-molding
helmets and undergo physical therapy. In fact, the Rock 'n Play
Sleeper is so dangerous and has caused so many infant deaths, that,
on April 12, 2019, Defendants, after making an incomplete
disclosure on April 5, 2019, were forced to recall approximately
4.7 million Rock 'n Play Sleepers units in the United States.

Had parents like Plaintiff Renee Wray been aware of the potentially
fatal dangers posed by the Rock 'n Play Sleeper, or the serious
risks of injury such as flat head and twisted neck syndrome, they
would not have purchased and/or used the product, says the
complaint. Defendants' false and misleading marketing of this
dangerous product, and knowing failure to disclose the grave risks
of its use as a sleeper for overnight or prolonged sleep, allowed
Defendants to reap vast profits at the expense of consumers who
erroneously believed they were obtaining a safe place for their
babies to sleep, the complaint adds.

Plaintiff received as a gift or purchased a Rock 'n Play Sleeper to
use as a "sleeper" for overnight or prolonged sleep for her
infant.

Defendant Fisher-Price manufactures and markets products for the
care of infants and preschool children to consumers throughout the
United States, including in the State of Colorado.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Anthony Savastano, Esq.
     Duthie Savastano Brungard, PLLC
     PO Box 219
     Durango, CO 81302
     Phone: 970-247-4545
     Fax: 970-247-4546
     Email: asavastano@trialdurango.com

          - and -

     Daniel E. Smolen, Esq.
     Lauren Lambright, Esq.
     Smolen & Roytman
     701 S. CIN Ave.
     Tulsa, OK 74119
     Phone: (918) 585-2267
     Fax: (918) 585-2669
     Email: danielsmolen@ssrok.com
            laurenlambright@ssrok.com

          - and -

     Mark A. Smith, Esq.
     Caruso Law Firm, P.C.
     1325 East Fifteenth Street, Suite 201
     Tulsa, CO 74120
     Phone: a(918) 583-5900 (telephone)
     Fax: (918) 583-5902 (fax)
     Email: msmith@carusolawfirm.com


FLOWERS FOODS: FLSA Class in Carr Suit Gets Final Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MATTHEW CARR, TERRY CARR, DAVID TUMBLIN AND GREGORY
BROWN, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. FLOWERS FOODS, INC. AND FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF
OXFORD, INC., Defendants. LUKE BOULANGE, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FLOWERS FOODS, INC. AND
FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF OXFORD, INC., Defendants, Civil Action Nos.
15-6391, 16-2581 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Wendy Beetlestone of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the
Plaintiffs' motion to certify the Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New
Jersey classes with respect to the Rule 23(b)(3) class, and denied
with respect to the Rule 23(b)(2).

Defendant Flowers Foods is a Georgia corporation that develops and
markets bakery products on a national scale through its network of
subsidiaries.  Defendant Flowers Baking Co. of Oxford, Inc. is one
such subsidiary, which operates as the local sales and distribution
manager in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and
Virginia.  The Plaintiffs are individual distributors who collect
baked goods from Oxford warehouses and deliver them to customers --
mainly stores and restaurants.

The Plaintiffs have provided testimony and documentary evidence
detailing their work experience as distributors with Flowers.  In
short, they earn money by purchasing product from Flowers at a
discount rate which is fixed unilaterally by Flowers, and selling
it at a higher price to customers within a designated geographic
area.

The Plaintiffs assert that they have been improperly categorized as
independent contractors rather than employees under federal and
state law, and thereby deprived of overtime pay, other wages, and
records.  Named Plaintiffs Matthew Carr, Terry Carr, Tumblin,
Brown, and Boulange bring suit on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated against Defendants Flowers Foods, Inc. and its
subsidiary, Flowers Baking Co. of Oxford, Inc., for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); the Pennsylvania Wage
Payment and Collection Law; the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act; the
Maryland Wage and Payment Collection Law; the Maryland Wage and
Hour Law; the New Jersey Wage and Payment Law; and the New Jersey
Wage and Hour Law.

On Jan. 9, 2017, the Plaintiffs' FLSA claims were conditionally
certified as a collective action.  The Defendants now move to
decertify that collective action.  Separately, the Plaintiffs move
to certify three independent class actions pertaining to three
states -- Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New Jersey -- where
distributors work.

The three classes that the Plaintiffs seek to certify are defined
as all persons who, at any time from Dec. 1, 2012 continuing
through entry of judgment in the case, worked as distributors for
Flowers Foods, Inc. and/or Flowers Baking Co. of Oxford, Inc., in
Pennsylvania, Maryland, or New Jersey and were classified as
independent contractors under their distribution agreements.

Accordingly, the issue before the Court is whether the Plaintiffs'
claims are suitable for group adjudication.  Specifically, with
regard to the FLSA, the Court must determine whether the named
Plaintiffs and approximately 100 other distributors who have opted
into the lawsuit may receive final certification to proceed as a
collective.  Separately, the Court must determine whether three
classes, representing the distributors of Pennsylvania, Maryland,
and New Jersey, may be certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

Judge Beetlestone finds that given the number of class members, the
common interest in correctly determining the employee status of the
class, and the prevalence of common questions of law and fact, a
class action provides a significantly more efficient litigation
vehicle than individual trials.  As to the existence of overlapping
litigation, there are a number of similar suits against Flowers
winding through the federal court system elsewhere,8 but each is
confined to a separate geographic area, and does not appear to
involve the class members -- i.e., distributors in Pennsylvania,
Maryland, and New Jersey, respectively.  Further, given the
difficulty of mounting litigation, and the limited resources
available to the individual distributors, individual suits would
likely impede resolution of the individual class members' claims.
Finally, there are considerable efficiency gains in concentrating
all three of these class actions in the Court, given the many
similar issues applicable to their claims.  The Defendants, for
their part, make no argument regarding superiority.  In sum, for
the reasons given, certification of the Pennsylvania, Maryland, and
New Jersey classes pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) is warranted.

The Plaintiffs include their request for certification under (b)(2)
almost as an afterthought, treating (b)(2) certification as flowing
necessarily from (b)(3) certification.  But, the Judge finds that
the the two subsections actually create two remarkably different
litigation devices with (b)(3) permitting certification in a "much
wider set of circumstances" than (b)(2).  Further, courts diverge
in their treatment of simultaneous (b)(3) and (b)(2) certification
requests in analogous contexts.  The Plaintiffs, by simply grafting
the (b)(2) proposal onto the (b)(3) analysis absent further
advocacy and analysis, have failed to carry their burden to show
that certification is appropriate pursuant to both sections.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the Pennsylvania,
Maryland, and New Jersey classes will be granted with respect to
the Rule 23(b)(3) class, and will be denied with respect to the
Rule 23(b)(2).

For the reasons given, Judge Beetlestone granted final
certification of the FLSA collective action, and certification of
the Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New Jersey classes pursuant to Rule
23(b)(3).  She denied certification of the state class actions
pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2).  The Judge denied the Defendants' motion
to decertify the FLSA collective action.

An appropriate order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 7, 2019 Opinion is available at
https://is.gd/J9vk5e from Leagle.com.

LUKE BOULANGE, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by JAMES J. HOLLAWELL, LAW OFFICE
OF JAMES J. HOLLAWELL, JAMES CHARLES VEITH, VEITH LAW FIRM, MARK J.
GOTTESFELD, THE WINEBRAKE LAW FIRM LLC, PETER D. WINEBRAKE --
pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com -- WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC, R. ANDREW
SANTILLO -- asantillo@winebrakelaw.com -- WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO,
LLC, SCOTT A. MORIARITY -- samoriarity@baillonthome.com -- BAILLON
THOMER JOZWIAK & WANTA LLP & SHAWN J. WANTA --
sjwanta@baillonthome.com -- BAILLON THOME JOZWIAK MILLER & WANTA
LLP.

FLOWERS FOODS, INC. & FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF OXFORD, INC.,
Defendants, represented by AARON WARSHAW --
aaron.warshaw@ogletreedeakins.com -- OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK &
STEWART PC, MARK DIANA -- mark.diana@ogletreedeakins.com --
OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., ROBIN KOSHY --
robin.koshy@ogletreedeakins.com -- OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH SMOAK, &
STEWART, P.C., CHRISTOPHER E. HUMBER --
chris.humber@ogletreedeakins.com -- OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK &
STEWART PC, JULIE DONAHUE -- julie.donahue@ogletreedeakins.com --
OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART PC, K. CLARK WHITNEY --
clark.whitney@ogletreedeakins.com -- OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK &
STEWART PC & MARGARET S. HANRAHAN --
maggie.hanrahan@ogletreedeakins.com -- OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK
& STEWART P.C..


FORD MOTOR: Lied About Fuel-Efficiency Testing Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
TRACEY TRAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-11639-SFC-RSW (E.D. Mich. June 4, 2019)
asserts that Ford Motor Company engaged in a fraudulent and
deceptive conduct regarding its fuel-efficiency testing practices,
and tangled a web of deception that includes a mileage cheat
device.

Ford's calculated and intentionally wrongful conduct recently
caused the federal government to initiate a criminal investigation
into its practices, says the complaint.

The Ford vehicle whose Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") fuel
economy ratings were less than the fuel economy rating produced by
the applicable federal test, including but not limited to the model
year 2019 Ford Ranger truck are referred to as the "Affected
Vehicles," and include the 2019 Ford Ranger Truck, and on
information and belief, the F-150 series trucks, and may also
include any and all other Ford vehicles. A mileage "cheat device"
is also likely included in all Affected Vehicles, whereby the
onboard trip meter continually misrepresents the vehicles' poor
mileage to conceal it from vehicle owners, and maintains
consistency with Ford's misrepresentations to the EPA during
certification testing regarding both the mileage and emissions of
the Affected Vehicles, the complaint relates.

According to the complaint, Ford's motives were twofold: (1)
customers choose and pay a premium for fuel efficiency and the
resulting savings, and (2) less fuel burned means less emissions,
and therefore more profits under the U.S. environmental
regulations. Ford has admitted that its newest model of truck, the
2019 Ranger, is the first model that should be investigated by the
government. The popular Ford F-150 appears to have the same issue.
Indeed, Ford has not described the problem as vehicle specific, and
the Class may extend to other Ford vehicles. Ford deliberately
misrepresented or miscalculated certain road testing factors during
internal vehicle testing processes in order to report that its
vehicles were more fuel efficient than they actually were. In
particular, Ford miscalculated something called "Road Load," which
is the force that is imparted on a vehicle while driving at a
constant speed over a smooth, level surface from sources such as
tire rolling resistance, driveline losses, and aerodynamic drag.
Ford's internal lab tests did not account for these forces, which
lead to better--and entirely inaccurate--fuel economy projections.
Despite Ford's own employees questioning its testing practices and
the calculations that Ford was utilizing for fuel economy ratings,
at least by September 2018, Ford took no action to correct the
problems, or alert consumers that their test methods were flawed
and that consumers would not get the promised fuel economy.

Ford's representations are deceptive and false, and Ford sold its
2019 Ford Rangers while omitting information that would be material
to a reasonable consumer, namely that Ford miscalculated factors
during internal vehicle testing processes in order to report that
its vehicles were more fuel efficient than they actually were, and
discounting common real-world driving conditions, says the
complaint. Plaintiff alleges that the 2019 Ford Ranger model is
affected by the unlawful, unfair, deceptive, and otherwise
defective fuel efficiency testing protocol utilized by Ford. In
addition, Ford markets the Affected Vehicles as "fuel efficient"
and "best-in-class" in fuel economy. Without manipulating its
testing procedures and ignoring common road conditions, Ford could
not achieve the fuel economy and range it promises, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff purchased the new 2019 Ranger Lariat model, with VIN
1FTER4FH2KLA10885, from All American Ford located in Hackensack,
New Jersey.

Ford Motor Company is a corporation doing business in all 50 states
and the District of Columbia who manufactured, sold, and warranted
the Affected Vehicles throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Steve W. Berman, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Phone: (206) 623-7292
     Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
     Email: steve@hbsslaw.com

          - and -

     Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
     GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, L.P.A.
     One West 4th Street, 18th Floor
     Cincinnati, OH 45202
     Phone: (513) 345-8291
     Facsimile: (513) 345-8294
     Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com

          - and -

     Jason Thompson, Esq.
     SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
     One Tower Square, Suite 1700
     Southfield, MI 48076
     Phone No.: (248) 355-0300
     Email: jthompson@sommerspc.com

          - and -

     Robert C. Hilliard, Esq.
     HILLIARD MARTINEZ GONZALES LLP
     719 S. Shoreline Boulevard
     Corpus Christi, Texas 78401
     Phone No.: (361) 882-1612
     Facsimile No.: (361) 882-3015
     Email: hmgservice@hmglawfirm.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Corvette Faulty Wheels
--------------------------------------------------------------
Coleman Molnar, writing for Driving, reports that a class-action
lawsuit against General Motors claims some Chevrolet Corvettes have
wheels prone to bending and cracking at "extremely low mileage,"
and that the company knew about it and has been blaming drivers.

According to automotive watchdog site Car Complaints, the
class-action suit is on behalf of anyone who purchased or leased a
2015-or-newer Corvette Z06 model, or a 2017-or-newer Grand Sport
model within the U.S.

It claims GM was aware of the issues with the alloy rims that
causes them to bend and crack, and has been "systematically denying
coverage" under the usually all-inclusive 36,000-mile
bumper-to-bumper warranties.

The lawsuit cites GM as blaming "potholes or other driver error"
for bent or cracked wheels, instead of admitting inherent fault.

The issue came to light when a customer took delivery of a leased
2018 Corvette from a California dealership last summer and
discovered the wheels were bent. Actually, it was a Cali
wheel-finishing company, CalChrome, that was tasked with coating
the wheels that noticed the damage.

When the issue was brought up with the dealer, however, the
customer was told the warranty wouldn't cover the busted alloys,
and that the issue was likely caused by the way the car had been
driven. Following some persistent complaining, GM agreed to pay
US$1,200, a fraction of the US$7,500 the customer ended up
personally paying to replace the wheels (looks like they may have
been ripped off there, too).

GM is being accused of knowing about the issue and covering it up
prior to the 2018 sale that sparked the lawsuit. Multiple other
complaints regarding the specific 'Vette models' wheels had been
registered with the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.

Car and Driver also covered the issue as it pertained to a 2017
Corvette Grand Sport it was testing last fall. [GN]


GHS INTERACTIVE: Miholich Sues over Unwanted Cellular Phone Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KYLE MIHOLICH, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. GHS INTERACTIVE SECURITY, LLC, and
DOES, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01032-BEN-AGS (S.D. Cal.,
May 31, 2019), seeks damages, injunctive relief, and any other
available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal
actions of GHS in negligently and/or intentionally contacting
Plaintiff on his cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

There are online complaints about Defendant's calling practices,
including numerous complaints that Defendant placed unsolicited
recorded message calls even to people who were on the National
Do-Not-Call Registry. The Plaintiff did not have a business
relationship with GHS. The Plaintiff's telephone number was on the
National Do-Not-Call Registry, the lawsuit says.

On or about May 28, 2019, at approximately 11:37 a.m., GHS or it's
authorized agent called Plaintiff on his cellular telephone number
ending in "5823" from telephone number displayed as (760) 667-2166.
The Defendant did not have prior express written consent to call
Plaintiff's cell phone with an automated telephone dialing system
or with a prerecorded voice message.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Alex S. Madar, Esq.
          MADAR LAW CORPORATION
          14410 Via Venezia No. 1404
          San Diego, CA 92129-1666
          Telephone: (858) 299-5879
          Facsimile: (619) 354-7281
          E-mail: alex@madarlaw.net

GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: Appeal in Transient Tax-Related Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Golden Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that plaintiffs in the
Transient Lodging Tax-related suit have taken an appeal from the
District Court decision granting the defendants joint motion to
dismiss.

On August 31, 2018, prior guests of The Strat filed a purported
class action complaint against the Company in the District Court,
Clark County, Nevada, on behalf of similarly situated individuals
and entities that paid the Clark County Combined Transient Lodging
Tax ("Tax") on the portion of a resort fee that constitutes charges
for Internet access, during the period of February 6, 2014 through
the date the alleged conduct ceases.

The lawsuit alleged that the Tax was charged in violation of the
federal Internet Tax Freedom Act, which imposed a national
moratorium on the taxation of Internet access by states and their
political subdivisions, and sought, on behalf of the plaintiff and
the putative class, damages equal to the amount of the Tax
collected on the Internet access component of the resort fee,
injunctive relief, disgorgement, interest, fees and costs.

All defendants to this matter, including Golden Entertainment,
Inc., filed a joint motion to dismiss this matter for lack of
merit. The District Court granted this joint motion to dismiss on
February 21, 2019.

The plaintiffs appealed the District Court decision, on April 10,
2019, to the Supreme Court of Nevada.

Golden Entertainment, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, focuses
on distributed gaming, and resort casino operations in the United
States. The company was formerly known as Lakes Entertainment, Inc.
and changed its name to Golden Entertainment, Inc. in July 2015.
The company was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in Las Vegas,
Nevada.


GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: June 2019 Final Settlement Fairness Hearing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Golden Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that a final fairness
hearing to consider approval of the settlement in a class action
lawsuit in Nevada is scheduled for June 2019.

In February and April 2017, several former employees filed two
separate purported class action lawsuits against the Company in the
District Court of Clark County, Nevada, on behalf of similarly
situated individuals employed by the Company in the State of
Nevada.

The lawsuits allege that the Company violated certain Nevada labor
laws including payment of an hourly wage below the statutory
minimum wage without providing a qualified health insurance plan
and an associated failure to pay proper overtime compensation.

The complaints seek, on behalf of the plaintiffs and members of the
putative class, an unspecified amount of damages (including
punitive damages), injunctive and equitable relief, and an award of
attorneys' fees, interest and costs.

The Company agreed to settle the first of these cases in the fourth
quarter of 2017 and the second of these cases in the third quarter
of 2018.

In February 2019, the court approved the settlement for the first
case for $0.5 million.

The remaining case remains subject to final court approval, with
the final fairness hearing scheduled for June 2019, and is included
in the Company's recorded reserves of $1.0 million at March 31,
2019.

Golden Entertainment, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, focuses
on distributed gaming, and resort casino operations in the United
States. The company was formerly known as Lakes Entertainment, Inc.
and changed its name to Golden Entertainment, Inc. in July 2015.
The company was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in Las Vegas,
Nevada.


HAIN CELESTIAL: 2nd Amended Complaint Filed in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the lead plaintiffs in
the case, In re The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, have submitted a seconded amended complaint.

On August 17, 2016, three securities class action complaints were
filed in the Eastern District of New York against the Company
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The three complaints are:

     (1) Flora v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al.;

     (2) Lynn v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al.; and

     (3) Spadola v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al.

On June 5, 2017, the court issued an order for consolidation,
appointment of Co-Lead Plaintiffs and approval of selection of
co-lead counsel. Pursuant to this order, the Securities Complaints
were consolidated under the caption In re The Hain Celestial Group,
Inc. Securities Litigation (the "Consolidated Securities Action"),
and Rosewood Funeral Home and Salamon Gimpel were appointed as
Co-Lead Plaintiffs.  

On June 21, 2017, the Company received notice that plaintiff
Spadola voluntarily dismissed his claims without prejudice to his
ability to participate in the Consolidated Securities Action as an
absent class member.  

The Co-Lead Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Securities Action filed
a Consolidated Amended Complaint on August 4, 2017 and a Corrected
Consolidated Amended Complaint on September 7, 2017 on behalf of a
purported class consisting of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired Hain Celestial securities between November 5,
2013 and February 10, 2017 (the "Amended Complaint").  

The Amended Complaint names as defendants the Company and certain
of its current and former officers (collectively, the "Defendants")
and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly materially false
or misleading statements and omissions in public statements, press
releases and SEC filings regarding the Company's business,
prospects, financial results and internal controls.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on October 3, 2017. Co-Lead
Plaintiffs filed an opposition on December 1, 2017, and Defendants
filed the reply on January 16, 2018. On April 4, 2018, the Court
requested additional briefing relating to certain aspects of
Defendants' motion to dismiss.

In accordance with this request, Lead Plaintiffs submitted their
supplemental brief on April 18, 2018, and Defendants submitted an
opposition on May 2, 2018. Lead Plaintiffs filed a reply brief on
May 9, 2018, and Defendants submitted a sur-reply on May 16, 2018.

On March 29, 2019, the Court granted Defendant's motion, dismissing
the Amended Complaint in its entirety, without prejudice to
replead. Lead Plaintiffs filed a seconded amended complaint on May
6, 2019.

The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. manufactures, markets, distributes,
and sells organic and natural products. The company operates in
seven segments: the United States, United Kingdom, Tilda, Ella's
Kitchen UK, Canada, Europe, and Cultivate. The Hain Celestial
Group, Inc. was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Lake
Success, New York.

HAIN CELESTIAL: Agrees to Stay Consolidated Stockholder Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the parties to the
Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action have agreed to
continue the stay of Defendants' time to answer, move, or otherwise
respond to the consolidated amended complaint.

On April 19, 2017 and April 26, 2017, two class action and
stockholder derivative complaints were filed in the Eastern
District of New York against the Board of Directors and certain
officers of the Company under the captions Silva v. Simon, et al.
(the "Silva Complaint") and Barnes v. Simon, et al. (the "Barnes
Complaint"), respectively.  Both the Silva Complaint and the Barnes
Complaint allege violation of securities law, breach of fiduciary
duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment.

On May 23, 2017, an additional stockholder filed a complaint under
seal in the Eastern District of New York against the Board of
Directors and certain officers of the Company.  

The complaint alleges that the Company's directors and certain
officers made materially false and misleading statements in press
releases and SEC filings regarding the Company's business,
prospects and financial results.  

The complaint also alleges that the Company violated its by-laws
and Delaware law by failing to hold its 2016 Annual Stockholders
Meeting and includes claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust
enrichment and corporate waste.  On August 9, 2017, the Court
granted an order to unseal this case and reveal Gary Merenstein as
the plaintiff (the "Merenstein Complaint").

On August 10, 2017, the court granted the parties stipulation to
consolidate the Barnes Complaint, the Silva Complaint and the
Merenstein Complaint under the caption In re The Hain Celestial
Group, Inc. Stockholder Class and Derivative Litigation (the
"Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action") and to
appoint Robbins Arroyo LLP and Scott+Scott as Co-Lead Counsel, with
the Law Offices of Thomas G. Amon as Liaison Counsel for
Plaintiffs.   

On September 14, 2017, a related complaint was filed under the
caption Oliver v. Berke, et al. (the "Oliver Complaint"), and on
October 6, 2017, the Oliver Complaint was consolidated with the
Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action. The
Plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint under seal on
October 26, 2017.

On December 20, 2017, the parties agreed to stay Defendants' time
to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the consolidated amended
complaint through and including 30 days after a decision is
rendered on the motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in the
consolidated Securities Class Actions.

After the Court dismissed the Amended Complaint in the Securities
Class Actions, the parties to the Consolidated Stockholder Class
and Derivative Action agreed to continue the stay of Defendants'
time to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the consolidated
amended complaint.

The stay is continued through the later of: (a) 30 days after the
deadline for plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint in the
Securities Class Actions; or, (b) if plaintiffs file a second
amended complaint, and Defendants file a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint, thirty (30) days after the Court rules on
the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the
Securities Class Actions.

The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. manufactures, markets, distributes,
and sells organic and natural products. The company operates in
seven segments: the United States, United Kingdom, Tilda, Ella's
Kitchen UK, Canada, Europe, and Cultivate. The Hain Celestial
Group, Inc. was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Lake
Success, New York.


HERTZ LOCAL: Removes Moore Case to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
Hertz Local Edition Corp. removes the case, WENDELLYN MOORE,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, and as an aggrieved employee pursuant to the
Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), the Plaintiff, vs. HERTZ
LOCAL EDITION CORP., a Delaware corporation; THE HERTZ CORPORATION,
a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the
Defendants,  Case No. 37-2019-00022128 CU-18 OE-CTL (Filed April
29, 2019), from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of San Diego, to U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California on May 31, 2019. The Southern District of
California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01027-GPC-KSC to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiff and the class she purports to represent seek pay for
alleged unpaid overtime, premium pay for missed meal and rest
breaks, and other payments for members of the putative class whose
employment was terminated from Hertz and HLE.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          Robert A. Dolinko, Esq.
          William S. Lisa, Esq.
          NIXON PEABODY LLP
          One Embarcadero Center, 32nd Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: 415-984-8200
          Facsimile: 415-984-8300
          E-mail: rdolinko@nixonpeabody.com
                  wlisa@nixonpeabody.com

HOLLISTER CO: Haggar et al. Sue over Website's Limited Access
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Hollister Co.
California, LLC for violations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990 (ADA) and the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The case is
captioned ELIA HAGGAR; KYO HAK CHU; VALERIE BROOKS, individually
and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, vs. HOLLISTER CO. CALIFORNIA, LLC, a California
corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-04264 (C.D. Cal., May 17, 2019).

Plaintiffs Elia Haggar, Kyo Hak Chu and Valerie Brooks allege that
Defendants' website, https://www.hollisterco.com/, is not fully or
equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers in
violation of the ADA. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek a permanent
injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become
and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.

Hollister Co. is a California corporation, with its headquarters in
Ohio. The company's website provides consumers with access to an
array of goods and services including store locators, information
about gift cards, access to an assortment of men and women’s
apparel including denim jeans, joggers, shorts, graphic tees,
crewneck t-shirts, hoodies, polo shirts, dresses, overalls,
rompers, swimwear, outerwear, under garments, sleepwear and
loungewear, body care including fragrance and cologne, body creams,
body wash, body mist, face masks, footwear including flip flops,
sandals, slides, accessories including candles, air fresheners,
backpacks, hats, key chains, belts, socks, bandannas and other
products and services, which are available online and in retail
stores for purchase. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bobby Saadian, Esq.
     Thiago Coelho, Esq.
     WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
     3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90010
     Telephone: (213) 381-9988
     Facsimile: (213) 381-9989


HOMEFED CORPORATION: Wolf Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
JACK WOLF, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. HOMEFED CORPORATION, JOSEPH S. STEINBERG,
PAUL J. BORDEN, PATRICK D. BIENVENUE, TIMOTHY M. CONSIDINE, JIMMY
HALLAC, BRIAN P. FRIEDMAN, MICHAEL A. LOBATZ, JEFFERIES FINANCIAL
GROUP INC., and HEAT MERGER SUB, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01039-UNA (D. Del. June 4, 2019) is an action stemming from
a proposed transaction announced on April 15, 2019 (the "Proposed
Transaction"), pursuant to which HomeFed Corporation ("HomeFed" or
the "Company") will be acquired by Jefferies Financial Group Inc.
("Parent") and Heat Merger Sub, LLC ("Merger Sub," and collectively
with Parent, "Jefferies"). Jefferies currently owns approximately
70% of the outstanding shares of common stock of HomeFed.

On April 12, 2019, HomeFed's Board of Directors (the "Board" or
"Individual Defendants") caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger with Jefferies, which was amended on
May 2, 2019 (the "Merger Agreement"). Pursuant to the terms of the
Merger Agreement, Jefferies will issue two shares of Jefferies
common stock for each share of HomeFed common stock to be acquired
by Jefferies. On May 17, 2019, defendants filed a registration
statement (the "Registration Statement") with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") in connection with
the Proposed Transaction, which scheduled a stockholder vote on the
Proposed Transaction for June 28, 2019.

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

Plaintiff is the owner of HomeFed common stock.

HomeFed is a developer and owner of residential and mixed-use real
estate projects in California, Virginia, South Carolina, Florida,
Maine, and New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


HUDSON'S BAY: Court Narrows Claims in 2nd Amended Rudolph Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALEXANDRIA RUDOLPH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY, SAKS
FIFTH AVENUE LLC, SAKS & COMPANY LLC, SAKS INCORPORATED and LORD &
TAYLOR LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-8472 (PKC) (S.D. N.Y.),
Judge P. Kevin Castel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants move to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.

In November 2017, Rudolph used her Visa-issued debit card to make
purchases at a Saks OFF 5TH store in Beverly Hills, California.
The card was linked to an account that Rudolph maintained at Bank
of America.  In May 2018, Bank of America notified Rudolph of
suspected fraudulent activity on her card and temporarily froze the
account.  She incurred no fraudulent charges, her account was soon
unfrozen and she quickly obtained a replacement card at a branch
location of the bank.

The previous month, in April 2018, it was publicly disclosed that a
group of hackers had breached the payment-card databases of
Defendants Saks Fifth Avenue LLC, Saks & Co. LLC, Saks Inc. and
Lord & Taylor LLC, all of which are owned by a parent company,
Defendant Hudson's.  The breach was limited to the names and
account numbers of customer credit and debit cards.  There is no
allegation that hackers accessed other types of information, like
social security numbers, site passwords, birth dates or contact
information.

Rudolph now brings the putative class action asserting state law
claims directed to the breach of her debit-card data.  According to
the Complaint, Rudolph is at a substantially increased risk of
future fraud or identity theft due to hackers' possession of her
card data, and she has a continuing interest in protecting that
data from misuse.  She also asserts that she was injured due to the
expenditure of time in dealing with the breach and obtaining a new
debit card, as well as the out-of-pocket expense of the gasoline
that was needed to drive 25 miles to a Bank of America branch when
she obtained the new card.

The Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint for failure to allege
subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, pursuant
to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).  They urge that Rudolph has not
adequately alleged an existing injury-in-fact or an actionable risk
of future injury, as required to demonstrate Article III standing.
They argue that Rudolph has described a data breach limited to the
name and account number of a since-canceled debit card, which does
not plausibly put her at risk of future injury.  The Defendants
further contend that Rudolph has not adequately alleged why the
mitigation and monitoring efforts that she undertook upon learning
of the breach were reasonable and necessary; they note that her
bank immediately canceled the debit card and no fraudulent were
charges incurred.

Judge Castel finds that courts, including the Second Circuit, have
looked to the facts surrounding a data breach when deciding whether
a complaint adequately alleges a risk of future injury and the
plaintiff's claim for compensable mitigation expenses.  He
concludes that the Complaint has failed to allege that Rudolph is
at a substantial risk of future injury.  However, the time and
expense that she expended in order to obtain a replacement debit
card are sufficient to satisfy the "low threshold" required to
allege injury-in-fact and demonstrate Article III standing.

For these reasons, he granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) as to Rudolph's claim for negligence per
se, her claim under the Declaratory Judgment Act, her claim under
Mississippi's consumer-protection statute, and her notice-based
claim under California's Customer Records Act.  The Defendants'
motion is otherwise denied as to her common law claims of
negligence, breach of contract and unjust enrichment, her claim
under California's Unfair Competition Law, and her claim that the
the Defendants did not implement reasonable data-security
procedures under the California Customer Records Act.

The Clerk is directed to terminate the motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 7, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/kIEZHr from Leagle.com.

Alexandria Rudolph, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Heikali --
bheikali@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi and Faruqi LLP, pro hac vice,
Joshua Nassir -- jnassir@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi and Faruqi LLP,
Nina Mahesh Varindani -- nvarindani@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi &
Faruqi, LLP & Timothy J. Peter -- tpeter@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi &
Faruqi, LLP.

Hudsons Bay Company, a Canadian corporation, Saks Fifth Avenue
LLC,
a Massachusetts limited liability company, Saks Incorporated, a
Tennessee corporation & Lord & Taylor LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, Defendants, represented by Ezra Dodd Church,
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Gregory T. Parks --
gregory.parks@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP,
Kenneth Ian Schacter -- kenneth.schacter@morganlewis.com -- Morgan
Lewis & Bockius, LLP & Kristin Mckeon Hadgis --
kristin.hadgis@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP.

Saks and Company LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Defendant, represented by Ezra Dodd Church, Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius
LLP, Gregory T. Parks, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kenneth Ian
Schacter, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Jawad B. Muaddi, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joseph Duffy, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP,
Kristin Mckeon Hadgis, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP & Nicolette
Leilani Young, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP.

Margo Kyler Knight, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se.

Latusha Vains, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se.

Jane Lefkowitz, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se.

Greta Moss, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se.

Hope Tafet, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se.

Debbie Carthan, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se.

Jeanne Sacklow, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se.

Erika Targum, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se.

Leslie Levitt-Raschella, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se.

John Cona, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se.

Cassondra Joseph, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se.

Kelly McGurn, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se.

Wendy Haggarty, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se.

Mark Wade, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se.

Julia Harris, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se.

Larry Payne, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se.

Bernadette Beekman, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se.

Georgina Meduri, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se.

Cassandra Meduri, Intervenor Plaintiff, pro se.


HYUNDAI: Faces Class Action Over Elantra Piston Defect
------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Sachs, writing for Fox6Now.com, reports that a Fredonia man
wants Hyundai to recall several Elantras after his daughter's
vehicle started making a strange sound. There's evidence others
have experienced the same problem.

"So when you started the car up first thing in the morning at a
cold start, it was just like, you're knocking on a piece of wood.
It just sounded very odd," said Mark Wildermuth.

At just over 100,000 miles, Wildermuth's daughter Sophia heard a
knocking noise coming from her 2012 Hyundai Elantra.

"I brought it to our independent mechanic. He said, 'Yeah. It
sounds like you need a new engine,'" said Wildermuth.

It had been a year since Sophie bought the vehicle for $8,000 --
with little help from her parents. Estimates to repair the engine
were half that. Her dad turned to Hyundai.

"They told me that we were the second owner of the vehicle and that
the 100,000 warranty doesn't apply to second owners," said
Wildermuth.

A class-action lawsuit alleged a piston defect in many 2011-2016
Hyundai Elantras, and said, "Once the fateful engine knock sound
begins, the class vehicle's engine will inevitably fail
completely."

"Anyone that owns a 1.8 nu Hyundai Elantra vehicle really has a
ticking time bomb," said Matt Schelkopf, class-action attorney.

Schelkopf pointed to a 2014 Hyundai service bulletin issued in
Canada acknowledging the defect in some Elantras and outlining a
"series of corrective measures," but even though the vehicles were
made in the same factories, a recall wasn't issued anywhere.

"Hyundai of North American never did such a thing," said
Schelkopf.

"I've done everything I can think of," said Wildermuth.

The Contact 6 team reached out to Hyundai and was told even though
the vehicle "is outside the warranty period for secondary owners,"
Hyundai "has reached a resolution with Mr. Wildermuth to compensate
him."

"I got a call back from Hyundai saying, 'Congratulations. We're
going to warranty the engine,'" said Wildermuth.

Wildermuth got a check from Hyundai for more than $4,000.

Hyundai officials said the performance of vehicles are constantly
evaluated and swift action is taken to recall any with
safety-related defects. [GN]


IDT ENERGY: Bid to Quash Subpoena in Mackey TCPA Suit Partly Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN THE MATTER OF A DOCUMENT SUBPOENA SERVED IN: SCOTT
MACKEY AND DANIEL HERNANDEZ, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. IDT ENERGY, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 19 Misc. 29 (PAE) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted
in part and denied in part Fluent, LLC's motion to quash a subpoena
served on it by Daniel Hernandez in Mackey v. IDT Energy, Inc., No.
18 Civ. 6756 (N.D. Ill. 2008).

Fluent provides marketing information to clients including IDT, an
energy services company.  On Oct. 5, 2018, Mackey and Hernandez
filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois.  The Plaintiffs' lawsuit
alleges that IDT violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA"), by making unauthorized and unwanted calls to them.

Specifically, Mackey claims that between fall 2016 and early 2017,
he received telemarketing calls on his cellphone from, or on behalf
of, IDT.  Upon answering, he would have to say "hello" multiple
times before a person began to speak on the line, indicating that
these calls were made using an automatic telephone dialing system
("ATDS").  Hernandez claims that beginning in March 2018, IDT used
ATDS to call his cellphone repeatedly to solicit his business
without his prior written consent.  The Plaintiffs allege that
their cellphone numbers were each registered on the National
Do-Not-Call Registry for more than eight years before receiving the
calls at issue in the case.  They allege that IDT engaged in
similar unlawful practices against persons in two nationwide
classes during the four-year period preceding the filing of the
Complaint -- one, a class of cell phone users; the other, a class
of persons on the National Do-Not-Call registry.

On Nov. 30, 2018, IDT filed its answer with affirmative defenses.
These included that, as to Hernandez, any TCPA claim is barred
because, in completing his registration on a Fluent-owned and
operated website, Hernandez had given express written consent to be
contacted by or on behalf of IDT.  IDT argues that at the time
Hernandez purportedly consented to be contacted, he had also agreed
in writing that any dispute would be submitted to arbitration for
resolution. As to Mackey, the Defendants dispute that they ever
called his number.

Fact discovery in the underlying litigation is ongoing.  The fact
discovery deadline is Oct. 30, 2019, and the expert discovery
deadline is Feb. 28, 2020.  Dispositive motions are due May 1,
2020.  The Plaintiffs have not yet filed the anticipated motion for
class certification.  Neither party has moved to compel
arbitration.

On Jan. 7, 2019, Hernandez served a subpoena duces tecum on Fluent.
The Subpoena makes nine requests for documents.  Most seek
documents relevant to the Plaintiffs' claims on behalf of the
putative class.  One request, Request No. 7, is keyed to Hernandez.
None reference Mackey.

The nine requests are:

     Request No. 1 seeks all calls and text messages made for IDT
since Jan. 1, 2015, and documents reflecting, inter alia, the
identities of the person Fluent was trying to reach; the date and
time of the call; the text of the response, if any, to the call;
and the prior express consent of the called party.

     Request No. 2 seeks documents sufficient to identify any third
party in possession of documents responsive to Request No. 1.

     Request No. 3 seeks records reflecting the source(s) of the
telephone numbers provided to IDT.

     Request No. 4 seeks records reflecting Fluent's process for
obtaining consent for other companies to send telemarketing calls
on its behalf.

     Request No. 5 seeks records reflecting any express consent
Fluent claims to have obtained from called individuals.

     Request No. 6 seeks documents regarding the websites through
which Fluent claims to have obtained such consent, including, inter
alia, the specific webpages that Fluent claims constitutes consent
or permission, access and error logs and security and fraud alerts
for those websites, the identity of any vendor or company used for
any website responsive to these requests that is used by that
website for visitor traffic reporting, the bandwidth usage for any
website responsive to these requests during the period one clims it
visits to that website constituted consent or permission to contact
any putative class member with telemarketing calls promoting IDT's
Energy goods or services, and the identity of third parties in
possession of documents responsive to this request.

     Request No. 7 seeks all documents related to Hernandez and his
phone number.

     Request No. 8 seeks all communications concerning IDT.

     Request No. 9 seeks all communications between Fluent and any
third party concerning the underlying litigation.

On Jan. 22, 2019, Fluent filed a motion in the Court to quash the
Subpoena, and a supporting memorandum of law and accompanying
exhibits.  The exhibits include the Subpoena; the underlying
Complaint; and an affidavit of Harshit Cokshi.  On Feb. 12, 2019,
the Plaintiffs filed an opposing memorandum of law, an affidavit
from Hernandez, and the parties' Rule 26(f) Initial Planning Report
submitting in the underlying litigation.  On Feb. 19, 2019, Fluent
filed a reply.

Fluent argues that the Court should quash the Subpoena for two
reasons: First, Fluent contends, the Subpoena demands that
documents be produced beyond the 100-mile geographical limit
specified in Rule 45(c).  Second, Fluent argues, complying with the
Subpoena would be unduly burdensome, given (1) the prospect of
compelled arbitration, (2) the fact that a class has yet to be
certified, and (3) its status as a non-party.

Opposing the motion to quash, Hernandez contends that when
documents are produced electronically, production occurs at the
location where they are uploaded, thereby satisfying the 100-mile
requirement of Rule 45(c).  In addition, as to Fluent's contention
that the Subpoena is unduly burdensome, Hernandez responds that (1)
he never consented to be contacted by IDT or its agents or to
litigate his claims through arbitration, (2) the information sought
in this Subpoena is necessary to obtain class certification, and
(3) Fluent has not offered evidence that electronic production will
be otherwise burdensome.

Judge Engelmayer finds that for two independent reasons, Fluent is
wrong to claim a breach of the geographic limits in Rule
45(d)(3)(A)(ii).  First, the case law favors Hernandez as to this
point.  Fluent has not pointed to any contrary case authority, to
wit, cases holding that electronic production of documents in the
manner called for by the Subpoena would violate the 100-mile limit.
Second, as an alternative, the Plaintiffs' counsel has offered to
travel to New York City -- where Fluent is based -- to retrieve the
documents, which it asks be uploaded to a portable hard drive.
This mode of production -- contemplating onsite pickup in New York
City -- would also comply with Rule 45(c).

The Judge next finds that Hernandez has not demonstrated that
records created before Jan. 1, 2018 are relevant to his claims.
Fluent rightly notes that Hernandez has made no effort whatsoever
to limit the Subpoena to the time frame when Plaintiff Hernandez
was allegedly first called, to wit, March 2018, or to the Fluent
campaign then existing.  He also finds that Hernandez's document
requests are too sweeping insofar as they seek records for all
calls and text messages made on behalf of IDT.

Finally, as to the Subpoena's surviving requests (Nos. 1-7), the
Judge therefore will enforce these requests to the extent they bear
on Hernandez's own claims.  He has already limited the scope of
these claims to materials bearing on conduct on or after Jan. 1,
2018, and to Fluent's efforts to reach customers on behalf of IDT
by means of ADTS.  He further limits these requests to documents
relevant to Hernandez's own claims.  Accordingly, Request No. 1 is
sustained to the extent it seeks the information recited relating
to communications to Hernandez; Request No. 2 is sustained to the
extent it documents identifying any third party who may be in
possession of records responsive to Request No. 1 as modified here;
Request No. 3 is sustained to the extent it seeks the source of
phone number(s) of Hernandez's that were provided to IDT; Request
Nos. 4-6 are sustained to the extent they seek information about
whether Fluent obtained consent from Hernandez to the receipt of
such calls; and Request No. 7 is sustained to the extent it seeks
all documents regarding Hernandez or his phone number.  These
requests are otherwise quashed, on account of undue burden, without
prejudice to Hernandez's right to renew the broader requests in the
Subpoena in the event that Hernandez's claims in the Northern
District survive the motions that Fluent's opposition papers
anticipate.

For the foregoing reasons, and to the extent indicated, Judge
Engelmayer enforced in part, while quashed in part, Hernandez's
Subpoena directed at records of third-party Fluent.  Subject to any
orders by the Northern District of Illinois modifying the schedule,
Fluent will produce the requested documents within the next three
weeks (i.e., no later than May 28, 2019).  The Judge respectfully
requests that the Clerk of Court terminate the motion pending at
Dkt. 1 and close the case in the District.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 7, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/p4WRkk from Leagle.com.

Fluent, LLC, Movant, represented by Brian P. Astrup --
bastrup@kleinmoynihan.com -- Klein Moynihan Turco LLP.

Daniel Hernandez, Respondent, represented by Edward Anthony
Broderick -- anthony@broderick-law.com -- Broderick Law. P.C. & Kim
Eleazer Richman -- krichman@richmanlawgroup.com -- Richman Law
Group.

Scott Mackey, Respondent, represented by Kim Eleazer Richman,
Richman Law Group.


IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Bid to Consolidate Odeh & Choi Suits Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Immunomedics, 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 consolidation of the
cases, Odeh v. Immunomedics, Inc., et al. and Choi v. Immunomedics,
Inc., et al. have been sought.

A purported class action case was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey; namely, Odeh v.
Immunomedics, Inc., et al., filed December 27, 2018.

The complaint in this action alleges that the Company failed to
disclose the results of observations made by the FDA during an
inspection of the Company's manufacturing facility in Morris
Plains, New Jersey in August, 2018.

The complaint alleges that Immunomedics misled investors by failing
to disclose the Form 483 inspection report issued by the FDA which
set forth the observations of the FDA inspector during the
inspection. Such observations purportedly included, inter alia,
manipulated bioburden samples, misrepresentation of an integrity
test procedure in the batch record, and backdating of batch
records.

The complaint further alleges that the Company's failure to
disclose the Form 483 resulted in an artificially inflated price
for our common stock, and that the Company and certain of its
officers are thus liable under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On February 8, 2019, a purported class action case was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey;
namely, Choi v. Immunomedics, Inc., et al.

The complaint asserts violations of the federal securities laws
based on claims that that the Company violated the federal
securities laws by making alleged misstatements in various press
releases and securities filings from February 8, 2018 to November
7, 2018 and by failing to disclose the substance of its
interactions with the FDA in connection with the Company's
submission of its BLA for sacituzumab govitecan.

Motions for the appointment of a lead plaintiff and lead counsel
and to consolidate the Odeh and Choi complaints have been filed.

Immunomedics, Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company,
develops monoclonal antibody-based products for the targeted
treatment of cancer. The company was founded in 1982 and is
headquartered in Morris Plains, New Jersey.


IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Wins Dismissal of Consolidated Fergus Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Immunomedics, 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 court has granted
the Company's motion to dismiss, without prejudice, and left
plaintiffs in the consolidated Fergus lawsuit with the ability to
file an amended complaint.

Two purported class action cases were filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey; namely, Fergus v.
Immunomedics, Inc., et al., filed June 9, 2016; and Becker v.
Immunomedics, Inc., et al., filed June 10, 2016.

These cases arise from the same alleged facts and circumstances,
and seek class certification on behalf of purchasers of our common
stock between April 20, 2016 and June 2, 2016 (with respect to the
Fergus matter) and between April 20, 2016 and June 3, 2016 (with
respect to the Becker matter).

These cases concern the Company's statements in press releases,
investor conference calls, and filings with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "SEC") beginning in April 2016 that the
Company would present updated information regarding its IMMU-132
breast cancer drug at the 2016 American Society of Clinical
Oncology ("ASCO") conference in Chicago, Illinois.

The complaints allege that these statements were false and
misleading in light of June 2, 2016 reports that ASCO had canceled
the presentation because it contained previously reported
information. The complaints further allege that these statements
resulted in artificially inflated prices for our common stock, and
that the Company and certain of its officers are thus liable under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. An
order of voluntary dismissal without prejudice was entered on
November 10, 2016 in the Becker matter.

An order granting motion to consolidate cases, appoint lead
plaintiff, and approve lead and liaison counsel was entered on
February 7, 2017 in the Fergus matter. A consolidated complaint was
filed on October 4, 2017.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on
January 26, 2018. On March 31, 2019, the court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss, without prejudice, and left plaintiffs
with the ability to file an amended complaint within thirty (30)
days.

Counsel for the Company has consented to an extension of time for
plaintiffs to file the proposed amended complaint for an additional
30 days.

Immunomedics, Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company,
develops monoclonal antibody-based products for the targeted
treatment of cancer. The company was founded in 1982 and is
headquartered in Morris Plains, New Jersey.


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Amended Complaint Filed in Batres Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that an amended
complaint has been filed in Batres v. Impac Mortgage Corp. dba
CashCall Mortgage.

On December 27, 2018, a purported class action was filed in the
Superior Court of California, Orange County, entitled Batres v.
Impac Mortgage Corp. dba CashCall Mortgage.

The plaintiff contends the defendant did not pay the plaintiff and
purported class members overtime compensation, provide required
meal and rest breaks, or provide accurate wage statements.   

The action seeks damages, restitution, penalties, interest,
attorney's fees, and all other appropriate injunctive, declaratory,
and equitable relief.  

On March 14, 2019, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
alleging only a violation of the California Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act seeking penalties, attorneys' fees, and such
other appropriate relief.    

Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. operates as an independent
residential mortgage lender in the United States. It operates
through three segments: Mortgage Lending, Real Estate Services, and
Long-Term Mortgage Portfolio. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Appeal Ongoing in Timm Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the Company has
filed its opening appellate brief in the class action suit
entitled, Timm, v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., et al.

On December 7, 2011, a purported class action was filed in the
Circuit Court of Baltimore City entitled Timm, v. Impac Mortgage
Holdings, Inc., et al. alleging on behalf of holders of the
Company's 9.375% Series B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock
(Preferred B) and 9.125% Series C Cumulative Redeemable Preferred
Stock (Preferred C) who did not tender their stock in connection
with the Company's 2009 completion of its Offer to Purchase and
Consent Solicitation that the Company failed to achieve the
required consent of the Preferred B and C holders, the consents to
amend the Preferred stock were not effective because they were
given on unissued stock (after redemption), the Company tied the
tender offer with a consent requirement that constituted an
improper "vote buying" scheme, and that the tender offer was a
breach of a fiduciary duty.

The action seeks the payment of two quarterly dividends for the
Preferred B and C holders, the unwinding of the consents and
reinstatement of the cumulative dividend on the Preferred B and C
stock, and the election of two directors by the Preferred B and C
holders. The action also seeks punitive damages and legal expenses.


On July 16, 2018, the Court entered a Judgement Order whereby it
(1) declared and entered judgment in favor of all defendants on all
claims related to the Preferred C holders and all claims against
all individual defendants thereby affirming the validity of the
2009 amendments to the Series B Articles Supplementary; (2)
declared its interpretation of the voting provision language in the
Preferred B Articles Supplementary to mean that consent of
two-thirds of the Preferred B stockholders was required to approve
the 2009 amendments to the Preferred B Articles Supplementary,
which consent was not obtained, thus rendering the amendments
invalid and leaving the 2004 Preferred B Articles Supplementary in
effect; (3) ordered the Company to hold a special election within
sixty days for the Preferred B stockholders to elect two directors
to the Board of Directors pursuant to the 2004 Preferred B Articles
Supplementary (which Directors will remain on the Company's Board
of Directors until such time as all accumulated dividends on the
Preferred B have been paid or set aside for payment) and, (4)
declared that the Company is required to pay three quarters of
dividends on the Preferred B stock under the 2004 Articles
Supplementary (approximately, $1.2 million, but did not order the
Company to make any payment at this time).

The Court declined to certify any class pending the outcome of
appeals and certified its Judgment Order for immediate appeal. On
April 10, 2019, the Company filed its opening appellate brief.

Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. operates as an independent
residential mortgage lender in the United States. It operates
through three segments: Mortgage Lending, Real Estate Services, and
Long-Term Mortgage Portfolio. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Bid to Arbitrate Riggin's Class Suit Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the court in the
case, Riggin v. Impac Mortgage Corp. dba CashCall Mortgage, has
granted the Company's motion to compel arbitration of the
plaintiff's individual claims and stayed all other claims pending
completion of the arbitration.

On November 2, 2018, a purported class action was filed in the
Superior Court of California, Orange County, entitled Riggin v.
Impac Mortgage Corp. dba CashCall Mortgage.

The plaintiff contends the defendant did not pay the plaintiff and
purported class members overtime compensation, provide required
meal and rest breaks, or provide accurate wage statements.   

The action seeks damages, restitution, penalties, interest,
attorney's fees, and all other appropriate injunctive, declaratory,
and equitable relief.  

On February 15, 2019, the court granted the Company's motion to
compel arbitration of the plaintiff's individual claims and stayed
all other claims pending completion of the arbitration.

Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. operates as an independent
residential mortgage lender in the United States. It operates
through three segments: Mortgage Lending, Real Estate Services, and
Long-Term Mortgage Portfolio. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Continues to Defend McNair Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a purported class action suit entitled, McNair
v. Impac Mortgage Corp. dba CashCall Mortgage.   

On September 18, 2018, a purported class action was filed in the
Superior Court of California, Orange County, entitled McNair v.
Impac Mortgage Corp. dba CashCall Mortgage.   

The plaintiff contends the defendant did not pay the plaintiff and
purported class members overtime compensation, provide required
meal and rest breaks, or provide accurate wage statements.   

The action seeks damages, restitution, penalties, interest,
attorney's fees, and all other appropriate injunctive, declaratory,
and equitable relief.  

On March 8, 2019, a First Amended Complaint was filed, which added
a claim alleging violations of the California Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act (PAGA).

On March 12, 2019, the parties filed a stipulation with the court
stating (1) the plaintiff's individual claims should be arbitrated
pursuant to the parties' arbitration agreement, (2) the class
claims should be struck from the First Amended Complaint, and (3)
the plaintiff will proceed solely with regard to her PAGA claims.


Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. operates as an independent
residential mortgage lender in the United States. It operates
through three segments: Mortgage Lending, Real Estate Services, and
Long-Term Mortgage Portfolio. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Notice of Appeal Filed in Marentes Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the plaintiffs in
Marentes v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., filed their Notice of
Appeal.

On April 30, 2012, a purported class action was filed entitled
Marentes v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., alleging that certain
loan modification activities of the Company constitute an unfair
business practice, false advertising and marketing, and that the
fees charged are improper.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages, restitution, injunctive
relief, attorney's fees and prejudgment interest.

On August 22, 2012, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
adding Impac Funding Corporation as a defendant and on October 2,
2012, the plaintiffs dismissed Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc.,
without prejudice.

On January 11, 2019, the trial court determined that the plaintiffs
were unable to prove their case and ordered that judgment be
entered in favor of the defendant.  

On April 19, 2019, the plaintiffs filed their Notice of Appeal.

Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. operates as an independent
residential mortgage lender in the United States. It operates
through three segments: Mortgage Lending, Real Estate Services, and
Long-Term Mortgage Portfolio. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Parties in Baker Suit Ink Settlement
----------------------------------------------------
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the parties in
Baker, et al. v. Century Financial Group, et al., have entered into
a settlement agreement that resolved all matters among them.

In 2001, Baker, et al. v. Century Financial Group, et al., was
filed in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri, as a putative
class action against the Company, Century Financial, and others,
claiming violations of Missouri's Second Mortgage Loan Act.

Plaintiffs seek on behalf of themselves and the members of the
putative class, among other things, disgorgement or restitution of
all allegedly improperly-collected charges, the right to rescind
all affected loan transactions, the right to offset any finance
charges, closing costs, points or other loan fees paid against the
principal amounts due on the loans if rescinded, actual and
punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.

On March 12, 2019, the parties entered into a settlement agreement
that resolved all matters among them.

Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. operates as an independent
residential mortgage lender in the United States. It operates
through three segments: Mortgage Lending, Real Estate Services, and
Long-Term Mortgage Portfolio. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.


INNOVATIVE COURIER: Rutledge Seeks Overtime Pay for Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------
A case, STANLEY RUTLEDGE, JR. on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. INNOVATIVE COURIER
SOLUTIONS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00251 (W.D.N.C.,
May 31, 2019), alleges that Mr. Rutledge and other similarly
situated drivers were improperly classified as independent
contractors, and as a result, did not receive overtime pay for
hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, in violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, ICS is in the business of providing
delivery services for a wide range of businesses. Among these, ICS
delivers pharmaceuticals to stores and hospitals in North Carolina,
South Carolina, Georgia and Alabama. To carry out this central
function of ICS's business, ICS contracts with individuals, like
Rutledge, to unload delivery trucks, load delivery vehicles, and
deliver merchandise to customers' businesses.

Although ICS classifies Rutledge and the Collective Members as
"independent contractors," the economic reality of the arrangement
is that these individuals are employees of ICS. ICS controls and
supervises the delivery process performed by Rutledge and the
Collective Members. Rutledge and the Collective Members were not
paid an overtime premium for hours worked in excess of 40 each
workweek. ICS did not record or track the hours worked by Rutledge
and the Collective Members. ICS had knowledge that Rutledge and the
Collective Members regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plainitffs:

          Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq.
          Craig L. Leis, Esq.
          Jason S. Chestnut, Esq.
          GIBBONS LEIS, PLLC
          14045 Ballantyne Corporate Place, Ste. 325
          Charlotte, NC 28277
          Telephone: 704-612-0038
          E-mail: phil@philgibbonslaw.com
                  craig@gibbonsleis.com
                  jason@gibbonsleis.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Wilson Talc Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. and
Johnson & Johnson Consumer Products Company removed on May 16,
2019, the lawsuit titled Tanyeonh Wilson v. Johnson & Johnson, et
al., Case No. 4489, from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
County to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-02138-GAM to the
proceeding.

On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two
affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc.
(collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11
petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys
Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter
11 Case").

Because the Debtors have historically been J&J's sole supplier of
cosmetic talc, the Debtors are routinely named as a co-defendant in
the actions in which the Talc Claims arise.  Even where the Debtors
are not so named as co-defendants, however, the Talc Claims are
related to the Debtors' bankruptcy.

The State Court Talc Claims against J&J center on allegations that
exposure to the Debtors' talc caused the Plaintiff's injuries --
specifically, ovarian cancer in Ms. Wilson.  J&J disputes these
allegations.

The Complaint generally alleges that exposure to asbestos,
contained in the Debtors' talc, through the habitual use of J&J
cosmetic talcum powder products, caused the Plaintiff's personal
injury.

On April 18, 2019, J&J filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware a Motion to Fix Venue for Claims
Related to Imerys's Bankruptcy Under 28 U.S.C. Sections 157(b)(5)
and 1334(b).  The State Court Talc Claims are among those that J&J
seeks to consolidate in the District of Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nancy J. Winkler, Esq.
          Todd A. Schoenhaus, Esq.
          EISENBERG, ROTHWEILER, WINKLER, EISENBERG & JECK, P.C.
          1634 Spruce Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 546-6636
          E-mail: Nancy@erlegal.com
                  Todd@erlegal.com

Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
are represented by:

          Chanda A. Miller, Esq.
          Katherine McBeth, Esq.
          DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
          One Logan Square, Suite 2000
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-6996
          Telephone: (215) 988-2700
          E-mail: chanda.miller@dbr.com
                  katherine.mcbeth@dbr.com


JONES BENITEZ: Rios Sues over Pregnancy Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
Jones Benitez Corporation for violations of the Pregnancy
Discrimination Act and the Florida Civil Rights Act. The case is
captioned CARIDAD BAEZ RIOS, Plaintiff, v. JONES BENITEZ
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-22106-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May
23, 2019). Plaintiff Caridad Baez Rios alleges that Acapulco
discriminated against her with respect to her compensation, terms,
conditions, and privileges of employment based on her sex, more
precisely on the basis of her status as a pregnant woman.
Allegedly, Plaintiff was provided with a poor evaluation, demoted
and replaced based on her pregnancy, and eventually was
constructively discharged from work.

Jones Benitez Corporation is a Florida profit corporation whose
principal place of business is 14877 SW 45TH Court, Miramar,
Florida. The company's primary nature of business includes heavy
civil and bridge engineering construction. [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


LAMP PLUS: Mintz Attorney Discusses Supreme Court Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
Gilbert Samberg, Esq. -- GASamberg@mintz.com -- of Mintz, in an
article for Mondaq, reports that predictably, the U.S. Supreme
Court has ruled in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, No. 17-988, 2019
U.S. LEXIS 2943 (U.S. April 24, 2019), that, under the Federal
Arbitration Act, neither silence nor "ambiguity" in an arbitration
agreement regarding the permissibility of class arbitration enables
a court to find that the parties agreed to permit class
arbitration. According to the Court, consent is fundamental to
arbitration, and such an agreement must be express and unambiguous
because it would so drastically alter the nature of the proceeding
from the simple "bilateral" process that was envisioned in the
FAA.

Notably too, the arbitration agreement in question required the use
of, and thus incorporated by reference, either (a) the American
Arbitration Association ("AAA") National Rules for the Resolution
of Employment Disputes or (b) the JAMS Arbitration Rules and
Procedures for Employment Disputes. See, id. at *45 (Kagan,
dissenting); Varela v. Lamps Plus Inc., 16-CV-00577 (C.D. Cal. Jul.
7, 2016), Order at 2. Both of those sets of rules in turn
incorporate by reference ancillary rules under which arbitrators
could conduct class proceedings (e.g., the AAA Supplementary Rules
for Class Arbitration (2011)). See, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 2943 at *45.
This had no effect on the Court's decision, implying that
incorporation of such procedural rules is not a sufficient basis to
infer an agreement to permit class arbitration either.

For those employers, consumer product vendors, and financial
service providers that have not yet added class and collective
action waivers to their arbitration agreements, this decision
provides protection in the current legal environment against the
imposition of class arbitration proceedings without the parties'
express consent. However, that environment could be changed by new
legislation, which is quite evidently in contemplation both at the
state and federal levels, and which might well be stimulated by the
Lamps Plus decision.

In Lamps Plus, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded a Ninth
Circuit decision that the Court of Appeals originally designated
"Not For Publication," and might easily have wished be forgotten.
See, Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, 701 Fed. Appx. 670 (9th Cir. Aug.
3, 2017). The Ninth Circuit had in effect answered the unexpected
question of "when is 'silence' in an arbitration clause concerning
class arbitration not 'Stolt-Nielsen silence'?" See, Contractual
'Crickets' Are Sufficient for Ninth Circuit to Determine That Class
Arbitration is Permitted, Distinguishing Stolt-Nielsen, Mintz Levin
ADR Blog, Aug. 9, 2017. The parties had agreed that the arbitration
agreement in question included no express mention of class
proceedings. Nevertheless, the District Court and the Court of
Appeals found that that agreement was ambiguous as to the
permissibility of class arbitration, and they construed that
ambiguity against the employer-drafter (Lamps Plus), applying the
familiar contra proferentem rule, and permitted class arbitration
to proceed with respect to all claims.

And so we commented when the Supreme Court granted certiorari to
review this case on April 30, 2018,

"On the one hand, it seems surprising that the Ninth Circuit's "Not
For Publication" opinion did not find a peaceful grave, but instead
was pulled up into the harsh sunlight by the Supreme Court. On the
other hand, the Supreme Court can now tell us whether an agreement
to permit class arbitration may be 'found' by a court without
evident regard for the need for a plausible meeting of the minds,
or whether an express agreement to permit class arbitration is
required, given the Supreme Court's concern about the very
considerable differences between 'class arbitration' and normal
bilateral arbitration as envisioned in the FAA."

Supreme Court Will Determine If Silence in an Arbitration Clause
May be Judicially Interpreted to Permit Class Arbitration, Mintz
Levin ADR Blog, May 4, 2018.

The Supreme Court was evidently fully engaged despite this case's
arguably esoteric subject. The policy implications of its decision
with regard to the rights and remedies of employees and consumers
appear to have evoked considerable concern in the Court's minority.
Chief Justice Roberts delivered the 13-page opinion of the Court,
which split 5-4 with the Court's conservative wing comprising the
majority. (Justice Thomas added a 2-page concurrence.) This
prompted dissenting opinions by Justices Ginsburg (5 pages), Breyer
(9 pages), Sotomayor (3 pages), and Kagan (14 pages),
respectively.

Case History
Varela was a Lamps Plus employee who brought a putative class
action suit against the company in a federal district court in
California concerning the effects of a data breach at the company.
The employer moved to compel arbitration, as was required by the
relevant employment agreement, and to dismiss the lawsuit. The
District Court granted that application, but held that class
arbitration was permitted. The Ninth Circuit affirmed. In doing so,
the Court of Appeals adopted the District Court's opinion that even
if the applicable arbitration agreement "does not expressly refer
to class arbitration, that is not the 'silence' contemplated in
Stolt-Nielsen." 2019 U.S. LEXIS 2943 at *7, citing 701 Fed. Appx.
at 672.

Jurisdiction Issue
The Supreme Court first disposed of Varela's challenge to the
Court's jurisdiction. See id. at *8-*10. It reiterated that a court
order directing the parties to proceed to arbitration and
dismissing all of the claims in litigation is "final" within the
meaning of FAA Sec. 16(a)(3), 9 U.S.C. Sec. 16(a)(3), and therefore
appealable. Id. at *8-*9, citing Green Tree Financial Corp. vs.
Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 89 (2000). Furthermore, the Court found that
Lamps Plus had standing -- i.e., a personal stake in the appeal –
because it had sought an order compelling bilateral arbitration,
but the lower court had issued an order compelling arbitration on a
class-wide basis. Id. at *9-*10.

Supreme Court's Majority Opinion
On the merits, then, the Supreme Court deferred to the Ninth
Circuit's interpretation under state (California) law to the extent
that it "accepted" that the arbitration agreement should be
regarded as ambiguous on the relevant point. Id. at *10. On this
basis, the Supreme Court distinguished the question before it from
the question that it had already answered in Stolt-Nielsen
concerning an arbitration agreement that was "silent" regarding
class arbitration. The Court thus identified the question in Lamps
Plus as "whether, consistent with the FAA, an ambiguous agreement
can provide the necessary 'contractual basis' for compelling class
arbitration." Id. at *10.

The Court's holding that it "cannot" follows from its Stolt-Nielsen
decision. The Supreme Court held in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v.
AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp., 559 U.S. 662 (2010), that an arbitration
agreement that is silent concerning the availability of class
arbitration could not justify a judicial order compelling such a
proceeding. The Ninth Circuit ruled that an arbitration agreement
that said nothing about class arbitration was nevertheless
"ambiguous" on the point, rather than "silent" in the way that the
Stolt-Nielsen opinion contemplated, and that such ambiguity could
be interpreted against the draftsman in order to reach the result
that class arbitration was deemed agreed by the parties. The
Supreme Court rejected that analysis.

The Court had stated more than once that a "class arbitration"
proceeding would be fundamentally different in nature from the
bilateral arbitration envisioned by the FAA. The former sacrifices
the informality of the contemplated bilateral process, as well as
its speed, simplicity, and relative inexpensiveness, and instead
produces a slower, more costly, and more complex process that looks
like "the litigation it was meant to displace." See 2019 U.S. LEXIS
2943 at *13. It also markedly increases the jeopardy of a
party-respondent that finds itself in such a proceeding.1

And so, given the "crucial differences" between individual and
class arbitration, a "class arbitration" proceeding must be founded
on "a contractual basis for concluding that the parties agreed to
it." 2019 U.S. LEXIS 2943 at *13, *5, citing Stolt-Nielsen, 559
U.S. at 684. In Lamps Plus, the Court concluded that class
arbitration is so markedly different from traditional bilateral
arbitration that the FAA "requires more than ambiguity to ensure
that the parties actually agreed to arbitrate on a class-wide
basis." Id. at *11.

Hence, "neither silence nor ambiguity provides a sufficient basis
for concluding that parties to an arbitration agreement agreed to
undermine the central benefits of arbitration itself." Id. at *14.

The Court saw an analogy in how it deals with who decides "gateway"
issues of arbitrability. Courts presume that parties have not
authorized arbitrators to decide such questions, but rather that
they are for a court, unless the parties have clearly and
unmistakably agreed otherwise. Neither silence nor ambiguity in
that regard in the arbitration agreement meets that criterion
either.2 See id. at *14.

Ultimately, the principal legal issue concerned an apparent tension
between (a) state contract law concerning the interpretation of
ambiguous contract terms and (b) the fundamental rule under the FAA
"that arbitration 'is a matter of consent, not coercion.'" Id. at
*18, citing Stolt-Nielsen, 559 U.S. 662, 681, 684 (2010). However,
state law is preempted to the extent that it creates "an obstacle
to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and
objectives" of the FAA. Id., citing AT&T Mobility LLC v.
Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 352 (2011).

Thus, the Court found unavailing Varela's argument that the state
law contra proferentem rule of contract interpretation should
determine the matter. The Court held that "the general contra
proferentem rule cannot be applied to impose class arbitration in
the absence of the parties' consent." Id. Moreover, the contra
proferentem rule is not a contract interpretation rule that is
intended to ascertain the parties' intent, but rather a rule of
public policy that is applied only as a last resort "when the
meaning of a provision remains ambiguous after exhausting the
ordinary methods of interpretation." See id. at *14-*16. That is,
it is "by definition triggered only after a court determines that
it cannot discern the intent of the parties," and so it cannot be
said to be designed to ascertain the parties' actual agreement. Id.
at *16. Therefore, the application of that doctrine "does not help
to determine the meaning that the two parties gave to the words, or
even the meaning that a reasonable person would have given to the
language used." Id. at *16-*17, citing 3 Corbin Contracts Sec. 559,
at 269-70.

Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that the application
of the contra proferentem rule to ambiguous contract language is
nondiscriminatory, in that it can be applied generally with regard
to any agreement including an arbitration agreement, because such
an application in this case would interfere with the fundamental
attributes of arbitration and thus create a scheme inconsistent
with the FAA. Id. at *18.

Principal Dissenting Opinions
In dissent, Justice Ginsburg reiterated the policy-based argument
that she previously made in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 584 U.S.
_____, 138 S.Ct. 1612 (2018). She opined that the FAA was enacted
"to enable merchants of roughly equal bargaining power to enter
into binding agreements to arbitrate commercial disputes," and was
not designed to govern contracts "in which one of the parties
characteristically has a little bargaining power". 2019 U.S. LEXIS
2943 at *21 (Ginsburg, dissenting). As a result of the Supreme
Court's recent decisions, "employees and consumers forced to
arbitrate solo face severe impediments to the 'vindication of their
rights.'" Id. at *24. "When companies can 'muffle grievances in the
cloakroom of arbitration,' the result is inevitable: curtailed
enforcement of laws 'designed to advance the well-being of the
vulnerable.'" Id. at *27 (citations omitted). Justice Ginsburg also
in effect asked whether the consent to arbitration given by a
prospective employee or employee in a take-it-or-leave-it adhesion
situation was the sort upon which the Court should rely in its
jurisprudence.

Finally, Justice Kagan opined in dissent that the arbitration
agreement in question was "best understood to authorize arbitration
on a class-wide basis," id. at *42, but if it were viewed as
ambiguous, then the FAA relies on state law for the interpretation
of such agreements "so long as that law treats other types of
contracts in the same way." She further opined that the California
rules of contract interpretation that were applied in the case at
bar (e.g., contra proferentem) were "plain-vanilla," and so
likewise permitted class arbitration in this case. Id. In her view,
the majority rejected the application of California state law
concerning contract interpretation "only by insisting that the FAA
trumps that neutral state rule whenever its application would
result in class arbitration." Id. at *42-*43.

Justice Kagan also points out that while "many of the majority's
statements indicate that any tool for resolving contractual
ambiguity is forbidden if it leads to class arbitration," id. at
*54n.7, "the part of the opinion focusing on the anti-drafter rule
i.e., contra proferentem suggests that the holding applies to only
a subset of contract default rules -- to wit, those (supposedly)
sounding in 'public policy considerations.'" Id. Notably, the
latter interpretation of the majority opinion would detract from an
absolute rule and suggest that an arbitration agreement that is
ambiguous concerning the availability of class arbitration could
indeed be interpreted to permit it if other state law contract
interpretation rules were applied.

Looking Ahead re "Class Arbitration"
Arbitration is a creature of the parties' consent because the
adjudicator (arbitrator) has only the authority that he is given by
the parties' agreement. Parties agreeing to arbitrate can specify
the identity of the arbitrator, the rules, and the issues that will
be addressed; and the parties to such an agreement are thus the
bound counterparties in the private proceeding that they have
created. See id. at *12. The Supreme Court has not yet squarely
addressed the fundamental question of who else could be bound by a
bilateral agreement to permit "class arbitration" or by its
consequences. That seems to be a dilemma for another day. [GN]


LOCK HAVEN: Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment in Robb Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EMILY ROBB, TARYN PIANO, TAYLOR PLOUSE, JACQUELYN
BINGHAM, TAMIA ROACH, MACKENZIE FARLEY, KAYLA BRATHWAITE, and ALICE
MARONEY, Plaintiffs, v. LOCK HAVEN UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Defendant, Case No. 4:17-CV-00964 (M.D. Pa.), Judge Matthew W.
Brann of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania (i) denied the parties' cross-motions for summary
judgment, and (ii) denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion
to certify a proposed class.

In January 2017, Lock Haven University revealed plans to eliminate
its women's varsity swim team and to demote its women's varsity
field hockey team from Division I to Division II.  A few months
later, the Plaintiffs initiated the class action lawsuit, alleging
that the contemplated actions, along with other aspects of Lock
Haven's athletics program, discriminated against female student
athletes in violation Title IX.

Title IX states in part that no person in the United States shall,
on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied
the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any
education program or activity receiving Federal financial
assistance.  Under one of that law's implementing regulations,
universities must provide equal athletic opportunity for students
of both sexes.

As indicated, the lawsuit was ignited by threats to the women's
field hockey and swim teams at Lock Haven.  The operative complaint
contains a claim under the Three-Part Test (Count I); a claim under
the Levels-of-Competition Test (Count II); and a claim under the
Equal Treatment Test (Count III).  

The Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, however, sharpens
those issues and argues: (1) that Lock Haven fails to effectively
accommodate its female students' athletic interests and abilities,
as measured by the Three-Part test; (2) that Lock Haven's
threatened demotion of its women's field hockey team from Division
I to Division II violates Title IX; and (3) that Lock Haven treats
its female student-athletes inequitably in terms of: (A) equipment,
uniforms, and supplies; (B) practice times, opportunities to
compete, and scheduling of games and practices; (C) access to
coaching; (D) locker rooms, practice, and competitive facilities;
(E) conditioning, weight room, and rehabilitation; and (F)
publicity and advertising.

Lock Haven's cross-motion for summary judgment argues that the
university effectively accommodates its female students' athletic
interests and abilities, as measured by the Three-Part Test; and
that the university treats its male and female student-athletes
equitably in all the other areas measured by Title IX's
implementing regulations.

The Plaintiffs have moved, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(2), to certify a class of all present, prospective,
and future Lock Haven University female students who participate,
seek to participate, or have been deterred or prevented from
participating in or obtaining the benefits of intercollegiate
athletics at Lock Haven University.

The regulations ask whether universities' selection of sports
effectively accommodates the interests and abilities of members of
both sexes.  The 1979 Policy Interpretation indicates that
compliance in this area is measured, inter alia, by querying:

     (1) Whether intercollegiate level participation opportunities
for male and female students are provided in numbers substantially
proportionate to their respective enrollments; or

     (2) Where the members of one sex have been and are
underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes, whether the
institution can show a history and continuing practice of program
expansion which is demonstrably responsive to the developing
interest and abilities of the members of that sex; or

     (3) Where the members of one sex are underrepresented among
intercollegiate athletes, and the institution cannot show a
continuing practice of program expansion such as that cited above,
whether it can be demonstrated that the interests and abilities of
the members of that sex have been fully and effectively
accommodated by the present program.

As applied by numerous courts, a university must satisfy one of the
three "Prongs" of the "Three-Part Test" to show that its "selection
of sports effectively accommodates the interests and abilities of
members of both sexes.

Judge Brann finds that the evidence, even when viewed in the light
most favorable to Lock Haven, reveals that the university does not
offer intercollegiate level participation opportunities for male
and female students in numbers substantially proportionate to their
respective enrollments.  Lock Haven does not currently satisfy
Prong One.

Next, the OCR looks for "actual program expansion" and will not
consider Prong Two satisfied when a university's participation gap
is narrowed by the elimination of athletic participation
opportunities for the overrepresented sex.  The undisputed evidence
shows that, as a matter of law, Lock Haven does not have a history
of program expansion which is demonstrably responsive to the
developing interest and abilities of its female students.  ock
Haven does not satisfy Prong Two.

At this stage, then, the Judge cannot hold, as a matter of law,
that Lock Haven does, or does not, satisfy Prong Three.  Because
Lock Haven could show Prong Three satisfaction -- and therefore
Title IX compliance -- at trial, both parties' request for summary
judgment on Count I of the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint must be
denied.

Regardless of the legal theory relied upon, the Judge holds that
the Court does not have the authority to enjoin Lock Haven from
merely thinking about actions that would violate Title IX.  And in
any event, Lock Haven asserts -- and points to evidence showing --
that the demotion plan is no longer on the table.  Summary judgment
on this ground, therefore, is improper.

The Plaintiffs' brief supporting their motion for summary judgment
mentions many of the areas identified by Dr. Lopiano as
inequitable, but does not clarify whether they are arguing that
there is a substantial disparity in any individual segment of Lock
Haven's athletics program, or whether they are arguing that a
substantial disparity exists when the athletics program is viewed
as a whole.  Nevertheless, the Judge holds that in a fact-sensitive
and fact-specific area such as this, the Plaintiffs' showing is
sufficient to defeat Lock Haven's motion for summary judgment on
this claim, but insufficient to allow the Court to conclude that
Lock Haven, as a matter of law, inequitably distributes its
athletics benefits in such a way as to violate Title IX.

Finally, the Judge cannot certify the proposed class, and will deny
the pending motion seeking that certification.  That denial,
however, will be without prejudice, and the Plaintiffs may move to
certify any or all the following three subclasses: (i) All present
and future members of the women's varsity field hockey team at Lock
Haven; (ii) All present and future members of the women's varsity
swim team at Lock Haven; and (iii) All present and future members
of the women's club rugby team at Lock Haven.

If the Plaintiffs move to certify any or all of those subclasses,
their accompanying brief should address whether the proposed
subclasses meet the requirements of Rule 23, and should also
address whether the creation of the proposed subclasses would
require the appointment of separate counsel for each subclass.

For the reasons he discussed, Judge Brann (i) denied the parties'
cross-motions for summary judgment, and (ii) denied the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  An appropriate Order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 7, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/RbyuEK from Leagle.com.

Emily Robb, Taryn Piano, Taylor Plouse, Jacquelyn Bingham, Tamia
Roach, Mackenzie Farley & Kayla Brathwaite, Plaintiffs, represented
by Amal M. Bass -- abass@womenslawproject.org -- Women's Law
Project, Kathleen V. Yurchak -- yurchak@centrelaw.com -- Goodall &
Yurchak, P.C. & Terry L. Fromson, Women's Law Project, pro hac
vice.

Alice Maroney, Plaintiff, represented by Kathleen V. Yurchak,
Goodall & Yurchak, P.C.

Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania, Defendant, represented by
Keli M. Neary, Office of Attorney General & Lindsey A. Bedell, PA
Office of Attorney General.


MASSAGE ENVY: Lapa Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------
The case, DAVID LAPA on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, v. MASSAGE ENVY
FRANCHISING, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-07403 (Filed on Aug. 15, 2018), was transferred
from the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California. In the complaint, Plaintiff David Lapa
asserts Defendant's negligent and intentional misrepresentation and
violations of the Unfair and Deceptive Practices Law and False
Advertising Law. The United States District Court for the Northern
District of California assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02694 to the
proceeding.

Headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona, Massage Envy is the
franchisor and monitors, regulates, controls, and directs Massage
Envy clinics nationally, including in New York. Massage Envy
describes itself as a "pioneer and national leader of affordable
massage and spa services." It is the world's largest employer of
licensed/registered massage therapists, with more than 25,000
therapists providing over 250,000 massages every week. It also
claims to have provided over 90 million massages, in over 1,000
clinics in the United States, making it the nation's largest
massage chain. [BN]

Attorneys for Defendant:

     Luanne Sacks, Esq.
     Robert Bader, Esq.
     SACKS RICKETTS & CASE
     177 Post Street, Suite 650
     San Francisco, CA 94108
     Telephone: (415) 549-0580
     E-mail: lsacks@srclaw.com
             rbader@srclaw.com


MASSAGE ENVY: Lapa Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------
Judge John F. Kennan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York transferred he case, DAVID LAPA, on behalf of
himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public,
Plaintiff, v. MASSAGE ENVY FRANCHISING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18
Civ. 7403 (JFK) (S.D. N.Y.), to the Northern District of
California.

The Plaintiff is an individual residing in Rockland County, New
York.  MEF is a Delaware company with its principle place of
business in Arizona.  MEF monitors, regulates, controls, and
directs a nation-wide chain of Massage Envy "clinics" that provide
"massage and spa services."  It allegedly has over 1,000 such
clinics across the country and over 1. 65 million members.

On Oct. 12, 2011, Lapa bought a membership at a Massage Envy clinic
in Nanuet, New York.  He signed the standardized Membership
Agreement which provided for a 12-month initial membership followed
by an automatic renewal at $59 per month until his membership was
cancelled.  In March 2018, Lapa alleges that MEF unilaterally
increased his monthly membership fee to $70 without informing him.
He failed to notice the increase since "it was a recurring charge"
and the increase was "small," allowing MEF to charge Lapa $70 four
times for a total overcharge of $44.  Lapa alleges this increase
was "part of a concerted plan to extract as much money from MEF's
captive membership base as possible.  This practice has allegedly
affected millions of individuals.

On Aug. 15, 2018, Lapa brought the action on behalf of himself and
a class of all persons in New York who, within the applicable
statute of limitations preceding the filing of the action were or
are presently enrolled in a Massage Envy membership and whose
monthly membership fee was increased above the amount stated in
their Membership Agreement.  

Lapa alleges claims for (1) unfair and deceptive business practices
in violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. L. Section 349; (2) false
advertising in violation of N. Y. Gen. Bus. L. Section 350; (3)
negligent misrepresentation; (4) intentional misrepresentation and
fraud; and (5) restitution.  Though these claims all sound in state
law, Lapa alleges the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the Class
Action Fairness Act because the matter in controversy exceeds the
sum or value of $5 million, exclusive of interests and costs, and
at least one member of the class is a citizen of a state different
from the Defendant's state.

On Feb. 6, 2019, the Defendant filed the motion to transfer.  It
argues that the case should be transferred to the Northern District
of California where Baerbal McKinney-Drobnis v. Massage Envy
Franchising, LLC, No. 16-cv-6450 (N. D. Cal., filed Nov. 4, 2016),
a nationwide class action based on nearly identical facts and legal
theories, has been pending for more than two years before Judge
Maxine Chesney.  As Lapa does not dispute that the action might
have been brought in the Northern District of California, the only
remaining question is whether transfer is appropriate given the
mentioned factors.

Judge Kennan holds that (1) trial efficiency and the interest of
justice weigh strongly in favor of transfer, (2) convenience of the
witnesses and parties weigh in favor of transfer, (3) the relative
means of the parties and the forum's familiarity with governing law
weigh slightly against transfer, and (4) all other factors are
neutral.  He, thus, finds that transfer to the Northern District of
California is appropriate.

Accordingly, the Judge granted the Defendant's motion to transfer
venue.  The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate
the motion docketed at ECF No. 27, transfer the case to the
Northern District of California, and close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 7, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/znHpjW from Leagle.com.

David Lapa, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated,
and the general public, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Frederick
Lowe -- jlowe@ucla.edu -- Law Offices of Jason Lowe, Yecheskel
Menashe, Menashe & Associates LLP & Ishan Dave --
Ishan@dereksmithlaw.com -- Derek Smith Law Group, PLLC.

Massage Envy Franchising, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, Defendant, represented by Indraneel Sur --
isur@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Kahn A.
Scolnick -- kscolnick@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
& Luanne Sacks -- lsacks@srclaw.com -- Sacks, Ricketts & Case,
LLP.


MCCLATCHY CO: Third Phase Trial in Sawin Case to Start June 20
--------------------------------------------------------------
The McClatchy Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the third phase Sawin
v. The McClatchy Company, has been scheduled to begin June 20,
2019.

In December 2008, carriers of The Fresno Bee filed a class action
lawsuit against the company and The Fresno Bee in the Superior
Court of the State of California in Fresno County captioned Becerra
v. The McClatchy Company ("Fresno case") alleging that the carriers
were misclassified as independent contractors and seeking mileage
reimbursement.

In February 2009, a substantially similar lawsuit, Sawin v. The
McClatchy Company, involving similar allegations was filed by
carriers of The Sacramento Bee ("Sacramento case") in the Superior
Court of the State of California in Sacramento County.

The class consists of roughly 5,000 carriers in the Sacramento case
and 3,500 carriers in the Fresno case.

The plaintiffs in both cases are seeking unspecified restitution
for mileage reimbursement. With respect to the Sacramento case, in
September 2013, all wage and hour claims were dismissed, and the
only remaining claim is an equitable claim for mileage
reimbursement under the California Civil Code.

In the Fresno case, in March 2014, all wage and hour claims were
dismissed, and the only remaining claim is an equitable claim for
mileage reimbursement under the California Civil Code.

The court in the Sacramento case trifurcated the trial into three
separate phases, independent contractor status, liability and
restitution. On September 22, 2014, the court in the Sacramento
case issued a tentative decision following the first phase, finding
that the carriers that contracted directly with The Sacramento Bee
during the period from February 2005 to July 2009 were
misclassified as independent contractors.

The company objected to the tentative decision, but the court
ultimately adopted it as final. In June 2016, The McClatchy Company
was dismissed from the lawsuit, leaving The Sacramento Bee as the
sole defendant. On August 30, 2017, the court issued a statement of
decision ruling that the court would not hold a phase two trial but
would, instead, assume liability from the evidence previously
submitted and from the independent contractor agreements. The
company objected to this decision, but the court adopted it as
final. The third phase has been scheduled to begin on June 20,
2019.

The court in the Fresno case bifurcated the trial into two separate
phases: the first phase addressed independent contractor status and
liability for mileage reimbursement and the second phase was
designated to address restitution, if any.

The first phase of the Fresno case began in the fourth quarter of
2014 and concluded in late March 2015. On April 14, 2016, the court
in the Fresno case issued a statement of final decision in favor of
the company and The Fresno Bee. Accordingly, there will be no
second phase. The plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal on November
10, 2016.

The company continues to defend these actions vigorously and expect
that it will ultimately prevail.

McClatchy said, "As a result, we have not established a reserve in
connection with the cases. While we believe that a material impact
on our condensed consolidated financial position, results of
operations or cash flows from these claims is unlikely, given the
inherent uncertainty of litigation, a possibility exists that
future adverse rulings or unfavorable developments could result in
future charges that could have a material impact. We have and will
continue to periodically reexamine our estimates of probable
liabilities and any associated expenses and make appropriate
adjustments to such estimates based on experience and developments
in litigation."

The McClatchy Company publishes newspapers and news Websites in the
United States. Its publications include the Miami Herald, The
Kansas City Star, The Sacramento Bee, The Charlotte Observer, The
(Raleigh) News and Observer, and The (Fort Worth) Star-Telegram.
The McClatchy Company was founded in 1857 and is headquartered in
Sacramento, California.


MDL 1566: Court Remands Arandell and New Page Claims to W.D. Wis.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: WESTERN STATES WHOLESALE NATURAL GAS ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, MDL No. 1566, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order remanding to
the Western District of Wisconsin the claims in Arandell and New
Page lawsuits against defendants e prime, inc.; Northern States
Power Company; Xcel Energy Inc.; The Williams Companies, Inc.;
Williams Merchant Services Company, LLC; Williams Gas Marketing,
Inc.; Dynegy Illinois Inc.; DMT G.P. L.L.C.; Dynegy GP Inc.; Dynegy
Marketing and Trade; Cantera Natural Gas, Inc.; Cantera Resources,
Inc.; CMS Energy Resources Management Company; CMS Field Services
Inc.; CMS Energy Corporation; and Cantera Gas Company.

Various defendants in the two actions styled, ARANDELL CORP., ET
AL. v. XCEL ENERGY INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:07-01019 (W.D.
Wisconsin C.A. No. 3:07-00076) and NEWPAGE WISCONSIN SYSTEM INC. v.
CMS ENERGY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:09-00915
(W.D. Wisconsin C.A. No. 3:09-00240) (Arandell and NewPage), move
under Panel Rule 10.2 to vacate the Panel's order, entered at the
suggestion of the transferee judge, conditionally remanding the
claims against them to the Western District of Wisconsin.
Plaintiffs in those actions oppose the motion.

After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Vance denies
defendants' motion to vacate.  "In considering the question of
remand, the Panel has consistently given great weight to the
transferee judge's determination that remand of a particular action
at a particular time is appropriate because the transferee judge,
after all, supervises the day-to-day pretrial proceedings."  Judge
Vance accords such weight here.  These cases have been pending in
the MDL for a number of years.  Pretrial proceedings to date have
been extensive, and have included significant motion practice,
substantial discovery, and lengthy appeals.  The Honorable Robert
Clive Jones, who has been overseeing the MDL since June 2015, has
made a reasoned determination that Section 1407 remand is
appropriate for the completion of remaining pretrial proceedings
(including class certification) and trial.

In their motion to vacate, defendants do not disagree that the
transferor court should oversee the remaining proceedings.  They
object only to the timing of remand, asking that remand be
postponed until after the resolution of all matters regarding a
pending appeal and plaintiffs' settlements with certain other
defendants.  Indeed, they appear to suggest that the pendency of
the appeal has divested the district court (whether it be the
transferee court or the transferor court) of jurisdiction to
adjudicate plaintiffs' claims against them.  But Section 1407 does
not empower the Panel to decide questions going to the jurisdiction
of a case.  Following remand, defendants are free to argue to the
Western District of Wisconsin court as to the significance, if any,
of the appeal and the pending settlements with respect to the
course of remaining pretrial proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 4, 2019 Remand Order is
available at https://is.gd/b78KBl


MDL 2244: Court Vacates Conditional Transfer Order in Cardoza Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC., PINNACLE HIP IMPLANT
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2244, the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order vacating its
conditional transfer order designated as "CTO-309" filed on
February 19, 2019, related to the action styled, Cardoza v. Medical
Device Business Services, Inc., et al., W.D. Virginia, C.A. No.
4:19-00003.

The Panel also ordered that the Hearing Session Order and the
attached Schedule filed on April 10, 2019, are VACATED insofar as
they relate to this matter.

A conditional transfer order was filed in this action (Cardoza) on
February 19, 2019.  Prior to expiration of that order's 7-day stay
of transmittal, plaintiff in Cardoza filed a notice of opposition
to the proposed transfer.  Plaintiff later filed a motion and brief
to vacate the conditional transfer order.  The Panel has now been
advised that Cardoza was remanded to the Circuit Court for the City
of Danville, Virginia by the Honorable Elizabeth K. Dillon in an
order filed on May 8, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 8, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/sysHP4


MDL 2493: Court Denies Bid to Remand Bank v. Alliance Security
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: MONITRONICS INTERNATIONAL, INC., TELEPHONE
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT (TCPA) LITIGATION, MDL No. 2493, Judge
Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation has denied the Plaintiff's motion to remand the action
styled, BANK v. ALLIANCE SECURITY, INC., ET AL., C.A. No.
1:14-00215 (E.D.N.Y., C.A. No. 1:14-04410), from the Northern
District of West Virginia to the transferor court.

Plaintiff in the Bank action, which the Panel previously
transferred from the Eastern District of New York to MDL No. 2493,
moves for an order remanding the action to the transferor court.
Responding defendant Monitronics International, Inc., opposes the
motion.

After considering the argument of the parties, Judge Vance
concludes that remand is not appropriate at this time, and
therefore deny plaintiff's motion.  In considering the question of
Section 1407 remand, the Judge accords great weight to the
transferee judge's determination that remand of a particular action
at a particular time is appropriate, as that judge has supervised
the day-to-day pretrial proceedings in the MDL.  The transferee
judge's suggestion of remand to the Panel, see Rule 10.1(b), is an
indication that the judge perceives his role under Section 1407 to
have ended.  Here, the transferee judge has not issued a suggestion
of remand.  Without a suggestion of remand, a party advocating
Section 1407 remand "bears a strong burden of persuasion."  Judge
Vance concludes that plaintiff has not met that burden here.

Plaintiff's sole argument in support of remand is that in early
2019 he submitted a request for exclusion from the class action
settlement in the MDL, that received final approval in 2018.  In
the transferee court, Monitronics has asserted that the exclusion
request is untimely and invalid, and plaintiff's claims against
Monitronics were extinguished by the settlement.  Judge Vance finds
that remand of this action is inappropriate while contested matters
as to the scope and impact of the class action settlement are
pending before the transferee court, absent a suggestion of
remand.

Additionally, although this MDL is at an advanced stage, the
transferee court docket indicates that pretrial proceedings in
actions involving Monitronics remain in progress.  Given this
posture, remand is premature at this time.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 3, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/BNNTuG


MDL 2626: Alcon Vision Lawsuit Moved to Middle District of Florida
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: DISPOSABLE CONTACT LENS ANTITRUST LITIGATION,
MDL No. 2626, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring the
action styled, ALCON VISION, LLC v. LENS.COM, INC., C.A. No.
1:18-407, from the Eastern District of New York to the Middle
District of Florida and, with the consent of that court, assigned
it to the Honorable Harvey E. Schlesinger for inclusion in the
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Judge Vance also ordered that all claims and counterclaims except
for the two counterclaims (Counts III and IV) relating to Alcon's
institution of universal pricing policies are separated and
simultaneously remanded, under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407(a), to the
Eastern District of York.

Plaintiff in the Alcon action moves under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate
the Panel's order conditionally transferring the action to MDL No.
2626.  Defendant Lens.com opposes the motion to vacate.

The actions in MDL No. 2626 involve factual questions concerning
defendants' alleged anticompetitive conduct aimed at fixing,
raising, maintaining and/or stabilizing the prices at which
disposable contact lenses are sold in the United States.  At issue
in all initially centralized actions were defendants' pricing
policies that allegedly prevented resale of the subject contact
lenses below a minimum price.  The Eastern District of New York
Alcon action is a trademark infringement action against discount
retailer Lens.com, a "gray market" purchaser, which allegedly
bought certain Alcon products overseas and sold them in the United
States.  Defendant Lens.com brought several counterclaims that
generally(1) refute Alcon's accusation of trademark infringement
and suggest instead that changes Alcon made to products exclusively
sold in the U.S. were pretextual changes aimed at eliminating gray
market competitors, (2) challenge Alcon's proposed
exclusive-dealing arrangements and its alleged attempts to tie the
sale of products it exclusively sells in the U.S. to an agreement
that Lens.com purchase all Alcon products at its U.S. prices, and
(3) connect Alcon's filing of the trademark action against Lens.com
to its alleged prior efforts to prevent resellers from distributing
Alcon products to the detriment of eye care professionals.  Two of
Lens.com's claims relate to universal pricing policies (UPPs) at
issue in MDL No. 2626.  Under scoring the factual overlap among
these counterclaims and the MDL claims, the transferee judge
recently certified various classes of retail purchasers of contact
lenses subject to UPPs in early December 2018.

Alcon opposes transfer because the MDL is procedurally advanced and
involves consumers, as opposed to resellers like Lens.com.  Judge
Vance agrees the MDL is at a somewhat advanced stage, with
discovery completed, and seven summary judgment motions, as well as
motions for spoilation sanctions pending.  Additionally, Lens.com
would be a unique party to the MDL, inasmuch as the parties do not
point to any other actions in the MDL involving gray market
resellers like Lens.com. The Judge is concerned that transferring
the entire Alcon action would add significant trademark-related
allegations, among other issues raised by the counterclaims, that
could unduly prolong the MDL proceedings.  A more tailored solution
-- transfer of only the two UPP-related counterclaims -- would
prevent the risk of inconsistent rulings concerning Alcon's UPPs,
but not expand the MDL's current scope.  In these circumstances,
the Judge views this as the best solution.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 5, 2019 Transfer Order with
Simultaneous Separation and Remand of Certain Claims is available
at https://is.gd/yQhmec


MDL 2669: Court Remands Doe Suit to Southern Dist. of Mississippi
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: ASHLEY MADISON CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2669, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has remanded the action styled,
DOE v. AVID LIFE MEDIA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:15-01920 (S.D.
Mississippi, C.A. No. 3:15-00658), from the Eastern District of
Missouri to the Southern District of Mississippi.

Defendants Avid Life Media, Inc., and Avid Dating Life,
Inc.(collectively, Avid) move under Panel Rule 10.2 to vacate the
Panel's order that conditionally remanded the Doe action to the
Southern District of Mississippi.  The Panel placed Doe on a
conditional remand order after receiving the transferee judge's
suggestion of remand.  Plaintiffs in Doe oppose the motion.

After considering the argument of counsel, the Panel finds that
remand of this action under28 U.S.C. Section 1407 is warranted.  In
considering the question of remand, the Panel consistently gives
great weight to the transferee judge's determination that remand of
a particular action at a particular time is appropriate because the
transferee judge, after all, supervises the litigation's pretrial
proceedings.  The transferee judge's suggestion of remand indicates
that "'he perceives his role under Section 1407 to have ended.'"
Here, the transferee judge explained why Section 1407 remand is
appropriate, noting that a class settlement has resolved all
actions in the MDL, with the exception of Doe, and that no
multi-jurisdictional issues remain in the litigation.  His
determination that remand of Doe is now appropriate was based on
the totality of circumstances involved in the docket.

Avid argues that judicial economy would be best served if the
transferee court decides Avid's pending motion to compel
arbitration in Doe because of the court's familiarity with the
facts and legal issues in this litigation.  Certainly, transferee
courts can and do rule on such motions.  Section 1407(a), though,
expressly authorizes remand "at or before" the conclusion of
pretrial proceedings.  Moreover, the pendency of dispositive
motions, such as motions to compel arbitration, poses no obstacle
to remand under Section 1407.  Here, the transferee court
specifically considered and rejected Avid's argument that the court
should "retain jurisdiction over this case to decide its
contemplated amended motion to dismiss and/or stay and compel
arbitration." The transferee court is in the best position to make
this discretionary decision.  Judge Vance sees no reason to accord
anything other than great weight to the transferee court's
conclusion.  

A full-text copy of the Court's June 5, 2019 Remand Order is
available at https://is.gd/jaSAng


MDL 2672: Feinman Suit Moved to Northern District of California
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2672, Judge
Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation has entered an order transferring the action styled,
FEINMAN v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., C.A. No. 7:19-55,
from the Western District of Virginia to the Northern District of
California and, with the consent of that court, assigned it to the
Honorable Charles R. Breyer for inclusion in the coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Plaintiff in the Feinman action pending in the Western District of
Virginia moves under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's order
conditionally transferring his action to MDL No. 2672.  Volkswagen
Group of America, Inc. (VW) opposes the motion.

After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Vance finds this
action involves common questions of fact with the actions
previously transferred to MDL No. 2672, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. Section 1407will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation.  Transfer is warranted for the reasons set out in order
directing centralization.  In that order, the Panel held that the
Northern District of California was an appropriate Section 1407
forum for actions sharing factual questions regarding the role of
VW and related entities in equipping certain 2.0 and 3.0 liter
diesel engines with software allegedly designed to engage emissions
controls only when the vehicles undergo official testing, while at
other times the engines emit nitrous oxide well in excess of legal
limits.  This action involves allegations related to the "clean
diesel" scandal, given that plaintiff represented numerous
participants in one of the class settlements reached in the MDL and
now seeks to recover attorney fees from VW.  Without doubt, this
action falls within the MDL's ambit.

Plaintiff argues, in part, against transfer that federal courts
lack jurisdiction over his action.  Plaintiff can present his
motion for remand to the transferee judge.

Plaintiff also argues that his action to recover attorney fees is
unique and should not be transferred.  Despite any potentially
unique claims, transfer of the action is consistent with the
initial transfer order in this docket, in light of the action's
genesis in the diesel emissions fraud.  Where, as here, "common
factual issues exist, . . . the presence of different legal
theories among the subject actions is not a bar to centralization."
Defendant also argues that the most efficient way to proceed with
Feinman is to transfer the action and allow Judge Breyer to
effectuate his recent ruling granting VW's motion to enforce the
MDL settlement.  Plaintiff did not respond to this assertion.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 5, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/O15ayD


MDL 2738: Kannady, et al. Suit Moved to District of New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: JOHNSON & JOHNSON TALCUM POWDER PRODUCTS
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL
No. 2738, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring the
action styled, KANNADY, ET AL. v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, ET AL., C.A.
No. 4:19-00292, from the Eastern District of Missouri to the
District of New Jersey and, with the consent of that court,
assigned to the Honorable Freda L. Wolfson for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Plaintiffs in the Kannady action move under Panel Rule 7.1 to
vacate the Panel's order that conditionally transferred Kannady to
the District of New Jersey for inclusion in MDL No. 2738.
Defendants Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc., PTI
Union, LLC, and PTI Royston, LLC, oppose the motion.

In support of their motion to vacate, plaintiffs argue that federal
subject matter jurisdiction over Kannady is lacking, and that
plaintiffs’ motion for remand to state court is pending. The
Panel has held that such jurisdictional issues generally do not
present an impediment to transfer. Plaintiffs can present their
remand arguments to the transferee judge.

Therefore, after considering the argument of counsel, we find that
the action involves common questions of fact with the actions
transferred to MDL No. 2738, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. §
1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and
promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. In our
order centralizing this litigation, we held that the District of
New Jersey was an appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions
sharing factual questions arising from allegations that plaintiffs
or their decedents developed ovarian cancer following perineal
application of Johnson & Johnson’s talcum powder products
(namely, Johnson’s Baby Powder and Shower to Shower body powder).
Kannady shares multiple factual issues with the actions already in
the MDL.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 5, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/TpmU2B


MDL 2750: Goodwin and Lo Re Suits Moved to District of New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: INVOKANA (CANAGLIFLOZIN)PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2750, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring
two actions to the District of New Jersey, and with the consent of
that court, assigned them to the Honorable Brian R. Martinotti for
inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

These two actions are:

   * GOODWIN v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No.
3:19-00079 (Western District of Kentucky); and

   * LO RE v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No.
6:19-06170 (Western District of New York).

Various parties in the Western District of Kentucky Goodwin action
and the Western District of New York Lo Re action separately move
under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's order conditionally
transferring the actions to the District of New Jersey for
inclusion in MDL No. 2750.  The Goodwin plaintiff moves with
respect to his action.  As to the Lo Re action, movants are the Lo
Re plaintiff and defendants Sylvia Park, M.D., Alexander Medical
Group, P.C., and defendant Richard Patrick Sullivan, M.D.
Rochester Regional Health, which is another defendant in Lo Re,
filed a response in support of vacatur.  Defendants Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Janssen), and Johnson & Johnson (J&J) oppose
the motion as to Goodwin, and Janssen, Janssen Research &
Development, LLC, and J&J oppose the motions as to Lo Re.

After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Vance finds that
Goodwin and Lo Re involve common questions of fact with actions
transferred to MDL No.2750, and that transfer will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation.  The actions in the MDL "share
factual questions arising from allegations that taking Invokana or
Invokamet may result in patients suffering various injuries,
including diabetic ketoacidosis and kidney damage." Both Goodwin
and Lo Re plainly involve claims of personal injury as a result of
taking Invokana and thus fall within the MDL's ambit.

In opposition to transfer, the Goodwin and Lo Re plaintiffs argue
that the alleged injury in their cases is Fournier's gangrene,
whereas the alleged injuries at issue in the MDL are limited to
diabetic ketoacidosis, kidney injury, and lower limb amputation.
Plaintiffs also argue that transfer would prejudice them, as they
would need to comply with the transferee court's Administrative
Order No. 1, which sets forth deadlines for plaintiffs to submit
pharmacy and medical records, as well as a Rule 26(a)(2)
case-specific expert report from a medical expert attesting to a
reasonable degree of medical probability that the plaintiff
suffered an injury caused by Invokana, and providing the factual
bases for that attestation.  These arguments are not convincing.
First, the MDL is not limited to the referenced injuries.  Indeed,
there already is a case involving Fournier's gangrene in the MDL.
Second, even if the MDL were so limited, the Goodwin and Lo Re
plaintiffs themselves have not restricted their allegations to
Fournier's gangrene.  The Goodwin plaintiff alleges that he
suffered Fournier's gangrene and "other severe and personal
injuries" as a result of taking Invokana.  Similarly, the Lo Re
plaintiff asserts that her decedent suffered "various injuries"
caused by the drug.  Also, like actions already in the MDL, both
Goodwin and Lo Re contain broad allegations concerning the
development, testing, labeling, and marketing of Invokana.  Third,
with respect to Administrative Order No. 1, the Goodwin and Lo Re
plaintiffs are free to argue to the transferee court that their
time for compliance should be extended in light of their alleged
injuries or other case-specific circumstances.

The arguments of the healthcare provider defendants in Lo Re also
do not warrant vacatur.  The Panel consistently has held that the
pendency of jurisdictional objections is not an impediment to
Section 1407 transfer.  And, in deciding issues of transfer, the
Panel looks to the overall convenience of the parties and witnesses
in the litigation as a whole.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 4, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/VWH53p


MDL 2768: Lakeland Regional vs. Howmedica Moved to Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: STRYKER LFIT V40 FEMORAL HEAD PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2768, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the
U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an
order transferring the action styled, LAKELAND REGIONAL HEALTH
SYSTEMS, INC. v. HOWMEDICA OSTEONICSCORP., ET AL., C.A. No.
8:19-247, from the Middle District of Florida to the District of
Massachusetts and, with the consent of that court, assigned it to
the Honorable Indira Talwani for inclusion in the coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Plaintiff in the Middle District of Florida action moves under
Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's order conditionally
transferring the Lakeland Regional action to MDL No. 2768.
Defendants Howmedica Ostenonics Corp. and Stryker Corp. oppose the
motion.

After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Vance finds that
this action involves common questions of fact with the actions
previously transferred to MDL No. 2768, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation.  Transfer is warranted for reasons set out in the
Panel's order centralizing this litigation.  In that order, the
Panel held that the District of Massachusetts was an appropriate
Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions arising
from alleged defects in Stryker-branded LFIT Anatomic CoCRV40
femoral heads, a prosthetic hip replacement device.  This action
involves injuries arising from the implantation of a Stryker LFIT
V40 femoral head and clearly falls within the MDL's ambit.

In opposing transfer, plaintiff argues that federal jurisdiction is
lacking over the action and that the case is unique because it is a
subrogation action brought under Florida's Workers Compensation
Act.  These arguments do not persuade the Panel that transfer is
inappropriate.  Arguments concerning the propriety of federal
jurisdiction are insufficient to warrant vacatur.  Also, as a
practical matter, it does not appear that resolution of plaintiff's
motion to remand is imminent.  Plaintiff moved to remand the action
in mid-February 2019, and that motion remains pending.  Further,
the remand motion is not yet even fully briefed, so there will be
some delay in ruling on remand in either forum.  Plaintiff can
present its motion to remand to the transferee judge.  Further,
while the claims in Lakeland Regional may indeed be unique
(defendants do not point to other similar subrogation actions),
when, as here, "common factual issues exist, . . . the presence of
different legal theories among the subject actions is not a bar to
centralization." Should the need arise, the transferee judge can
accommodate any unique discovery needs that this case presents.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 5, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/PoNpvJ


MDL 2800: Luciano vs. Equifax Informational Moved to N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: EQUIFAX, INC., CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2800, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring
the action styled, LUCIANO v. EQUIFAX INFORMATIONAL SERVICES, LLC,
C.A. No. 1:19-00437, from the Eastern District of New York to the
Northern District of Georgia and, with the consent of that court,
assigned it to the Honorable Thomas W. Thrash for inclusion in the
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Plaintiff in the Luciano action, proceeding pro se, moves under
Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate our order conditionally transferring his
action to MDL No. 2800. Defendant Equifax Information Services, LLC
(Equifax) opposes the motion to vacate.

After considering all arguments, we find this action involves
common questions of fact with the actions previously transferred to
MDL No. 2800, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of the litigation. The actions in MDL No.
2800 arise from a 2017 cybersecurity incident involving Equifax in
which it is alleged that the personally identifiable information of
more than 145 million consumers was compromised. Luciano involves
allegations, similar to those in the MDL No. 2800 actions, that
Equifax failed to adequately safeguard plaintiff’s personally
identifiable information, which was compromised during the Equifax
data breach; failed to provide the public with timely notice of the
breach; and that certain Equifax executives sold Equifax stock
before publicly announcing the breach.

Plaintiff does not dispute that his action arises out of the 2017
Equifax data breach and shares questions of fact and law with the
MDL No. 2800 actions. Against transfer, he argues that (1)Equifax's
guilt is established, and (2) transfer to MDL No. 2800 for pretrial
proceedings and remand for trial would be a waste of time and
resources. Equifax does not concede liability in the MDL No.2800
actions. And while it might inconvenience some parties, transfer of
a particular action often is necessary to further the expeditious
resolution of the litigation taken as a whole.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 5, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/tgyBDg


MDL 2801: Avnet v. Panasonic Moved to Northern Dist. of California
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: CAPACITORS ANTITRUST LITIGATION (NO. III), MDL
No. 2801, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring the
action styled, AVNET INCORPORATED v. PANASONIC CORPORATION, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:19-00766, from the District of Arizona to the Northern
District of California and, with the consent of that court,
assigned it to the Honorable James Donato for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Defendant Panasonic Corporation of North America moves under Panel
Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's order that conditionally transferred
the Avnet II action to the Northern District of California for
inclusion in MDL No. 2801.  Plaintiff Avnet Incorporated opposes
the motion.

In support of its motion to vacate, Panasonic argues that pretrial
proceedings in the MDL have reached an advanced stage, with both
fact and expert discovery complete or nearly so.  Panasonic
contends that transfer of Avnet II will disrupt and delay the
proceedings in the MDL, and that such delay is unwarranted because
Avnet knew of Panasonic's alleged involvement in the price fixing
conspiracy being litigated in the MDL when the Panel transferred an
earlier-filed action (Avnet I) to the MDL in 2017.  Panasonic
further suggests that coordination by the parties can eliminate the
potential for duplicative discovery and motion practice.

"Whether the continued inclusion of tag-along actions is
appropriate is based upon a review of the status of the MDL
proceedings and an assessment of the relative merits of
transferring additional cases." Here, the Panel's review of the
record leads it to conclude that transfer of Avnet II would best
serve the efficient resolution of this litigation.  The transferee
judge has overseen substantial pretrial proceedings concerning the
alleged price-fixing conspiracy in this litigation since 2014
(three years before the Panel created this MDL), including
significant rulings on dispositive motions and discovery disputes.
The transferee judge's knowledge of the issues and nuances of this
litigation, as well as his familiarity with the parties and counsel
in both the MDL and Avnet II, will prove invaluable to streamlining
discovery and motions practice in the new action in light of the
discovery and motions practice that have been completed.

Furthermore, delay is not the inevitable result of transfer.
Pretrial proceedings remain to be completed in the MDL, including
dispositive and Daubert motion practice.  The transferee court can
employ various pretrial management techniques—such as scheduling
discovery and other pretrial proceedings in Avnet II on a separate
track concurrently with the common pretrial proceedings—to avoid
undue delay and to enhance the efficient conduct of this
litigation.  And, should the transferee court conclude that
continued inclusion of Avnet II in the MDL no longer is
appropriate, the transferee court may recommend Section 1407 remand
of this action.

Therefore, after considering the argument of counsel, Judge Vance
finds that the Avnet II action involves common questions of fact
with the actions transferred to MDL No. 2801, and that transfer
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of
the litigation.  In the order centralizing this litigation, the
Panel held that the Northern District of California was an
appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing common factual
and legal questions arising from allegations that defendants
conspired to fix prices for aluminum, tantalum, and film
capacitors.  No party disputes that Avnet II alleges the same
antitrust conspiracy as the actions pending in the MDL.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 5, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/bDdTcT


MDL 2804: 13 Suits Transferred to Northern District of Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION, MDL
No. 2804, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring 13
actions to the Northern District of Ohio and, with the consent of
that court, assigned them to the Honorable Dan A. Polster for
inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Plaintiffs in 13 actions and Eastern District of Missouri
defendants Mylan N.V., and Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., move under
Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the orders conditionally transferring the
actions listed on Schedule A to MDL No. 2804.  Various defendants
oppose the motions.

After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Vance finds these
actions involve common questions of fact with the actions
previously transferred to MDL No. 2804, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation.  Moreover, transfer is warranted for the reasons set
out in the Panel's order directing centralization.  In that order,
the Panel held that the Northern District of Ohio was an
appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual
questions regarding the allegedly improper marketing and
distribution of various prescription opiate medications into
cities, states and towns across the country.

Despite some variances among the actions before the Panel, they all
share a factual core with the MDL actions: the manufacturer and
distributor defendants' alleged knowledge of and conduct regarding
the diversion of these prescription opiates, as well as the
manufacturers' allegedly improper marketing of such drugs.  The
actions therefore fall within the MDL's ambit.

The parties opposing transfer in twelve actions argue principally
that federal jurisdiction is lacking over their cases.  But
opposition to transfer challenging the propriety of federal
jurisdiction is insufficient to warrant vacating conditional
transfer orders covering otherwise factually related cases. Several
parties also argue that including their actions in this large MDL
will cause them inconvenience.  Given the undisputed factual
overlap with the MDL proceedings, transfer is justified in order to
facilitate the efficient conduct of the litigation as a whole.

Transfer of the Eastern District of Missouri Jefferson County
action is not hindered by plaintiff's argument that defendant CVS
impliedly asserted mass action removal under CAFA.  CVS removed the
case alleging both federal question and class action CAFA
jurisdiction.  It never alleged that the action was a mass action.
Moreover, CAFA prohibits transfer only of cases removed solely as
mass actions.  Even if mass action removal could be implied here,
defendant asserted two additional grounds for removal.  Section
1407 transfer is appropriate in these circumstances.

BCBS of Louisiana, plaintiff in the District of Massachusetts
action, opposes transfer by arguing that this action is unique;
some actions against Insys are proceeding outside of the MDL; and
the action could proceed much more quickly outside the MDL context.
These arguments do not justify excluding this case from the MDL.
Transfer is warranted in light of the significant factual overlap
BCBS of Louisiana, a putative third party payor class action,
shares with the allegations in other MDL actions.  Plaintiff is
correct that two non-class cases brought by health insurers against
Insys are pending outside the MDL.  But these cases were filed
before the MDL was created and have advanced significantly during
their pendency.  While transfer may add some degree of delay to the
progress of certain actions, it offers substantial efficiencies by
allowing factually-related cases to proceed alongside each other.
Here, the MDL includes several other third party payor actions, as
well as hundreds of governmental entities' actions, against Insys
based on its sales of its opioid product Subsys.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 5, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/HXuiWO


MDL 2807: 2 Suits vs. Sonic Corp. Moved to Northern Dist. of Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: SONIC CORP. CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2807, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring
two actions against Sonic Corporation, et al., to the Northern
District of Ohio and, with the consent of that court, assigned them
to the Honorable James S. Gwin for inclusion in the coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

The two actions are:

   * In the Eastern District of Arkansas - ALCOA COMMUNITY FEDERAL
CREDIT UNION v. SONIC CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:18-00770;
and

   * In the Western District of Oklahoma - AMERICAN AIRLINES
FEDERAL CREDIT UNION v. SONIC CORP., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:19-00208.

Plaintiffs in the actions pending in MDL No. 2807 move under Panel
Rule7.1 to vacate the Panel's orders that conditionally transferred
the two actions to the Northern District of Ohio for inclusion in
MDL No. 2807.  Plaintiffs in the actions and common defendants
Sonic Corp., Sonic Franchising, LLC, Sonic Industries LLC, Sonic
Industries Services Inc., Sonic Capital LLC, and Sonic Restaurants,
Inc. (together, Sonic), oppose the motions to vacate.

After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Vance finds that
these actions involve common questions of fact with the actions
transferred to MDL No. 2807, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation.  The two actions, like the already-centralized actions,
share factual issues concerning an incident in which Sonic's
point-of-sale system was breached, allowing computer hackers to
gain access to up to 5 million individuals' personally identifiable
information.

Plaintiffs in the actions pending in MDL No. 2807 bring claims on
behalf of consumers affected by the breach.  Plaintiffs in the two
actions bring claims on behalf of putative classes of financial
institutions that issue or service payment cards and whose
customers made purchases from Sonic stores.  Movants argue that (1)
the financial institution actions are not within the scope of the
Panel's initial transfer order; (2) these actions are unique
because they were filed over a year after the consumer actions and
on behalf of a different class; (3) no efficiencies will be gained
by including them in the MDL because the consumer actions are
significantly more advanced; and (4) the Western District of
Oklahoma, where Sonic is headquartered, is a more appropriate forum
for the financial institution actions.

The financial institution actions unquestionably arise from the
same 2017 data breach at issue in the consumer actions.  That only
consumer actions were pending when the Panel granted centralization
does not preclude including financial institution actions in the
MDL at this time.  Indeed, the Panel often includes actions brought
on behalf of financial institutions in data breach MDLs.  Both the
consumer and financial institution actions "will share common
discovery and pretrial practice, even if certain claims or defenses
are not identical."

It is true that these actions are in quite different procedural
postures.  The consumer actions are on the cusp of settlement with
a final fairness hearing scheduled for July 2019, while the
financial institution actions are in their nascent stages.  But all
parties to the financial institution actions support transfer.  And
including these actions would create efficiencies by allowing for
easy access to common discovery and placing the actions before a
judge who is very familiar with the facts and issues in this
litigation.  It is unlikely that the financial institution
plaintiffs' presence in MDL No. 2807 will disrupt or delay the
consumer class settlement.  They are not members of the putative
settlement class, and the transferee judge can place their actions
on a separate litigation track, if he chooses.  The Western
District of Oklahoma is the location of Sonic's headquarters, but
no party to the financial institution actions has sought
centralization there.  Moreover, inclusion of the actions in the
already-established MDL is the most efficient path for these
actions.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 5, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/qz65oQ


MDL 2873: 3 Suits vs. 3M Co., et al. Transferred to South Carolina
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2873, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring
three actions to the District of South Carolina and, with the
consent of that court, assigned them to the Honorable Richard M.
Gergel for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

These actions are:

District of New Mexico
   * SCHAAP, ET AL. v. 3M COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:19-00105
   * TEUNE, ET AL. v. 3M COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:19-00162

Eastern District of New York
   * TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON v. 3M COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No.
2:19-00642

Plaintiffs in the three actions move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate
the Panel's orders that conditionally transferred these actions to
the District of South Carolina for inclusion in MDL No. 2873.
Defendants 3M Company, Tyco Fire Products, LP, Chemguard, Inc.,
Buckeye Fire Equipment Company, and National Foam, Inc., oppose all
three motions, while defendants United Technologies Corporation and
Kidde PLC, Inc., oppose the Town of East Hampton's motion.

Plaintiffs in the two actions pending in the District of New Mexico
argue that transfer of their "business interruption" claims is
inappropriate because no such claims are being litigated in the
MDL.  But, like the cases transferred to MDL No. 2873, the New
Mexico actions involve allegations that the groundwater on
plaintiffs' property has been contaminated with perfluorooctane
sulfonate (PFOS) and/or perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) that was
contained in aqueous film-forming foams (AFFFs) used at a nearby
Air Force base.  Plaintiffs assert many of the same product
liability claims against the same manufacturer defendants as the
majority of actions pending in the MDL.  That plaintiffs assert a
unique theory of liability does not weigh against transfer.

The New Mexico plaintiffs also complain that transfer will severely
prejudice them, as their dairy farm operations are at risk of
failing.  Their contention that transfer to the MDL will
significantly delay their actions is conclusory at best.  Both the
New Mexico actions and the actions in the MDL are at the beginning
stages of litigation, and transfer at this point is unlikely to
cause substantial delay.  Nor will transfer significantly burden
plaintiffs, as their counsel has been appointed co-lead counsel for
plaintiffs in the MDL (i.e., plaintiffs' counsel will be litigating
in the District of South Carolina anyway).  In any event, transfer
of an action is appropriate if it furthers the expeditious
resolution of the litigation taken as a whole, even if some parties
to the action might experience inconvenience or delay.  To the
extent plaintiffs seek "unique or time-sensitive relief pertaining
to [their] water supplies, [they] can and should raise such
concerns with the transferee court."

Plaintiff in the Eastern District of New York action (the Town of
East Hampton) argues that transfer of that action is inappropriate
because unique issues relating to the contamination in the Town
will predominate over common questions of fact with the actions
pending in the MDL.  In particular, the Town argues that it alleges
multiple sources of contamination, only some of which stem from the
use of AFFFs by a local firefighting company.  Plaintiff suggests
that the Panel's initial centralization order limited this MDL to
cases alleging only contamination from AFFFs, but the Panel's order
merely excluded from the MDL actions that did not contain any
allegations relating to AFFFs.  That the Town alleges additional
sources of contamination is no obstacle to transfer.  The Town's
action shares numerous factual questions regarding AFFFs and
PFOA/PFOS contamination in common with the actions in the MDL.
Indeed, the Town's allegations are intertwined with those of
several actions pending in the MDL, which also allege contamination
of Long Island's aquifer.  In one of these actions, Shipman v. 3M
Company, C.A.  No.2:18-03340(D.S.C.), the Town itself is a named
defendant.  In the action now before the Panel, the Town seeks
contribution and indemnification for any liability assessed it in
Shipman.

Plaintiff also argues that the government contractor defense should
not be at issue in the New York action.  This does not weigh
against centralization.  Multiple contamination sites already at
issue in the MDL involve non-military firefighting or industrial
facilities, and also may not involve this defense.  Transfer under
Section 1407 does not require a complete identity of factual and
legal issues when the actions, as they do here, arise from a common
factual core.

Additionally, plaintiff insists that federal subject matter
jurisdiction over its action is lacking and that its anticipated
remand motion should be decided by the transferor court.  The Panel
has held that such jurisdictional issues generally do not present
an impediment to transfer.  Plaintiff can present its remand
arguments to the transferee judge.  Perhaps anticipating this
outcome, plaintiff alternatively requests that the Panel directs
the transferee court to prioritize consideration of its remand
motion.  Judge Vance denies this alternative request because such
case management decisions are best addressed by the transferee
court.

Accordingly, after considering the argument of counsel, Judge Vance
finds that the three actions involve common questions of fact with
the actions transferred to MDL No. 2873, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation.  In the Panel's order centralizing this litigation, the
Judge held that the District of South Carolina was an appropriate
Section 1407 forum for actions in which plaintiffs allege that AFFF
products used at airports, military bases, or certain industrial
locations caused the release of PFOS and/or PFOA into local
groundwater and contaminated drinking water supplies.  The actions
in the MDL share factual questions concerning the toxicity of PFOA
and PFOS and the effects of these substances on human health; these
substances' chemical properties and propensity to migrate in
groundwater supplies; the knowledge of the AFFF manufacturers
regarding the dangers of PFOA and PFOS; their warnings, if any,
regarding proper use and storage of AFFFs; and to what extent, if
any, defendants conspired or cooperated to conceal the dangers of
PFOA and PFOS in their products.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 5, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/b7BAAt


MDL 2879: Mann Suit v. Starwood Hotels Moved to Maryland District
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., CUSTOMER DATA
SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION, MDL No. 2879, Judge Sarah S. Vance of
the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an
order transferring the action styled, MANN v. STARWOOD HOTELS &
RESORTS WORLDWIDE, LLC, C.A. No. 1:19-00348, from the Northern
District of Ohio to the District of Maryland and, with the consent
of that court, assigned it to the Honorable Paul W. Grimm for
inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Plaintiff in the Mann action moves under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate
the Panel's order that conditionally transferred the action to the
District of Maryland for inclusion in MDL No. 2879.  Defendant
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, LLC (Starwood) opposes the
motion to vacate.

After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Vance finds that
Mann involves common questions of fact with the actions transferred
to MDL No. 2879, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407
will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote
the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.  Like many of the
already-centralized actions, Mann involves factual questions
arising out of allegations concerning a breach of the Starwood
guest reservation database from 2014 to 2018.

In support of the motion to vacate, plaintiff argues that (1)
plaintiff's motion for remand is pending before the transferor
court; (2) Mann is not properly in federal court, and plaintiff's
jurisdictional argument is unique to this action; (3) Mann is
unlike the MDL No. 2879 actions because it is an action seeking
solely injunctive relief under Ohio state law; and (4) transfer
before the transferor court is allowed to rule on the pending
motion for remand would cause prejudice and delay.  Judge Vance
does not find these arguments persuasive.

The Panel has held that jurisdictional issues generally do not
present an impediment to transfer.  Plaintiff can present his
remand arguments to the transferee judge.  While plaintiff does not
seek damages here, the facts alleged and, therefore, the discovery
likely to be produced, will overlap considerably.  Consequently,
the Judge finds that inclusion of this action in centralized
proceedings will lead to the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation.

The Panel has held that, while it might inconvenience some parties,
transfer of a particular action often is necessary to further the
expeditious resolution of the litigation taken as a whole.
Plaintiff specifically argues that transfer may result in a ruling
on his motion for remand to state court that is unfavorable to him,
which could cause delay in resolution of the case.  But the Panel
has held that, "[w]hen determining whether to transfer an action
under Section 1407...  it is not the business of the Panel to
consider what law the transferee court might apply."

A full-text copy of the Court's June 5, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/K0lfQ0


MDL 2885: Norman Suit Consolidated in 3M Combat Earplug Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled KENDALL NORMAN v. 3M COMPANY, Case No.
6:19-cv-00820, was transferred on May 16, 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-01491-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]

Plaintiff-Petitioner KENDALL NORMAN 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


MDL 2887: 6 Suits vs. Hill's Pet Nutrition Moved to Kansas
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC., DOG FOOD PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2887, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the
U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an
order transferring six actions to the District of Kansas, and with
the consent of that court, assigned them to the Honorable Julie A.
Robinson for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Plaintiffs in two actions pending in the Northern District of
California (Navarette and Bauer) move under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407
to centralize this litigation in the Northern District of
California.  The litigation consists of the six actions: three in
the Northern District of California (Navarette, Bauer, and
Sun-Dampier) and one each in the Northern District of Florida
(Russell), the Eastern District of New York (Bone), and the
Districtof Rhode Island (Jubinville).

Northern District of California
   * NAVARRETE v. HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC., C.A. No. 3:19-00767
   * SUN-DAMPIER v. HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC., C.A. No.
3:19-00819
   * BAUER, ET AL. v. HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC., C.A. No.
3:19-00908

Northern District of Florida
   * RUSSELL, ET AL. v. HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC., C.A. No.
3:19-00395

Eastern District of New York
   * BONE, ET AL. v. HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC., ET AL., C.A. No.
1:19-00831

District of Rhode Island
   * JUBINVILLE, ET AL. v. HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC., ET AL., C.A.
No. 1:19-00074

The Panel has been notified of 23 potentially-related actions.

All responding parties support centralization, but there is
disagreement concerning the choice of an appropriate transferee
district.  The Sun-Dampier plaintiff supports centralization in the
Northern District of California.  Common defendants Hill's Pet
Nutrition, Inc., and Hill's Pet Nutrition Sales, Inc., support
centralization in the District of Kansas, as do plaintiffs in nine
potential tag-along actions.  Plaintiffs in the Bone, Russell, and
Jubinville actions support centralization in the Eastern District
of New York, as do plaintiffs in seven potential tag-along
actions.

On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held,
Judge Vance finds that these actions involve common questions of
fact, and that centralization in the District of Kansas will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation.  The actions share
factual issues arising from allegations that multiple varieties of
Hill's Prescription Diet and Science Diet canned dog food products
were defective, in that they contained dangerously high levels of
Vitamin D.  Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery,
the possibilityof2inconsistent rulings on class certification,
Daubert motions, and other pretrial matters, and conserve judicial
and party resources.

The Judge selects the District of Kansas as the transferee
district.  Hill's is headquartered in that district, and it
represents that its key evidence and witnesses are located there.
Eight potential tag-along actions are pending in the District of
Kansas, and its selection is supported by both Hill's and a number
of plaintiffs.  Chief Judge Julie A. Robinson, to whom Judge Vance
assigns the litigation, is an experienced jurist.  The Panel is
confident that Judge Robinson will steer this litigation on a
prudent course.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 4, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/Sri9y3


MDL 2888: Court Denies Motion to Centralize 3 ABMS Antitrust Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: AMERICAN BOARD OF MEDICAL SPECIALTIES
MAINTENANCE OF CERTIFICATION ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL No. 2888,
Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation has denied the Plaintiffs' motion to centralize pretrial
proceedings in three actions in the Southern District of
California.

These three actions are:
   * Southern District of California - MANNIS, ET AL. v. AMERICAN
BOARD OF MEDICAL SPECIALTIES,ET AL., C.A. No. 3:19-00341

   * Northern District of Illinois - SIVA v. AMERICAN BOARD OF
RADIOLOGY, C.A. No. 1:19-01407

   * Eastern District of Pennsylvania - KENNEY, ET AL. v. AMERICAN
BOARD OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, C.A. No. 2:18-05260

Plaintiffs in the Mannis action move under 28U.S.C. Section 1407 to
centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation in the Southern
District of California.  This litigation consists of three actions,
each pending in a separate district.  In addition, the parties have
notified the Panel of one related action, which was filed in the
Northern District of Illinois.  All responding parties—the
non-moving plaintiffs and the defendants in all four
actions—oppose centralization.  Plaintiffs and several defendants
alternatively suggest the Northern District of Illinois as the
transferee court for this litigation, while one defendant
alternatively suggests the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as the
transferee court.

On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, Judge Vance
concludes that centralization will not serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct of
this litigation.  Where only a minimal number of actions are
involved, the proponent of centralization bears a heavier burden to
demonstrate that centralization is appropriate.  Movants have not
met that burden here.

These actions involve similar allegations that defendants, which
offer certification in various medical specialties, require
physicians to purchase and participate in "maintenance of
certification" programs in order to maintain their initial board
certifications.  Plaintiffs allege that this constitutes an
unlawful tying arrangement in violation of antitrust laws.  The
similarities, though, end there.  Each action names different
medical certification boards as defendants, and each is brought on
behalf of a different, non-overlapping putative class of
physicians.  Thus, individualized discovery and legal issues (such
as with respect to the antitrust market at issue in each action)
are likely to be numerous and substantial.  Consequently, there is
little risk of conflicting pretrial rulings, particularly with
respect to class certification.

To the extent these actions may involve duplicative discovery
(particularly with respect to ABMS), alternatives to centralization
appear eminently feasible.  Defendants in the Mannis litigation,
which is pending in the Southern District of California, have moved
(in the alternative to dismissal) for transfer of that action to
the Northern District of Illinois pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1404.  Such a transfer would significantly reduce the multidistrict
scope of this litigation.

Even if transfer is denied, this litigation involves only four
actions pending in three districts, and plaintiffs in three of the
actions share counsel.  Informal cooperation among the relatively
few involved attorneys and coordination among the involved courts
therefore are practicable alternatives to centralization.  Indeed,
defendants represented in their briefs to the Panel their
willingness to coordinate with plaintiffs to minimize any potential
for duplicative discovery or inconsistent pretrial rulings.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 5, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/jrpxSH


MDL 2889: Court Denies Bid to Centralize 5 Equinor Royalty Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: EQUINOR OIL AND GAS ROYALTY PAYMENT LITIGATION,
MDL No. 2889, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has denied the Common Defendants' motion
to centralize pretrial proceedings in five actions in the Southern
District of Texas.

The five actions are:

Southern District of Texas
   * GILLESPIE v. EQUINOR TEXAS ONSHORE PROPERTIES LLC, ET. AL.,
C.A. No. 5:18-00092
   * GILLESPIE v. EQUINOR PIPELINES LLC, ET AL., C.A. No.
5:18-00094
   * O'BRIEN v. EQUINOR PIPELINES LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:18-00125
   * JOHNSTON v. EQUINOR PIPELINES LLC, ET AL., C.A. No.
5:18-00126

Western District of Texas
   * NEWBERRY, ET AL. v. EQUINOR TEXAS ONSHORE PROPERTIES, LLC, ET
AL., C.A. No. 5:18-00866

Common defendants Equinor Texas Onshore Properties LLC, Equinor
Pipelines, LLC, and Equinor US Operations LLC move under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation
in the Southern District of Texas.  Plaintiffs in the five actions
oppose the motion.

On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, Judge Vance
concludes that centralization is not necessary for the convenience
of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation.  The actions share certain factual
issues arising from plaintiffs' allegations that Equinor used an
improper methodology to calculate and pay plaintiffs
contractually-owed oil and gas royalties from various wells located
in the Eagle Ford, Texas, area.  Plaintiffs contend that Equinor
(1) commingled gross oil and gas production from wells of different
ownership, and then failed to properly allocate to each royalty
owner his or her share of production, and (2) improperly reduced
gross production volumes of "condensate" from plaintiffs' wells in
estimating net sales of condensate and making royalty payments.
But there are only five actions pending in two adjacent Texas
districts.  Pretrial proceedings in the four Southern District of
Texas actions already are being coordinated before the same
magistrate judge.  In all actions, plaintiffs are represented by
The Ferguson Law Firm, LLP, and Equinor is represented by Beck
Redden LLP.  Additionally, plaintiffs represent that they are
amenable to cooperating to avoid duplicative pretrial activity
(e.g., filing notices of depositions in all actions, and agreeing
that discovery obtained in one action will be usable in all
actions).  Given these circumstances, Judge Vance concludes that
Section 1407 centralization is not warranted.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 4, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/SuTglH


MDL 2890: Court Denies Bid to Centralize Pay Discrimination Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: UNITED STATES SOCCER FEDERATION PAY
DISCRIMINATION LITIGATION, MDL No. 2890, Judge Sarah S. Vance of
the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has denied the
Plaintiff's motion to centralize pretrial proceedings in this
litigation in the Central District of California.

This litigation consists of two actions pending in the Central
District of California and the Northern District of California.

   * Central District of California - MORGAN, ET AL. v. UNITED
STATES SOCCER FEDERATION, INC., C.A. No. 2:19-01717

   * Northern District of California - SOLO v. UNITED STATES SOCCER
FEDERATION, C.A. No. 3:18-05215

Plaintiffs in the Central District of California action move
under28U.S.C.Section 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in
this litigation in the Central District of California.  Common
defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc. (U.S. Soccer), and
plaintiff in the Northern District of California action oppose
centralization.  If the Panel deems centralization appropriate,
defendant suggests centralization in the Northern District of
Illinois, and plaintiff in the Northern District of California
action expressed support for both the Northern District of
California and the Central District of California.

On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, Judge Vance
concludes that centralization is not necessary for the convenience
of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation.  These actions share factual issues
arising from allegations that U.S. Soccer has discriminated against
players on its U.S. Women's national soccer team on the basis of
gender.  But only two actions are pending in two adjacent
districts, and the Judge finds movants have failed to meet their
burden of demonstrating the need for centralization.

The Panel has held that "where a reasonable prospect exists that
resolution of Section 1404 motions could eliminate the
multidistrict character of a litigation, transfer under Section
1404 is preferable to centralization." Here, there are two pending
or suggested pretrial motions that could eliminate the need for
Section 1407 centralization.  Defendant's motion to transfer the
Central District of California action to the Northern District of
California under the first-to-file rule is pending.  And at oral
argument, counsel for the Northern District of California plaintiff
represented that she would stipulate to transfer under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1404 to the Central District of California.  

Finally, the Panel has held that "centralization under Section 1407
should be the last solution after considered review of all other
options."  Even if these actions are not transferred to the same
district under Section 1404 or the first-to-file rule, this
litigation involves only two actions in two districts.  Informal
coordination among the relatively few involved attorneys and
coordination between the involved courts to prevent duplicative
proceedings and inconsistent rulings, therefore, are practical
alternatives to centralization.  

A full-text copy of the Court's June 5, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/xOYKAx


MDL 2892: Court Denies Bid to Centralize Suits vs. GemCap Lending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: GEMCAP LENDING I, LLC, LITIGATION, MDL No.
2892, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has denied the Plaintiff's motion to
centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation in the Northern
District of California.

This litigation consists of two actions pending in the Northern
District of California and the District of Hawaii:

   * Northern District of California - GEMCAP LENDING I, LLC v.
UNITY BANK MINNESOTA, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:18-05979

   * District of Hawaii - GEMCAP LENDING I, LLC v. VAN BUREN, C.A.
No. 1:19-00142

Common plaintiff GemCap Lending I, LLC (GemCap) moves under 28
U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in this
litigation in the Northern District of California.  Defendant
George W. Van Buren opposes centralization.  The remaining
defendants take no position on whether Section 1407 centralization
is appropriate.

Plaintiff's claims against all defendants stem from the same loan
issued by GemCap to borrowers who defaulted and are alleged to have
fraudulently transferred funds and assets.  In similar complaints,
plaintiff brings claims against all defendants for aiding and
abetting fraud.  Plaintiff initially commenced the two actions as a
single action in the Northern District of California.  After Mr.
Van Buren contested personal jurisdiction, the court dismissed the
claims against him, which plaintiff then filed in the District of
Hawaii.  

After considering all arguments, Judge Vance concludes that
centralization is not necessary for the convenience of the parties
and witnesses or to further the just and efficient conduct of this
litigation.  No party disputes that the actions share common
factual and legal issues.  But there are just two actions involving
a single plaintiff, with no indication of more to come.  The Panel
has denied centralization in similar circumstances, and see no
reason to reach a different result here.

Movant argues that Mr.  Van Buren has shown no willingness to
informally coordinate these actions, but also concedes in a
declaration that "there have been no . . .  efforts" to "coordinate
pre-trial discovery without the need to grant GemCap's motion to
transfer."  The Panel does not find Section 1407 centralization is
necessary for a minimal number of parties and actions, particularly
where the parties have made no effort to informally cooperate.  In
the Panel's view, such cooperation, and coordination by the two
involved courts, is feasible and preferable to formal
centralization under Section 1407.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 5, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/0GEeYi


MDL 2893: Enginuity Withdraws Bid for Centralization
----------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: VIEGA PRESS FITTINGS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL
No. 2893, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has
entered an order deeming plaintiff Enginuity LLC's motion for
transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 as withdrawn.

The Panel also ordered that the Hearing Session Order and the
attached Schedule filed on April 10, 2019, are VACATED insofar as
they relate to this matter.

Before the Panel is a motion by plaintiff Enginuity LLC, filed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1407, seeking centralization in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania of the actions on the attached Schedule A.  No
responding party has joined in the motion.  Movant now seek to
withdraw its Section 1407 motion.  According to Movant, the parties
to the actions pending outside the Middle District of Pennsylvania
have stipulated to transfer of those actions to the Middle District
of Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a).

A full-text copy of the Court's April 22, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/3bWE3H


MDL 2894: Court Denies Bid to Centralize 4 Grille Trademark Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: LKQ CORPORATION AFTERMARKET AUTOMOBILE GRILLE
TRADEMARK LITIGATION, MDL No. 2894, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the
U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has denied LKQ
Corporation and Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc.'s to
centralize pretrial proceedings in the actions listed on four
actions in the Southern District of Georgia.

These four actions are:

District of Delaware
   * LKQ CORPORATION, ET AL. v. FCA US LLC, C.A. No. 1:19-00054

District of District of Columbia
   * LKQ CORPORATION, ET AL. v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:18-01562

Southern District of Georgia
   * UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. 324 AUTOMOTIVE GRILLES, C.A. No.
4:18-00195
   * UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. 25 AUTOMOTIVE GRILLES, C.A. No.
4:19-00096

LKQ Corporation and Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc.
(collectively, LKQ) move under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize
pretrial proceedings in the actions listed on Schedule A in the
Southern District of Georgia.  This litigation consists of four
actions—two civil forfeiture actions pending in the Southern
District of Georgia, a declaratory judgment pending in the District
of District of Columbia, and a declaratory judgment and antitrust
action pending in the District of Delaware.  LKQ alternatively
suggests centralization in the Northern District of Illinois.  FCA
US LLC (Chrysler), the defendant in the Delaware action, supports
centralization in the Southern District of Georgia.  The United
States, the plaintiff in the forfeiture actions and the defendant
in the D.C. action, as well as the individual defendants in the
D.C. action, oppose centralization.  Alternatively, should the
Panel centralize this litigation, these parties support the
Southern District of Georgia as the transferee forum.

On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, Judge Vance
concludes that centralization will not serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct of
this litigation.  Where only a minimal number of actions are
involved, the proponent of centralization bears a heavier burden to
demonstrate that centralization is appropriate.

These actions arise from the seizure by United States Customs and
Border Protection of aftermarket automobile grilles at various
ports around the country.  Beyond this, the actions are notably
different.  In the two forfeiture actions pending in the Southern
District of Georgia, the government seeks forfeiture of certain of
the grilles on the basis that they bear counterfeit marks, or marks
that unlawfully copy or simulate registered trademarks of the
original automobile manufacturers.  In the Delaware action, LKQ,
which imported the grilles, asserts claims for declaratory
judgment, breach of contract, and antitrust violations against
Chrysler based on its alleged instigation and direction of the
government's purported misapplication of the Lanham Act and the
Tariff Act of 1930 to seize the aftermarket grilles.  Finally, in
the D.C. action, LKQ challenges the actions of various federal
agencies and officers with respect to the seizure of the
aftermarket grilles.  LKQ alleges that the government unreasonably
and unlawfully delayed instituting civil forfeiture actions for the
grilles, and that this delay constitutes a violation of LKQ's Fifth
Amendment due process rights.  While these actions will share some
common factual questions, these issues are not sufficiently complex
or numerous to warrant centralization, particularly given the small
number of actions and involved parties.

To the extent these actions may involve duplicative discovery or
motion practice, alternatives to centralization appear eminently
feasible.  One of the forfeiture actions now pending in the
Southern District of Georgia was transferred sua sponte from the
Central District of California under the first-to-file doctrine
(after both LKQ and the United States indicated consent to venue in
the Southern District of Georgia).  At oral argument, counsel for
Chrysler stated that it would agree to a Section 1404 transfer of
the Delaware action to S.D.  Georgia.  And, in the D.C. action, the
United States has moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, to
transfer that action to the Southern District of Georgia.  "[W]here
a reasonable prospect exists that resolution of Section 1404
motions could eliminate the multidistrict character of a
litigation, transfer under Section 1404 is preferable to
centralization." In re Gerber Probiotic Prods. Mktg. &Sales
Practices Litig., 899 F. Supp. 2d 1378,1380 (J.P.M.L. 2012).  Such
a reasonable prospect exists here.

Even if transfer is denied, this litigation involves only four
actions pending in three districts.  Informal cooperation among the
relatively few involved attorneys and coordination among the
involved courts therefore are practicable alternatives to
centralization.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 5, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/QSIcb4


MEDICAL GUARDIAN: Perrong Sues over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Perrong, individually and on behalf of the class of all
persons and entities similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MEDICAL
GUARDIAN LLC, the Defendant, Case 2:19-cv-02371-AB (E.D. Pa, May
31, 2019), alleges that Defendant made a series of prerecorded
telemarketing calls to Mr. Perrong's residential telephone number,
which is charged per call, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff brings this action under the TCPA, a federal statute
enacted in response to widespread public outrage about the
proliferation of intrusive, nuisance telemarketing practices.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff never consented to
receive the calls, which were placed to him for telemarketing
purposes. Because telemarketing campaigns generally place calls to
hundreds of thousands or even millions of potential customers en
masse, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a proposed
nationwide class of other persons who received illegal
telemarketing calls from or on behalf of Defendant.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Marc Davies, Esq.
          MARC DAVIES LAW
          1315 Walnut Street, Suite 320
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: 215 876 7636
          E-mail: marc@marcdavieslaw.com

               - and -

          Brian K. Murphy, Esq.
          Jonathan P. Misny, Esq.
          MURRAY MURPHY MOUL BASIL LLP
          1114 Dublin Road
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: 614 488 0400
          Facsimile: 614 488 0401
          E-mail: murphy@mmmb.com
                  misny@mmmb.com

MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Class Action Over Defective Radiators Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a
Mercedes-Benz radiator lawsuit has been dismissed after the
plaintiff failed to convince the judge that radiators in 2004 and
earlier C-Class and CLK-Class vehicles are defective.

According to the plaintiff, coolant mixes with transmission fluid
and damages the torque converters and transmissions.

The lawsuit references a technical service bulletin (TSB) Mercedes
issued to dealerships in 2006 about radiators manufactured by Valeo
that could cause the fluids to mix.

The defective radiators mentioned in the TSB could cause "sudden
and unexpected breakdowns and mechanical failures."

The bulletin also told dealers customers could complain about
"humming/buzzing noises or noticeable harsh engagement during
gentle acceleration."

The proposed class action lawsuit says Mercedes hasn't offered
customers free repairs or replacement, ignores the issue of
reimbursements and has refused to recall the vehicles.

In addition, the plaintiff says owners were faced with thousands of
dollars in repair bills to replace the radiators, torque converters
and transmissions.

In its motion to dismiss the suit, the automaker told the judge Mr.
Garick still owns the C320 and drove his Mercedes for 12 years
before alleging the radiator had problems.

Lawyers for Mercedes also say the plaintiff is under the false
impression that dealers should make free repairs well beyond the
warranty periods.

In dismissing the case, the judge ruled the plaintiff can't prove
Mercedes committed fraud simply by showing some vehicles had
radiators that eventually had problems.

The Mercedes-Benz radiator lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts - Garick, et. al., v.
Mercedes-Benz USA LLC.

The plaintiff is represented by the Law Offices of Joshua N.
Garick. [GN]


MERCK: Fosamax Case Decision Expected to Set Precedent
------------------------------------------------------
Devin Dwyer, writing for ABC7, reports that it's decision time at
the Supreme Court.

Can a class-action lawsuit proceed against drug maker Merck over
debilitating osteoporosis drug side-effects? Or, did an FDA
decision to block a proposed warning label for the drug preempt
state tort claims? Hundreds of Fosamax users have been impacted and
the decision could set a precedent for future drug-harm claims.
[GN]


MONSANTO CO: Brizendine Seeks Damages for Roundup-related Injuries
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANNETT BRIZENDINE v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 5:19-cv-00070-TBR
(W.D. Ky., May 16, 2019), seeks damages for injuries 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:

          Mark P. Bryant, Esq.
          Emily Ward Roark, Esq.
          BRYANT LAW CENTER, PSC
          601 Washington St.
          P.O. Box 1876
          Paducah, KY 42002-1876
          Telephone: (270) 442-1422
          Facsimile: (270) 443-8788
          E-mail: mark@bryant.law
                  emily@bryant.law


MONSANTO CO: Faces Kendrick Suit Over Roundup-related Injuries
--------------------------------------------------------------
WENDY W. KENDRICK v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No.
3:19-cv-00315-JWD-EWD (M.D. La., May 16, 2019), is an action for
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(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:

          Lauren E. Godshall, Esq.
          Betsy Barnes, Esq.
          Richard L. Root, Esq.
          MORRIS BART LLC
          601 Poydras Street, 24th Floor
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 525-8000
          Facsimile: (833) 277-4214
          E-mail: lgodshall@morrisbart.com
                  bbarnes@morrisbart.com
                  rroot@morrisbart.com


MONSANTO CO: Faces Thirstrup Suit Over Damages From Using Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT J. THIRSTRUP v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No.
2:19-cv-10498-JTM-JCW (E.D. La., May 16, 2019), is an action for
damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result
of 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:

          Lauren E. Godshall, Esq.
          Betsy Barnes, Esq.
          Richard L. Root, Esq.
          MORRIS BART LLC
          601 Poydras Street, 24th Floor
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 525-8000
          Facsimile: (833) 277-4214
          E-mail: lgodshall@morrisbart.com
                  bbarnes@morrisbart.com
                  rroot@morrisbart.com


MONSANTO CO: Indelicato Sues Over Injuries From Roundup Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
NIKOLAS INDELICATO v. MONSANTO COMPANY, BAYER CORPORATION, BAYER
AG, Case No. 1:19-cv-00363-TSB (S.D. Ohio, May 16, 2019), arises
from personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup(R)
("Roundup") containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA").

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.

Bayer Corporation is an Indiana corporation that has its principal
place of business in Whippany, New Jersey.  Bayer AG is a German
chemical and pharmaceutical company that is headquartered in
Leverkusen, North Rhine, Westphalia, Germany.  Bayer AG is the
parent/holding company of Bayer Corp. and Monsanto.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary F. Franke, Esq.
          Michael D. O'Neill, Esq.
          GARY F. FRANKE CO., L.P.A.
          120 East 4th Street - Suite 1040
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 564-9222
          Facsimile: (513) 564-9990
          E-mail: gff@garyfrankelaw.com
                  mdo@garyfrankelaw.com


MONSANTO CO: Martin Sues Over Injuries From Roundup Exposure
------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES R. MARTIN v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 5:19-cv-00071-TBR
(W.D. Ky., May 16, 2019), alleges that the Plaintiff suffered
injuries 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:

          Mark P. Bryant, Esq.
          Emily Ward Roark, Esq.
          BRYANT LAW CENTER, PSC
          601 Washington St.
          P.O. Box 1876
          Paducah, KY 42002-1876
          Telephone: (270) 442-1422
          Facsimile: (270) 443-8788
          E-mail: mark@bryant.law
                  emily@bryant.law


MONSANTO CO: Ponzini Sues Over Lymphoma From Using Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------
LARRY PONZINI v. MONSANTO COMPANY CORPORATION and BAYER U.S., LLC,
Case No. 5:19-cv-00747-AKK (N.D. Ala., May 16, 2019), alleges that
in June 2018, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma
after using Roundup(R) for 15 years.

The Defendants engaged in the business of testing, developing,
designing, manufacturing, marketing, selling, distributing, and
promoting Roundup(R) products, which are defective and unreasonably
dangerous to consumers, including the Plaintiff, thereby, placing
Roundup(R) products into the stream of commerce, according to the
complaint.

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.

Bayer U.S., LLC, is a foreign corporation doing business by
registered agent in the state of Alabama.

In June, 2016, Monsanto agreed to be acquired by Bayer for $66
billion; this acquisition was completed in 2018.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric J. Artrip, Esq.
          MASTANDO & ARTRIP, LLC
          301 Washington Street, Suite 302
          Huntsville, AL 35801
          Telephone: (256) 532-2222
          Facsimile: (256) 513-7489
          E-mail: artrip@mastandoartrip.com


MONSANTO CO: Roundup Caused Lymphoma, Reed Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------
KAYLA REED v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 1:19-cv-00632 (W.D. La.,
May 16, 2019), alleges that the Plaintiff suffered injuries
(Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma) 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:

          Lauren E. Godshall, Esq.
          Betsy Barnes, Esq.
          Richard L. Root, Esq.
          MORRIS BART LLC
          601 Poydras Street, 24th Floor
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 525-8000
          Facsimile: (833) 277-4214
          E-mail: lgodshall@morrisbart.com
                  bbarnes@morrisbart.com
                  rroot@morrisbart.com


MOVIE GRILL CONCEPTS: Tate Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Dashawna Tate v. Movie Grill Concepts XXVI LLC, No. 19 CH
02682 (Filed on Feb. 28, 2019), was transferred from the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the he United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois on May 17, 2019. The
removal of this case is pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act.
The diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in
controversy have vested the district court with the appropriate
jurisdiction of this civil action. In the complaint, Plaintiff
Dashawna Tate alleges Defendant's violations of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act and seeks preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief; attorneys' fees; costs and expenses;
and all damages available to Plaintiff and the purported class
under applicable law, including statutory damages.

Movie Grill Concepts XXVI, LLC owns and operates movie theaters
with in-theater dining. [BN]

Attorneys for the Defendant:

     P. Russell Perdew, Esq.
     W. Patrick Conlon, Esq.
     LOCKE LORD LLP
     111 South Wacker Drive
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Telephone: 312-443-0700
     E-mail: rperdew@lockelord.com
             wpatrick.conlon@lockelord.com

             - and -

     Alana K. Ackels, Esq.
     Brent A. Turman, Esq.
     BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN LLP
     2323 Ross Avenue, Suite 1900
     Dallas, TX 75201
     Telephone: 214-740-1400
     E-mail: aackels@bellnunally.com   
             bturman@bellnunnally.com


NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Class Actions Over Commissions Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth R. Harney, writing for Richmond, reports that the long
knives are out again for one of American real estate's oldest and
most controversial traditions: requiring home sellers to pay the
agents who represent the buyers of their properties.

A landmark suit filed in March alleged that the 1.3-million-member
National Association of Realtors has conspired with local multiple
listing services and with major realty brokerage companies to force
sellers who list their homes on an MLS to pay a contractually
specified percentage of the commissions to the broker/agent who
brings in the ultimate buyer. Now, two new class action lawsuits
have been filed with allegations along the same lines.

According to all the suits, an NAR rule prevents buyers from
unilaterally altering the "split" stated in the listing contract.
Say, for instance, you are a seller of a $500,000 home and agree at
the listing to pay a total 5.5 percent commission, allocating 3
percent to the listing agent and 2.5 percent to the buyer's agent.

If the house sells for the full asking price of $500,000, that
would mean the buyer's agent would be due $12,500 at closing. If
you thought this was more than you wanted to pay -- especially
given the fact that you knew part of the buyer's agent's job was to
help your buyer obtain a lower price for your house -- you might
not be happy about having to shell out the $12,500. Shouldn't the
buyer pay this fee?

In March, the seller of a home in Shorewood, Minn., filed suit to
challenge this NAR rule, arguing that this system of mandating
compensation to the buyers' agent raises total transaction costs.
The rule "saddle[s] home sellers with a cost that would be borne by
the buyer in a competitive market," where buyers can opt to pay
directly for their agents' services. The U.S. market's total
transaction costs tend to be much higher than in most other
industrial economies.

The original suit is now pending in U.S. District Court in Chicago,
with NAR's reply to the complaint expected shortly.

The two new class actions, filed in April, have different
plaintiffs than the original suit but have nearly identical
allegations. They come with proposed giant classes of alleged
victims who have sold and paid millions of dollars in commissions
via major MLSs to buyers' agents across the country.

NAR rejects the premises of the suits and pledges to fight them
vigorously. The sheer costs for any single law firm to mount a
credible antitrust case against a major lobby and the largest
realty enterprises in the U.S. -- plus no doubt the prospect of
large payoffs and settlements -- has apparently attracted the new
actions. Sources tell me that it's not unusual in wide-ranging
cases like these for other law firms to jump in with nearly
identical copy-cat filings.

Defendants in all three include NAR along with the giants of the
brokerage industry: Home Services of America, Keller Williams
Realty Inc., Realogy Holdings Corp. and RE/MAX Holdings Corp.
Realtors tell me that an adverse decision in the cases would
produce transformative changes in home-sale transactions
nationwide.

Some brokers say that it could create situations where first-time
and other cash-short buyers might not be able to afford to pay for
their agents' services. Rather than buyers having their commissions
paid for by the seller, they would now need to come up with that
money themselves.

Today, however, buyers don't give it a thought and, in fact, they
often do not even know what commission split the buyer agent
expects to receive.

In much of Europe, home sellers typically pay realty fees of 1 to 3
percent versus the 5 to 6 percent average commonplace in the U.S.
Critics of the American system have long argued that if homebuyers
paid the fees for the services rendered for them — and negotiated
them with the buyers' agents directly —fees would be lower.

But sellers' agents say that if the buyers-side commission is low
under the current system, many buyers' agents will not show houses
because the compensation is not sufficient. [GN]


NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: Cal. App. Flips Timlick FDCPA Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Carin T. Fujisaki of the Court of Appeals of California for
the First District, Division Three, reversed the trial court's
dismissal of the case, LISA ARLENE TIMLICK, Plaintiff and
Appellant, v. NATIONAL ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant and
Respondent, Case No. A154235 (Cal. App.).

The operative class action complaint filed by Timlick alleges as
follows.  After defaulting on a loan, Timlick received a collection
letter dated Jan. 13, 2016, from third-party debt collector
National Enterprise Systems, Inc. ("NES").  This was the first
written communication from NES to Timlick regarding the subject
debt.  The letter did not comply with section 1812.701, subdivision
(b) (hereafter section 1812.701(b)) of the Consumer Collection
Notice law because certain statutorily-required language was not in
a type-size that was at least the same as used to inform Timlick of
the debt, or 12-point type.  

Timlick pleaded a single cause of action against NES for violation
of section 1812.701(b) and sought to recover statutory damages,
costs, and attorney's fees.  She also sought to represent a class
of persons in California who received an initial written
communication from NES in an attempt to collect on a consumer debt
during the one-year period prior to the complaint's filing date.

NES moved for summary judgment on the basis that it cured the
alleged violation within the 15-day period prescribed by section
1788.30(d) for correcting curable Rosenthal Act violations. NES
submitted evidence that on Jan. 13, 2017, nine days after it was
served with Timlick's complaint, NES sent a letter to Timlick, in
care of her counsel of record, enclosing a revised collection
letter which set forth the required language in the same type-size
as that which was used to inform her of her specific debt.

In opposition to the motion, Timlick did not dispute NES' evidence
or material facts.  Rather, she argued section 1788.30(d) should
not apply for various reasons: (1) it was implicitly repealed by a
subsequently-enacted statute; (2) it applied only to violations
under a different title of the Civil Code that did not contain the
statute violated by NES; (3) NES' violation was not capable of
being cured within the meaning of section 1788.30(d); and (4) NES'
revised collection letter did not provide redress to the putative
class but merely served to eliminate Timlick's standing to act as
the named Plaintiff.

The trial court found that section 1788.30(d) applied to NES'
section 1812.701(b) violation, and that NES timely cured the
violation by sending the revised collection letter.  The trial
court granted NES' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the
complaint with prejudice.  

Timlick timely appealed.  She argues section 1788.30(d) and its
cure provision were repealed when the Legislature enacted section
1788.17 to harmonize the Rosenthal Act with the federal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").  Alternatively, Timlick argues
that the cure provision applies only to violations under the title
in which it is codified (title 1.6C) and that it has no application
to NES' section 1812.701(b) violation, which falls under a
different title (title 2.97).  In any case, Timlick contends, NES'
type-size violation is not one that is capable of being cured
within the meaning of section 1788.30(d) because that statute
necessarily requires compliance in the debt collector's first
written communication to the consumer debtor.

In the appeal from the dismissal of a putative consumer class
action, Judge Fujisaki is presented with two main questions.
First, whether a debt collector that violates the minimum type-size
requirement for consumer collection letters under Civil Code
sections 1812.700 to 1812.7021 can utilize the procedure for curing
violations under the Rosenthal FDCPA ("Rosenthal Act") to correct
its violation.  Second, whether the trial court erred by dismissing
the entire putative class action after it found there was no
triable issue of material fact that the Defendant debt collector
timely cured the type-size violation as to the named Plaintiff.

The Judge holds that the answer to each of the foregoing questions
is yes.  The Rosenthal Act's cure provision set forth in section
1788.30, subdivision (d), is available to debt collectors to
correct curable violations of the Consumer Collection Notice law.
The cure provision of section 1788.30(d) was available to NES to
cure its violation of section 1812.701(b)'s type-size requirement.
She rejects Timlick's contention that section 1788.30(d) does not
apply to a violation of a statutory provision contained in title
2.97.  True, the cure provision pertains to liability under "this
title" (title 1.6C).  But title 2.97 makes clear that a violation
of section 1812.701(b)'s type-size requirement will be considered a
violation of the Rosenthal Act (Title 1.6C).

However, the Judge concludes that the trial court erred by
dismissing the entire putative class action, as this allowed the
debt collector to unilaterally "pick off" the named Plaintiff and
avoid class action litigation.  Timlick was permitted to bring a
putative class action for her claim under section 1812.701(b).  The
statutory language of section 1788.17 does not purport to limit the
incorporated FDCPA remedies to FDCPA violations.

The pick off exception applies to the circumstances of the case.
The effect of the trial court's dismissal of the action is that
putative class members who do not have the financial means to
initiate or join the litigation will not obtain any redress.  And
any relief for the putative class members would require multiple
individual suits, resulting in the kind of revolving door
litigation that wastes judicial resources.  Accordingly, the trial
court erred in dismissing the entire putative class action without
first affording Timlick the opportunity to amend her complaint,
redefine the putative class, or locate a suitable class
representative, and without giving notice to the putative class.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Fujisaki reversed the judgment and
remanded for further proceedings consistent with her Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 7, 2019 Opinion is available at
https://is.gd/Gq21ga from Leagle.com.


NATIONAL VISION: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit vs. FirstSight Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
National Vision Holdings, 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 30, 2019, that FirstSight's motion to
dismiss the class action suit filed before the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California is pending.

The company's subsidiary, FirstSight is a defendant in a purported
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California that alleges that FirstSight participated in
arrangements that caused the illegal delivery of eye examinations
and that FirstSight thereby violated, among other laws, the
corporate practice of optometry and the unfair competition and
false advertising laws of California. The lawsuit was filed in 2013
and FirstSight was added as a defendant in 2016.

In March 2017, the court granted the motion to dismiss previously
filed by FirstSight and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The
plaintiffs filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit in April 2017.

In July 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
vacated in part, and reversed in part, the district court's
dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. In October 2018,
the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint with the district
court seeking, among other claims, unspecified damages and
attorneys' fees, and in November 2018, FirstSight filed a motion to
dismiss.

National Vision said, "We believe that the claims alleged are
without merit and intend to continue to defend the litigation
vigorously."

National Vision Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates
as an optical retailer primarily in the United States. The company
operates in two segments, Owned & Host and Legacy. National Vision
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Duluth,
Georgia.

NATIONAL VISION: Remand of Cal. Wage & Hour Class Action Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
National Vision Holdings, 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 30, 2019, that plaintiff in the
California wage and hour related class action suit moved to remand
the action to Monterey County Superior Court.

On February 25, 2019, the company was served with a lawsuit by a
former employee who alleges, on behalf of himself and a proposed
class, several violations of California wage and hour laws and
seeks unspecified alleged unpaid wages, monetary damages,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

On March 21, 2019, the company removed the lawsuit from Monterey
County Superior Court to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

The plaintiff moved to remand the action to state court on April
18, 2019.

National Vision said, "We believe that the claims are without merit
and intend to vigorously defend the litigation."

National Vision Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates
as an optical retailer primarily in the United States. The company
operates in two segments, Owned & Host and Legacy. National Vision
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Duluth,
Georgia.


NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Mulquin Class Action in Calif. Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nektar Therapeutics 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 putative securities class action suit entitled, Mulquin
v. Nektar Therapeutics et. al.

On October 30, 2018, the company and its CEO and CFO were named in
a putative securities class action entitled, Mulquin v. Nektar
Therapeutics et. al., N.D. Cal.  

Also, on February 13, 2019, and February 18, 2019, shareholder
derivative complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware naming the CEO, CFO and certain members of
Nektar's board.

Both the class action and shareholder derivative actions assert,
among other things, that for a period beginning at least from
November 11, 2017 through October 2, 2018, the company's stock was
inflated due to alleged misrepresentations about the efficacy and
safety of NKTR-214.

These cases are in the early stages.

Nektar said, "Accordingly, we cannot reasonably estimate any range
of potential future charges, and we have not recorded any accrual
for a contingent liability associated with these legal proceedings.
However, an unfavorable resolution could potentially have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and
results of operations or prospects, and potentially result in
paying monetary damages."

Nektar Therapeutics develops drug candidates for cancer,
auto-immune disease, and chronic pain in the United States. Nektar
Therapeutics was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in San
Francisco, California.


NERDWALLET INC: Bunting Suit Alleges ADA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons v. Nerdwallet, Inc., Case No.
1:19-cv-01927 (E.D. N.Y., April 3, 2019), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against the Defendant
for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The
Defendant is denying blind and visually-impaired persons throughout
the United States with equal access to the goods and services
NerdWallet provides to their non-disabled customers through
http//:www.NerdWallet.com, says the complaint.

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

The Defendant provides to the public a website known as
NerdWallet.com which provides consumers with access to an array of
goods and services, including, the ability to view, learn about,
and sign up for various financial products, credit cards, brokerage
accounts, and insurance products, among other features. Its
principal place of business located at 875 Stevenson Street, San
Francisco, CA 94103. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dan Shaked, Esq.
      SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
      44 Court Street, Suite 1217
      Brooklyn, NY 11201
      Tel: (917) 373-9128
      E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com


NEW YORK, NY: Removes Reaves Harassment Suit to E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant NYC Department of Education removed on May 16, 2019, the
class action lawsuit styled CHRISTINE REAVES and MAYA
FRISCIC-GEIGER, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated persons v. THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION and
P.S. 60 QUEENS PRINCIPAL FRANK DESARIO, Case No. 707928/2019, from
the Queens County Supreme Court to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn).

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02910 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York
City Human Rights Law.  The Plaintiffs contend that Mr. DeSario has
created a climate of fear and intimidation for women employed at
P.S. 60.  The Plaintiffs allege that he singles out and targets
female staff, like the Plaintiffs, for humiliation, abuse, bullying
and harassment.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Patrick J. Walsh, Esq.
          Robert B. Stulberg, Esq.
          BROACH & STULBERG, LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2601
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 268-1000
          E-mail: pwalsh@brostul.com
                  rstulberg@brostul.com

Defendant NYC Department of Education is represented by:

          Samantha Paige Turetsky, Esq.
          NYC CORPORATION COUNSEL
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-2451
          Facsimile: (212) 356-2089
          E-mail: sturetsk@law.nyc.gov


OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Appeal in Securities Class Action Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Omega Healthcare Investors, 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 an appeal in the
consolidated class action suit in New York remains pending.

On November 16, 2017, a purported securities class action complaint
captioned Dror Gronich v. Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc., C.
Taylor Pickett, Robert O. Stephenson, and Daniel J. Booth was filed
against the Company and certain of its officers in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the
"Court"), Case No. 1:17‑cv‑08983‑NRB.

On November 17, 2017, a second purported securities class action
complaint captioned Steve Klein v. Omega Healthcare Investors,
Inc., C. Taylor Pickett, Robert O. Stephenson, and Daniel J. Booth
was filed against the Company and the same officers in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case
No. 1:17‑cv‑09024‑NRB.

Thereafter, the Court considered a series of applications by
various shareholders to be named lead plaintiff, consolidated the
two actions and designated Royce Setzer as the lead plaintiff.

Pursuant to a Scheduling Order entered by the Court, lead plaintiff
Setzer and additional plaintiff Earl Holtzman filed a Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint on May 25, 2018 (the "Securities
Class Action").

The Securities Class Action purports to be a class action brought
on behalf of shareholders who acquired the Company's securities
between May 3, 2017 and October 31, 2017. The Securities Class
Action alleges that the defendants violated the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), by making materially
false and/or misleading statements, and by failing to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects, including the financial and operating results of one
of the Company's operators, the ability of such operator to make
timely rent payments, and the impairment of certain of the
Company's leases and the uncollectibility of certain receivables.

The Securities Class Action, which purports to assert claims for
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest,
fees and expenses of attorneys and experts, and other relief.  

The Company and the officers named in the Securities Class Action
filed a Motion to Dismiss on July 17, 2018 and the Court heard Oral
Argument on February 13, 2019. On March 25, 2019, the Court entered
an order dismissing with prejudice all claims against all
defendants.  

On April 22, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
notifying the Court that they are appealing the Court's order of
dismissal with prejudice to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.

On May 6, 2019, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals filed a Notice
of Expedited Appeal and set a briefing schedule.  Appellants' brief
is due on June 10, 2019 and the Company's brief is due on July 15,
2019.  

Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. is a real estate investment trust
(REIT). The Company invests in and provides financing to the
long-term care industry. Omega operates healthcare facilities in
the United States which are operated by independent healthcare
operating companies. The company is based in Hunt Valley,
Maryland.


OSMOTICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Shumacher Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company has been
named as a defendant in a class action suit initiated by Leo
Shumacher.

On April 30, 2019, Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc was served with a
complaint in an action entitled Leo Shumacher, et al., v. Osmotica
Pharmaceuticals plc, et al., Superior Court of New Jersey, Somerset
County No. SOM-L-000540-19.

The complaint names Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc, certain of its
directors and officers and the underwriters of its initial public
offering as defendants in a putative class action alleging
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
related to the disclosures contained in the registration statement
and prospectus used for the Company's initial public offering of
ordinary shares.

The Company disputes the allegations in the complaint and intends
to vigorously defend against the action.

Osmotica said, "However, this litigation is still in an early stage
and there is no assurance that we will be successful in our defense
or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund any
settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of the action, which
could adversely affect the Company's results of operations and
financial condition."

Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc, an integrated biopharmaceutical
company, develops, manufactures, and commercializes specialty
products that target markets with underserved patient populations.
Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc is headquartered in Bridgewater, New
Jersey.


PERRIGO CO: Baton Class Suit in Tel Aviv Stayed
-----------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc 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 an Israeli court
overseeing the case, Baton v. Perrigo Company plc, et al., has
granted a stay of the matter, and required the parties to update
the court about similar proceedings in the U.S. by September 1,
2019.

On December 31, 2018, a shareholder filed an action against the
Company, its CEO Murray Kessler, and its CFO Ronald Winowiecki in
Tel Aviv District Court (Baton v. Perrigo Company plc, et. al.).

The case is a securities class action brought in Israel making
similar factual allegations for the same period as those asserted
in the In re Perrigo Company plc Sec. Litig case in New York
federal court.

This case alleges that persons who invested through the Tel Aviv
stock exchange can assert claims under Israeli securities law that
will follow the liability principles of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act.

The plaintiff does not provide an estimate of class damages.

The company filed a request for a stay, the plaintiff agreed in
part, and the court approved a stay and required the parties to
update the court about the U.S. proceedings by September 1, 2019.

Perrigo said, "We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously."

Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and
supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant
formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical
products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare
Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription
Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887
and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


PERRIGO CO: Settlement of Eltroxin Litigation Wins Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc 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 an Israeli court
overseeing litigation related to adverse effects of Eltroxin
medication has approved a settlement agreement.

During October and November 2011, nine applications to certify a
class action lawsuit were filed in various courts in Israel related
to Eltroxin, a prescription thyroid medication manufactured by a
third party and distributed in Israel by the company's subsidiary,
Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd.

The respondents included the company's subsidiaries, Perrigo Israel
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and/or Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd., the
manufacturers of the product, and various healthcare providers who
provide healthcare services as part of the compulsory healthcare
system in Israel.

One of the applications was dismissed and the remaining eight
applications were consolidated into one application.

The applications arose from the 2011 launch of a reformulated
version of Eltroxin in Israel.

The consolidated application generally alleges that the respondents
(a) failed to timely inform patients, pharmacists and physicians
about the change in the formulation; and (b) failed to inform
physicians about the need to monitor patients taking the new
formulation in order to confirm patients were receiving the
appropriate dose of the drug.

As a result, claimants allege they incurred the following damages:
(a) purchases of product that otherwise would not have been made by
patients had they been aware of the reformulation; (b) adverse
events to some patients resulting from an imbalance of thyroid
functions that could have been avoided; and (c) harm resulting from
the patients' lack of informed consent prior to the use of the
reformulation.

Several hearings on whether or not to certify the consolidated
application took place in December 2013 and January 2014. On May
17, 2015, the District Court certified the motion against Perrigo
Israel Agencies Ltd. and dismissed it against the remaining
respondents, including Perrigo Israel Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

On June 16, 2015, the company submitted a motion for permission to
appeal the decision to certify to the Israeli Supreme Court
together with a motion to stay the proceedings of the class action
until the motion for permission to appeal is adjudicated. The
company filed its statement of defense to the underlying
proceedings.

The underlying proceedings have been stayed pending the outcome of
the mediation process and, if necessary, a decision on the motion
to appeal.

On November 14, 2017, the parties submitted an agreed settlement
agreement to the approval of the Supreme Court, which referred the
approval back to the District Court.

During three hearings that took place on November 29, 2017,
December 13, 2017 and January 11, 2018, the District Court opined
that it would approve the settlement agreement subject to certain
amendments to be proposed by the court (which would not impact the
monetary settlement reached) and set a hearing for January 30, 2018
to discuss and finalize the proposed changes. Meanwhile, the Court
ordered the settlement to be (1) provided to the Attorney General
("AG") for review (standard procedure); and (2) published in the
written media (newspapers), to enable the class members to submit
any objections or "opt-out" to  the proposed settlement by February
15, 2018.

On February 21, 2018, the District Court held a hearing to, among
other things, review objections received from class members who had
notified the District Court of their desire to opt out of the
settlement.

In addition, a representative of the AG's office notified the
District Court that, based upon their preliminary examination of
the settlement, they intend to object to the settlement in its
current form. The District Court recommended that the parties
continue to discuss and minimize objections to the settlement and
scheduled another hearing for May 13, 2018.
    
The District Court Justice was appointed as a Supreme Court Justice
and ordered to move the case to a different panel. In an effort to
reach a decision before the appointment, an additional hearing was
held on March 12, 2018 in which the court urged the parties to try
and exhaust their negotiations to the fullest and provide an update
by May 13, 2018. In addition, the Court ordered the AG to submit
its opinion to the settlement agreement by May 30, 2018, which was
extended until July 23, 2018.

On August 2, 2018, the AG submitted its objection to the
settlement, noting, among other things, that it did not provide
compensation for harm to autonomy. On August 12, 2018, the company
submitted its response to the Attorney General's objection together
with an amended settlement which incorporated the court's comments.


Following the submission of the amended settlement agreement on
August 23, 2018, the District Court rendered a decision that it
will be willing to approve the amended settlement agreement
providing that a few additional amendments will be made. Both
parties agreed to carry out the requested amendments.

On September 13, 2018, the AG filed a request to file a response to
the amended settlement agreement and asked for an extension to file
a response until November 11, 2018, which was granted by the court.
On November 11, 2018 the AG asked and was granted another ten days
extension to file a response. On November 21, 2018 the AG filed its
response in which he mainly repeated his previous objection to the
settlement claiming that the settlement amount does not provide a
suitable compensation for harm to the autonomy and that the
mechanism payment is complex and will deter patients from receiving
appropriate compensation for pain and suffering.

The AG repeated his opinion that each member of the group should be
compensated for harm to the autonomy while claiming a minimum
amount of 250 NIS should be provided for each patient.

In addition, the AG detailed an alternative mechanism and list of
categories that he asserts would be a better and less complex
solution to provide the compensation amount.

On November 29, 2018, the court approved the Eltroxin settlement
agreement. In a lengthy decision, the court detailed the various
aspects of the settlement as well as the objections submitted to
the settlement, including the main objection submitted by the AG.

The court added a number of comments ordering the parties to make
minor changes to the agreement, mainly concerning the operation of
the mechanism, however none of the agreement foundations are
affected by these changes.

The court found that the settlement is "worthwhile, reasonable and
fair" and ordered its publication and approval.

Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and
supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant
formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical
products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare
Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription
Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887
and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend IV Saline Solution Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer 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 Hospira and Hospira Worldwide, Inc.
continue to defend a consolidated class action suit related to
intravenous saline solution.

Beginning in November 2016, purported class actions were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against Hospira, Hospira Worldwide, Inc. and certain other
defendants relating to intravenous saline solution.

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of all persons and
entities in the U.S. who directly purchased intravenous saline
solution sold by any of the defendants from January 1, 2013 until
the time the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct ceases.
Plaintiffs allege that the defendants' conduct restricts output and
artificially fixes, raises, maintains and/or stabilizes the prices
of intravenous saline solution sold throughout the U.S. in
violation of federal antitrust laws.

Plaintiffs seek treble damages (for themselves and on behalf of the
putative classes) and an injunction against defendants for alleged
price overcharges for intravenous saline solution in the U.S. since
January 1, 2013.

All of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In July 2018, the
District Court granted defendants' motions to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint without prejudice. Plaintiffs filed
a second amended complaint in September 2018.

Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare
products worldwide. It offers medicines and vaccines in various
therapeutic areas, including internal medicine, vaccines, oncology,
inflammation and immunology, and rare diseases under the Lyrica,
Chantix/Champix, Eliquis, Ibrance, Sutent, Xalkori, Inlyta, Xtandi,
Enbrel, Xeljanz, Eucrisa, BeneFix, Genotropin, and Refacto
AF/Xyntha brands. Pfizer Inc. was founded in 1849 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Lipitor-Related Antitrust Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer 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 itself
from purported class action suits over sales of Lipitor.

Beginning in November 2011, purported class actions relating to
Lipitor were filed in various federal courts against, among others,
Pfizer, certain affiliates of Pfizer, and, in most of the actions,
Ranbaxy, Inc. (Ranbaxy) and certain affiliates of Ranbaxy.

The plaintiffs in these various actions seek to represent
nationwide, multi-state or statewide classes consisting of persons
or entities who directly purchased, indirectly purchased or
reimbursed patients for the purchase of Lipitor (or, in certain of
the actions, generic Lipitor) from any of the defendants from March
2010 until the cessation of the defendants’ allegedly unlawful
conduct (the Class Period).

The plaintiffs allege delay in the launch of generic Lipitor, in
violation of federal antitrust laws and/or state antitrust,
consumer protection and various other laws, resulting from (i) the
2008 agreement pursuant to which Pfizer and Ranbaxy settled certain
patent litigation involving Lipitor, and Pfizer granted Ranbaxy a
license to sell a generic version of Lipitor in various markets
beginning on varying dates, and (ii) in certain of the actions, the
procurement and/or enforcement of certain patents for Lipitor.

Each of the actions seeks, among other things, treble damages on
behalf of the putative class for alleged price overcharges for
Lipitor (or, in certain of the actions, generic Lipitor) during the
Class Period.

In addition, individual actions have been filed against Pfizer,
Ranbaxy and certain of their affiliates, among others, that assert
claims and seek relief for the plaintiffs that are substantially
similar to the claims asserted and the relief sought in the
purported class actions described above.

These various actions have been consolidated for pre-trial
proceedings in a Multi-District Litigation (In re Lipitor Antitrust
Litigation MDL-2332) in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey.

In September 2013 and 2014, the District Court dismissed with
prejudice the claims by direct purchasers. In October and November
2014, the District Court dismissed with prejudice the claims of all
other Multi-District Litigation plaintiffs.

All plaintiffs have appealed the District Court's orders dismissing
their claims with prejudice to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit.

In addition, the direct purchaser class plaintiffs appealed the
order denying their motion to amend the judgment and for leave to
amend their complaint to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.

In August 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
reversed the District Court's decisions and remanded the claims to
the District Court.

Also, in January 2013, the State of West Virginia filed an action
in West Virginia state court against Pfizer and Ranbaxy, among
others, that asserts claims and seeks relief on behalf of the State
of West Virginia and residents of that state that are substantially
similar to the claims asserted and the relief sought in the
purported class actions described above.

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

Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare
products worldwide. It offers medicines and vaccines in various
therapeutic areas, including internal medicine, vaccines, oncology,
inflammation and immunology, and rare diseases under the Lyrica,
Chantix/Champix, Eliquis, Ibrance, Sutent, Xalkori, Inlyta, Xtandi,
Enbrel, Xeljanz, Eucrisa, BeneFix, Genotropin, and Refacto
AF/Xyntha brands. Pfizer Inc. was founded in 1849 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PFIZER INC: Faces Class Suits Related to Adalimumab Biosimilars
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer 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 has been named as a
defendant in purported class action suits related to Adalimumab
Biosimilars.

Beginning in March 2019, purported class actions relating to Humira
and adalimumab biosimilars were filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois against AbbVie Inc.
(AbbVie), certain affiliates of AbbVie, and other pharmaceutical
manufacturers. Pfizer is a named defendant in three of the actions.


The plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide and multi-state classes
consisting of persons and/or entities who are indirect purchasers
of Humira from January 1, 2017 until the allegedly unlawful
antitrust effects cease.

Against Pfizer, the plaintiffs generally allege that Pfizer's and
AbbVie's 2018 licensing agreements, resolving all global
intellectual property matters for Pfizer's proposed adalimumab
biosimilar, delayed market entry of Pfizer's biosimilar product in
the U.S. in violation of federal antitrust laws, various state
antitrust or consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment laws.


Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and treble damages for alleged
overcharges for Humira since 2017.

Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare
products worldwide. It offers medicines and vaccines in various
therapeutic areas, including internal medicine, vaccines, oncology,
inflammation and immunology, and rare diseases under the Lyrica,
Chantix/Champix, Eliquis, Ibrance, Sutent, Xalkori, Inlyta, Xtandi,
Enbrel, Xeljanz, Eucrisa, BeneFix, Genotropin, and Refacto
AF/Xyntha brands. Pfizer Inc. was founded in 1849 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PFIZER INC: Hormone Therapy Consumer Class Action Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer 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 Wyeth LLC continues to defend itself
from Hormone Therapy Consumer class action lawsuit.

A certified consumer class action is pending against Wyeth in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California based
on the alleged off-label marketing of its hormone therapy products.
The case was originally filed in December 2003.

The class consists of California consumers who purchased Wyeth's
hormone-replacement products between January 1995 and January 2003
and who do not seek personal injury damages therefrom.

The class seeks compensatory and punitive damages, including a full
refund of the purchase price.

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

Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare
products worldwide. It offers medicines and vaccines in various
therapeutic areas, including internal medicine, vaccines, oncology,
inflammation and immunology, and rare diseases under the Lyrica,
Chantix/Champix, Eliquis, Ibrance, Sutent, Xalkori, Inlyta, Xtandi,
Enbrel, Xeljanz, Eucrisa, BeneFix, Genotropin, and Refacto
AF/Xyntha brands. Pfizer Inc. was founded in 1849 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PFIZER INC: Wyeth Still Defends Class Suit over Effexor XR Sales
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer 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 Wyeth LLC and its affiliates continue to
defend a class action lawsuit related to Effexor XR, which is the
extended-release formulation of Effexor.

Beginning in May 2011, actions, including purported class actions,
were filed in various federal courts against Wyeth and, in certain
of the actions, affiliates of Wyeth and certain other defendants
relating to Effexor XR, which is the extended-release formulation
of Effexor.

The plaintiffs in each of the class actions seek to represent a
class consisting of all persons in the U.S. and its territories who
directly purchased, indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for
the purchase of Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR from any of the
defendants from June 14, 2008 until the time the defendants'
allegedly unlawful conduct ceased.

The plaintiffs in all of the actions allege delay in the launch of
generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories, in violation of
federal antitrust laws and, in certain of the actions, the
antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws of certain
states, as the result of Wyeth fraudulently obtaining and
improperly listing certain patents for Effexor XR in the Orange
Book, enforcing certain patents for Effexor XR and entering into a
litigation settlement agreement with a generic drug manufacturer
with respect to Effexor XR.

Each of the plaintiffs seeks treble damages (for itself in the
individual actions or on behalf of the putative class in the
purported class actions) for alleged price overcharges for Effexor
XR or generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories since June
14, 2008. All of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

In October 2014, the District Court dismissed the direct purchaser
plaintiffs' claims based on the litigation settlement agreement,
but declined to dismiss the other direct purchaser plaintiff
claims. In January 2015, the District Court entered partial final
judgments as to all settlement agreement claims, including those
asserted by direct purchasers and end-payer plaintiffs, which
plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.

In August 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
reversed the District Court's decisions and remanded the claims to
the District Court.

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

Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare
products worldwide. It offers medicines and vaccines in various
therapeutic areas, including internal medicine, vaccines, oncology,
inflammation and immunology, and rare diseases under the Lyrica,
Chantix/Champix, Eliquis, Ibrance, Sutent, Xalkori, Inlyta, Xtandi,
Enbrel, Xeljanz, Eucrisa, BeneFix, Genotropin, and Refacto
AF/Xyntha brands. Pfizer Inc. was founded in 1849 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: 9th Cir. Grants Petition for Leave to Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals has granted the company's petition for
leave to appeal a class certification ruling.

In May 2015, the company experienced a crude oil release from its
Las Flores to Gaviota Pipeline (Line 901) in Santa Barbara County,
California. A portion of the released crude oil reached the Pacific
Ocean at Refugio State Beach through a drainage culvert. Following
the release, the company shut down the pipeline and initiated its
emergency response plan.

A Unified Command, which included the United States Coast Guard,
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Office of
Spill Prevention and Response and the Santa Barbara Office of
Emergency Management, was established for the response effort.
Clean-up and remediation operations with respect to impacted
shoreline and other areas has been determined by the Unified
Command to be complete, and the Unified Command has been
dissolved.

The company's estimate of the amount of oil spilled, based on
relevant facts, data and information, is approximately 2,934
barrels; of this amount, the company estimate that 598 barrels
reached the Pacific Ocean.

Shortly following the Line 901 incident, the company established a
claims line and encouraged any parties that were damaged by the
release to contact the company to discuss their damage claims. The
company have received a number of claims through the claims line
and the company have been processing those claims and making
payments as appropriate.

In addition, the company have also had nine class action lawsuits
filed against it, six of which have been administratively
consolidated into a single proceeding in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California.

In general, the plaintiffs are seeking to establish different
classes of claimants that have allegedly been damaged by the
release. To date, the court has certified three sub-classes of
claimants and denied certification of the other proposed sub-class.


The sub-classes that have been certified include (i) commercial
fishermen who landed fish in certain specified fishing blocks in
the waters adjacent to Santa Barbara County or persons or
businesses who resold commercial seafood landed in such areas; (ii)
individuals or businesses who were employed by or had contracts
with certain designated oil platforms and related onshore
processing facilities in the vicinity of the release as of the date
of the release and (iii) beachfront property and easement owners
whose properties were oiled.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has granted the company's
petition for leave to appeal the oil industry class certification.


The company is also defending a separate class action lawsuit
proceeding in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California brought on behalf of the Line 901 and Line
903 easement holders seeking injunctive relief as well as
compensatory damages.

Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., through its subsidiaries,
engages in the transportation, storage, terminalling, and marketing
of crude oil, natural gas liquids (NGL), and natural gas in the
United States and Canada. The company operates in three segments:
Transportation, Facilities, and Supply and Logistics. The company
was founded in 1998 and is based in Houston, Texas.


PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Appeal in TX Consolidated Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the appeal in
the consolidated class action suit in Texas is pending.

There have also been two securities law class action lawsuits filed
on behalf of certain purported investors in the Partnership and/or
Plains GP Holdings, L.P. (PAGP) against the Partnership, PAGP
and/or certain of their respective officers, directors and
underwriters.

Both of these lawsuits have been consolidated into a single
proceeding in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas.

In general, these lawsuits allege that the various defendants
violated securities laws by misleading investors regarding the
integrity of the Partnership's pipelines and related facilities
through false and misleading statements, omission of material facts
and concealing of the true extent of the spill.

The plaintiffs claim unspecified damages as a result of the
reduction in value of their investments in the Partnership and
PAGP, which they attribute to the alleged wrongful acts of the
defendants. The Partnership and PAGP, and the other defendants,
denied the allegations in, and moved to dismiss these lawsuits.

On March 29, 2017, the Court ruled in company's favor dismissing
all claims against all defendants. Plaintiffs refiled their
complaint. On April 2, 2018, the Court dismissed all of the refiled
claims against all defendants with prejudice.

Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal.

Plains All American said, "Consistent with and subject to the terms
of our governing organizational documents (and to the extent
applicable, insurance policies), we have indemnified and funded the
defense costs of our officers and directors in connection with this
lawsuit; we have also indemnified and funded the defense costs of
our underwriters pursuant to the terms of the underwriting
agreements we previously entered into with such underwriters."

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

Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., through its subsidiaries,
engages in the transportation, storage, terminalling, and marketing
of crude oil, natural gas liquids (NGL), and natural gas in the
United States and Canada. The company operates in three segments:
Transportation, Facilities, and Supply and Logistics. The company
was founded in 1998 and is based in Houston, Texas.


POOL & PATIO: Bobola Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------
Jordain Bobola, and all others similarly situated, v. Pool & Patio
Depot Pompano Inc., Case No. 0:19-cv-60886 (S.D. Fla., April 3,
2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and regular wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant has violated the provisions of
the FLSA by having policies and practices to pay its employees
overtime only when the employee exceeds 80 hours within a two-week
period, and shaves compensable hours off of employees' time.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Broward County, Florida and was
employed by the Defendant as an hourly office administrator.

The Defendant owned and operated a pool and patio retail showroom
within the Southern District of Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert S. Norell, Esq.
      ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A.
      300 N.W 70th Avenue, Ste 305
      Plantation, FL 33317
      Tel: (954) 617-6017
      Fax: (954) 617-6018
      E-mail: rob@floridawagelaw.com


PORSCHE: Wants Cayenne Coolant Leak Class Action Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a
Porsche coolant leak lawsuit shouldn't be a class action but should
be dismissed entirely, at least according to what Porsche says in a
motion to dismiss the complaint.

The proposed class action includes 2011-2019 Porsche Cayennes and
2010-2016 Porsche Panameras equipped with V8 engines prone to leak
coolant due to bad adhesive.

The plaintiffs claim the leaks occur when the coolant pipes
separate from the thermostat housings because the adhesive on the
connectors is allegedly defective.

Porsche is allegedly aware of coolant pipe problems because a
previous class action lawsuit was settled for customers of
2003-2006 Cayennes.

According to the latest lawsuit, Cayenne and Panamera drivers
complain about overheated and failed engines from the coolant
suddenly leaking from the connectors. Drivers also allege they
sometimes pay thousands of dollars for dealerships to replace the
allegedly defective parts with the same faulty parts.

Porsche filed a motion to dismiss the suit by telling the judge the
plaintiffs have no legal ground to stand on, including concerning
how the plaintiffs acquired the vehicles. The automaker says both
plaintiffs bought their cars used and not directly from Porsche,
therefore the automaker says it played no role in the
transactions.

Porsche also argues the plaintiffs wrongly blame the automaker for
the alleged coolant leak problems that popped up many years after
the vehicles were originally sold as new to other consumers.

In its motion, Porsche says the lawsuit "should be dismissed in its
entirety and with prejudice," then the automaker goes down the line
of claims filed by the plaintiffs and why those claims are
baseless.

The plaintiffs argue the automaker violates Florida's Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), but Porsche points out the
lawsuit was filed in November 2018, more than four years after the
plaintiffs purchased their used vehicles.

According to Porsche, there can't be violations of FDUTPA because
the claims are time-barred and the plaintiffs allegedly haven't
plausibly alleged the automaker committed deceptive or unfair acts.
In addition, the automaker says the plaintiffs fail to plead that
Porsche knew about coolant leak defects but failed to disclose
those defects.

As for alleged implied warranty violations, Porsche says the
plaintiffs didn't purchase the vehicles directly from the
automaker, and one of the plaintiffs didn't provide pre-lawsuit
notice to Porsche.

In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs want Porsche to admit their are
defects and recall the vehicles, but the automaker says only the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration can do that. This
allegedly means claims for declaratory and injunctive relief
shouldn't even be heard as part of the lawsuit.

The Porsche coolant leak lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida - Padilla, et al., v.
Porsche Cars North America, Inc.

The plaintiffs are represented by Morgan & Morgan, Blood Hurst &
O'Reardon, and Ray Boucher. [GN]


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Putnam Sues over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOY PUTNAM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-00189-SAB (E.D. Wash., May 31, 2019), seeks to recover
damages for Defendant's actions of using unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's actions violated
section 1692 of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act which
prohibits debt collectors from engaging in abusive, 15 deceptive,
and unfair practices.

Sometime prior to September of 2017, Plaintiff allegedly incurred
an obligation to Capital One Bank. The Bank obligation arose out of
a transaction in which money, property, insurance or services,
which are the subject of the transaction, are primarily for
personal, family, or household purposes. On or about September 25,
2017, Plaintiff's alleged Capital One Bank debt was sold to
Defendant. In December 2018, Defendant sued Plaintiff in the
Spokane County Superior Court. In December 2018, Defendant obtained
a default judgment against Plaintiff.

In January 2019, Defendant obtained a writ of garnishment against
Plaintiff's financial institution. At or about the same date that
the writ of garnishment was sent to the Plaintiff's financial
institution, Defendant, through its counsel, also sent an exemption
claim form to the Plaintiff, the lawsuit says.

PRA is a company acquiring and collecting nonperforming loans based
in Norfolk, Virginia. PRA was listed in the Federal Trade
Commission's Report on the Debt Buying Industry as one of the
largest debt buyers in the US.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Kirk D. Miller, Esq.
          KIRK D. MILLER P.S.
          421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste. 660
          Spokane, WA 99201
          E-mail: kmiller@millerlawspokane.com

               - and -

          Shayne J. Sutherland, Esq.
          Brian G. Cameron, Esq.
          CAMERON SUTHERLAND, PLLC
          421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste. 660
          Spokane, WA 99201
          E-mail: kmiller@millerlawspokane.com
                  bcameron@cameronsutherland.com
                  ssutherland@cameronsutherland.com

PROFESSIONAL TRANS: Removes Oglesby Case to D. South Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------------
Professional Transportation, Inc. removes the case, VERONICA
OGLESBY, the Plaintiff,v. PROFESSIONAL TRANSPORTATION, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 2019-CP-39-00565 (Filed April 30, 2019), from
the Court of Common Pleas of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit,
Pickens County, South Carolina, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina on May 31, 2019. The District of South
Carolina Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:19-cv-01573-TMC to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff brought the lawsuit as a collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.[BN]

Attorneys for Professional Transportation, Inc.

          Thomas A. Bright, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          The Ogletree Building
          300 North Main Street, Suite 500
          Greenville, SC 29601
          Telephone: 864-271-1300
          Facsimile: 864-235-8806
          E-mail: thomas.bright@ogletree.com

PULMAN CAPPUCINO & PULLEN: Faces White's FDCA Suit in Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Pulman, Cappuccio,
& Pullen, LLP and Elliot Cappucio for alleged violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Act (FDCA). The case is captioned White, Jr.
et al v. Pulman, Cappuccio, & Pullen, LLP et al, Case No.
5:19-cv-00535-DAE (W.D. Tex., May 17, 2019). This consumer
credit-related case is assigned to Hon. Judge David A. Ezra.

Pulman, Cappuccio &  Pullen, LLP is a law firm that provides
representation for clients in litigation, mediation, arbitration,
real estate, corporate law transactions, and a multitude of other
legal settings. It has four offices in Texas with its principal
office located at 2161 N.W. Military Highway, Suite 400, San
Antonio, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Francis R. Greene, Esq.
     STERN THOMASSON LLP
     150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
     Springfield, NJ 07081-1315
     Telephone: (312) 923-0886
     Facsimile: (973) 532-5868
     E-mail: francis@sternthomasson.com

             - and -

     Philip D. Stern, Esq.
     STERN THOMASSON LLP
     150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
     Springfield, NJ 07081
     Telephone: (973) 379-7500
     Facsimile: (973) 532-5868
     E-mail: philip@sternthomasson.com

              - and –

     William Maurice Clanton, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF BILL CLANTON, P.C.
     926 Chulie Dr
     San Antonio, TX 78216
     Telephone: (210) 226-0800
     Facsimile: (210) 338-8660
     E-mail: bill@clantonlawoffice.com
  
             - and –

     Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
     STERN THOMASSON LLP
     150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
     Springfield, NJ 07081-1315
     Telephone: (973) 379-7500
     Facsimile: (973) 532-5868
     E-mail: andrew@sternthomasson.com


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Vieyra Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JULIO ANTONIO PEREZ VIEYRA, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INC.;
AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY; and Optum360 LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 2:19-cv-13396 (D. N.J. June 4, 2019) is a class action
over Defendants' failure to secure and safeguard medical
information, personally identifiable information ("PII") such as
Plaintiff's and Class Members' mailing address, phone number, email
address, date of birth, gender, and other personal
information—and their credit and debit card numbers and other
payment card data ("PCD").

Quest Diagnostics Inc. collects its customers' private medical and
financial information as part of providing blood testing. Quest
contracts with Optum360, LLC. In turn, Optum360 goes to American
Medical Collection Agency ("AMCA") for billing collection services.
Throughout this process, Defendants obtain and share Quest
customers' personal information and are charged with safeguarding
private medical, personal, and financial information.

On June 3, 2019, Quest revealed in a press release and securities
filing that an unauthorized user had access and did access the
system run by Quest's billing collections vendor, AMCA, for over
six months between late 2018 and March 2019. Quest admitted to its
customers that the information on AMCA's affected system included
its customers' financial information like credit card numbers and
bank account information, medical information, and other personal
information. As of May 31, 2019, AMCA believed that 11.9 million
Quest patients had their information on the affected systems.

The Defendants' failure to protect their information is a breach of
their contracts with Plaintiff and Class Members and violates their
legal duties and state consumer protection and privacy laws,
asserts the complaint.
Defendants could have prevented this theft had it employed
reasonable, industry-standard security measures. For this reason,
Defendants should pay for appropriate identity theft protection and
reimburse its customers the money they would not have paid Quest
had it disclosed its substandard security practices, adds the
complaint.

Plaintiff Mr. Perez Vieyra went to a Quest laboratory to obtain
blood testing in 2012.

Quest operates over 2,200 "Patient Service Centers" which are used
to draw and test customers' blood following an order from a
doctor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James E. Cecchi, Esq.
     CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
     5 Becker Farm Road
     Roseland, NJ 07068
     Phone: (973) 994-1700
     Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com


QUINTANA ENERGY: Unit Still Defends Class Suit over FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Quintana Energy Services Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company's
subsidiary continues to defend itself from a class action suit
alleging violations of state based wage and hour laws and the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

A class action has been filed against one of the Company's
subsidiaries alleging violations of state based wage and hour laws
and the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") relating to non-payment
of overtime pay.

The Company believes its pay practices comply with the FLSA.

Quintana said, "The case is working its way through the various
stages of the legal process, however, management believes the
Company's exposure is not material."

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

Quintana Energy Services Inc. provides oilfield services to onshore
oil and natural gas exploration and production companies operating
in conventional and unconventional plays in the United States. The
company operates through four segments: Directional Drilling,
Pressure Pumping, Pressure Control, and Wireline. Quintana Energy
Services Inc. was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in Houston,
Texas.


RADIUS GLOBAL: Reyes Sues over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
The case, VILMA REYES, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. RADIUS GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LLC,
the Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-61375-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 2,
2019), sues Defendant for violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant mailed a collection
letter, dated December 27, 2018, to Plaintiff in an attempt to
collect a consumer debt. The consumer debt is a time-barred debt,
in that, suing Plaintiff to collect the Consumer Debt is prohibited
by the applicable statute of limitations. See Fla. Stat. Section
95.11.

The collection letter is filled with misleading language and
innuendo that fails to make clear that the statute of limitations
has ended, and that payment any amount of the Consumer Debt will
service to revive the statute of limitations. Moreover, the
deceptive nature of the Collection Letter is compounded by the
nefarious "Resolution offer" that Defendant deceptively presents to
the least sophisticated consumer without any drawbacks or
downsides.

Simply put, the Defendant failed to sufficiently inform the least
sophisticated consumer that the debt it sought to collect was
absolutely time-barred, wrongfully misrepresented the nature and
legal status of the underlying debt, deceptively offered the least
sophisticated consumer a reduced payment and/or "Resolution offer,"
and by failed inform the least sophisticated consumer, whatsoever,
that the underlying debt can revived if, for example, the consumer
agreed to make a partial payment towards the underlying debt, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954 907 1136
          Facsimile: 855 529 9540
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
                  tom@jibraellaw.com

RAYMOND JAMES: Agreement in Principle Reached in Wistar Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond James Financial, 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
case, Caleb Wistar and Ernest Mayeaux v. Raymond James Financial
Services, Inc. and Raymond James Financial Services Advisors, Inc.,
have agreed in principle to a settlement of the complaint.

On February 11, 2016, Caleb Wistar ("Wistar") and Ernest Mayeaux
("Mayeaux") filed a putative class action complaint in the District
Court under the caption Caleb Wistar and Ernest Mayeaux v. Raymond
James Financial Services, Inc. and Raymond James Financial Services
Advisors, Inc. (as subsequently amended, the "Wistar Complaint").

Similar to the Brink Complaint, the Wistar Complaint alleges that
Wistar and Mayeaux, former customers of Raymond James Financial
Services, Inc. ("RJFS") and Raymond James Financial Services
Advisors, Inc. ("RJFSA"), were charged a fee in RJFS and RJFSA's
Passport Investment Account and that the fee included an
unauthorized and undisclosed profit to RJFS and RJFSA in violation
of its customer agreement and applicable industry standards.

The Wistar Complaint seeks, among other relief, damages in the
amount of the difference between the actual cost of processing a
trade, as alleged by Wistar and Mayeaux, and the fee charge by RJFS
and RJFSA.

On April 5, 2019, Wistar and Mayeaux agreed in principle with RJFS
and RJFSA to a settlement of the Wistar Complaint. The parties are
currently negotiating a Stipulation of Settlement. The District
Court has been informed of the foregoing.

Raymond James said, "The settlement amount was included in "Other
payables" in our Condensed Consolidated Statement of Financial
Condition as of March 31, 2019."

Raymond James Financial, Inc., through its subsidiaries, engages in
the underwriting, distribution, trading, and brokerage of equity
and debt securities, and the sale of mutual funds and other
investment products in the United States, Canada, Europe, and
internationally. It operates in five segments: Private Client Group
(PCG), Capital Markets, Asset Management, RJ Bank, and Other. The
company was founded in 1962 and is headquartered in St. Petersburg,
Florida.


RAYMOND JAMES: Settlement Reached in Brink Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Raymond James Financial, 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 Raymond James &
Associates, Inc. has reached an agreement in principle with Jyll
Brink to settle a class suit.

On February 17, 2015, Jyll Brink ("Brink") filed a putative class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida (the "District Court") under the caption Jyll
Brink v. Raymond James & Associates, Inc. (the "Brink Complaint").


The Brink Complaint alleges that Brink, a former customer of
Raymond James & Associates, Inc. (RJ&A), was charged a fee in her
Passport Investment Account, and that the fee included an
unauthorized and undisclosed profit to RJ&A in violation of its
customer agreement and applicable industry standards.

The Passport Investment Account is a fee-based account in which
clients pay asset-based advisory fees and certain processing fees
for ongoing investment advice and monitoring of securities
holdings.

The Brink Complaint seeks, among other relief, damages in the
amount of the difference between the actual cost of processing a
trade, as alleged by Brink, and the fee charged by RJ&A.

On October 19, 2018, the District Court certified a class of former
and current customers of RJ&A who executed a Passport Agreement and
were charged processing fees during the period between February 17,
2010 and February 17, 2015.

On January 18, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit (the "Appellate Court") entered an order granting
permission to RJ&A to appeal the District Court's class
certification order. On January 25, 2019, the District Court issued
an order staying trial, calendar call and all remaining pretrial
deadlines pending resolution of the appeal.

On April 5, 2019, Brink and RJ&A agreed in principle to a
settlement of the Brink Complaint. The parties are currently
negotiating a Stipulation of Settlement. Both the District Court
and the Appellate Court have been informed of the foregoing.

Raymond James said, "The settlement amount was included in "Other
payables" in our Condensed Consolidated Statement of Financial
Condition as of March 31, 2019."

Raymond James Financial, Inc., through its subsidiaries, engages in
the underwriting, distribution, trading, and brokerage of equity
and debt securities, and the sale of mutual funds and other
investment products in the United States, Canada, Europe, and
internationally. It operates in five segments: Private Client Group
(PCG), Capital Markets, Asset Management, RJ Bank, and Other. The
company was founded in 1962 and is headquartered in St. Petersburg,
Florida.


RENT-A-CENTER INC: Hall Settlement Finally Approved
---------------------------------------------------
Rent-A-Center, 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 settlement in the
consolidated Hall and DePalma suits was finally approved by the
court.

Alan Hall, et al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., et al.; James DePalma, et
al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., et al. On December 23, 2016, a putative
class action was filed against the company and certain of the
company's former officers by Alan Hall in the Federal District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Sherman, Texas.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Section 10(b)
and/or Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing false and misleading
statements and omitting material facts regarding our business,
including implementation of our point-of-sale system, operations
and prospects during the period covered by the complaint.

A complaint filed by James DePalma also in Sherman, Texas alleging
similar claims was consolidated by the court into the Hall matter.


On October 8, 2018, the parties agreed to settle this matter for
$11 million. The court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement on December 13, 2018.

Under the terms of the settlement our insurance carrier paid in
January 2019 an aggregate of $11 million in cash which will be
distributed to an agreed upon class of claimants who purchased our
common stock from July 27, 2015 through October 10, 2016, as well
as used to pay costs of notice and settlement administration, and
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses.

The settlement was approved by the court at a hearing held on May
3, 2019.

Rent-A-Center, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, leases
household durable goods to customers on a rent-to-own basis. The
company operates through four segments: Core U.S., Acceptance Now,
Mexico, and Franchising. Rent-A-Center, Inc. was founded in 1986
and is headquartered in Plano, Texas.


RENT-A-CENTER INC: Russell Suit v. Acceptance Now Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Rent-A-Center, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Velma Russell v. Acceptance
Now.

This purported class action arising out of calls made by Acceptance
Now to customers' reference (s) was filed on January 29, 2019 in
Massachusetts state court.

Specifically, plaintiffs seek to certify a class representing any
references of customers (within the state of Massachusetts) during
the 4 years prior to the filing date that were contacted by
Acceptance Now more frequently during a 12 month period than is
permitted by Massachusetts state law.

The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief and statutory damages
of $25 per reference which may be tripled to $75 per reference.
References are not parties to the company's consumer arbitration
agreement.

Rent-A-Center said, "We operate 12 Acceptance Now locations in
Massachusetts. We intend to vigorously defend these claims;
however, we cannot assure you that we will be found to have no
liability in this matter."

Rent-A-Center, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, leases
household durable goods to customers on a rent-to-own basis. The
company operates through four segments: Core U.S., Acceptance Now,
Mexico, and Franchising. Rent-A-Center, Inc. was founded in 1986
and is headquartered in Plano, Texas.


RENT-A-CENTER INC: Settlement Reached in Blair Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rent-A-Center, 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 a settlement has been
reached in Blair v. Rent-A-Center, Inc.

This matter is a state-wide class action complaint originally filed
on March 13, 2017 in the Federal District Court for the Northern
District of California.

The complaint alleges various claims, including that the company's
cash sales and total rent to own prices exceed the pricing
permitted under the Karnette Rental-Purchase Act.

Following a court-ordered mediation on March 28, 2019, the company
reached an agreement in principle to settle this matter for a total
of $13 million, including attorneys' fees.

The settlement is in the documentation process and is subject to
approval by the court.

Rent-A-Center said, "We have denied any liability in the settlement
and agreed to the settlement in order to avoid additional
expensive, time-consuming litigation. We recorded the impact of
this settlement in the first quarter of 2019."

Rent-A-Center, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, leases
household durable goods to customers on a rent-to-own basis. The
company operates through four segments: Core U.S., Acceptance Now,
Mexico, and Franchising. Rent-A-Center, Inc. was founded in 1986
and is headquartered in Plano, Texas.


ROCKWELL MEDICAL: Still Defends Too & Spock Consolidated Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a consolidated class action suit in New York.

On July 27, 2018, Plaintiff Ah Kit Too filed a putative class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court in the Eastern
District of New York against the Company and former officers,
Robert Chioini and Thomas Klema.

The complaint is a federal securities class action purportedly
brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities, other than Defendants, who purchased or otherwise
acquired the publicly traded securities of the Company between
March 16, 2018 and June 26, 2018.

The Complaint alleges that the Company and Messrs. Chioini and
Klema violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants filed reports
with the Securities and Exchange Commission that contained
purported inaccurate and misleading statements regarding the
potential for the Company's drug, Triferic, to quality for separate
reimbursement status by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services.

On September 4, 2018, Plaintiff Robert Spock filed a similar
putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
in the Eastern District of New York against the Company and Messrs.
Chioini and Klema.

The Spock complaint is a federal securities class action
purportedly brought on behalf of a class consisting of persons who
purchased the Company's securities between November 8, 2017 and
June 26, 2018.

This complaint alleges that the Company and Messrs. Chioini and
Klema violated the Exchange Act in that the Company was aware the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services would not pursue the
Company's proposal for separate reimbursement for Triferic;
misstated reserves in the Company's quarterly report for the first
quarter of 2018; had a material weakness its internal controls over
financial reporting, which rendered those controls ineffective; Mr.
Chioini withheld material information regarding Triferic from the
Company's auditor, corporate counsel, and independent directors of
the Board; and, as a result of these alleged issues, statements
about the Company's business were  materially false and
misleading.

On September 25, 2018, four Company stockholders filed motions to
appoint lead plaintiffs, lead counsel, and to consolidate the Ah
Kit Too v. Rockwell securities class action with the Spock v.
Rockwell securities class action.  

On October 10, 2018, the court issued an order consolidating the
two actions, appointing co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel. On
December 10, 2018, lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, which included the same allegations as the initial
complaints and asserted claims on behalf of a putative class
consisting of person who purchased the Company's securities between
November 8, 2017 and June 26, 2018.  

On February 18, 2019, the Company answered the consolidated amended
complaint. The lawsuits seek damages allegedly sustained by the
class and an award of plaintiffs' costs and attorney fees.

Rockwell said, "The case is at an early stage with no significant
pre-trial proceedings (such, as substantive motions or discovery)
having occurred. The Company believes it has defenses to the claims
of liability and damages and is responding accordingly."

Rockwell Medical, Inc. operates as a specialty pharmaceutical
company that targets end-stage renal disease and chronic kidney
disease with therapies and products for the treatment of iron
deficiency and hemodialysis. Rockwell Medical, Inc. was founded in
1994 and is based in Wixom, Michigan.


SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Awaits Final OK of Settlement in Parmelee Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ed Kinkeade on June 3, 2019, entered a judgment approving the
settlement in the case, Parmelee v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings
Inc et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00783 (N.D. Tex.).

Judge Kinkeade also entered separate orders approving a plan of
allocation of the net settlement fund and awarding attorneys' fees
and reimbursement of litigation expenses.

Santander Holdings USA, 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 its unit, Santander
Consumer USA Inc., is a defendant in two purported securities class
action lawsuits filed in March and April 2016 in the United States
District Court, Northern District of Texas.  The lawsuits were
consolidated and now captioned Parmelee v. Santander Consumer USA
Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-783.

The lawsuits were filed against SC and certain of its current and
former directors and executive officers on behalf of a class
consisting of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired SC
securities between February 3, 2015 and March 15, 2016.

The complaint alleges that SC violated federal securities laws by
making false or misleading statements, as well as failing to
disclose material adverse facts, in its periodic reports filed
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act") and certain other public disclosures, in connection
with, among other things, SC's change in its methodology for
estimating its ACL and the correction of such ACL for prior
periods.

In March 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
In January 2018, the court granted SC's motion as to defendant
Ismail Dawood (SC's former Chief Financial Officer) and denied the
motion as to all other defendants.

In July 2018, the lead plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of a class action settlement of the lawsuit
for a cash payment of $9.5 million.

In September 2018, the court entered an order granting the motion
for preliminary approval of the settlement of the lawsuit.

A final settlement approval hearing was held in May 2019.

Santander Holdings USA, Inc. operates as the holding company for
Santander Bank, National Association that provides various banking
products and services primarily in the Mid-Atlantic and
Northeastern United States. The company was founded in 1984 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Santander Holdings USA,
Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Santander, S.A.


SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Mexican Govt Bonds Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Santander Holdings USA, 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 motion to dismiss
the consolidated class action suit entitled, In re Mexican
Government Bonds Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:18-cv-02830-JPO, is
pending.

A consolidated purported antitrust class action is pending in the
United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
captioned In re Mexican Government Bonds Antitrust Litigation, No.
1:18-cv-02830-JPO (the "MGB Lawsuit").

The MGB Lawsuit is against the Company, Santander Investment
Securities Inc. (SIS), Santander, Banco Santander (Mexico), S.A.
Institucion de Banca Multiple, Grupo Financiero Santander and
Santander Investment Bolsa, Sociedad de Valores, S.A. on behalf of
a class of persons who entered into Mexican government bond ("MGB")
transactions between January 1, 2006 and April 19, 2017, where such
persons were either domiciled in the United States or, if domiciled
outside the United States, transacted in the United States.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Santander
defendants and the other defendants violated U.S. antitrust laws by
conspiring to rig auctions and/or fix prices of MGBs.

On September 17, 2018, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.

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

Santander Holdings USA, Inc. operates as the holding company for
Santander Bank, National Association that provides various banking
products and services primarily in the Mid-Atlantic and
Northeastern United States. The company was founded in 1984 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Santander Holdings USA,
Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Santander, S.A.


SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Merits Discovery in Deka Suit Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Santander Holdings USA, 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 merits discovery in
the lawsuit styled Deka Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander
Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., remains stayed until the court
rules on the issue of class certification.

Santander Consumer USA Inc. (SC) is a defendant in a purported
securities class action lawsuit (the "Deka Lawsuit") in the United
States District Court, Northern District of Texas, captioned Deka
Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et
al., No. 3:15-cv-2129-K.

The Deka Lawsuit, which was filed in August 26, 2014, was brought
against SC, certain of its current and former directors and
executive officers and certain institutions that served as
underwriters in SC's initial public offering (the "IPO"), including
Santander Investment Securities Inc. (SIS), on behalf of a class
consisting of those who purchased or otherwise acquired SC
securities between January 23, 2014 and June 12, 2014.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the IPO
registration statement and prospectus and certain subsequent public
disclosures violated federal securities laws by containing
misleading statements concerning SC's ability to pay dividends and
the adequacy of SC's compliance systems and oversight.

In December 2015, SC and the individual defendants moved to dismiss
the lawsuit, which was denied. In December 2016, the plaintiffs
moved to certify the proposed classes.

In July 2017, the court entered an order staying the Deka Lawsuit
pending the resolution of the appeal of a class certification order
in In re Cobalt Int'l Energy, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. H-14-3428, 2017
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91938 (S.D. Tex. June 15, 2017).

In October 2018, the court vacated the order staying the Deka
Lawsuit but ordered that merits discovery be stayed until the court
ruled on the issue of class certification.

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

Santander Holdings USA, Inc. operates as the holding company for
Santander Bank, National Association that provides various banking
products and services primarily in the Mid-Atlantic and
Northeastern United States. The company was founded in 1984 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Santander Holdings USA,
Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Santander, S.A.


SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Ponsa-Rabell Suit v. SSLLC Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Santander Holdings USA, 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 Santander Securities
LLC (SSLLC) continues to defend a class action suit entitled Jorge
Ponsa-Rabell, et al. v. SSLLC.

Santander Securities LLC (SSLLC), Santander BanCorp, Banco
Santander Puerto Rico (BSPR), the Company and Banco Santander, S.A.
(Santander) are defendants in a putative class action alleging
federal securities and common law claims relating to the
solicitation and purchase of more than $180.0 million of Puerto
Rico bonds and $101.0 million of  Closed-end funds (CEFs) during
the period from December 2012 to October 2013.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Puerto Rico and is captioned Jorge Ponsa-Rabell, et.
al. v. SSLLC, Civ. No. 3:17-cv-02243.

The amended complaint alleges that defendants acted in concert to
defraud purchasers in connection with the underwriting and sale of
Puerto Rico municipal bonds, CEFs and open-end funds.

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

Santander Holdings USA, Inc. operates as the holding company for
Santander Bank, National Association that provides various banking
products and services primarily in the Mid-Atlantic and
Northeastern United States. The company was founded in 1984 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Santander Holdings USA,
Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Santander, S.A.


SGS NORTH AMERICA: Tamimi Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------
The case, JD TAMIMI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SGS NORTH AMERICA, INC., a
corporation; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
30-2019-01064123-CU-OE-CXC (Filed on April 16, 2019), was
transferred from the Orange County Superior Court to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California, which
has original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA). The case meets all of CAFA's
requirements for removal including the diversity of citizenship and
the number of putative class members involved in this class action.
In the complaint, Plaintiff JD Tamimi asserts the eight causes of
action: (1) failure to pay minimum wage; (2) failure to pay
overtime wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to
permit rest breaks; (5) failure to pay all wages due upon
separation of employment; (6) failure to furnish accurate wage
statements; (7) failure to reimburse for business expenses; and (8)
violation of California Business and Professions Code.

Headquartered in New Jersey, SGS North America is the world's
leading inspection, verification, testing and certification
company. The company offers inspection, verification, testing, and
certification services to various industry sectors. [BN]

Attorneys for Defendant:

     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
     E-mail: bschwan@littler.com
             rlavi@littler.com


SKECHERS USA: Continues to Defend Wilk Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Ealeen Wilk v. Skechers
U.S.A., Inc.

On September 10, 2018, Ealeen Wilk filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the company in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, Case No. 5:18-cv-01921,
alleging violations of the California Labor Code, including unpaid
overtime, unpaid wages due upon termination and unfair business
practices.

The complaint seeks actual, compensatory, special and general
damages; penalties and liquidated damages; restitutionary and
injunctive relief; attorneys' fees and costs; and interest as
permitted by law.

Skechers said, "While it is too early to predict the outcome of the
litigation or a reasonable range of potential losses and whether an
adverse result would have a material adverse impact on our results
of operations or financial position, we believe that we have
meritorious defenses, vehemently deny the allegations, and intend
to defend the case vigorously."

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes
footwear for men, women, and children; and performance footwear for
men and women under the Skechers GO brand worldwide. It operates
through three segments: Domestic Wholesale Sales, International
Wholesale Sales, and Retail Sales. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. was
founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Manhattan Beach,
California.


SKECHERS USA: Court Sets Briefing Schedule on Dismissal Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the class action suit
entitled, Laborers Local 235 Benefit Fund v. Skechers USA, Inc.
Robert Greenberg, David Weinberg and John Vandemore, has been
consolidated with other suits and an amended complaint has been
filed as, In Re Skechers Securities Litigation and the court set a
briefing schedule for the company's motion to dismiss.

On September 4, 2018, Laborers Local 235 Benefit Fund filed a
securities class action on behalf of itself and purportedly on
behalf of other shareholders who purchased the company's stock
between October 20, 2017 and July 19, 2018 (the "Class Period"),
against the company and certain of its officers in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, case
number 1:18-cv-8039.  

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period the company
made materially false statements or omissions of material fact
regarding its sales growth and controlling expenses in an effort to
artificially inflate the price of its stock for the personal gain
of the Company's founding family.  

Beginning October 17, 2018, copycat cases were filed and on January
22, 2019 a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed as
In Re Skechers Securities Litigation.  

On April 17, 2019, the court set a briefing schedule for the
company's motion to dismiss.  

Skechers said, "We believe we have meritorious defenses and intend
to defend these matters vigorously. Given the early stages of these
proceedings and the limited information available, we cannot
predict the outcome of these legal proceedings or whether an
adverse result in these cases would have a material adverse impact
on our operations or financial position."

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes
footwear for men, women, and children; and performance footwear for
men and women under the Skechers GO brand worldwide. It operates
through three segments: Domestic Wholesale Sales, International
Wholesale Sales, and Retail Sales. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. was
founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Manhattan Beach,
California.


SKECHERS USA: Faces Guzman Class Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company has been
named as a defendant in a class action suit entitled, Jose Zavala
Guzman v. Team One Employment Specialists, Skechers USA, Inc. et.
al.  

On April 2, 2019, Jose Guzman, a Team One employee, filed a class
action lawsuit against Team One and the company in the Superior
Court of California, County of Los Angeles County, Case No.
19STCV11006.  

The complaint alleges various wage and hour violations, and seeks
compensatory damages, liquidated damages, penalties, interest and
restitution.  

This complaint was followed by a Private Attorney General's Act
Notice, specifying the same allegations raised in the complaint.  

This matter was tendered to the company's insurance carrier, and
the company is currently investigating the allegations.  

Skechers said, "While it is too early to predict the outcome of the
litigation or a reasonable range of potential losses and whether an
adverse result would have a material adverse impact on our results
of operations or financial position, we believe that we have
meritorious defenses, vehemently deny the allegations, and intend
to defend the case vigorously."

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes
footwear for men, women, and children; and performance footwear for
men and women under the Skechers GO brand worldwide. It operates
through three segments: Domestic Wholesale Sales, International
Wholesale Sales, and Retail Sales. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. was
founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Manhattan Beach,
California.


SKECHERS USA: Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend class action suit entitled, Steamfitters Local 449
Pension Plan v. Skechers USA, Inc., Robert Greenberg and David
Weinberg.

On October 20, 2017, the Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan filed
a securities class action, on behalf of itself and purportedly on
behalf of other shareholders who purchased Skechers stock in a
five-month period in 2015, against the company and certain of its
officers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, case number 1:17-cv-08107.  

On April 4, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended and consolidated
complaint and on July 24, 2018 plaintiffs filed a second amended
and consolidated complaint. The lawsuit alleges that, between April
23 and October 22, 2015, the company made materially false
statements or omissions of material fact about the anticipated
performance of the company's Domestic Wholesale segment and asserts
claims for unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and equitable
relief based on two counts for alleged violations of federal
securities laws.  

On November 21, 2018 the company filed a motion to dismiss. On
January 10, 2019 plaintiffs filed an opposition and on February 11,
2019 the company filed a reply.  There is no date set for the
hearing.   

Skechers said, "Given the early stage of this proceeding and the
limited information available, we cannot predict the outcome of
this legal proceeding or whether an adverse result in this case
would have a material adverse impact on our operations or financial
position. We believe we have meritorious defenses and intend to
defend this matter vigorously."

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes
footwear for men, women, and children; and performance footwear for
men and women under the Skechers GO brand worldwide. It operates
through three segments: Domestic Wholesale Sales, International
Wholesale Sales, and Retail Sales. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. was
founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Manhattan Beach,
California.


SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Hartsock Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, Glen Hartsock
v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

Olutayo Ayeni v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (Filed
September 21, 2016 in the United States District Court, Central
District of California; Case No. 2:16-cv-07074) (the "Ayeni
Action") and Glen Hartsock v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et
al. (Filed September 28, 2016 in the United States District Court,
District Court of Nevada Case; No. 2:16-cv-02279-RFB-GWF) (the
"Hartsock Action").

On November 15, 2016, the Ayeni Action was transferred to the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada. The
parties have stipulated to a consolidation of the Ayeni Action with
the Hartsock Action.

These class action lawsuits allege that the company and certain of
its executive officers made false or misleading statements and
failed to disclose material facts about the company's business and
the prospects of approval for the company's New Drug Application to
the FDA for QAPZOLA in violation of Section 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.

The plaintiffs seek damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and
other unspecified equitable relief.

Spectrum said, "We believe that these claims are without merit, and
intend to vigorously defend against these claims. Furthermore, as
of March 31, 2019, the value of a potential settlement cannot be
reasonably estimated given its highly uncertain nature."

Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. develops and commercializes oncology
and hematology drug products. he company was formerly known as
NeoTherapeutics, Inc. and changed its name to Spectrum
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in December 2002. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. was founded in 1987 and is headquartered in Henderson,
Nevada.


SWAN FINANCIAL: Guillory Seeks OT, Minimum Pay for Loan Officers
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Swan Financial
Corporation, Thomas Edward Sexton, and David Randall Raque for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Kentucky Wage
Payment Law. The case is captioned DANIEL GUILLORY, on his own
behalf and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SWAN FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, a Kentucky Profit Corporation, THOMAS EDWARD SEXTON,
Individually, and DAVID RANDALL RAQUE, Individually, Defendants,
Case No. 3:19-cv-00366-CHB (W.D. Ky., May 16, 2019). Plaintiff
Daniel Guillory alleges that the Defendants failed to pay overtime
compensation and minimum wage to him and other mortgage loan
officers.

Swan Financial Corporation is a mortgage broker with its principal
office located at 320 Whittington Pkwy Suite 106, Louisville,
Kentucky. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
     Plantation, FL 33324
     Telephone: (954) WORKERS
     Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
     E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com


TG THERAPEUTICS: Reinmann Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------
TG Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the Co-Lead Plaintiffs
in the case, Randall Reinmann v. TG Therapeutics Inc., and Michael
S. Weiss, have filed a notice seeking to voluntarily dismiss the
action in its entirety without prejudice.

In October 2018, a purported securities class action complaint was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company and one of its officers on behalf of all
shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired TG Therapeutics
common stock between June 4, 2018 and September 25, 2018.

The case was captioned Randall Reinmann v. TG Therapeutics Inc.,
and Michael S. Weiss, Case No. 1:18-cv-09104-KPF.

The complaint alleged that, throughout the Class Period, the
Company made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose various facts and circumstances regarding its UNITY-CLL
study allegedly in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

In December 2018, the Southern District appointed Co-Lead
Plaintiffs to represent the putative class, and approved their
selection of Lead Counsel.

On March 1, 2019, Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a notice with the
Southern District seeking to voluntarily dismiss the action in its
entirety without prejudice, which was so-ordered by the Southern
District the same day.

TG Therapeutics, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company
focused on the acquisition, development, and commercialization of
innovative pharmaceutical products for the treatment of cancer and
other underserved therapeutic needs. The Company is developing two
therapies targeting hematological malignancies, specifically,
relapsed, and refractory non-Hodgkins lymphoma. The company is
based in New York, New York.


THINK FINANCE: Scheff Declaration Struck from Gibbs RICO Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DARLENE GIBBS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MIKE STINSON, et
al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:18cv676 (E.D. Va.), Judge Mary
Hannan Lauck of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, Richmond Division, granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Enlargement of Time and Motion for
Jurisdictional and Venue Discoveryl and (ii) granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike.

The controversy arises out of the Defendants' involvement in an
allegedly unlawful lending operation.  The lending operation, which
the Plaintiffs describe as a "rent-a-tribe" scheme, allegedly
offered loans to them and charged interest rates ranging from 118%
to 448%.

In the case, the Plaintiffs bring claims against individuals and
entities that owned and invested in Think Finance and its
subsidiaries.  According to them, non-party Think Finance
spearheaded efforts to establish and control the three Native
American-owned lending companies at the heart of the allegedly
unlawful lending operation.  

For more than seven years, Think Finance operated a rent-a-tribe
scheme, which sought to evade the usury laws of certain states by
using the Tribes as the conduit for their loans.  The Plaintiffs
aver that Think Finance proposed the formation of the lending
operation, asking the Tribes to establish the lending companies in
their respective names.  In exchange, Think Finance agreed to
provide the infrastructure to run the lending operations, including
the software, risk management, application processing, underwriting
assistance, payment processing, and ongoing service support' for
the consumer loans.  Through this business arrangement, Think
Finance maintained control over, and derived "the vast majority of
the profits from, the lending operation.  The Plaintiffs represent
consumers who took out loans with the Tribal lending entities,
including Great Plains, Plain Green, and MobiLoans.

The Plaintiffs aver that each Defendant, in an attempt to avoid
liability, either performed a role in the lending scheme or served
as a holding company for one of the other companies.  Through their
ownership of Think Finance, the Defendants participated in the
business' key decisions, strategies, and objectives and, in return,
generated large profits from their ownership interest in Think
Finance.  They claim that the Defendants personally participated in
and oversaw the illegal lending enterprise rendering them
personally liable to consumers.

On Feb. 1, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action
Amended Complaint against the Defendants, asserting various federal
and state violations associated with the allegedly unlawful lending
operation.  The Plaintiffs pursue tes suit on behalf of Virginia
residents who entered into loan agreements with the Tribal lending
entities Plain Green, Great Plains, or MobiLoans.  They bring six
class counts, including four RICO claims, a claim for violation of
Virginia usury law, and a common law claim for unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiffs seek: (1) class certification; (2) declaratory and
injunctive relief and damages; and, (3) attorney's fees, litigation
expenses, and costs of suit.

The matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Enlargement of Time and Motion for Jurisdictional and Venue
Discovery, and the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike.  The Plaintiffs
filed the Motion for Extension and Discovery, asking the Court for
venue-related discovery.  Specifically, they seek to depose Scheff
and obtain discovery as to what he knows and how he knows it
regarding the assertions in the Scheff Declaration.  They also seek
an extension of time to respond to the Motion to Transfer until 14
days after the deposition and discovery take place, or, if the
Court denies the request for discovery, for 30 days.  The
Plaintiffs also stated that they would move to strike Scheff's
declaration, citing Virginia Rule of Professional Conduct
3.7(a)(1)17 because Mr. Scheff cannot serve as both contested fact
witness and counsel in the case.  The Defendants opposed the Motion
for Extension and Discovery, and the Plaintiffs replied.

In the Motion to Strike, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to strike the
Scheff Declaration, or in the alternative, to disqualify Scheff as
counsel for the Defendants.  On April 4, 2019, Defendants responded
in opposition to the Motion to Strike, and filed a declaration by
David F. Herman, as well as several attachments.  On April 11,
2019, the Plaintiffs replied to the Defendants' Response opposing
the Motion to Strike.

Although Judge Lauck finds that Rule 3.7 does not compel
disqualification, it provides an appropriate guiding principle
because the Scheff Declaration raises the same concerns that Rule
3.7 seeks to guard against.  Accordingly, she will exercise the
Court's inherent authority to strike the Scheff Declaration.  She
will also deny the Plaintiffs' request to depose Scheff and grant
the Plaintiffs an extension of time to respond to the Motion to
Transfer.

On the record as developed thus far, the Judge finds that Scheff
does not constitute a necessary witness, meaning Rule 3.7 does not
require the Court to disqualify Scheff at this stage of
proceedings.  Although she finds that Scheff is not a necessary
witness within the meaning of Rule 3.7, she nevertheless concludes
that the Scheff Declaration raises concerns over the integrity of
the judicial system which Rule 3.7 serves to protect.  She
therefore will exercises the Court's inherent authority to strike
the Scheff Declaration and will order continued briefing on the
pending the Defendants' Motion to Transfer the Action to the
Northern District of Texas.

For the foregoing reasons, the Judge granted the Motion to Strike,
and struck the Scheff Declaration.  Because the Judge struck the
Scheff Declaration, she denied without prejudice the Motion for
Extension and Discovery, to the extent it seeks to depose Scheff or
conduct venue-related discovery.  She granted the Plaintiffs an
extension to respond to the Motion to Transfer, as requested in the
Motion for Extension and Discovery.  An appropriate Order will
issue.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 7, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/ptZgyg from Leagle.com.

Darlene Gibbs, on behalf of themselves and all individual similarly
situated, Stephanie Edwards, on behalf of themselves and all
individual similarly situated, Lula Williams, on behalf of
themselves and all individual similarly situated, Patrick Inscho,
on behalf of themselves and all individual similarly situated &
Lawrence Mwethuku, on behalf of themselves and all individual
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew Joseph Guzzo
-- aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com -- Kelly Guzzo PLC, Casey Shannon Nash,
Kelly Guzzo PLC, Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Kelly Guzzo PLC, Craig Carley
Marchiando -- craig@clalegal.com -- Consumer Litigation Associates,
Elizabeth W. Hanes, Consumer Litigation Associates & Leonard
Anthony Bennett -- lenbennett@clalegal.com -- Consumer Litigation
Associates.

George Hengle, Tamara Price & Sherry Blackburn, Plaintiffs,
represented by Leonard Anthony Bennett, Consumer Litigation
Associates & Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Kelly Guzzo PLC.

Mike Stinson & 7HBF NO. 2, Defendants, represented by David Foster
Herman -- dherman@armstrongteasdale.com -- Armstrong Teasdale LLP,
pro hac vice, Jonathan Peter Boughrum, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, pro
hac vice, Richard Lawrence Scheff -- rlscheff@armstrongteasdale.com
-- Armstrong Teasdale LLP, pro hac vice, John Michael Erbach,
Spotts Fain PC & Maurice Francis Mullins, Spotts Fain PC.

Sequoia Capital Operations, LLC, Defendant, represented by Stephen
Douglas Hibbard, Jones Day, pro hac vice, Todd Raymond Geremia,
Jones Day, pro hac vice & William V. O'Reilly --
woreilly@jonesday.com -- Jones Day.

TCV V, L.P., Sequoia Capital Franchise Partners, L.P., Sequoia
Capital IX, L.P., Sequoia Entrepreneurs Annex Fund, L.P., Sequoia
Capital Growth III Principals Fund, LLC, Sequoia Capital Franchise
Fund, L.P., Sequoia Capital Growth Partners III, L.P., Sequoia
Capital Franchise Partners, LLC & Sequoia Capital Growth Fund III,
LP, Defendants, represented by William V. O'Reilly, Jones Day.

Linda Stinson, The Stinson 2009 Grantor Retained Annuity Trust,
Startup Capital Ventures, L.P. & Stephen Shaper, Defendants,
represented by Maurice Francis Mullins, Spotts Fain PC & John
Michael Erbach, Spotts Fain PC.


TIDELANDS HEALTH: Sawyer Asserts Medical Leave Act Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Carole Ann Sawyer, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Tidelands Health ASC, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 2:19-cv-01612-MBS-BM (D. S.C., June 4, 2019) alleges that the
Defendant violated the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993
("FMLA") by interfering with her right to take FMLA leave and by
retaliating against her for using her FMLA leave time. Plaintiff
also brings individual and class claims for unpaid wages under the
South Carolina Payment of Wages Act (SCPWA).

Plaintiff has a condition called have pseudo pheochromocytoma. This
causes her to suffer episodes of palpitations, chest pain,
headache, nausea, dizziness. The episodes have a rapid onset and
can last from a few minutes up to a few hours. Despite having this
condition, Plaintiff can and did perform the essential functions of
her job. Plaintiff submitted the required paperwork from her
physician and applied for intermittent FMLA on or about May 14,
2018. The Defendant approved Plaintiff's Intermittent FMLA leave on
May 17, 2018. FMLA Intermittent leave allowed for Plaintiff to take
leave in separate blocks of time to include leave periods from an
hour or more to several weeks. Since her FMLA leave was approved,
Plaintiff was subjected to retaliation and interference when she
attempted to exercise her right to take FMLA leave, says the
complaint.

Specifically, Plaintiff received three disciplinary actions in the
months following her approved leave and was terminated, the
complaint notes. Moreover, Plaintiff worked for Defendant with the
clear understanding and agreement by Defendant, that her
compensation would be consistent with all applicable laws,
including state and federal wage laws. However, the Defendant
seized Plaintiff's last paycheck for a medical procedure Plaintiff
had that was unrelated to her employment. The Defendants also did
not notify Plaintiff at least seven calendar days that they
intended to reduce her hourly wage from $25.51 to $7.25. The
Defendants also violated state law regarding garnishment of wages,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff Carole Ann Sawyer was employed by Defendant at the
Georgetown Memorial Hospital from approximately July of 2010 until
August 28, 2018 as a Registered Nurse ("RN").

Tidelands Health ASC, LLC, is the region's largest health care
provider, serving the Carolinas at four hospitals and more than 50
outpatient locations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Marybeth Mullaney, Esq.
     Mullaney Law
     1037-D Chuck Dawley Blvd, Suite 100
     Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
     Phone (843) 588-5587
     Fac: (843) 593-9334
     Email: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net


TIME TO EAT DINER: Thomas' Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William P. Dimitrouleas denied as moot the Plaintiff's
Motion for Preliminary Class Certification of Collective Action in
the lawsuit styled LAURA THOMAS v. TIME TO EAT DINER, INC., a
Florida for-Profit corporation, Case No. 9:19-cv-80485-WPD (S.D.
Fla.).

According to the Order, the Court has considered the Joint Notice
of Settlement filed on May 17, 2019, and is otherwise fully advised
in the premises.  The parties state that that they have reached a
settlement.  Once these documents are executed, the parties will
file the appropriate dismissal documents with the Court.

Accordingly, the Court directs the parties to file the appropriate
dismissal papers.  The Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Class
Certification of Collective Action is denied as moot.[CC]


TIVITY HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Weiner Class Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Tivity Health, 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 Court overseeing
the lawsuit by Eric Weiner has ordered the plaintiff to respond to
the substantive issues raised in the Company's motion to dismiss.

On November 20, 2017, Eric Weiner, claiming to be a stockholder of
the Company, filed a complaint on behalf of stockholders who
purchased the Company's Common Stock between February 24, 2017 and
November 3, 2017 ("Weiner Lawsuit").  

The Weiner Lawsuit was filed as a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, naming as defendants
the Company, the Company's chief executive officer, chief financial
officer and a former executive who served as both chief accounting
officer and interim chief financial officer.  

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the
Exchange Act in making false and misleading statements and
omissions related to the United Press Release. The complaint seeks
monetary damages on behalf of the purported class.  

On April 3, 2018, the Court entered an order appointing the
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System as lead
plaintiff, designated counsel for the lead plaintiff, and
established certain deadlines for the case. On June 4, 2018,
plaintiff filed a first amended complaint.

On August 3, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the first
amended complaint and a memorandum in support of a motion to
dismiss seeking dismissal on grounds that the first amended
complaint fails to plead any actionable statement or omission (the
"Motion to Dismiss").  

On March 18, 2019, the Court denied the Company's Motion to
Dismiss. On April 1, 2019, the Company filed a motion for
reconsideration asking the Court to reconsider its denial of the
Motion to Dismiss.  

On April 15, 2019, the Court ordered plaintiff to respond to the
substantive issues raised in the Company's Motion to Dismiss.

Tivity Health, Inc. provides fitness and health improvement
programs in the United States. The company was formerly known as
Healthways, Inc. and changed its name to Tivity Health, Inc. in
January 2017. Tivity Health, Inc. was founded in 1981 and is
headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee.


TRU-FLEX METAL: Adams Moves to Certify Classes of Pro-Flex Buyers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuits titled ADAMS POINTE I, L.P, ADAMS
POINTE II, L.P., BAYBERRY NORTH ASSOCIATES L.P., BETTERS REAL
ESTATE HOLDINGS, L.P., JBCO; ADAMS POINTE III, L.P. ADAMS POINTE
NORTH CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, ADAMS POINTE MASTER ASSOCIATION,
L.P., COULTER & GRAHAM, L.P., MICHAEL AND KATHLEEN BICHLER, AND
JOHN EVANS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED
v. TRU-FLEX METAL HOSE CORP., TRU-FLEX, LLC, and PRO-FLEX LLC, Case
No. 2:16-cv-00750-CB-CRE (W.D. Pa.); and TRU-FLEX METAL HOSE CORP.,
TRU-FLEX, LLC, and PRO-FLEX LLC, Third-Party Plaintiffs v. RIDGE
DEVELOPMENT CORP.; RIDGE MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPMENT CORP.; ADAMS
POINTE CONSTRUCTION CORP.; ADAMS POINTE SOUTH VILLAGE OWNERS
ASSOC., L.P.; ADAMS POINTE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION; UNIQUE
INDUSTRIAL PRODUCT COMPANY; PRO-FLEX HOLDINGS, LLC (OF TEXAS),
Third Party Defendants, ask the Court to:

   (a) certify their proposed Classes;

   (b) appoint the individually Named Plaintiffs as Class
       Representatives to the extent requested; and

   (c) appoint as Lead Class Counsel N. Scott Carpenter, Esq.,
       and Rebecca Bell-Stanton, Esq., of the firm Carpenter &
       Schumacher, P.C.

The proposed Class is defined as:

     All persons who purchased for personal, family or household
     purposes yellow Pro-Flex(R) CSST or a structure with yellow
     Pro-Flex(R) CSST in the United States between 1999 and the
     date of class certification.

The Plaintiffs seek certification of a nationwide class for Counts
I-II under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Plaintiffs propose the certification of a nationwide class in
the absence of substantial differences in the rights and interests
as to the causes of action at issue.

If the Court declines to certify a nationwide class as to these
Counts, the Plaintiffs seek to certify more limited Multi-State
Classes by grouping states into jurisdictional adoption of
designated codes and treatises:

     Implied Warranty Multi-State Class:

     All persons who purchased yellow Pro-Flex(R) CSST or a
     structure with yellow Pro-Flex(R) CSST installed in those
     jurisdictions that have adopted or codified Uniform
     Commercial Code Article 2.

     Strict Liability "Section 402A" Multi-State Class:

     All persons who purchased yellow Pro-Flex(R) CSST or a
     structure with yellow Pro-Flex(R) CSST installed in those
     jurisdictions that have adopted or codified Restatement
     (Second) of Torts Section 402A.

If the Court should determine not to certify a nationwide or
multi-state class action, then in the alternative, the Plaintiffs
seek certification of a Pennsylvania-only class as to these same
causes of action.

The Plaintiffs further seek certification of a Pennsylvania-only
class for Counts III-IV allegations involving common law negligence
and Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection
Law:

     Pennsylvania-only Class:

     All persons who purchased for personal, family or household
     purposes yellow Pro-Flex(R) CSST or a structure with yellow
     Pro-Flex(R) CSST in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
     ("Pennsylvania Consumer Class").

The Plaintiffs seek the exclusion of the specified persons and/or
entities from the proposed class membership.

To the extent that future responsive briefing may challenge the
consideration of the evidentiary record, the Plaintiffs request an
opportunity to address such evidentiary objections in the form of
limited trial briefs to the extent requested by the Court.  The
Plaintiffs assert that they are prepared to present a preliminary
proposal regarding the trial plan of this action as a class, and
further to address same through argument and authority by summary
compendiums of law at such time as the Court deems
appropriate.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          N. Scott Carpenter, Esq.
          Rebecca Bell-Stanton, Esq.
          CARPENTER & SCHUMACHER, P.C.
          Parkway Centre IV
          2701 N. Dallas Parkway, Suite 570
          Plano, TX 75093
          Telephone: (972) 403-1133
          Facsimile: (972) 403-0311
          E-mail: scarpenter@cstriallaw.com
                  rstanton@cstriallaw.com

               - and -

          D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
          ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          707 Grant Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (866) 273-1941
          Facsimile: (412) 281-4229
          E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com

Defendants Tru-Flex, LLC and Tru-Flex Metal Hose Corp. are
represented by:

          Daniel R. Bentz, Esq.
          Thomas M. Pie, Jr., Esq.
          MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY, P.C.
          One Penn Center, Suite 1010
          1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 564-6688
          E-mail: DBentz@moodklaw.com
                  tpie@moodklaw.com

Defendant Pro-Flex, LLC, is represented by:

          Daniel J. Offenbach, Esq.
          Thomas A. Gamache, Esq.
          LEAHY, EISENBERG & FRAENKEL, LTD.
          33 W. Monroe Street, Suite 1100
          Chicago, IL 60603-5317
          Telephone: (312) 368-4554
          Facsimile: (312) 368-4562
          E-mail: djo@lefltd.com
                  tag@lefltd.com

Third-Party Defendants Unique Industrial Product Co., L.P. and
Pro-Flex Holdings, LLC, are represented by:

          H. Miles Cohn, Esq.
          CRAIN, CATON & JAMES, P.C.
          Five Houston Center, 17th Floor
          1401 McKinney, Suite 1700
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 658-2323
          Facsimile: (713) 658-1921
          E-mail: mcohn@craincaton.com

               - and -

          Stephen E. Geduldig, Esq.
          PION, NERONE, GIRMAN, WINSLOW & SMITH, P.C.
          Payne Shoemaker Building
          240 North Third Street, 10th Floor
          Harrisburg, PA 17101
          Telephone: (717) 745-8725
          Facsimile: (717) 737-5553
          E-mail: sgeduldig@pionlaw.com

               - and -

          Timothy R. Smith, Esq.
          Julie A. Brennan, Esq.
          PION, NERONE, GIRMAN, WINSLOW & SMITH, P.C.
          1500 One Gateway Center
          420 Fort Duquesne Boulevard
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 281-2288
          Facsimile: (412) 281-3388
          E-mail: tsmith@pionlaw.com
                  jbrennan@pionlaw.com


UNITED STATES: Kowalski Suit Transferred to C.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Robert M. Kowalski and all other
Federal Detainees of Jerome Combs Detention Center of Kankakee
County similarly situated v. United States Marshall, Case No.
1:19-cv-02800, was transferred on May 16, 2019, from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of Illinois (Peoria).

The Central District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-02130-CSB to the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as prisoner petitions - prison
conditions.

Mr. Kowalski, who is currently a federal detainee of Jerome Combs
Detention Center, in Kankakee County, Illinois, appears pro
se.[BN]


UNITED STATES: Passut Sues Dept. of Education Over ACICS Fiasco
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARK PASSUT, and MARK KAISER, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BETSY DEVOS, in her
official capacity as U.S. Secretary of Education, and U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01606 (D.
D.C., June 3, 2019) is an action on behalf of Plaintiffs, pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2), on behalf of a
Class of all persons to whom the Department of Education issued
loans to pay tuition or other expenses at schools owned or operated
by Education Corporation of America ("ECA").

This case involves Secretary Betsy DeVos's decision on behalf of
the Department of Education to cast aside law and governing
regulations to put the Accrediting Council of Independent Colleges
and Schools (ACICS), a troubled accreditor of predatory for-profit
colleges, back in business--to the detriment of students and their
families. Two of those students were Mr. Passut and Mr. Kaiser, who
attended ACICS-accredited Virginia College in Fall 2018 when,
absent the Secretary's unlawful decision, the school would have
lost its accreditation and its eligibility to participate in
federal student aid programs. As has been the case with other
schools that ACICS accredited, Virginia College collapsed before
the end of the term, preventing Mr. Passut and Mr. Kaiser, and
their fellow students, from finishing their coursework but saddling
them with substantial student loan debt.

ACICS's relationship with Virginia College continued its pattern of
accrediting many of the nation's worst for-profit colleges,
including campuses of the since-collapsed Corinthian Colleges and
ITT Educational Services chains. Accreditation is essential to any
educational institution: along with serving as a marker of the
institution's quality and legitimacy, it is a prerequisite to
receiving federal student aid money. In December 2016, after a
painstaking review of ACICS's performance by Department staff and
an independent panel, then-Secretary of Education John King
withdrew ACICS's recognition as an accreditor in light of its
"pervasive noncompliance" with federal requirements. As a result,
colleges accredited by ACICS had 18 months to find a new
accreditor; if they failed to do so, they would become ineligible
for federal student aid and the Department would be prohibited from
issuing loans to students to pay tuition and expenses to attend
them.

On April 3, 2018, however, Secretary DeVos issued a two-page order
purporting to render Secretary King's decision null and void,
notwithstanding that just one month beforehand, Department staff
had found that ACICS remained non-compliant with the majority of
the accreditor recognition criteria. Even though the Court remanded
without vacating the Department's decision, Secretary DeVos used
the Court's order as a pretext to sweep the decision away entirely.
Secretary DeVos's decision ignored fundamental principles of
administrative law and, just as importantly, failed to consider the
interests of students who might be misled into enrolling at ACICS
accredited schools while the Department took its time considering
whether to again recognize ACICS, says the complaint.

The Defendants' decision had predictably devastating consequences
for thousands of students. The April 2018 re-recognition of ACICS
meant that colleges accredited by ACICS did not need to convince a
different accreditor of their viability. This included 70 schools
operated by Education Corporation of America (ECA), including its
Virginia College chain. At the time Secretary DeVos reversed
ACICS's derecognition, no other accreditor would accredit Virginia
College. Virginia College sought accreditation from a different
accreditor, the Accrediting
Council for Continuing Education & Training (ACCET), but ACCET
found in May 2018 that its schools did not meet federal standards
and showed signs of collapse. However, due to the Secretary's April
2018 decision, Virginia College was able to turn back to ACICS to
provide accreditation. Virginia College, therefore, continued
enrolling students for the fall--and the Department continued to
issue debt to those students. But the Department's unlawful
reprieve was short-lived: in December 2018, before the term was
completed, Virginia College shut its doors, leaving students with
thousands of dollars in debt and nothing in exchange.

When Virginia College and ECA's other schools abruptly closed,
students were unable to earn the credits for which they had worked
and paid, but their debt remained. In other words, Defendants'
decision gave Virginia College a lifeline that no accreditor
properly recognized by the Department could or would provide--and
left Plaintiffs with debts for the Fall 2018 term that they should
not and do not properly owe, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs studied to become occupational therapy assistants at
Virginia College prior to its closure in December 2018.

Betsy DeVos is sued in her official capacity as U.S. Secretary of
Education.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Eric Rothschild, Esq.
     Alexander S. Elson, Esq.
     National Student Legal Defense Network
     1015 15th Street NW, Suite 600
     Washington, DC 20005
     Phone: (202) 734-7495
     Email: eric@nsldn.org
            alex@nsldn.org

          - and -

     John Lewis, Esq.
     Jeffrey B. Dubner, Esq.
     Javier M. Guzman, Esq.
     Democracy Forward Foundation
     1333 H Street NW
     Washington, DC 20005
     Phone: (202) 448-9090
     Email: jlewis@democracyforward.org
            jdubner@democracyforward.org
            jguzman@democracyforward.org


UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Judge Scola Recuses Himself from Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cory Doctorow, writing for boingboing, reports that US District
Judge Robert N Scola recused himself from a class action suit
against Unitedhealthcare that alleges that Unitedhealthcare denied
them promising proton beam cancer treatments by falsely claiming
that they were "experimental."

In his recusal, Scola revealed that he was a prostate cancer
survivor who was cornered into accepting surgical prostate removal
because his own insurer refused the proton beam treatments his
doctors recommended; he also discussed a friend whom
Unitedhealthcare denied coverage to, presenting him with the
prospect of a $150,000 bill (the friend successfully sued
Unitedhealthcare).

The judge closed by calling Unitedhealthcare's refusal to cover
proton beam therapy "immoral" and "barbaric."

The untenability of America's private, for-profit health-care
system grows more manifest by the day, as more and more people are
radicalized by the prospect of their own deaths and the deaths of
those they love best in the world, at the hands of a bureaucratic
death-panel run by an insurer whose execs and investors rake in
millions by literally killing their customers. My latest book has a
story in it about men in this situation who seek comfort on
message-boards and end up egging themselves into murdering health
care execs, lobbyists and their friendly lawmakers. I don't know
that such a thing would ever happen, but reading the judge's
remarks certainly suggests that we're closer than we suspected to
it.

The federal judge made his comments in response to a class-action
lawsuit brought by Richard Cole, a cancer survivor and prominent
Miami attorney. Cole was 70 when he was diagnosed with advanced
prostate cancer in April 2018. "The first concern you have is: Am I
going to die?" Cole said.

He said he consulted with his team of doctors at the Miami Cancer
Institute and with others at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer
Center in New York. The consensus, he said, was that he needed
proton beam therapy.

But he said he soon learned his treatment was being delayed because
UnitedHealthcare refused to cover it. He paid the $85,000
out-of-pocket to undergo treatment as soon as possible while his
attorneys appealed his denial.

"When delays occur because of bureaucracy," Cole said, "it gets you
angry and upset." [GN]


VAN RU CREDIT: Horvath Sues over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Van Ru Credit
Corporation for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Act. The
case is captioned HORVATH v. VAN RU CREDIT CORPORATION et al., Case
No. 1:19-cv-12569-RMB-KMW (D.N.J., May 16, 2019). This consumer
credit-related case is assigned to Hon. Judge Renee Marie Bumb.

Van Ru Credit Corporation provides accounts receivable management
services in a wide range of industries, including: education,
energy, financial services, government, healthcare, and
telecommunications. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Paul Force, Esq.
     STEIN SAKS, PLLC
     285 Passaic Street
     Hackensack, NJ 07601
     Telephone: (201) 282-6500
     Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
     E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com


VENATOR MATERIALS: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Venator Materials PLC 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 class action suits related to its initial public offering
(IPO).

On February 8, 2019, the company, certain of its executive
officers, Huntsman and certain banks who acted as underwriters in
connection with the company's initial public offering (IPO) and
secondary offering were named as defendants in a proposed class
action civil suit filed in the District Court for the State of
Texas, Dallas County by an alleged purchaser of the company's
ordinary shares in connection with its IPO on August 3, 2017 and
its secondary offering on December 1, 2017.

The plaintiff, Macomb County Employees' Retirement System, alleges
that inaccurate and misleading statements were made regarding the
impact to our operations, and prospects for restoration thereof,
resulting from the fire that occurred at the company's Pori,
Finland manufacturing facility, among other allegations.

Additional complaints making substantially the same allegations
were filed in the Dallas District Court by the Firemen's Retirement
System of St. Louis on March 4, 2019 and by Oscar Gonzalez on March
13, 2019, with the third case naming two of the company's directors
as additional defendants.

The first two of the three cases have been consolidated into a
single action, and the company expects the third to be consolidated
with them as well. The plaintiffs seek to determine that the
proceeding should be certified as a class action and to obtain
alleged compensatory damages, costs, rescission and equitable
relief.

Venator said, "We may be required to indemnify our executive
officers and directors, Huntsman, and the banks who acted as
underwriters in our IPO and secondary offerings, for losses
incurred by them in connection with these matters pursuant to our
agreements with such parties. Because of the early stage of this
litigation, we are unable to reasonably estimate any possible loss
or range of loss and we have not accrued for a loss contingency
with regard to this matter."

Venator Materials PLC manufactures and markets chemical products
worldwide. It operates through two segments, Titanium Dioxide and
Performance Additives. The company was founded in 2017 and is
headquartered in Stockton-On-Tees, the United Kingdom.


VISION PRECISION HOLDINGS: Martinez Faces Labor Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed by
Mayreli Martinez against Vision Precision Holdings, LLC. The case
is captioned MARTINEZ vs. VISION PRECISION HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No.
BCV-19-101374 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty., May 17, 2019). It is
assigned to Hon. Judge Stephen D. Schuett.

Founded in 2006, Vision Precision Holdings, LLC owns and operates
optical retail stores under the brand names, Stanton Optical and My
Eyelab. The company is headquartered in Palm Springs, Florida.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

David T. Mara, Esq.
MARA LAW FIRM
2650 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 205
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (619) 275-7429


VOYA RETIREMENT: Bid to Drop Goetz Class Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9,
2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the
motion to dismiss the amended complaint in Goetz v. Voya Financial
and Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company, is still
pending.

A putative class action Goetz v. Voya Financial and Voya Retirement
Insurance and Annuity Company (USDC District of Delaware, No.
1:17-cv-1289) (filed September 8, 2017), in which plaintiff, a
participant in a 401(k) plan, seeks to represent other participants
in the plan as well as a class of similarly situated plans that
"contract with (Voya) for recordkeeping and other services."

Plaintiff alleges that "Voya" breached its fiduciary duty to the
plan and other plan participants by charging unreasonable and
excessive recordkeeping fees, and that "Voya" distributed
materially false and misleading 404a-5 administrative and fund fee
disclosures to conceal its excessive fees.

The Company denies the allegations, which it believes are without
merit, and intends to defend the case vigorously.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 4, 2018, and the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint of February
8, 2018.

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

Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company, together with its
subsidiaries, operates as a stock life insurance company in the
United States. The company was formerly known as ING Life Insurance
and Annuity Company and changed its name to Voya Retirement
Insurance and Annuity Company in September 2014. The company is
based in Windsor, Connecticut. Voya Retirement Insurance and
Annuity Company operates as a subsidiary of Voya Institutional Plan
Services, LLC.


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Ayala Suit Moved From S.D. Texas to D. Arizona
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled NICHOLAS AYALA, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. WASTE MANAGEMENT OF
ARIZONA, INC., Case No. 4:19-cv-00196, was transferred on May 16,
2019, from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
(Phoenix Division).

The Arizona District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-03135-DWL to the proceeding.

The lawsuit seeks to recover compensation, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs under Sections 207 and 216(b) of the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, and the Arizona Wage
Act.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Clifton Alexander, Esq.
          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
          Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq.
          Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
          George Schimmel, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  austin@a2xlaw.com
                  lauren@a2xlaw.com
                  cgordon@a2xlaw.com
                  carter@a2xlaw.com
                  geordie@a2xlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew J. Ruza, Esq.
          Abby L. Bochenek, Esq.
          John Anthony Ybarra, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          321 N Clark St., Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 795-3274
          Facsimile: (312) 372-7880
          E-mail: mruza@littler.com
                  abochenek@littler.com
                  jybarra@littler.com

               - and -

          Leila C. Clewis, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          1301 McKinney St., Suite 1900
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 652-4755
          E-mail: lclewis@littler.com


WELTMAN WEINBERG: Gardner Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Weltman, Weinberg &
Reis Co., LPA for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Act. The
case is captioned GARDNER v. WELTMAN, WEINBERG & REIS CO., LPA et
al, Case No. 5:19-cv-02179-CFK (E.D. Pa., May 16, 2019). This
consumer credit-related lawsuit is assigned to Hon. Judge Chad F.
Kenney.

Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A. is a debt collection law firm
headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio. The firm provides collection
services and legal representation to the creditors. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert P. Cocco, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT P. COCCO PC
     1500 Walnut St., Ste 900
     Philadelphia, PA 19102
     Telephone: (215) 351-0200
     Facsimile: (215) 922-3874
     E-mail: rcocco@rcn.com


WESLEY APARTMENT: Seeks 11th Cir. Review of Ruling in Whelan Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Avila Real Estate, LLC, Turner Hill Partners, LLC and
Wesley Apartment Homes, LLC, filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Ryan Whelan v. Wesley Apartment Homes, LLC, et
al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00235-SCJ, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Defendants
removed the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of
Georgia, County of Gwinnett (Case No. 18A70827) to the District
Court on January 11, 2019.

Euramex Management Group, LLC, doing business as Wesley Apartment
Homes, LLC, engages in the investment, development, construction,
and management of real estate properties. The company focuses on
the acquisition of existing properties and development of new
apartment communities. It owns and operates various apartment units
in the metro Atlanta area.  The Company was founded in 1981 and is
based in Atlanta, Georgia.

The appellate case is captioned as Wesley Apartment Homes, LLC, et
al. v. Ryan Whelan, Case No. 19-90005, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent RYAN WHELAN, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Naveen Ramachandrappa, Esq.
          Michael B. Terry, Esq.
          BONDURANT MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP
          1201 W Peachtree St. NW, Suite 3900
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 881-4151
          E-mail: ramachandrappa@bmelaw.com
                  terry@bmelaw.com

Defendants-Petitioners WESLEY APARTMENT HOMES, LLC, f.k.a. Euramex
Management Group, LLC, AVILA REAL ESTATE, LLC, and TURNER HILL
PARTNERS, LLC, are represented by:

          Michael Paul Bruyere, Esq.
          FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP
          100 Galleria Pkwy. SE, Suite 1600
          Atlanta, GA 30009
          Telephone: (770) 818-0000
          Facsimile: (770) 937-9960
          E-mail: mbruyere@fmglaw.com

               - and -

          Arash Ali Sabzevari, Esq.
          FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP
          661 Forest Parkway, Suite E
          Forest Park, GA 30297
          Telephone: (404) 366-1000
          Facsimile: (404) 361-3223
          E-mail: asabzevari@fmglaw.com


WOOD-MODE: Faces Class Action Over WARN Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Marcia Moore, writing for The Daily Item, reports that hundreds of
former Wood-Mode workers are facing the first week with mounting
uncertainty following the sudden closure of the manufacturing
plant.

"I'm feeling like there are less answers," said Melinda Stuck, a
Beavertown mother of two college-aged children who was laid off
from the job she'd held for 25 years.

To help ease some of the financial burden, agencies ranging from
Geisinger to local food pantries are offering assistance to the 938
laid-off workers, many of whom were employed for decades at the
77-year-old plant.

Tammy Heeter, a 59-year-old Beavertown woman who worked there 20
years, is visiting many of those agencies for advice and aid.

"I don't even have a resume," she said.

Even before Wood-Mode informed the displaced workers in an
automated text on May 17 that all health and welfare insurance
would cease by midnight that day Geisinger and Family Practice
Center representatives were reaching out with offers of help.

Customer care specialists will be available at the Susquehanna
Valley Mall at a temporary, walk-in clinic Geisinger has set up for
GHP members beginning on May 20 through June 1 from 8:30 a.m. to 5
p.m. Monday through Friday and 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Saturday. They
will also be available on Memorial Day -- Monday, May 27 - from
10:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.

The health system will also offer career guidance to all displaced
Wood-Mode employees at events throughout the Valley.

Family Practice Center put out a notice on its Facebook page that
it would also be offering assistance to anyone whose insurance has
been terminated.

"We know healthcare and insurance can be confusing especially when
you are faced with changes you have never had to worry about before
like losing your health insurance. Please know that we are here for
you," the online statement said.

Area certified financial planners like Joshua Knauss, CEO of
Omniwealth Group and John M. Machak, an investment advisor from The
Wealth Factory, both of Lewisburg, are offering free financial
counseling to former Wood-Mode employees and at least three firms
have filed federal class-action lawsuits against the company for
possible violation of the WARN Act that requires businesses give
employees at least 60-day notice of a shutdown in most cases.

Stuck said she's already started poring over her household budget
looking for areas to cut.

On May 19, she visited St. Peter's Lutheran Church in Kreamer where
Geisinger human services representatives were available to help
employees write a new resume.

"I'll be going to the job fairs, too," said Stuck.

A job fair at the VFW in Selinsgrove on May 15 from 1 p.m. to 5
p.m. was scheduled prior to Wood-Mode's abrupt closure and has more
than 65 businesses taking part.

Another job fair exclusively for former Wood-Mode employees will be
held June 3 and the Union-Snyder Community Action Agency has a
listing of available jobs in manufacturing, health care,
construction and other fields from 100 mostly Valley businesses.

Snyder County Coalition for Kids and students from the Midd-West
High School's DECA and Student Council are looking to raise $7,500
over the next two weeks and with the help of a private donor who
has offered to match it, will be using the money to help families
in the Midd-West and Selinsgrove school districts impacted by
Wood-Mode's closure.

Requests for financial assistance may be made through the Midd-West
School District messenger app or with the
address:webmaster@mwsd.cc.

Snyder County Commissioner Joe Kantz said the widespread support
has been heartwarming and in contrast with the silence coming from
Wood-Mode owners Robert and Brooks Gronlund.

Kantz said he spoke with one New England dealer over the weekend
who is waiting on $150,000 worth of product from Wood-Mode that he
was supposed to collect on May 16.

That dealer told him that all he's been told is that Wood-Mode
would be "in touch." [GN]



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***