CAR_Public/190621.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, June 21, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 124

                            Headlines

321 HENDERSON: Pennsylvania Court Trims Claims in Dockery Suit
3M COMPANY: Hill Suit Transferred to Northern District of Florida
3M COMPANY: Johnson Suit Transferred to Northern Dist. of Florida
3M COMPANY: Johnston Suit Transferred to Northern Dist. of Florida
A-1 HEALTH CARE: Does not Pay Overtime Wages, Burson Suit Says

ADP SCREENING: Fifer Sues Over FCRA Violation
ALEXIS BITTAR: Delacruz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
ALJ REGIONAL: Bid to Remand Marshall Class Suit Granted
ALTERNATIVE BEHAVIOR STRATEGIES: Vega Seeks Overtime Pay
AMERICAN HONDA: Carroll Files Class Action Over Defective Airbags

AMPCO-PITTSBURGH: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for July 22
ANOVOS PRODUCTIONS: Dalton Sues over Upfront Charges
AO SMITH CORP: Bleier Sues over Artificially Inflated Revenues
APPLE INC: Faces Class Suit from App Developers
AQUANTIA CORP: Carter Balks at Merger Deal with Marvell Technology

ART VAN FURNITURE: Reid Files Suit Over ADA Violations
BA&SH AMERICA: Website not Accessible to Blind Person, Diaz Says
BARING BDC: Triangle Capital Corp. Securities Suit Ongoing
BE AMAZED: Has Until June 24 to Respond to Lynch Suit
BELHURST ESTATE: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

BIO-KEY INT'L: Hayes Sues over Collection of Biometrics Data
BODY FIRM: Bunting Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
BOX INC: Duvnjak Files Suit Over Share Price Drop
BOXY CHARM: Vasquez-Cossio Sues Over Automatic Renewal of Services
CAMPING WORLD: Bid to Dismiss Geis Class Action Underway

CAMPING WORLD: Bid to Dismiss IUOE Complaint Pending
CAMPING WORLD: Ronge & Strougo Suit Underway in Illinois
CBL & ASSOCIATES: $88,150 Litigation Expense in Salon Adrian's Suit
CENTURYLINK INC: Continues to Defend Houser Class Action
CENTURYLINK INC: Objector's Appeal in Tomasulo Settlement Underway

CHICAGO BOARD: Judge Dismisses Index Manipulation Claims
CHICAGO INSURANCE: Abramson Sues over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
CINEMARK USA: Settlement Agreement in Brown Suit Has Initial OK
CITIBANK N.A.: Akbar Sues over Unsolicited Cellular Phone Calls
CLECO CORP: Exception Of No Cause of Action & Res Judicata Denied

CLOUDERA INC: Christie Sues Over Share Price Drop
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Olsen Sues over Spam Text Messages
CREATIVE BIOSCIENCE: Bauman Sues over Garcinia Cambogia Diet Pills
CREE INC: Young's Class Cert. Bid Denied; Compliance Hearing Today
DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Asks Court to Transfer Suits to N.D. Illinois

DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on Aug. 20
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Antitrust Class Action
EBIX INC: Settlement of Stockholders Litigation Has Final Approval
EDCO DISPOSAL: Fuentes Seeks Minimum Wage & and Overtime Pay
ELBIT IMAGING: Court Declares Gadish Settlement Final

EMCOR SERVICES: Persaud Seeks Unpaid Wages Under NYLL
EQUIFAX INC: Appeal in Saskatchewan Cybersecurity Suit Underway
EQUIFAX INC: Consolidated Securities Class Suit in Georgia Ongoing
EQUIFAX INC: Data Breach Suits in Georgia Underway
EQUIFAX INC: Preliminary Approval of Thomas Case Settlement Sought

ESSA BANCORP: Appellate Court Remands Suit over RESPA Violations
EVOQUA WATER: McWilliams Class Action Re-Captioned
FACEBOOK INC: Awaits Decision on Data Breach Class Action
FICOHSA EXPRESS: Coello Suit Asserts TCPA Breach
FIFTH THIRD: Appeal in Early Access Cash Advance Lawsuit Ongoing

FIFTH THIRD: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Nov. 7
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Thompson Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
FIRST AMERICAN: Barajases Sue over Data Breach
FIRST SOURCE: Ulrich Sues Over Illegal Collection Activities
FORD MOTOR: Dawson Files Product Liability Suit in E.D. Michigan

FORD MOTOR: Hubert Files Suit Over Erroneous Fuel Economy Ratings
GAMESTOP CORP: Baker Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
GEICO INDEMNITY: Jimenez Files Class Action in Connecticut
GENIE ENERGY: IDT Energy Still Defends Mackey & Hernandez Suit
GENIE ENERGY: Says Remaining Class Action Liability Totals $400,000

GOLDEN EMPIRE: Coffman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
GOPRO INC: Settlement in N.D. Cal. Class Suit Wins Preliminary OK
GOPRO INC: Shareholders Won't File Amended Complaint
H.E.B. INC: Cung Seeks Damages for Unpaid Wages
HARTFORD CASUALTY: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Class Action

HARTZ HOTEL: Murtadha Seeks Minimum Pay, Withheld Gratuities
HEALTH INSURANCE: Mislead Consumers, Belin Suit Says
HECLA MINING: Continues to Defend Lawson Class Suit
ICU MEDICAL: Bid to Dismiss Saline Solution-Related Suit Pending
IMPERIAL GUARD: Faces Sharp Suit in Western District of Tennessee

INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Settlement Reached in New York Class Suit
INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Still Defends Di Donato Class Action
INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Trial in Opioid-Related Suits to Begin October
INTELEMEDIA COMMS: Cunningham Sues over Telemarketing Calls
INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Bid to Dismiss Connecticut Class Suit Pending

INTERMOLECULAR INC: Franchi Sues over False Proxy Statements
J & J SNACK: Botello Sues over Collection of Biometric Identifiers
JONES FINANCIAL: Bland Discrimination Class Suit Ongoig
JONES FINANCIAL: Consolidated McDonald Suit Concluded
JONES FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Anderson Class Action

JONES FINANCIAL: Wins Dismissal of Bland FLSA Class Action
JORDAN'S FURNITURE: Donlan Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
JPMORGAN CHASE: Settles Dads' Parental-Leave Class Action for $5MM
LA RUTA 75: De La Ossa Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
LG ELECTRONICS: Bentley Brings Suit Over Defective Refrigerators

LION RAISINS: Summary Judgment Rulings in Mason Upheld
LVNV FUNDING: Misreported Interests & Fees, Howard et al. Claim
LYFT INC: Oliver Suit Transferred to Southern District of Georgia
MCDONALD'S USA: Refused to Pay Minimum Wages for Service Crew
MDL 2492: Banks Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated

MDL 2492: Boose Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Chipps Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Miolen Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Proebstle Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2672: Settlement in ASHERS Clean Diesel Suit Has Final Approval

MDL 2741: Salah v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Shockey v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2804: Suit by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of LA Ongoing
MERCOLA.COM: Brown Files Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing
MONSANTO COMPANY: Ibroms Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Nightingale Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Thompson Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Wauters Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
NABRIVA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Enriquez Securities Class Suit
NATERA INC: Appeal from IPO Case Decision Still Pending

NATERA INC: Faces TCPA Class Action in N.D. California
NATIONAL VISION: De La Cruz Suit Asserts FCRA Violation
NCAA: Grant Sues over Grand Valley State Student-Athletes' Safety
NEW INDUSTRIES: Court Narrows Claims in Lawrence FLSA Suit
NIGHTSTAR THERAPEUTICS: Wheby Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed

NOVA LIFESTYLE: Continues to Defend Barney Class Action
NOVATION COMPANIES: Appeal in NJ Carpenters' Suit Still Pending
NOVUS THERAPEUTICS: Discovery to be Completed by July 12
ORCHIDS OF ASIA: Class Action Over Video Recordings Pending
PAPA MURPHY'S: Brown Files Securities Class Action in Wash.

PETEYS LIC: Hernandez Seeks Minimum & OT Pay for Restaurant Staff
PINNACLE FOODS: Hawaii Court Narrows Claims in Amended Maeda Suit
POPULAR INC: Awaits New Briefing Schedule in Camacho Suit
POPULAR INC: Bid for Reconsideration in Maura Class Suit Pending
POPULAR INC: Court to Rule on Validity of Endorsement in "Torres"

POPULAR INC: Status and Settlement Conference Set for Oct. 22
PRO AM AUTOS: Does Not Pay Overtime, Hawkins et al Say
PROTECTIVE LIFE: Advance Trust Suit in Alabama Ongoing
PROVIDENT TRUST: Response to First Amended Murray Suit Due June 21
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Fernandez Sues over Data Breach

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Grauberger Sues over Personal Medical Info
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Mayer Sues over Data Breach
QUORUM HEALTH: Discovery Ongoing in Suit v. Watsonville Community
QUORUM HEALTH: Discovery Ongoing in Zwick Partners Class Suit
R. CARTER PATE: Schmidt Sues Board for Breach of Fiduciary Duties

RA MEDICAL SYSTEMS: Derr Sues Over Share Price Drop
RADIUS HOLDINGS: Eilbacher Sues over Debt Collection Practices
RECRO PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss IV Meloxicam-Related Suit Pending
REDBOX AUTOMATED: Ebanks Files Suit Over Spam Messages
REGULUS THERAPEUTICS: Polat Class Action Ongoing

RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS: Foster Seeks OT Wages for Sales Reps
REYNOLDS MACHINE: Rounds Off Work Time & Avoids OT Pay, Abukar Says
ROLEX WATCH USA: Gabriyelian Sues over ADA Violations
ROUND SKY: Made Unauthorized Phone Calls, Bezdikian Suit Says
SERVICE LIGHTING: Reid Files Suit Over ADA Violations

SIGNAL HILL: Virtual Auditors, Inspectors Seek Overtime Pay
SIGNATURE FLIGHT: Boddie Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Continues to Defend 22 Price-Fixing Class Suits
SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Komito Class Action Suit Re-Captioned
SPARK THERAPEUTICS: Defending Against Suits over Roche Merger

STERLING JEWELERS: Berg Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
SUN LIFE: Glidewell Sues over Denial of Disability Benefits
SWITCH INC: Bid to Dismiss Cai Class Action Pending
T-MOBILE USA: Persichetti Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
TARGET CORPORATION: Montgomery Sues Over Unpaid Wages

TAUNTON PRESS: Sued for Automatic-Renewal of Magazine Subscriptions
TELIGENT INC: Bid to Dismiss Econazole Antitrust Suit Pending
TELIGENT INC: Continues to Defend Mo-Kan Iron Workers Class Suit
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces 2 Shareholder Class Actions
TIFFANY & CO: Gabriyelian Sues over ADA Violations

TRIBUNE MEDIA: Antitrust Suits over TV Ad Rates Consolidated
TRIBUNE MEDIA: Bid to Dismiss Arbitrage Event-Driven Suit Pending
TUBBY TODD BATH: Shami Sues Over Deceptive Product Ads
TUPAZ HOMES: Cevallos Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
TWILIO INC: Settlement in Flowers Suit Wins Final Court Approval

TWO BROTHERS: Illegally Retained Tips, Branch Claims
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Refuses to Approve Settlement
UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Mulls Bid to Dismiss New York Suit
UMA EDUCATION: Aylor Sues Over Illegal Use of Consumer Reports
UNITED STATES: Inmates Hit Solitary Confinement, Lack of Med. Care

VICE MEDIA: Website not Accessible to Deaf People, Jones Says
VIRTU FINANCIAL: Faces Bittner and Mareno Class Suits
VIRTU FINANCIAL: Faces Ford Class Action in New York
VIRTU FINANCIAL: Retirement Fund's Suit Still Ongoing
VOLKSWAGEN: Parrish Sues Over Vehicle Transmission Defects

W14 MARKET: Washington Sues over Time Shaving Violation
WASHINGTON MTA: Harriott et al. Allege Discriminatory Termination
WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Discovery Still Ongoing in Shanklin Suit
WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Discovery Underway in Pressley Suit
WLP EXECUTIVE: Does not Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Bird Suit Says

ZEE.DOG LLC: Fischler Says Web Site Not Accessible to Blind
ZF TRW: Deadline of Copley Class Suit Reply Continued to July 1
ZION OIL: Bid to Dismiss Texas Class Suit Underway

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4 Asbestos Cases Filed in Calif. Court on May 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found After Senior Living Complex Fire
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 31,840 Claims Pending at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Has $5.7MM Liability at Mar. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defendants Get Negative Ruling from Pa. Court

ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Makes Action Plan for B.F. Goodrich Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FDA Finds Asbestos in More Claire's Cosmetics
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Still Defends PL Lawsuits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Still Faces Lawsuits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: HII Still Defends PI Claims at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hospital Worker Wins GBP235K Payout
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Remains Obliged to Indemnify Xylem at Mar. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Suit Sent Back to Mass. State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Deliberating in Calif. Woman's Talc Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Has $889,000 Liability at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Still Defends Claims at April 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NHS Employees Exposed to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: OI Inc. Accrues $5-Bil. in 1993-2019 Period
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp., Units Still Face Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Defends 1,070 Suits at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chemical Unit Defends Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: San Diego Firefighters Exposed to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Has 30 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Faces 12,594 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $1.2-Bil. Liability at March 31



                            *********

321 HENDERSON: Pennsylvania Court Trims Claims in Dockery Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LARRY G. DOCKERY, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. STEPHEN E. HERETICK, et al.,
Defendants, And NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Nominal
Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-4114 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Michael M.
Baylson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Class Action Complaint.

An oral argument on the Motions was held on Feb. 19, 2019.

Judge Baylson (i) denied the Defendants' Motions as to Counts I,
II, III, IV, and V; and (ii) granted the Defendants' Motions as to
Counts VI, VII, and VIII.  He dismissed without prejudice the
Plaintiff's claims under Counts VI, VII, and VIII.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 14, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/MExu2L from Leagle.com.

LARRY G. DOCKERY, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by JEROME M. MARCUS --
jmarcus@marcusauerbach.com -- MARCUS & AUERBACH LLC, JONATHAN
AUERBACH -- auerbach@marcusauerbach.com -- MARCUS & AUERBACH LLC,
DAVID S. PEGNO -- dpegno@dpklaw.com -- DEWEY PEGNO & KRAMARSKY LLP,
LEE LARSON HULSEBUS -- lhulsebus@dpklaw.com -- DEWEY PEGNO &
KRAMARSKY LLP & THOMAS E.L. DEWEY -- tdewey@dpklaw.com -- DEWEY
PEGNO & KRAMARSKY LLP.

STEPHEN E. HERETICK, Defendant, represented by JEFFREY B. MCCARRON
-- jmccarron@swartzcampbell.com -- SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC & KATHLEEN
M. CARSON -- kcarson@swartzcampbell.com -- SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC.

321 HENDERSON RECEIVABLES LLC & J.G. WENTWORTH ORIGINATIONS LLC,
Defendants, represented by A. CHRISTOPHER YOUNG --
youngac@pepperlaw.com -- PEPPER HAMILTON LLP, CHARLES S. MARION,
BLANK ROME LLP, JOSEPH C. CRAWFORD, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP & SAMUEL D.
HARRISON -- harrisons@pepperlaw.com -- PEPPER HAMILTON LLP.

SENECA ONE FINANCE, INC., Defendant, represented by SAMUEL W.
CORTES -- scortes@foxrothschild.com -- FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP & MELISSA
E. SCOTT, FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP.

NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY & METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Nominal Defendants, represented by STEPHEN R. HARRIS --
sharris@cozen.com -- COZEN O'CONNOR & SUSAN J. STAUSS , COZEN
O'CONNOR.


3M COMPANY: Hill Suit Transferred to Northern District of Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, NATHANIEL E. HILL, the Plaintiff, vs 3M COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-01355-DSD-LIB (Filed May 23, 2019), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Florida (Pensacola) on June 5, 2019. The Northern District of
Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01639-MCR-GRJ to the
proceeding.

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

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

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

Attorney for the Plaintiff is:

          Stacy Kathryn Hauer, Esq.
          JOHNSON BECKER PLLC - SAINT PAUL MN
          444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
          Saint Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (612) 436-1806
          Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
          E-mail: shauer@johnsonbecker.com

Attorneys for 3M are:

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

3M COMPANY: Johnson Suit Transferred to Northern Dist. of Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JEFFREY E.S. JOHNSON, the Plaintiff, vs 3M COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01354 (Filed May 23, 2019), was
transfferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota to  the  U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Florida (Pensacola) on June 5, 2019. The Northern District of
Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01638-MCR-GRJ to the
proceeding.

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

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

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

Attorney for the Plaintiff is:

          Stacy Kathryn Hauer, Esq.
          JOHNSON BECKER PLLC
          444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
          Saint Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (612) 436-1806
          Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
          E-mail: shauer@johnsonbecker.com

Attorneys for 3M are:

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

3M COMPANY: Johnston Suit Transferred to Northern Dist. of Florida
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, KENNETH JOHNSTON, the Plaintiff, vs 3M COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01357 (Filed May 23, 2019), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Florida (Pensacola) on June 5, 2019. The Northern District of
Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01640-MCR-GRJ to the
proceeding.

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

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

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

Attorney for the Plaintiff:

          Stacy Kathryn Hauer, Esq.
          JOHNSON BECKER PLLC
          444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
          Saint Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (612) 436-1806
          Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
          E-mail: shauer@johnsonbecker.com

Attorneys for 3M are:

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

A-1 HEALTH CARE: Does not Pay Overtime Wages, Burson Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andre Burson, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff, v. A-1 HEALTH CARE, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01330 (N.D. Ohio, June 10, 2019) is a collective
action complaint pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The complaint says the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees
regularly worked over 40 hours per week for Defendant. However, the
Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by not paying
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees time-and-a-half overtime
wages for all hours worked over a regular 40-hour workweek. The
Defendant's conduct with regard to not paying overtime to Plaintiff
and similarly situated employees was willful. Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees have been damaged by Defendant's
nonpayment of overtime wages, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was hired by Defendant in December 2018 and worked for
Defendant as Staffing Coordinators.

Defendant is an enterprise engaging in interstate commerce.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Stephan I. Voudris, Esq.
     Christopher M. Sams, Esq.
     Voudris Law LLC
     8401 Chagrin Road, Suite 8
     Chagrin Falls, OH 44023
     Phone: 440-543-0670
     Fax: 440-543-0721
     Email: svoudris@voudrislaw.com
            csams@voudrislaw.com


ADP SCREENING: Fifer Sues Over FCRA Violation
---------------------------------------------
DESTINY FIFER and CATRINA R. RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of themselves,
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ADP SCREENING AND
SELECTION SERVICES, INC., a Colorado corporation; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-03174 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., June 6, 2019) is a class action
against Defendant for alleged violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendant routinely provide consumer,
investigative consumer and/or consumer credit reports--"credit and
background reports"--to end-users that conduct background checks on
applicants and other prospective, current and former employees and
use information from credit and background reports in connection
with their hiring process without obtaining certification that the
end-user has complied with the stand alone disclosure and
authorization requirements, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs applied for employment with Defendants.

ADP SCREENWG AND SELECTION SERVICES, INC. is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of Colorado and doing
business in the State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Shaun Setareh, Esq.
     Thomas Segal, Esq.
     Farrah Grant, Esq.
     Ashley N. Batiste, Esq.
     SETAREH LAW GROUP
     315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315
     Beverly Hills, CA 90212
     Phone (310) 888-7771
     Facsimile (310) 888-0109
     Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com
            william@setarehlaw.com
            farrah@setarehlaw.com
            ashley@setarehlaw.com


ALEXIS BITTAR: Delacruz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
EMANUEL DELACRUZ and on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ALEXIS BITTAR, LLC, ALEXIS BITTAR RETAIL,
LLC AND ALEXIS BITTAR HOLDINGS LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-05381 (S.D. N.Y., June 7, 2019) is a civil rights action
against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain,
and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"), says the complaint.

Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.

Alexis Bittar, LLC operates the Alexis Bittar stores across the
United States, including its store located at 465 Broome St., New
York, NY. These retail stores constitute places of public
accommodations. Defendant’s retail stores provides to the public
important goods and services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
     Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
     GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
     150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003-2461
     Phone: (212) 228-9795
     Email: nyjg@aol.com
            danalgottlieb@aol.com


ALJ REGIONAL: Bid to Remand Marshall Class Suit Granted
-------------------------------------------------------
ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the motion to remand
the class action suit entitled, Marshall v. Faneuil, Inc., has been
granted.

On July 31, 2017, plaintiff Donna Marshall ("Marshall"), filed a
proposed class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Sacramento against Faneuil and ALJ.

Marshall, a previously terminated Faneuil employee, alleges various
California state law employment-related claims against Faneuil.  

Faneuil has answered the complaint and removed the matter to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California; however, Marshall filed a motion to remand the case
back to state court, which has been granted.  

ALJ said, "The case is in early discovery at this time. Faneuil
believes this action is without merit and intends to defend it
vigorously."

ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc. provides call center, back-office,
staffing, and toll collection services to government and commercial
clients in the healthcare, utility, consumer goods, toll, and
transportation industries in the United States. It operates through
three segments: Faneuil, Carpets, and Phoenix. The company was
formerly known as YouthStream Media Networks, Inc. and changed its
name to ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc. in October 2006. ALJ Regional
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is based in New York, New
York.


ALTERNATIVE BEHAVIOR STRATEGIES: Vega Seeks Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Alternative
Behavior Strategies, Inc. and Alternative Behavior Strategies, LLC
for violations of the California Labor Code and the California
Business and Professions Code. The case is captioned JASMINE VEGA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. ALTERNATIVE BEHAVIOR STRATEGIES, INC., a California
Corporation; ALTERNATIVE BEHAVIOR STRATEGIES, LLC, a Utah Limited
Liability Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 37-2019-00027085-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., May
28, 2019).

Plaintiff Jasmine Vega alleges seven causes of her action: failure
to pay all wages owed, including overtime; failure to provide
lawful meal periods; failure to authorize and permit lawful rest
periods; failure to timely pay wages owed upon separation from
employment; failure to reimburse necessary expenses; and knowing
and intentional failure to comply with accurate itemized wage
statement provisions; and violation of the Unfair Competition Law.

Alternative Behavior Strategies, Inc. is a California corporation
that is authorized to do business throughout the state. The
company's headquarters are located at 16255 Ventura Blvd., Suite
830. Alternative Behavior Strategies, LLC is a Utah corporation
that is authorized to do business throughout the state. The
company's headquarters are located at 515 South 700 East; Suite 2A;
Salt Lake City, Utah. These companies provide psychological
services to children with developmental delays and their families.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James R. Hawkins, Esq.
     Christina M. Lucio, Esq.
     JAMES HAWKINS APLC
     9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
     Irvine, CA 92618
     Telephone: (949) 387-7200
     Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
     E-mail: James@Jameshawkinsaplc.com
             Christina@Jameshawkinsaplc.com


AMERICAN HONDA: Carroll Files Class Action Over Defective Airbags
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES CARROLL, MD ULLAH, and ELDON PAINTER, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN HONDA
MOTOR COMPANY, INC., HONDA MOTOR CO. LTD., HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA,
HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., TOYOTA
MOTOR CORPORATION, ZF TRW AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS CORP., and ZF
FRIEDRICHSHAFEN AG, Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-01155 (C.D. Cal.,
June 10, 2019) seeks to force Defendants to fix defective airbags
in its vehicles, as well as pay appropriate compensation for all
those affected.

The complaint says the affected vehicles' airbag and seatbelt
pretensioners (which pull seatbelts tight during a crash) are
deployed by an airbag control unit. This unit must instantaneously
detect collisions, trigger the seatbelts, and deploy the airbags.
But as ZF-TRW (the manufacturer of the control unit) and various
vehicle manufacturers all know, the airbag control unit in these
vehicles fails to reliably deploy the vehicles' airbags during
collisions. Instead, the units frequently experience "electrical
overstress," with the electrical signals exceeding system capacity,
causing the systems to fail when they are needed most.

The complaint alleges that Defendants have known about this defect
for years. ZF-TRW began reporting problems as early as 2013 and
vehicle manufacturers have been notified of numerous collisions
involving failed airbag systems with ZF-TRW airbag control units.
Some have even conducted safety recalls--but on a far too limited
scale. For the most part, despite the known safety risk, Defendants
have issued no warnings and drivers around the country continue to
drive their vehicles unaware that their airbags may not deploy in a
crash, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs purchased vehicles with the same defective airbag
systems.

American Honda Motor Company, Inc. is a California corporation with
its headquarters and principal place of business in Torrance,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
     David Stein, Esq.
     Jeffrey Kosbie, Esq.
     GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
     505 14th Street, Suite 1110
     Oakland, CA 94612
     Phone: (510) 350-9700
     Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
     Email: ehg@classlawgroup.com
            ds@classlawgroup.com
            jbk@classlawgroup.com

          - and -

     W. Mark Lanier, Esq.
     Alex J. Brown, Esq.
     Richard D. Meadow, Esq.
     THE LANIER LAW FIRM
     10940 W. Sam Houston Pkwy North #100
     Houston, TX 77064
     Phone: (713) 659-5200
     Facsimile: (713) 659-2204
     Email: mark.lanier@lanierlawfirm.com
            alex.brown@lanierlawfirm.com
            richard.meadow@lanierlawfirm.com


AMPCO-PITTSBURGH: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for July 22
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation 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 final hearing
to consider approval of the settlement reached in the retired
employees' suit is scheduled for July 22, 2019.

In February 2017, the Corporation, its indirect subsidiary Akers
National Roll Company, as well as the Akers National Roll Company
Health & Welfare Benefits Plan were named as defendants in a class
action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania, where the plaintiffs (currently
retired former employees of Akers National Roll Company and the
United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy,
Allied Industrial, and Service Workers International Union,
AFL-CIO) alleged that the defendants breached collective bargaining
agreements and violated the benefit plan by modifying medical
benefits of the plaintiffs and similarly situated retirees.

The defendants moved to dismiss the case, and plaintiffs petitioned
the court to compel arbitration. On June 13, 2017, the District
Court compelled arbitration and denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss as moot.

Defendants appealed this decision to the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals on June 21, 2017. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals
reversed the District Court's decision to compel arbitration on
August 29, 2018. The plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing,
which was denied.

Rather than litigating the merits of the case at the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, the
Corporation reached a settlement agreement in principle with the
plaintiffs, which has been preliminarily approved by the court but
remains subject to the court's final approval subsequent to a
hearing to be held on July 22, 2019.

Ampco-Pittsburgh said, "As expected, the final resolution of this
settlement agreement will not have a material adverse effect on our
results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital
resources."

Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation manufactures engineered equipment. The
Company produces finned tube heat exchange coils, large standard
and custom air handling systems, centrifugal pumps, feed screws,
hardened steel rolls, and heat transfer rolls. Ampco's products are
used in the construction, power generation, refrigeration, chemical
processing, marine defense, and steel industries. The company is
based in Carnegie, Pennsylvania.


ANOVOS PRODUCTIONS: Dalton Sues over Upfront Charges
----------------------------------------------------
Richard Dalton, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the the Plaintiff, v. Anovos Productions, LLC; Disney
Lucasfilm Ltd.; NBCUniversal Media, LLC; and CBS Studios, Inc., the
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-04821 (C.D. Cal., June 3, 2019), seeks
damages arising out of Defendants' practice of charging consumers
upfront costs for licensed products and shipping, despite the fact
these products were never delivered and monies never refunded.

The Defendants collectively engaged in fraudulent practices in
connection with their licensing and or marketing of products to
consumers. At all times material to this complaint, Disney, NBCU,
and CBS (collectively Licensors) controlled the acts and practices
of Anovos. Specifically, Licensors licensed the right to sell their
products with their logos and despite having knowledge of Anovos'
fraudulent scheme to abscond with consumers' money, Licensors
continued to reap profits from their licensing agreements.

Employing this strategy Defendants profited for years at the
expense of Plaintiff and consumers alike. Anovos has charged the
Plaintiff nearly $40,000 for Anovos Products licensed by Licensors.
Anovos has required the Plaintiff and consumers alike to pay
upfront this total cost, which includes prices for shipping, the
lawsuit says.

Anovos operates anovos.com, which sells accurate uniforms and prop
replicas from movies, television, and contemporary media, all of
which are manufactured and marketed by Anovos.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          Yana A. Hart, 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
                  yana@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Kevin R. Duck, Esq.
          DUCK LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
          5040 Ambassador Caffery Parkway, Suite 200
          Lafayette, LA 70508
          Telephone: (337) 406-1144
          Facsimile: (337) 406-1050

AO SMITH CORP: Bleier Sues over Artificially Inflated Revenues
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against A.O. Smith
Corporation and certain of its executive officers for alleged
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is
captioned HENRY BLEIER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. A.O. SMITH CORPORATION, AJITA
RAJENDRA, KEVIN WHEELER, and JOHN KITA, Defendants, Case
2:19-cv-00786-NJ (E.D. Wis., May 28, 2019). Plaintiff Henry Bleier
alleges that A.O. Smith used its undisclosed relationship with
Jiangsu UTP Supply Chain to artificially inflate its gross margins
and mask its actual China revenue and earnings slowdown through
distributor-financed channel stuffing.

A.O. Smith is a Milwaukee-based manufacturer of gas and electric
water, heaters, boilers, tanks and water treatment products. The
company's common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under
ticker symbol AOS. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     K. Scott Wagner, Esq.
     Shauna D. Manion, Esq.
     MALLERY & ZIMMERMAN S.C. K. SCOTT WAGNER
     731 North Jackson Street, Suite 900
     Milwaukee, WI 53202
     Telephone: (414) 271-2424
     E-mail: swagner@mzmilw.com
             
             - and –

     Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     200 South Wacker Drive, 31st Floor
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Telephone: (312) 674-4674
     Facsimile: (312) 674-4676
     E-mail: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com

             - and –

     Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     58 South Service Road, Suite 200
     Melville, NY 11747
     Telephone: (631) 367-7100
     Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
     E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com

             - and –

     Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
     HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
     1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
     Atlanta, GA 30338
     Telephone: (770) 392-0090
     E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com


APPLE INC: Faces Class Suit from App Developers
-----------------------------------------------
DONALD R. CAMERON, a California resident; and PURE SWEAT
BASKETBALL, INC., an Illinois corporation, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. APPLE INC., a
California corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-03074-DMR
(N.D. Cal., June 4, 2019), seeks monetary recovery and injunctive
relief for harm caused by Apple's violations of federal antitrust
law and California's Unfair Competition Law -- harm that persists
and will never abate unless Apple is called to account for its
anti-competitive behavior.

Donald R. Cameron and Pure Sweat Basketball, Inc., are application
developers for the iPhone, a device powered by Apple's iOS
operating system. iOS developers create the applications and in-app
products that bring Apple iPhones, iPads, and iPod touch music
players to life. Their apps allow users to play games while on line
at the grocery store, to edit documents, to make exercise more fun,
to help meditate, and so much more.

The Plaintiffs and their fellow iOS developers sell their iOS apps
via Apple's App Store. They have no choice in the matter, but not
because Apple built an app store that beat all comers fair and
square. Instead, from the outset, Apple attained monopoly power in
the U.S. market for iOS app and in-app-product distribution
services by slamming the door shut on any and all potential
competitors. And it has barred the door ever since. On the thinnest
of pretenses -- that somehow it is uniquely qualified to ensure the
safety and device-compatibility of apps -- Apple has never
permitted   anyone else to distribute apps and related digital
products to the many millions of U.S. owners of its mobile
devices.

Further, Apple's market power has allowed it to charge developers a
supra-competitive 30% commission on the sale of paid apps and
in-app products for almost 11 years now, despite the inevitable
accrual of experience and economies of scale. Additionally, it
collects a $99 annual fee from all developers who wish (and must)
sell their products through the App Store. Apple also dictates
minimum and greater price points, which prevent developers from
offering paid products at less than $.99 or at price points ending
in anything other than $0.99. And so, while Apple is fond of
pointing to impressive-sounding sales numbers and dollars earned by
developers, nonetheless, its exorbitant fee for distribution (or
retail sales) services, coupled with its $99 annual fee and pricing
mandates, have cut unlawfully into what would have been developers'
earnings in a competitive landscape.

Also, Apple's overly expensive 30% commission, its $99 annual
developer fee, and its pricing mandate have depressed output of
paid app and in-app-product transactions. The consumer apps
marketplace, which gives rise to the sale of Apple's distribution
or retail-sales services to iOS developers, resoundingly favors
low-priced or free apps. Developers and would-be developers, who
can only earn 70% on the dollar on each paid app or product, in
addition to paying $99 annually to gain entry to the App Store,
undoubtedly think very hard about whether to spend the effort,
time, and energy that is required to design and program an app or
related product, bring it to market in the single store available,
and hope to recoup costs and make a reasonable profit. For many,
the calculus makes no economic sense. This process, which is
ongoing, leads to less output in sales, and ergo, distribution
transactions.

But for those who nonetheless soldier on towards offering paid
products in the App Store, they face yet another output-depressing
scenario: the sheer number of apps in the App Store, together with
the number of new weekly entrants, means that most apps and in-app
products will never be discovered by consumers. Because there are
so many apps available in the one iOS App Store that exists, due to
Apple's usurpation of the entire marketplace, huge numbers of apps
necessarily get lost. Apps buried among the 2 million+ available
apps do not sell because no one sees them, leading to less
distribution transactions for apps and in-app products. If Apple
did not shut out all competition from access to iOS device owners,
there would be more stores that could feature more apps, as well as
stores that would specialize in certain kinds of apps. Overall,
this would boost output in and sale distribution transactions
because more apps could be featured, such that more buyers would
see and buy them. The only solution for this output-depressing
condition is to allow other providers of distribution services,
including those who undoubtedly would specialize in certain kinds
of apps, to compete for app and in-app product sales to iOS
consumers. More exposure for more apps would mean more
transactions. And relatedly, with competition, Apple and other
market entrants would be incentivized to innovate in developing
better technology to pair users with the applications that they are
looking for and need.

By way of the same anti-competitive conduct, Apple has improperly
attained and exercised monopsony power -- buy-side monopoly power
-- as the sole retailer of iOS apps and in-app products. It uses
this immense power to force iOS developers to take 70% on the
dollar for their paid products by way of subtracting its
supra-competitive 30% commission. This practice is analogous to a
monopsonist retailer paying artificially low wholesale prices to
its suppliers. In both paradigms a competitive market would yield
better post-commission or wholesale prices, and fairer profit, for
developers' digital products. It would also mean higher, and
fairer, profits for developers as Apple's $.99 and end-in-$.99
pricing mandates were extinguished by competitive forces, such that
developers could price at lower and different price points in order
to maximize volumes.

Apple's conduct has harmed competition, consumers of its
distribution services, and even consumers of iOS apps, in-app
products, and subscriptions. Developers have overpaid for
distribution services (or Apple's retail commission) due to Apple's
actions as alleged herein. Developers have no alternative but to
distribute their wares through the App Store and to pay Apple's
supra-competitive fees. Apple exploits this state of affairs. But
for Apple's anti-competitive and abuse behavior, the cost of
distribution services would have been lower than what it was, the
lawsuit says.

The Plaintiffs and the proposed classes contend they are entitled
to recover restitution in at least the amount of the difference
between the supra-competitive distribution fees they have paid
Apple on the one hand and what the fees would be but for Apple's
unlawful, inequitable, and unjustified behavior, including abuses
of its market power.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes:

          Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Robert F. Lopez, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
          E-mail: shanas@hbsslaw.com
                  steve@hbsslaw.com
                  robl@hbsslaw.com

AQUANTIA CORP: Carter Balks at Merger Deal with Marvell Technology
------------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN CARTER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. AQUANTIA CORP., FARAJ AALAEI, LIP-BU
TAN, SAM S. SRINIVASAN, KENNETH R. PELOWSKI, GEOFFREY G. RIBAR, DR.
BAMDAD BASTANI, DMITRY S. AKHANOV, MAXIMILIANE C. STRAUB, and
ANDERS SWAHN, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-03092-JSW (N.D.
Cal., June 4, 2019), seeks to enjoin Defendants from holding a
shareholder vote on a proposed merger transaction and from taking
steps to consummate the Proposed Transaction unless, and until, the
material information is disclosed to Aquantia shareholders
sufficiently in advance of the vote on the Proposed Transaction or,
in the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, to recover
damages resulting from the Defendants' violations of the Exchange
Act.

The action is brought as a class action by Plaintiff on behalf of
himself and the other public holders of the common stock of
Aquantia Corp. against the Company and the members of the Company's
board of directors for their violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with the
proposed merger between Aquantia and Marvell Technology Group Ltd.


On May 6, 2019, the Board caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which the Company's
shareholders stand to receive $13.25 in cash for each share of
Aquantia stock they own. On May 29, 2019, in order to convince
Aquantia shareholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction,
the Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and
misleading Form PREM14A Preliminary Proxy Statement with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, in violation of Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The materially incomplete and misleading Proxy violates both
Regulation G (17 C.F.R. section 244.100) 21 and SEC Rule 14a-9 (17
C.F.R. 240.14a-9), each of which constitutes a violation of Section
14(a) 22 and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

While touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the
Company's shareholders in the Proxy, Defendants have failed to
disclose certain material information that is necessary for
shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed
Transaction, thereby violating SEC rules and regulations and
rendering certain statements in the Proxy materially incomplete and
misleading.

In particular, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning: (i) the financial projections
for the Company that were prepared by the Company and relied on by
Defendants in recommending that Aquantia shareholders vote in favor
of the Proposed Transaction; and (ii) the summary of certain
valuation analyses conducted by Aquantia's financial advisor,
Barclays Capital Inc., in support of its opinion that the Merger
Consideration is fair to shareholders, on which the Board relied.

It is imperative that the material information that has been
omitted from the Proxy is disclosed prior to the forthcoming vote
to allow the Company's shareholders to make an informed decision
regarding the Proposed Transaction, the lwsuit says.

Aquantia Corporation is a manufacturer of high-speed transceivers.
In 2004, Aquantia was founded to revolutionize Ethernet and
accelerate connectivity. Aquantia first delivered products for Data
Center connectivity, and in 2012 developed the world's first
integrated 10GBASE-T MAC/PHY for servers.[BN]

Attorney for Brian Carter:

          Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 256-2884
          Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
          E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com
                  nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                  jwilson@faruqilaw.com

ART VAN FURNITURE: Reid Files Suit Over ADA Violations
------------------------------------------------------
Valentin Reid, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Art Van Furniture, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-04179 (S.D. N.Y., May 8, 2019) is a class action suit over
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

Art Van Furniture Inc. is a furniture retail store chain
headquartered in Warren, Michigan. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dov Michael Mittelman, Esq.
      STEIN SAKS, PLLC
      285 Passaic Street
      Hackensack, NJ 07601
      Tel: (201) 282-6500
      Email: mittelmandov@yahoo.com


BA&SH AMERICA: Website not Accessible to Blind Person, Diaz Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
EDWIN DIAZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. BA&SH AMERICA CORP., the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-05191 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2019), seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website at
www.ba-sh.com will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a visually-impaired
and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to
read website content using his computer. The Plaintiff uses the
terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with
visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in
that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or
equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have
limited vision. Others have no vision.

Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.

The Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Defendant for
its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired people. Defendant's denial of
full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its
goods and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its
physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under
the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's
website is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers, it violates the ADA, the lawsuit says.

BA&Sh S.A.S. designs and manufactures apparel for women. Its
products include jackets and coats, knitwear, dresses, skirts and
shorts, tops and shirts, tee-shirts, pants and jeans, and
accessories.[BN]

Attorneys for Paintiff:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (929) 575-4175
          Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
          E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003-2461
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com

BARING BDC: Triangle Capital Corp. Securities Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Barings BDC, 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 case entitled, In
re Triangle Capital Corp. Securities Litigation, Master File No.
5:18-cv-00010-FL, is underway.

The company and certain of its former executive officers have been
named as defendants in two putative securities class action
lawsuits, each filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (and then transferred to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina)
on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
company's common stock between May 7, 2014 and November 1, 2017.

The first lawsuit was filed on November 21, 2017, and was captioned
Elias Dagher, et al., v. Triangle Capital Corporation, et al., Case
No. 5:18-cv-00015-FL (the "Dagher Action"). The second lawsuit was
filed on November 28, 2017, and was captioned Gary W. Holden, et
al., v. Triangle Capital Corporation, et al., Case No.
5:18-cv-00010-FL (the "Holden Action").

The Dagher Action and the Holden Action were consolidated and are
currently captioned In re Triangle Capital Corp. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 5:18-cv-00010-FL.

On April 10, 2018, the plaintiff filed its First Consolidated
Amended Complaint. The complaint, as currently amended, alleges
certain violations of the securities laws, including, among other
things, that the defendants made certain materially false and
misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's
business, operations and prospects between May 7, 2014 and November
1, 2017. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and attorneys’
fees and costs, among other relief, but did not specify the amount
of damages being sought. On May 25, 2018, the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint.

On March 7, 2019 the court entered an order granting the
defendants' motion to dismiss. On March 28, 2019, the plaintiff
filed a motion seeking leave to file a Second Consolidated Amended
Complaint. On April 18, 2019, the defendants filed a response in
opposition to the plaintiff's motion for leave.

Barings BDC said, "We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against
the allegations in the aforementioned actions. Neither the outcome
of the lawsuits nor an estimate of any reasonably possible losses
is determinable at this time. An adverse judgment for monetary
damages could have a material adverse effect on our operations and
liquidity. Except as discussed above, neither we nor our
subsidiaries are currently subject to any material pending legal
proceedings, other than ordinary routine litigation incidental to
our business."

Barings BDC, Inc. is a business development company specializing in
private equity and mezzanine investments.  Triangle Capital
Corporation was incorporated on October 10, 2006 and is based in
Raleigh, North Carolina.


BE AMAZED: Has Until June 24 to Respond to Lynch Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, DALLAS LYNCH, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated; Plaintiff, v. BE AMAZED SANDWICH CO., INC.
d/b/a AND a/k/a CAPRIOTTI'S SANDWICH SHOP; MICHAEL SOLOMON, an
individual; DOES 1 through 50; inclusive, Defendant(s), Case No.
2:18-cv-2425-APG-GWF (D. Nev.), Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr.
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada extended the
Defendants' time up to and including June 24, 2019 to answer or
otherwise respond to Complaint.

The Complaint sets forth a purported wage and hour class action.
On May 15, 2019, the Plaintiff sent the Defendant a new type of
settlement proposal, along with sample motions and orders relating
thereto.  The Defense counsel will need further time to analyze the
proposal and then review it with the Defendants.

The parties' counsel of record have stipulated and agreed that the
Defendants will have an extension of time up to and including June
24, 2019 to answer or otherwise respond to the Plaintiff's
Complaint.  It is the fifth request for an extension of the
deadline.

Magistrate Foley granted and so ordered.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 22, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/76RUYK from Leagle.com.

Dallas Lynch, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy,
Gabroy Law Offices & Kaine M. Messer -- kmesser@gabroy.com --
Gabroy Law Offices.

Be Amazed Sandwich Co., Inc., also known as Capriotti's Sandwich
Shop, Capriotti's Sandwich Shop & Michael Solomon, Defendants,
represented by Scott M. Mahoney -- smahoney@fisherphillips.com --
Fisher & Phillips, LLP.


BELHURST ESTATE: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Belhurst Estate
Winery, Inc. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Belhurst Estate Winery, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03433
(E.D. N.Y., June 10, 2019).

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

Belhurst Castle has been adapted for hotel and retail uses. It
holds a hotel with three choices of lodging (Vinifera Inn, Chambers
in the Castle, and White Springs Manor); two ballrooms to host
weddings, two restaurants (Edgar's Restaurant and Stonecutters);
spa, and a winery.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BIO-KEY INT'L: Hayes Sues over Collection of Biometrics Data
------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID HAYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BIO-KEY INTERNATIONAL, INC., the
Defendant, Case 2019CH06712 (Ill. Cir., June 3, 2019), alleges
that, in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy
Act, the Defendant collected, stored, and/or used Plaintiffs and
the Class members' biometric identifiers and/or biometric
information without developing a written policy, made available to
the public, establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for
permanently destroying biometric information, as required by 740
ILCS 14/l5(a); without first informing Plaintiff and class the
specific purpose and length of term for which the biometric
identifiers or biometric information was being collected, stored,
and/or used, as required by 740 ILCS 14/l S(b)(2); and without
first obtaining the written release required by 740 TLCS
14/15(b)(3).

The BIPA was designed to encourage the public trust in biometric
technology and the use and adoption of biometric
identifier-facilitated transactions, and to prevent harm to
individuals by requiring companies to adopt and publish retention
schedules and guidelines for permanently destroying biometrics.

BIO-key International, Inc. develops and markets fingerprint
biometric identification and identity verification technologies,
authentication-transaction security technologies, and related
identity management and credentialing biometric hardware and
software solutions.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff:

          David B. Levin, Esq.
          Steven G. Perry, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          333 Skokie Blvd., Suite 103
          Northbrook, IL 60062
          Telephone: (224) 218-0882
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: dlevin@toddflaw.com
                  sperry@toddflaw.com

BODY FIRM: Bunting Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------
RASHETA BUNTING, Individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. THE BODY FIRM, LLC
d/b/a Crepe Erase and GUTHY-RENKER LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-03415 (E.D. N.Y., June 10, 2019) is a civil rights action
against Crepe Erase 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 Crepe Erase provides to their non-disabled customers
through http//:www.Crepeerase.com. The Defendants' denial of full
and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its
products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical
locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans
with Disabilities Act, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen reading software to read website content using her
computer.

Crepeerase.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods,
services, price specials, employment opportunities and other
programs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dan Shaked, Esq.
     SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
     44 Court Street, Suite 1217
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (917) 373-9128
     Email: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com


BOX INC: Duvnjak Files Suit Over Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------
SIMO DUVNJAK, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. BOX, INC., AARON LEVIE, DYLAN SMITH, and
DANIEL J. LEVIN, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-03173-PJH (N.D. Cal.,
June 6, 2019) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired Box securities between
November 28, 2018 and June 3, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").

On February 27, 2019, the Company reported fourth quarter revenue
that fell below investors' expectations, citing longer sales cycles
for seven-figure deals. On this news, the Company's share price
fell $4.64, or nearly 19%, to close at $20.24 on February 28, 2019,
on unusually heavy trading volume. On June 3, 2019, after the
market closed, the Company lowered its fiscal 2020 revenue outlook
to a range of $688 million to $692 million, from previous guidance
of $700 million to $704 million, again citing longer sales cycles
for its larger deals. On this news, the Company's share price fell
as much as $1.30, or more than 7%, to close at $17.18 per share on
June 4, 2019, on unusually heavy trading volume.

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company was unable to
close large deals within the quarter; (2) that, as a result, the
Company's revenue would be materially impacted; and (3) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of
Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff
and other Class members have suffered significant losses and
damages.

Plaintiff Simo Duvnjak purchased Box securities during the Class
Period.

Box provides a cloud content management platform that enables
secure access to content.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BOXY CHARM: Vasquez-Cossio Sues Over Automatic Renewal of Services
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Inez Vasquez-Cossio, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Boxy Charm, Inc. and Does 1–10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00869 (C.D. Cal., May 8,
2019) seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, treble damages
and all other relief for breach of implied and express warranty and
for violation of Automatic Renewal Law and Unfair Competition Law.

Boxy Charm operates a website, www.boxycharm.com, which markets
boxes of cosmetic products of which Vasquez-Cossio purchased a
subscription plan. She alleges that Boxy Charm continues to
automatically renew the service offers without providing an
acknowledgment that includes the automatic renewal or continuous
service offer terms, cancellation policy and information regarding
how to cancel. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
      PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
      4100 Newport Place, Ste. 800
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Tel: (949) 706-6464
      Fax: (949) 706-6469
      Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com


CAMPING WORLD: Bid to Dismiss Geis Class Action Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Camping World 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, along
with the other defendants, is seeking dismissal of the class action
suit entitled, Daniel Geis v. Camping World Holdings, Inc., et al.


On February 22, 2019, a putative class action complaint styled
Daniel Geis v. Camping World Holdings, Inc., et al. was filed in
the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, on
behalf of all purchasers of Camping World Class A common stock in
and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering on
October 6, 2016 ("Geis Complaint").

The Geis Complaint names as defendants the Company, certain of our
officers and directors, and the underwriters of the offering, and
alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 based on allegedly materially misleading
statements or omissions of material facts necessary to make certain
statements not misleading.

The Geis Complaint seeks compensatory damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and any other
and further relief the court deems just and proper.

On April 19, 2019, the Company, along with the other defendants,
moved to dismiss this action.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims of
the plaintiff and members of the putative class, and any liability
for the alleged claims is not currently probable or reasonably
estimable.

Camping World Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as
an outdoor and camping retailer. The company operates through three
segments: Consumer Services and Plans, Dealership, and Retail.
Camping World Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1966 and is
headquartered in Lincolnshire, Illinois.


CAMPING WORLD: Bid to Dismiss IUOE Complaint Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Camping World 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 motion to
dismiss filed in International Union of Operating Engineers Benefit
Funds of Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware v. Camping World
Holdings Inc., et al., is pending.

On December 12, 2018, a putative class action complaint styled
International Union of Operating Engineers Benefit Funds of Eastern
Pennsylvania and Delaware v. Camping World Holdings Inc., et al.
was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York
County, on behalf of all purchasers of Camping World Class A common
stock issued pursuant and/or traceable to a secondary offering of
such securities in October 2017 ("IUOE Complaint").

The IUOE Complaint names as defendants the Company, and certain of
its officers and directors, among others, and alleges violations of
Sections 11, 12(a), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on
allegedly materially misleading statements or omissions of material
facts necessary to make certain statements not misleading and seeks
compensatory damages, including prejudgment and post-judgement
interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and any equitable or
injunctive relief the court deems just and proper, including
rescission.

On February 28, 2019. the Company, along with the other defendants,
moved to dismiss this action.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims of
the plaintiffs and members of the putative class, and any liability
for the alleged claims is not currently probable or reasonably
estimable.

Camping World Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as
an outdoor and camping retailer. The company operates through three
segments: Consumer Services and Plans, Dealership, and Retail.
Camping World Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1966 and is
headquartered in Lincolnshire, Illinois.


CAMPING WORLD: Ronge & Strougo Suit Underway in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
Camping World 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 consolidated class action suit in the
Northern District of Illinois.

On October 19, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit, captioned Ronge v. Camping World
Holdings, Inc. et al., in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against the Company, certain of its
officers and directors, and Crestview Partners II GP, L.P. and
Crestview Advisors, L.L.C. (the "Ronge Complaint").

On October 25, 2018, a different purported stockholder of the
Company filed a putative class action lawsuit, captioned Strougo v.
Camping World Holdings, Inc. et al., in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company,
certain of its officers and directors, and Crestview Partners II
GP, L.P. and Crestview Advisors, L.L.C. (the "Strougo Complaint").

The Ronge and Strougo Complaints were consolidated and lead
plaintiffs appointed by the court. On February 27, 2019, lead
plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint against the Company,
certain of its officers, directors, Crestview Partners II GP, L.P.
and Crestview Advisors, L.L.C., and the underwriters of the May and
October 2017 secondary offerings of the Company's Class A common
stock.

The consolidated complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as well as Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and rule 10b-5
thereunder, based on allegedly materially misleading statements or
omissions of material facts necessary to make certain statements
not misleading related to the business, operations, and management
of the Company.

Additionally, it alleges that certain of the Company's officers and
directors, Crestview Partners II GP, L.P., and Crestview Advisors,
L.L.C. violated Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
by allegedly acting as controlling persons of the Company.

The lawsuit brings claims on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of the Company's Class A common stock between March 8,
2017 and August 7, 2018, and seeks compensatory damages,
rescission, attorneys' fees and costs, and any equitable or
injunctive relief the court deems just and proper.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims of
the plaintiffs and members of the putative class, and any liability
for the alleged claims is not currently probable or reasonably
estimable.

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

Camping World Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as
an outdoor and camping retailer. The company operates through three
segments: Consumer Services and Plans, Dealership, and Retail.
Camping World Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1966 and is
headquartered in Lincolnshire, Illinois.


CBL & ASSOCIATES: $88,150 Litigation Expense in Salon Adrian's Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CBL & Associates Properties, 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
accrued a litigation settlement expense of $88,150 in the class
action suit initiated by Wave Lengths Hair Salons of Florida, Inc.
d/b/a Salon Adrian.

In April 2019, the Company entered into a settlement agreement and
release with respect to the class action lawsuit filed on March 16,
2016 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida by Wave Lengths Hair Salons of Florida, Inc. d/b/a Salon
Adrian.

The settlement agreement states that the Company is to set aside a
common fund with a monetary and non-monetary value of $90,000 to be
disbursed to class members in accordance with an agreed-upon
formula that is based upon aggregate damages of $60,000.

Class members will be comprised of past and current tenants at
certain of the Company's shopping centers that it owns or formerly
owned during the class period, which will extend from January 1,
2011 through the date of court preliminary approval.

Class members who are past tenants and make a claim will receive
payment of their claims in cash.

Class members who are current tenants will receive monthly credits
against rents and future charges, beginning no earlier than January
1, 2020 and continuing for the following five years.

Any amounts under the settlement allocated to tenants with
outstanding amounts payable to the Company, including tenants which
have declared bankruptcy or declare bankruptcy over the relevant
period, will first be deducted from the amounts owed to the
Company.

All attorney's fees and associated costs to be paid to class
counsel (up to a maximum of $28,000), any incentive award to the
class representative (up to a maximum of $50), and class
administration costs (which are expected to not exceed $100), will
be funded by the common fund, but must be approved by the court.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company will not
pay any dividends to holders of its common shares payable in the
third and fourth quarters of 2019.

The settlement agreement does not restrict the Company's ability to
declare dividends payable in 2020 or in subsequent years.

The Company recorded an accrued liability and corresponding
litigation settlement expense of $88,150 in the three months ended
March 31, 2019 related to the settlement agreement.

CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. is a self managed and self
administered real estate investment trust. The Company owns
regional shopping malls and community shopping centers in the
United States. The company is based in Chattanooga, Tennessee.


CENTURYLINK INC: Continues to Defend Houser Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink, 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, Houser et al. v.
CenturyLink, et al.

CenturyLink and certain CenturyLink board members and officers were
named as defendants in a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
filed on June 12, 2018 in the Boulder County District Court of the
state of Colorado, captioned Houser et al. v. CenturyLink, et al.

The complaint asserts claims on behalf of a putative class of
former Level 3 shareholders who became CenturyLink shareholders as
a result of the transaction.

It alleges that the proxy statement provided to the Level 3
shareholders failed to disclose material information of several
kinds, including information about strategic revenue, customer loss
rates, and customer account issues, among other items. The
complaint seeks damages, costs and fees, rescission, rescissory
damages, and other equitable relief.

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

CenturyLink, Inc. provides various communications services to
residential, business, wholesale, and governmental customers in the
United States and internationally. The company operates in two
segments, Business and Consumer. CenturyLink, Inc. was founded in
1968 and is based in Monroe, Louisiana.


CENTURYLINK INC: Objector's Appeal in Tomasulo Settlement Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink, 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 objector's appeal
from the court's final judgment approving the settlement in the
case, Jeffery Tomasulo v. CenturyLink, Inc., et al., remains
pending.

CenturyLink and certain members of the CenturyLink Board of
Directors have been named as defendants in a putative shareholder
class action lawsuit filed on January 11, 2017 in the 4th Judicial
District Court of the State of Louisiana, Ouachita Parish,
captioned Jeffery Tomasulo v. CenturyLink, Inc., et al.

The complaint asserts, among other things, that the members of
CenturyLink's Board allegedly breached their fiduciary duties to
the CenturyLink shareholders in approving the Level 3 merger
agreement and, more particularly, that: the consideration that
CenturyLink agreed to pay to Level 3 stockholders in the
transaction is allegedly unfairly high; the CenturyLink directors
allegedly had conflicts of interest in negotiating and approving
the transaction; and the disclosures set forth in our preliminary
joint proxy statement/prospectus filed in December 2016 are
insufficient in that they allegedly fail to contain material
information concerning the transaction.

The complaint seeks, among other things, a declaration that the
members of the CenturyLink Board have breached their fiduciary
duties, corrective disclosure, rescissory or other damages and
equitable relief, including rescission of the transaction.

On February 13, 2017, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding providing for the settlement of the lawsuit.

In January 2019, the court approved the settlement and entered
final judgment. An objector filed an appeal, and that appeal is
pending.

CenturyLink said, "The costs of the settlement are not material to
our consolidated financial statements."

CenturyLink, Inc. provides various communications services to
residential, business, wholesale, and governmental customers in the
United States and internationally. The company operates in two
segments, Business and Consumer. CenturyLink, Inc. was founded in
1968 and is based in Monroe, Louisiana.


CHICAGO BOARD: Judge Dismisses Index Manipulation Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal judge dismissed investor claims that the Chicago Board
Options Exchange knowingly allowed Wall Street traders to
manipulate a key measure of stock market volatility.

"Though CBOE may have designed a process with features that made it
vulnerable to manipulation, the facts alleged in complaint do not
support the conclusion that CBOE knew about these flaws at the time
it designed the VIX enterprise or that it purposefully designed the
market to facilitate manipulation," U.S. District Judge Manish Shah
said in a 32-page opinion published on May 29.

Last year, an anonymous whistleblower sent a letter to U.S.
regulators claiming that large trading firms were manipulating the
CBOE's Volatility Index (VIX), Wall Street's most widely followed
gauge of future stock market volatility.

The letter said that a flaw in the calculation of the VIX allowed
trading firms to manipulate the volatility index by posting quotes
for S&P 500 options without actually trading.

The whistleblower further claimed that such manipulation was at
least partially responsible for the stock market's 10% plunge in
February 2018.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and Securities and
Exchange Commission opened investigations based on the allegations,
but the agencies have since made no announcement about their
findings.

Taking matters into his own hands, lead plaintiff John Pels filed a
federal class action against CBOE Global Markets, CBOE Exchange,
CBOE Futures Exchange and unnamed John Doe trading firms.

"There is abundant evidence that the John Doe defendants have
colluded to manipulate VIX and, in doing so, have reaped hundreds
of millions (if not billions) of ill-gotten profits due to their
holdings of derivatives linked to VIX," the complaint stated.
(Parentheses in original.)

Pels accused the CBOE of being aware of the manipulation while
allegedly turning a blind eye because it is a major profit
generator.

But Judge Shah dismissed the investors' claims on May 29, finding
that the evidence is not sufficient enough to show that CBOE
intended to manipulate the market.

Even if the CBOE knew of the trading firms' allegedly fraudulent
conduct, "Knowing that certain market participants acted
fraudulently through one course of conduct does not suggest that
the exchange intended to cheat through its behavior," Shah said.
"Passive acquiescence is just as strong an inference."

In September, the CBOE announced that it is testing the use of
artificial intelligence software to enhance surveillance of the VIX
settlement auctions and catch nefarious traders more quickly, but
it did not offer any specifics about its plan.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at:

         https://is.gd/rGgQGU


CHICAGO INSURANCE: Abramson Sues over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------------
STEWART ABRAMSON, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CHICAGO INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. d/b/a
CONNECTED LEADS, THE PROSSEN AGENCY, LLC, and THE ALLSTATE
CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03711 (N.D. Ill.,
June 4, 2019), seeks to enforce the consumer-privacy provisions of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in response to widespread
public outrage about the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance
telemarketing practices.

According to the complaint, The Allstate Corporation offers its
services through a series of captive insurance agents, such as The
Prossen Agency, LLC. Prossen Agency hired Chicago Insurance Agency,
Inc., who made a telemarketing call to a cellular telephone number
of Mr. Abramson for the purposes of advertising Allstate goods and
services using an automated dialing system, which is prohibited by
the TCPA.

The Plaintiff never consented to receive the calls, which were
placed to him for telemarketing purposes. Because telemarketing
campaigns generally place calls to 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 the Defendants,
the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          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

               - and -

          Lauren E. Urban, Esq.
          2425 N. Spaulding Ave., Floor 2
          Chicago, IL 60647
          Telephone: (419) 344-1146
          E-mail: lauren.elizabeth.urban@gmail.com

CINEMARK USA: Settlement Agreement in Brown Suit Has Initial OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cinemark USA, 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 settlement
agreement in the case, Silken Brown v. Cinemark USA, Inc., has been
preliminarily approved by the Court and is subject to final
approval later this year.

Silken Brown v. Cinemark USA, Inc., Case No. 3:13cv05669, In the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division, presents putative class action
claims for penalties and attorney's fees arising from alleged
violations of the California wage statement law.  

The claim is also asserted as a representative action under the
California Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) for penalties. The
Court granted class certification.

The company denies the claims, denies that class certification is
appropriate, denies that the plaintiff has standing to assert the
claims alleged and is vigorously defending against the claims.  

The Company denies any violation of law; however, to avoid the cost
and uncertainty associated with litigation the Company and the
plaintiff entered into a Joint Stipulation of Class Action
Settlement and Release of Claims (the "Settlement Agreement") to
fully and finally dismiss all claims that would be brought in the
case.  

The Settlement Agreement was preliminarily approved by the Court
and is subject to final approval later this year. During 2018, the
Company recorded a litigation reserve based on the proposed
Settlement Agreement.   

Cinemark USA, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates in the
motion picture exhibition industry. The company operates in two
segments, U.S. Markets and International Markets. As of December
31, 2018, it operated 546 theatres and 6,048 screens in the United
States and Latin America. The company was incorporated in 1984 and
is headquartered in Plano, Texas. Cinemark USA, Inc. is a
subsidiary of Cinemark Holdings, Inc.


CITIBANK N.A.: Akbar Sues over Unsolicited Cellular Phone Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
KHOSRAW AKBAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CITIBANK, N.A., the Defendants, Case
No. 8:19-cv-01103 (C.D. Cal., June 4, 2019), seeks to recover for
damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of the
Defendant in negligently and/or knowingly contacting Plaintiff,
without implied or express consent, on Plaintiff's cellular
telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.  The Plaintiff additionally
brings this lawsuit to challenge the actions of Defendant with
regard to attempts by Defendant, a debt collector, to unlawfully
and abusively collect a debt allegedly owed by Plaintiff in
violation of the California Rosenthal Act and this conduct caused
Plaintiff damages.

According to the complaint, sometime prior to May 2019, the
Plaintiff allegedly incurred financial obligations to the
Defendant, an original creditor, that were money, property, or
their equivalent which are due or owing, or alleged to be due or
owing, from a natural person to another person and were therefore
"debt(s)" as that term is defined by Cal. Civ. Code section
1788.2(d) and a "consumer debt" as that term is defined by
California Civil Code section 1788.2(f). Sometime after allegedly
incurring the alleged debt, Plaintiff allegedly fell behind on the
payments allegedly owed on the debt.

As a result of Plaintiff's alleged delinquency in payments on the
alleged debt, the Plaintiff received numerous telephonic
communications from Defendant attempting to collect payment on the
alleged debt. These communications requesting payment from the
Plaintiff constitute "debt collection" as that phrase is defined by
Civ. Code section 1788.2(b).

During May 2019, Defendant sent Plaintiff numerous text messages to
Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in "6690" from SMS
short code number 692-13484 informing Plaintiff of declined credit
card transactions, and requesting payment from the Plaintiff.

Despite Plaintiff's written request that Defendant cease further
communications and Plaintiff's express revocation of any
prior-existing purported consent to receive such automated text
messages, Defendant continued to repeatedly send the same form text
messages to Plaintiff, the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit notes that California legislature has determined that
the banking and credit system and grantors of credit to consumers
are dependent upon the collection of just and owing debts and that
unfair or deceptive collection practices undermine the public
confidence that is essential to the continued functioning of the
banking and credit system and sound extensions of credit to
consumers.

Citibank is the consumer division of financial services
multinational Citigroup. Citibank was founded in 1812 as the City
Bank of New York, and later became First National City Bank of New
York. Citibank provides credit cards, mortgages, personal loans,
commercial loans, and lines of credit.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Mona Amini, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  mona@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108-3551
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-miail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

CLECO CORP: Exception Of No Cause of Action & Res Judicata Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that a Louisiana state
court has denied the exceptions of no cause of action and res
judicata lodged by the company.

In connection with a 2016 merger, four actions were filed in the
Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish, Louisiana and
three actions were filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans
Parish, Louisiana.

The petitions in each action generally alleged, among other things,
that the members of Cleco Corporation's Board of Directors breached
their fiduciary duties by, among other things, conducting an
allegedly inadequate sale process, agreeing to the 2016 Merger at a
price that allegedly undervalued Cleco, and failing to disclose
material information about the 2016 Merger.

The petitions also alleged that Cleco Partners, Cleco Corporation,
Merger Sub, and in some cases, certain of the investors in Cleco
Partners, either aided and abetted or entered into a civil
conspiracy to advance those supposed breaches of duty. The
petitions seek various remedies, including monetary damages, which
includes attorneys' fees and expenses.

The four actions filed in the Ninth Judicial District Court for
Rapides Parish are captioned as follows:

     -- Braunstein v. Cleco Corporation, No. 251,383B (filed
October 27, 2014),

     -- Moore v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No.
251,417C (filed October 30, 2014),

     -- Trahan v. Williamson, No. 251,456C (filed November 5,
2014), and

     -- L'Herisson v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No.
251,515F (filed November 14, 2014).

In November 2014, the plaintiff in the Braunstein action moved for
a dismissal of the action without prejudice, and that motion was
granted in November 2014. In December 2014, the Court consolidated
the remaining three actions and appointed interim co-lead counsel.


Also in December 2014, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action
filed a Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action
Petition for Damages and Preliminary and Permanent Injunction (the
Consolidated Amended Petition). The consolidated action named Cleco
Corporation, its directors, Cleco Partners, and Merger Sub as
defendants.

The Consolidated Amended Petition alleged, among other things, that
Cleco Corporation's directors breached their fiduciary duties to
Cleco's shareholders and grossly mismanaged Cleco by approving the
2016 Merger Agreement because it allegedly did not value Cleco
adequately, failing to structure a process through which
shareholder value would be maximized, engaging in self-dealing by
ignoring conflicts of interest, and failing to disclose material
information about the 2016 Merger.

The Consolidated Amended Petition further alleged that all
defendants conspired to commit the breaches of fiduciary duty.

Cleco believes that the allegations of the Consolidated Amended
Petition are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious
defenses to the claims set forth in the Consolidated Amended
Petition.

The three actions filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans
Parish are captioned as follows:

     -- Butler v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-10776 (filed November
7, 2014),

     -- Creative Life Services, Inc. v. Cleco Corporation, No.
2014-11098 (filed November 19, 2014), and

     -- Cashen v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-11236 (filed November
21, 2014).

Both the Butler and Cashen actions name Cleco Corporation, its
directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, Macquarie Infrastructure and
Real Assets Inc. (MIRA), British Columbia Investment Management
Corporation (BCI), and John Hancock Financial as defendants.

The Creative Life Services action names Cleco Corporation, its
directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, MIRA, and Macquarie
Infrastructure Partners III, L.P., as defendants.

In December 2014, the plaintiff in the Butler action filed an
Amended Class Action Petition for Damages.

Each petition alleged, among other things, that the members of
Cleco Corporation's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary
duties to Cleco's shareholders by approving the Merger Agreement
because it allegedly did not value Cleco adequately, failing to
structure a process through which shareholder value would be
maximized and engaging in self-dealing by ignoring conflicts of
interest.

The Butler and Creative Life Services petitions also allege that
the directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to
disclose material information about the 2016 Merger. Each petition
further alleged that Cleco, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, and certain
of the investors in Cleco Partners aided and abetted the directors'
breaches of fiduciary duty.

In December 2014, the directors and Cleco filed declinatory
exceptions in each action on the basis that each action was
improperly brought in Orleans Parish and should either be
transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish
or dismissed. Also in December 2014, the plaintiffs in each action
jointly filed a motion to consolidate the three actions pending in
Orleans Parish and to appoint interim co-lead plaintiffs and
co-lead counsel.

In January 2015, the Court in the Creative Life Services case
sustained the defendants' declinatory exceptions and dismissed the
case so that it could be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District
Court for Rapides Parish. In February 2015, the plaintiffs in
Butler and Cashen also consented to the dismissal of their cases
from Orleans Parish so they could be transferred to the Ninth
Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish.

In February 2015, the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides
Parish held a hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction filed
by plaintiffs Moore, L'Herisson, and Trahan seeking to enjoin the
shareholder vote for approval of the Merger Agreement. Following
the hearing, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion.

In June 2015, three of the plaintiffs filed their Second
Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action Petition.
This will be considered according to a schedule established by the
Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish. Cleco filed
exceptions seeking dismissal of the amended petition in July 2015.

In March 2016 and May 2016, the plaintiffs filed their Third
Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative Petition for Damages and
Preliminary and Permanent Injunction and their Fourth Verified
Consolidated Amended Class Action Petition, respectively.

The fourth petition eliminated the request for preliminary and
permanent injunction and also named an additional executive officer
as a defendant.

Cleco filed exceptions seeking dismissal of the amended Petition. A
hearing was held in September 2016, and the District Court granted
the exceptions filed by Cleco and dismissed all claims asserted by
the former shareholders.

The plaintiffs appealed the District Court's ruling to the
Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal. The Third Circuit Court of
Appeal heard oral arguments in the case in September 2017.

In December 2017, the Third Circuit Court of Appeal issued an order
reversing and remanding the case to the District Court for further
proceedings.

In January 2018, Cleco filed a writ with the Louisiana Supreme
Court seeking review of the Third Circuit Court of Appeal's
decision. The writ was denied in March 2018 and the parties are
engaged in discovery in the District Court.

On November 2, 2018, Cleco filed exceptions of no cause of action
and res judicata, seeking to dismiss all claims.

The District Court denied the exceptions on January 14, 2019.

Cleco believes that the allegations of the petitions in each action
are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious defenses
to the claims set forth in each of the petitions.

Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC operates as a public utility holding
company primarily in Louisiana. The company, through its
subsidiary, operates as a regulated electric utility, which owns
nine generating units with a total capacity of 3,310 megawatts and
serves approximately 291,000 customers in Louisiana through its
retail business; and supplies wholesale power in Louisiana and
Mississippi. The company was formerly known as Cleco Corporation
and changed its name to Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC in April 2016.
Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC was founded in 1934 and is based in
Pineville, Louisiana.


CLOUDERA INC: Christie Sues Over Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------
SHANICE CHRISTIE, Individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CLOUDERA, INC., THOMAS J. REILLY, JIM
FRANKOLA, AND MICHAEL A. OLSON, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-03221
(N.D. Cal., June 7, 2019) is a securities class action on behalf of
all purchasers of Cloudera common stock between April 28, 2017 and
June 5, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The claims asserted
herein are alleged against Cloudera, the Company's former Chief
Executive Officer, Thomas J. Reilly, Chief Financial Officer, Jim
Frankola, and Michael A. Olson, the Company's founder and former
Chairman, and arise under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, defendants
failed to disclose adverse facts pertaining to the Company’s
business, operations, and financial condition, which were known to
or recklessly disregarded by Defendants. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose that: (i) Cloudera was finding it increasingly
difficult to identify large enterprises interested in adopting the
Company's Hadoop-based platform; (ii) Cloudera needed to expend an
increasing amount of capital on sales and marketing activities to
generate new revenues, even as new revenue opportunities were
diminishing; and (iii) Cloudera had materially diminished sales
opportunities and prospects and could not generate annual positive
cash flows. The truth began to be revealed on April 3, 2018 when,
in connection with its Q4 and FY 2018 financial results, the
Company provided a disappointing outlook for fiscal 2019 along with
missed revenue numbers.

This news contradicted Defendants' prior positive statements and
were all the more surprising as they had come less than a year
after Cloudera had gone public. As a result of the Defendants'
wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the
market value of Cloudera's stock, Plaintiff and other Class members
have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Shanice Christie purchased Cloudera common stock on the
public market during the Class Period.

Defendant Cloudera is a data management and software company
incorporated under the laws of Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
     Brett M. Middleton, Esq.
     JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
     655 West Broadway, Suite 1400
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 230-0063
     Facsimile: (619) 255-1856
     Email: FrankJ@johnsonfistel.com
            BrettM@johnsonfistel.com


CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Olsen Sues over Spam Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------
IAN OLSEN; ADAM HANEY; SHARON MOTLEY; and MEMARY LAROCK,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. CONTEXTLOGIC INC., the, Defendant, Case No.
2019CH06737 (Ill. Cir., June 3, 2019), alleges that the Defendant
transmitted unsolicited, autodialed SMS text message advertisements
to Plaintiffs' cellular telephone numbers and the cellular
telephone numbers of numerous other consumers across the country,
in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA").

For example, in or about September and October 2018 (and at various
other times during the statutory period as well), Defendant
transmitted or caused to be transmitted several SMS text message
advertisements to Plaintiff Olsen's 9633 Number without his prior
express written consent.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs and Putative Class:

          Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893 7002
          Facsimile: (312) 275 7895
          E-mail: eturin@mcgpc.com

               - and -

          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          David W. hall, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          1395 Brickell Ave, Suite 900
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 357-2107
          Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
          E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com
                  dhall@hedinhall.com

CREATIVE BIOSCIENCE: Bauman Sues over Garcinia Cambogia Diet Pills
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, BARBARA BAUMAN, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CREATIVE BIOSCIENCE
LABORATORIES, LLC, and CREATIVE BIOSCIENCE, LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-11642-AC-DRG (E.D. Mich., June 4, 2019), alleges
that Defendants' efficacy claims for Garcinia Cambogia 1234 are
false and misleading. The Defendants do not include the represented
amount of the active ingredient, hydroxycitric acid ("HCA"), in the
Product.

The case is a class action brought individually by the Plaintiff
and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, who
purchased the weight-loss dietary supplement BioScience
Laboratories Garcinia Cambogia 1234.

The Defendants advertise, manufacture, market, sell and distribute
the Product in the growing and extremely competitive
diet/weight-loss dietary supplement industry as a highly effective
appetite suppressant, fat burner, and weight-loss pill. Although
Defendants boast about the Product's efficacy on their labeling and
in their advertising, none of the promised benefits are or can be
delivered by the Product.

To make matters worse, the Defendants only provide approximately
6.93% of the total amount of HCA they have claimed is in each
serving of the Product on its label. In late 2012, Dr. Mehmet Oz of
the highly popular TV show, "The Dr. Oz Show," claimed on his
website that Garcinia Cambogia was the "Newest, Fastest Fat-Buster"
and that, "Thanks to brand new scientific research, I can tell you
about a revolutionary fat buster" with the words "No Exercise. No
Diet. No Effort" on the screen behind him.

According to the complaint, in June 2014, these representations
regarding weight-loss products, including Garcinia Cambogia, were
called into question by the United States Senate's Subcommittee on
Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Insurance, where Dr. Oz
was called to testify. When presented with studies refuting the
efficacy of Garcinia Cambogia, Dr. Oz testified that he could not
be held responsible for what companies say about their products,
that he had toned down some of his language, and that he would
publish a list of products he believes can actually help people
lose weight.

With all the notoriety surrounding this new "miracle" diet pill,
many dietary supplement manufacturers, including Defendants,
exploited this opportunity to make money off unassuming consumers,
regardless of the scientific research refuting claims regarding the
Product.

As a result of Defendants' unfair, deceptive, fraudulent, and
misleading practices, the Plaintiff and Class Members were deceived
into purchasing the Product they would not otherwise have
purchased, denied the benefit of their bargain, or would have only
purchased it at a substantially lower price than that charged by
Defendants, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Class:

          Nick Suciu III, Esq.
          BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC
          1644 Bracken Rd.
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
          Telephone: (313) 303-3472
          Facsimile: (248) 698-8634
          E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
          KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700
          Facsimile: (215) 238-1968
          E-mail: jshub@kohnswift.com
          klaukaitis@kohnswift.com

               - and -

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          Rachel Soffin, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          First Tennessee Plaza
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          Facsimile: (865) 533-0049
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  rachel@gregcolemanlaw.com

CREE INC: Young's Class Cert. Bid Denied; Compliance Hearing Today
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued an order in the lawsuit
captioned JEFF YOUNG v. CREE, INC., Case No. 4:17-cv-06252-YGR
(N.D. Cal.), denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification
and denying as moot motions to strike and exclude.

On May 28, 2019, the Court heard oral argument on plaintiff's
motion for class certification, which was fully briefed.  As stated
on the record, and confirmed herein, having carefully considered
the briefing and arguments submitted in this matter, the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied without
prejudice.

Accordingly, and as noted on the record, the Court sets a
compliance hearing for June 21, 2019.  The parties shall file a
joint statement outlining a proposed schedule.  The Order also
terminates Docket Numbers 79, 82, 85, 90, 93, and 105.[CC]


DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Asks Court to Transfer Suits to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diplomat Pharmacy, 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
unopposed motions seeking to transfer two complaints pending in the
Central District of California to the Northern District of
Illinois.

On February 24, 2019 and March 6, 2019, in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California and on March 12, 2019 in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, putative
class actions complaints were filed against Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc.
and certain current and former officers of the Company.

The complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the company's
public filings made between February 26, 2018 and February 21, 2019
(the "potential class period").

The plaintiffs each seek to represent a class of shareholders who
purchased stock in the potential class period. The complaints seek
unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

The Company has filed unopposed motions to transfer the two
complaints pending in the Central District of California to the
Northern District of Illinois.

The Company believes the complaints and allegations to be without
merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against the actions.


Diplomat said, "The Company is unable at this time to determine
whether the outcome of the litigation would have a material impact
on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows."

Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc. operates as an independent specialty
pharmacy in the United States. The company operates through
Specialty and PBM (pharmacy benefit management) segment. The
company was founded in 1975 and is headquartered in Flint,
Michigan.


DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on Aug. 20
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diplomat Pharmacy, 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 settlement
approval hearing in a Michigan class action suit is scheduled for
August 20, 2019.

On November 10, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
against Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc. and certain former officers of the
Company.

Following the appointment of lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, an
amended complaint was filed on April 11, 2017.

The amended complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with
public filings made between February 29, 2016 and November 2, 2016
(the "potential class period"). The plaintiffs seek to represent a
class of shareholders who purchased stock in the potential class
period. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other
relief.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on May
24, 2017. The court issued orders denying the Company's motion to
dismiss on January 19, 2018 and the Company's motion for
reconsideration of its motion to dismiss on August 9, 2018.

The parties reached an agreement-in-principle on April 22, 2019 to
resolve the litigation.

The court preliminarily approved the settlement on May 7, 2019, and
a final settlement approval hearing is scheduled for August 20,
2019.

Diplomat said, "If approved by the court, the settlement would not
have a material impact on the Company's results of operations,
financial condition or cash flows."

Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc. operates as an independent specialty
pharmacy in the United States. The company operates through
Specialty and PBM (pharmacy benefit management) segment. The
company was founded in 1975 and is headquartered in Flint,
Michigan.


DOMINO'S PIZZA: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Antitrust Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge refused to
dismiss an antitrust class action against Domino's Pizza
Franchising over its allegedly horizontal restraint of trade
between competing franchises through no-hire agreements.

A copy of Opinion and Order Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
is available at:

         https://is.gd/LbYl5d


EBIX INC: Settlement of Stockholders Litigation Has Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ebix, 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 has entered an Order and Final
Judgment approving the settlement in the case entitled, In re Ebix,
Inc. Stockholder Litigation, CA No. 8526-VCS.

In May 2013, twelve putative class action complaints were filed in
the Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company and its board of
directors challenging a proposed merger between the Company and an
affiliate of Goldman Sachs & Co.  

On June 10, 2013, the Court entered an Order of Consolidation and
Appointment of Lead Plaintiffs and a Leadership Structure
consolidating the twelve actions and appointing lead plaintiffs
("Plaintiffs") and lead counsel in the litigation, captioned In re
Ebix, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 8526-VCS (the
"Litigation").

On June 19, 2013, the Company announced that the merger agreement
had been terminated. Thereafter, on August 27, 2013, Plaintiffs
filed a Verified Amended and Supplemented Class Action and
Derivative Complaint (the "First Amended Complaint"), which
defendants moved to dismiss on September 26, 2013. On July 24,
2014, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion granting in part and
denying in part the motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint
and subsequently entered an implementing order on September 15,
2014.  

On January 16, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Verified Second Amended and
Supplemented Class Action and Derivative Complaint (the "Second
Amended Complaint"). On February 10, 2015, defendants filed a
Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, which was granted
in part and denied in part in a Memorandum Opinion and Order issued
on January 15, 2016.  

On October 26, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Verified Third Amended and
Supplemented Class Action and Derivative Complaint (the "Third
Amended Complaint"), which, among other things, added certain
directors of the Company as defendants. On January 5, 2018,
Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to join an additional plaintiff
as co-lead plaintiff in this action (collectively, "Plaintiffs,"
and together with all defendants, the "Parties"), which was granted
on April 2, 2018.

On January 19, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended and
Supplemented Class Action and Derivative Complaint (the "Fourth
Amended Complaint"), which asserted claims against the defendants,
including: breach of fiduciary duty claims for improperly
maintaining an acquisition bonus agreement between the Company and
its Chief Executive Officer, dated July 15, 2009 (the "ABA") (Count
I); disclosure claims relating to the 2010 Proxy Statement and the
Company's 2010 Stock Incentive Plan (the "2010 Plan") (Count II); a
derivative claim for breach of fiduciary duty based on awards made
pursuant to 2010 Plan (Count III); a breach of fiduciary duty claim
for implementing purported additional entrenchment measures (Count
IV); a claim seeking to declare the invalidity of certain bylaws
adopted by the Company in 2014 (Count V); a claim seeking to
declare the invalidity of the ABA (Count VI); a breach of fiduciary
duty claim related to public disclosures about the ABA (Count VII);
a claim seeking to declare the invalidity of the 2008 stockholder
meeting, a 2008 Certificate amendment (the "Certificate Amendment")
and a 2008 stock split (the "Stock Dividend"), among other
corporate acts, including the Company's ratification of these 2008
corporate acts (Count VIII); a claim seeking to declare the
invalidity of the CEO Bonus Plan (Count IX); and a claim for breach
of fiduciary duty for deliberately inserting additional terms when
calculating a potential bonus under the ABA (Count X).  

The Fourth Amended Complaint sought declaratory relief,
compensatory damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs,
among other things. On March 7, 2018, defendants filed motions for
summary judgment on all counts in the Fourth Amended Complaint. In
connection with the Litigation, the Company's Chief Executive
Officer asserted a cross-claim for reformation of the ABA.

The terms of the ABA generally provided that if Mr. Raina was
employed by the Company upon the occurrence of: (i) an event in
which more than 50% of the voting stock of the Company was sold,
transferred, or exchanged, (ii) a merger or consolidation of the
Company, (iii) the sale, exchange, or transfer of all or
substantially all of the Company's assets, or (iv) the acquisition
or dissolution of the Company (each, an "Acquisition Event"), the
Company would pay Mr. Raina a cash bonus based on a formula that
was disputed by Plaintiffs in the Litigation and a tax gross-up
payment for excise taxes that would be imposed on Mr. Raina for the
cash bonus payment.

Upon the execution of a Stock Appreciation Right Award Agreement
between the Company and its Chief Executive Officer, dated April
10, 2018 (the "April SAR Agreement"), the ABA was terminated and
each party relinquished their respective rights and benefits under
the ABA.

Upon the effective date of the April SAR Agreement, Mr. Raina
received 5,953,975 stock appreciation rights with respect to the
Company’s common shares (the "SARs"). Upon an Acquisition Event,
each of the SARs entitle Mr. Raina to receive a cash payment from
the Company equal to the excess, if any, of the net proceeds per
share received in connection with the Acquisition Event over the
base price of $7.95 per share.

Although the SARs were not granted under the 2010 Plan, the April
SAR Agreement incorporates certain provisions of the 2010 Plan,
including the provisions requiring equitable adjustment of the
number of SARs and the base price in connection with certain
corporate events (including stock splits).

Under the terms of the April SAR Agreement, Mr. Raina is entitled
to receive full payment with respect to the SARs if either (i) he
is employed by the Company on the closing date of an Acquisition
Event or (ii) has been involuntarily terminated by the Company
without cause (as defined in the April SAR Agreement) within the
180-day period immediately preceding an Acquisition Event. All of
the SARs are forfeited if Mr. Raina's employment is terminated for
any other reason prior to the closing date of an Acquisition
Event.

In addition, while Mr. Raina is employed by the Company and prior
to an Acquisition Event, the April SAR Agreement provides that the
Company's Board of Directors (the "Board") will determine annually
whether a "shortfall" (as described below) exists as of the end of
the immediately preceding fiscal year.

In the event the Board determines that a shortfall exists, Mr.
Raina will be granted additional SARs (or, in the Board’s sole
discretion, additional restricted shares or restricted stock units
(each a "Share Grant")) in an amount sufficient to eliminate such
shortfall (each a "Shortfall Grant").

Under the terms of the April SAR Agreement, a shortfall exists if:
(A) the sum of (i) the number of common shares deemed to be owned
by Mr. Raina as of the effective date of the April SAR Agreement,
plus (ii) the number of SARs granted to Mr. Raina (including any
Shortfall Grants), plus (iii) the number of shares underlying any
previously granted Share Grant, was less than 20% of (B) the sum of
(i) the number of SARs granted to Mr. Raina (including any
Shortfall Grants), plus (ii) the number of outstanding shares
reported by the Company in its audited financial statements as of
the end of the immediately preceding fiscal year.

Under the terms of the April SAR Agreement, if the Board elects to
make a Shortfall Grant in respect of such shortfall, such SARs will
be subject to the same terms and conditions as the SARs initially
granted under the April SAR Agreement.

If the Board elects to make a Share Grant in respect of such
shortfall, such restricted shares or restricted stock units will
have such terms and conditions as determined by the Board, but
generally will follow the terms of the restricted shares or
restricted stock units granted to other executives of the Company
at or about the time of such Share Grant, but no Share Grant will
vest more rapidly than one-third of such Share Grant prior to the
first anniversary of the grant date, with the remainder vesting in
eight equal quarterly installments following the first anniversary
of the grant date.

The April SAR Agreement also provides for the Company to make tax
gross-up payments for excise taxes that would be imposed on Mr.
Raina in respect of any payments (other than any payments with
respect to any Share Grants) made in connection with a change in
control of the Company under Section 4999 of the Internal Revenue
Code.

On May 31, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a Verified Supplement to the
Fourth Amended Complaint (the "Supplement"), which asserted three
additional counts related to the April SAR Agreement, including: a
claim seeking to declare the April SAR Agreement invalid (Count
XI); a claim for breach of fiduciary duty for adopting the April
SAR Agreement (Count XII); and a claim for breach of fiduciary duty
for improperly adopting the SAR Agreement as an “anti-takeover
device” (Count XIII).

The Supplement sought declaratory relief, compensatory damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs, among other things. On
June 18, 2018, defendants moved to dismiss the claims asserted in
the Supplement. Also on June 18, 2018, the Court entered a joint
stipulation and order declaring the 2008 Certificate Amendment and
Stock Dividend valid and effective pursuant to 8 Del. C. Section
205 and subsequently dismissed Count VIII of the Fourth Amended
Complaint on July 5, 2018.

On July 17, 2018, following briefing and argument, the Court issued
an Order granting in part and denying in part defendants' motions
for summary judgment on all remaining counts of the Fourth Amended
Complaint.

The Court granted summary judgment as to all defendants on Counts
I, IV, V, VI, VII, and X and denied summary judgment as to Counts
II and III. The Court granted summary judgment as to certain
defendants on Count IX, and granted in part and denied in part
Count IX with respect to the Firm Clients.

On July 24, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a
second supplement to the Fourth Amended Complaint related to
certain disclosures issued in connection with the Company's 2018
annual meeting, which the Court denied at a pretrial conference
held on August 15, 2018.

On August 9, 2018, following briefing and argument, the Court
issued a bench ruling granting in part and denying in part
defendants' motion to dismiss the Supplement. A three-day trial on
all remaining claims was held on August 20, 21, and 23, 2018.

In connection with the foregoing Litigation, on January 23, 2019,
the parties entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement
(the "Settlement Agreement") pursuant to which the parties agreed,
subject to approval by the Delaware Court of Chancery, to settle
and resolve the Litigation pursuant to the terms set forth in the
Settlement Agreement (the "Litigation Settlement").

Thereafter, notice of the Litigation Settlement was prepared and
mailed on February 4, 2019 (the "Notice"). An Amended Stock
Appreciation Right Award Agreement (the "Amended SAR Agreement")
was negotiated as part of the Litigation Settlement and will become
effective upon Final Approval (as defined in the Settlement
Agreement) of the Litigation Settlement, and includes the following
changes and modifications to the April SAR Agreement:

(a) Mr. Raina will commit to continue to serve and not resign as
the Company's Chief Executive Officer for at least two years
following Final Approval of the Litigation Settlement;

(b) any shares paid, awarded or otherwise received by Mr. Raina as
compensation after the effective date of the April SAR Agreement,
including any shares received by Mr. Raina from the exercise of any
options granted after the effective date of the April SAR Agreement
or from the grant or vesting of any restricted shares or settlement
of any restricted stock units granted after the effective date of
the April SAR Agreement (but excluding any shares received as a
result of the grant, vesting or settlement of any Share Grants),
will be excluded from the outstanding shares for purposes of the
Board’s annual shortfall determination;

(c) if an Acquisition Event occurs more than 180 days after, but
not later than the tenth anniversary of, the date that Mr. Raina's
employment is involuntarily terminated by the Company without Cause
(as defined in the Amended SAR Agreement), 1,000,000 SARs will be
deemed accrued and will be eligible to vest on the closing date of
the Acquisition Event, which number will be increased by 750,000
SARs beginning on the first anniversary of Final Approval of the
Litigation Settlement and each anniversary thereafter (subject in
each case to Mr. Raina's continued employment on each anniversary
date), until 100% of the SARs (including any Shortfall Grants) have
accrued and are eligible to vest on the closing date of an
Acquisition Event that occurs more than 180 days after, but not
later than the tenth anniversary of, the date that Mr. Raina's
employment is involuntarily terminated by the Company without
Cause; provided, however, that, (i) no additional SARs will accrue
following the date that Mr. Raina's employment is involuntarily
terminated by the Company without Cause, (ii) any accrued SARs will
be forefited if an Acquisition Event does not occur prior to the
tenth anniversary of the date that Mr. Raina's employment is
involuntarily terminated by the Company without Cause, and (iii)
all of the SARs will be forfeited if Mr. Raina's employment
terminates for any other reason prior to the closing date of an
Acquisition Event; and

(d) The obligation of the Company to make tax gross-up payments for
excise taxes that would be imposed on Mr. Raina in respect of any
payments made in connection with a change in control of the Company
will be eliminated.

The foregoing description does not purport to be complete and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to the Amended SAR
Agreement.

On April 5, 2019, the Delaware Court of Chancery determined that
the Litigation Settlement was fair, reasonable, adequate and in the
best interest of the plaintiffs, the class and the Company and
awarded to plaintiffs' counsel attorneys' fees and expenses in the
sum of $19.65 million, payable by the Company within 20 days, and
entered an Order and Final Judgment (the "Order") approving the
Litigation Settlement.

The Order provides for full settlement, satisfaction, compromise
and release of all claims that were asserted or could have been
asserted in the Litigation, whether on behalf of the class or the
Company. The Order is publicly available for inspection at the
Office of the Register in Chancery, and on the Court's online
electronic filing system, File & ServeXpress.

The Litigation Settlement includes, among other things, the
adoption and entry into the Amended SAR Agreement, as well as
certain governance measures set forth in the Settlement Agreement,
in each case, effective upon the later of (i) expiration of the
period for taking an appeal of the Order, or (ii) final resolution
of any such appeal (excluding any appeal from the Order that
relates solely to the issue of plaintiffs' counsels' application
for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses).

The Settlement contains no admission of wrongdoing or liability,
and may not be deemed to be a presumption as to the validity of any
claims, causes of action or other issues.

Ebix, Inc. provides software and e-commerce solutions to insurance,
finance, healthcare, and e-learning industries. The company was
formerly known as Delphi Systems, Inc. and changed its name to
Ebix, Inc. in December 2003. Ebix, Inc. was founded in 1976 and is
headquartered in Johns Creek, Georgia.


EDCO DISPOSAL: Fuentes Seeks Minimum Wage & and Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
GABRIEL FUENTES, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly
situated current and former employees of Defendants, the Plaintiff,
vs. EDCO DISPOSAL CORPORATION, a California Corporation; and EDCO
TRANSPORT SERVICES, LLC, a California limited liability company;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
37-2019-0028578-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., June 4, 2019), alleges that
Defendants failed to provide all timely meal and rest period; pay
for all hours worked, including minimum wage, straight time, and
overtime pay; timely pay all wages to terminated employees; and
furnish accurate statements and maintain required records, in
accordance with California Labor Code and the Industrial Welfare
Commission.   The Defendants also have wrongfully failed to provide
Plaintiff and the Class with timely, adequate, and duty-free meal
periods, by way of specific classwide company policies and
practices, including, but not limited to, their shift and meal
period scheduling policies and practices, and the lack of express
meal period policies.

According to the complaint, the Defendants regularly required
Plaintiff and the Class to work in excess of five consecutive hours
a day without providing a 30-minute, continuous and uninterrupted,
meal period for every five hours of work, or without compensating
Plaintiff and the Class for meal periods that were not provided by
the end of the fifth hour of work or tenth hour of work. The
Defendants did not inform Plaintiff and the Class of their right to
take a meal period by the end of the fifth hour of work. The
Defendants did not inform Plaintiff and the Class of their right to
take a second meal break for shifts longer than 10 hours. The
Defendants did not inform Plaintiff and the Class of their right,
for shifts of more than hours, to take a second meal break by the
end of the 10th hour. Moreover, the Defendants did not have legally
compliant policies or practices providing adequate and duty-free
meal periods for Plaintiff and the Class, nor did Defendants have
legally compliant policies or practices regarding the timing of
meal periods, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Farzad Rastegar, Esq.
          Joshua Lange, Esq.
          RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, A.P.C.
          22760 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 200
          Torrance, CA 90505
          Telephone: (310) 961-9600
          Facsimile: (310) 961-9094
          E-mail: farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com
                  josh@rastegarlawgroup.com

ELBIT IMAGING: Court Declares Gadish Settlement Final
-----------------------------------------------------
Elbit Imaging Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2019, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2018, that an Israeli Supreme Court has
decided to reject a class action appeal, making the settlement in
Gadish et al v. Elscint et al., final.

On September 27, 2017, the company announced that the district
court in Israel approved in principle a settlement with the
plaintiffs in a November 1999 claim initiated against the company
and certain other third parties, including former directors of the
Company and Elscint Ltd. (the company's former subsidiary), in
connection with the change of control in the Company and in Elscint
and the acquisition of the hotel businesses and the Arena
Commercial Center in Israel by Elscint in September 1999 from
Europe Israel (our former controlling shareholder) (Gadish et al v.
Elscint et al). This lawsuit was later certified in part as a class
action.

According to the settlement, the plaintiffs will receive
compensation in the total amount of NIS 50 million (approximately
$14 million). The Company is expected to pay NIS 4.65 million
(approximately $1.3 million) of the said amount.

On January 17, 2018 the Company announced that the court has given
its final approval of the settlement. However, one of the
plaintiffs initiated a motion for leave to appeal against the
settlement. In August 2018 the Supreme Court decided to reject the
appeal and the settlement became final.

Elbit Imaging Ltd. hold investments in real estate and medical
companies. The Company, through its subsidiaries, also develop
shopping and entertainment centers in Central Europe and invest in
and manage hotels.


EMCOR SERVICES: Persaud Seeks Unpaid Wages Under NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------
Jagdesh Persaud, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. EMCOR SERVICES NEW YORK/NEW JERSEY, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 710098/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Queens Cty., June
10, 2019) is an action against Defendant pursuant to New York Labor
Law.

The Defendants has engaged and continues to engage in illegal and
improper wage practices, notes the complaint. These practices
include requiring Maintenance Workers to perform work without
compensation during meal breaks; failing to pay Maintenance Workers
overtime of time and one-half their regular of rate of pay for all
hours worked over forty in a week; and failing to provide accurate
wage statements, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Jagdesh Persaud was employed by Defendant as a
Maintenance Worker from 2002 until May 20, 2019.

Defendant employed Plaintiff out of its offices located at 5 Dakota
Drive, Suite 111m Lake Success, New York 11042.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Louis Ginsberg, Esq.
     THW LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
     1613 Northern Boulevard
     Roslyn, NY 11567
     Phone: (516) 625-0105 x. 18


EQUIFAX INC: Appeal in Saskatchewan Cybersecurity Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Equifax 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's order staying a case in
Saskatchewan related to the 2017 cybersecurity incident is on
appeal.

Eight Canadian class actions, six of which are on behalf of a
national class of approximately 19,000 Canadian consumers, have
been filed against the company in Ontario, Saskatchewan, Quebec,
British Columbia and Alberta.

Each of the proposed Canadian class actions asserts a number of
common law and statutory claims seeking monetary damages and other
related relief in connection with the 2017 cybersecurity incident.


The plaintiffs in each case seek class certification/authorization
on behalf of Canadian consumers whose personal information was
allegedly impacted by the 2017 cybersecurity incident.

In some cases, plaintiffs also seek class certification on behalf
of Canadian consumers who had contracts for subscription products
with Equifax around the time of the incident.

All purported class actions are at preliminary stages, and we are
opposing class certification or authorization in cases where such
motions are pending. In addition, one of the cases in Ontario as
well as the Saskatchewan case have been stayed.

The Court's order staying the Saskatchewan case is on appeal.

Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources
business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments,
and consumers. The company operates through four segments: U.S.
Information Solutions (USIS), International, Workforce Solutions,
and Global Consumer Solutions. Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899 and
is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.


EQUIFAX INC: Consolidated Securities Class Suit in Georgia Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Equifax 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 securities class action suit in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

A consolidated putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of
various federal securities laws in connection with statements and
alleged omissions regarding the company's cybersecurity systems and
controls is pending against the company and certain of its current
and former executives, officers and directors in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

The consolidated complaint seeks certification of a class of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Equifax securities from
February 25, 2016 through September 15, 2017 and unspecified
monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees.

The Company moved to dismiss the consolidated class action
complaint in its entirety. On January 28, 2019, the court dismissed
claims against certain individual defendants and claims challenging
certain statements, but allowed other claims against Equifax and
the company's former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer to
proceed.

Pursuant to scheduling and case management orders issued by the
court, pre-trial proceedings, including discovery between the
parties, are moving forward on the remaining claims.

Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources
business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments,
and consumers. The company operates through four segments: U.S.
Information Solutions (USIS), International, Workforce Solutions,
and Global Consumer Solutions. Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899 and
is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.


EQUIFAX INC: Data Breach Suits in Georgia Underway
--------------------------------------------------
Equifax 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 suits related to cybersecurity incident in Georgia.

Four putative class actions arising from the 2017 cybersecurity
incident were filed against the company in Fulton County Superior
Court and Fulton County State Court in Georgia based on similar
allegations and theories as alleged in the U.S. consumer class
actions pending in the MDL Court and seek monetary damages,
injunctive relief and other related relief on behalf of Georgia
citizens.

These cases have been transferred to a single judge in the Fulton
County Business Court and three of the cases were consolidated into
a single action. On July 27, 2018, the Fulton County Business Court
granted the Company's motion to stay the remaining single case, and
on August 17, 2018, the Fulton County Business Court granted the
Company's motion to stay the consolidated case.

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

Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources
business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments,
and consumers. The company operates through four segments: U.S.
Information Solutions (USIS), International, Workforce Solutions,
and Global Consumer Solutions. Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899 and
is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.


EQUIFAX INC: Preliminary Approval of Thomas Case Settlement Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
Equifax 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 are seeking preliminary
approval of a nationwide class action settlement in the case titled
Mark William Thomas, et al. v. Equifax Information Services LLC.

Equifax has been named as a defendant in 19 putative class action
lawsuits pending in federal courts across the country relating to
its reporting of civil judgments and tax liens on consumers' credit
files.

In October 2018, Equifax and the plaintiffs' attorneys who filed
the lawsuits reached an agreement in principle to settle the public
records-related claims at issue on behalf of a nationwide class of
consumers and we accrued an estimate of $18.5 million for our
liability for these matters in the third quarter of 2018.

The amount accrued represents our best estimate of the liability
related to this matter.

The parties have filed notices of settlement in the pending
lawsuits, and on April 17, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
preliminary approval of the nationwide class action settlement in
the case titled Mark William Thomas, et al. v. Equifax Information
Services LLC.

Equifax said, "If the settlement is not ultimately approved by the
court, Equifax believes it has valid defenses to each of these
actions and will continue to defend against them."

Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources
business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments,
and consumers. The company operates through four segments: U.S.
Information Solutions (USIS), International, Workforce Solutions,
and Global Consumer Solutions. Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899 and
is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.


ESSA BANCORP: Appellate Court Remands Suit over RESPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
ESSA Bancorp, 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 appellate court
reversed the district court's order dismissing the plaintiff's
class action over violations of the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act (RESPA) against the Bank, and remanded the case back
to the district court.

The Bank was named as a defendant in an action commenced on
December 8, 2016 by one plaintiff who will also seek to pursue this
action as a class action on behalf of the entire class of people
similarly situated.

The plaintiff alleges that a bank previously acquired by ESSA
Bancorp in the process of making loans, received unearned fees and
kickbacks in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act.

In an order dated January 29, 2018, the district court granted the
Bank's motion to dismiss the case. The plaintiff appealed the
court's ruling.

In an opinion and order dated April 26, 2019, the appellate court
reversed the district court's order dismissing the plaintiff's case
against the Bank, and remanded the case back to the district court
in order to continue the litigation.

ESSA Bancorp said, "The Bank will continue to vigorously defend
against such allegations. To the extent that pending or threatened
litigation could result in exposure to the Bank, the amount of such
exposure is not currently estimable."

ESSA Bancorp, Inc. operates as the holding company for ESSA Bank &
Trust that provides a range of financial services to individuals,
families, and businesses in Pennsylvania. ESSA Bancorp, Inc. was
founded in 1916 and is based in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.


EVOQUA WATER: McWilliams Class Action Re-Captioned
--------------------------------------------------
Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. 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
entitled, McWilliams v. Evoqua Water Technologies Corp., et al. has
been recaptioned as In re Evoqua Water Technologies Corp.
Securities Litigation," Master File No. 1:18-CV-10320.

On or around November 6, 2018, a purported shareholder of the
Company filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, captioned McWilliams v. Evoqua
Water Technologies Corp., et al., Case No. 1:18-CV-10320, alleging
that the Company and senior management violated federal securities
laws.  

On January 31, 2019, the court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel in connection with the action and captioned the action "In
re Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. Securities Litigation," Master
File No. 1:18-CV-10320."

On March 28, 2019, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
which asserts claims pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company, members of
the Company's Board of Directors, senior management, other
executives and/or employees, AEA Investors LP and a number of its
affiliated entities, and the underwriters of the Company's initial
public offering and secondary public offering.

The amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing false, misleading, and/or omissive
disclosures concerning the Company's integration of acquired
companies, the Company's reduction-in-force, and the Company's
accounting practices. The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount to be proved at trial, an award of reasonable
costs and expenses to the plaintiff and class counsel, and such
other relief as the court may deem just and proper.  

The Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends
to vigorously defend itself against the allegations.

Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. provides a range of water and
wastewater treatment systems and technologies, and mobile and
emergency water supply solutions and services. It operates in three
segments: Industrial, Municipal, and Products. The company has
operations in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, the
Netherlands, Germany, Australia, China, and Singapore. Evoqua Water
Technologies Corp. was incorporated in 2013 and is headquartered in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


FACEBOOK INC: Awaits Decision on Data Breach Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal judge in California must consider whether personal
information is a form of currency and determine whether to advance
a class action over a massive Facebook data breach.

Fighting litigation over a September 2018 hack that affected 29
million users, Facebook argues a liability-limiting clause in its
terms of service is particularly strong and enforceable for a
company that provides a free service, as the Ninth Circuit held
last year in Darnaa LLC v. Google.

But five named plaintiffs say they pay for access to Facebook's
social network in the form of valuable personal data, which the
company uses for targeted advertising and sells to third parties to
make more than $40 billion in 2017 alone.

"Is it a cost to the consumer that they hand over all this personal
information which is used by Facebook to sell to other people?"
U.S. District Judge William Alsup asked in court on May 2.

Last year, hackers managed to infiltrate millions of Facebook
accounts by exploiting a vulnerability in its "View As" feature for
user profiles. Facebook initially said the breach affected 50
million users but has since downgraded that estimate to 29 million
users, including 4 million in the U.S.

Hackers swiped the names and contact information -- such as phone
numbers or email addresses -- of 2.7 million U.S. users, and
infiltrated the profiles of an additional 1.2 million U.S. users,
gaining access to usernames, birthdates, workplaces, hometowns,
schools attended and other personal information, including places
where they recently "checked in" or were "tagged."

In a hearing on May 2 at the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, lawyers for a proposed class of hacked
Facebook users urged Alsup to take a long, hard look at the social
network's business model as he decides whether the service is
actually free of charge.

"The notion that this is a free service is a little outdated,"
plaintiffs' attorney Douglas McNamara said. "The currency is your
information."

McNamara, of Cohen Milstein Sellers Toll in New York, insisted that
Facebook's limitation-of-liability clause should be deemed
"unconscionable" and "unenforceable" because it directly
contradicts pledges the company has made about protecting user
privacy.

Quoting the "Privacy Principles" posted on Facebook's website,
McNamara cited representations that the company "work[s] hard to
keep your information secure" and is "accountable."

Alsup did not seem particularly persuaded that such comments can be
interpreted as promises to protect private user data.

"It says, 'We work hard to keep your information secure,'" Alsup
said. "That's not quite the same as saying, 'We guarantee it will
always be secure.'"

After pressing both sides to identify an "on-point" court ruling on
whether personal information can count as a "cost" of service,
Alsup concluded he is in uncharted territory.

The judge asked Facebook's legal team to explain why there should
not be "bone-crushing discovery" to determine how valuable Facebook
users' information is and whether its social network can truly be
considered a "free service."

Facebook lawyer Andrew Clubok, of Latham & Watkins in Washington,
D.C., insisted that courts have not recognized the type of
information taken in the 2018 data breach as particularly valuable.
He further argued that users voluntarily add that data to their
profiles. The only information required to open an account is a
name, birth date, gender and phone number or email address.

Given the nature of the online social network, Aslup did not put
much weight on the fact that users volunteer to post personal
information there.

"What's the point of opening account other than sharing private
information?" Alsup asked.

The judge also acknowledged his own personal discomfort with the
Menlo Park-based company's business model.

"For me, I would not like the places I like going on vacation being
spread across the country so people can send me ads about it,"
Alsup said.

After 90 minutes of debate, Alsup took the arguments under
submission.

He also ordered plaintiffs' lawyers to make their five clients
available for depositions by May 10, and he asked Facebook to file
supplemental briefs on any evidence uncovered in those interviews.

Started in 2004 by Harvard dropout Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook
remains the world's largest online social network with 1.56 billion
daily active users and nearly 2.4 billion monthly active users as
of March 31, 2019.


FICOHSA EXPRESS: Coello Suit Asserts TCPA Breach
------------------------------------------------
LESLY COELLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FICOHSA EXPRESS, LLC, a Florida Limited
Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-22383-JEM (S.D.
Fla., June 10, 2019) seeks to secure redress for violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

To promote its services, Defendant engages in unsolicited
marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process. Through
this action, 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. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on
behalf of himself and members of the class, and any other available
legal or equitable remedies.

Plaintiff is a natural person was a resident of Jefferson Parish,
Louisiana.

Defendant owns and operates a money transfer service.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
     Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
     SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
     14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205
     Miami, FL 33132
     Phone (305) 479-2299
     Facsimile (786) 623-0915
     Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
            gberg@shamisgentile.com

          - and -

     Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
     Jordan D. Utanski, Esq.
     EDELSBERG LAW, PA
     19495 Biscayne Blvd. #607
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Phone: (305) 975-3320
     Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
            utanski@edelsberglaw.com

          - and -

     Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
     HIRALDO P.A.
     401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
     Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: 954.400.4713
     Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com


FIFTH THIRD: Appeal in Early Access Cash Advance Lawsuit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third 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 appeal in the case
entitled, In re: Fifth Third Early Access Cash Advance Litigation
(Case No. 1:12-CV-00851), is ongoing.

On August 3, 2012, William Klopfenstein and Adam McKinney filed a
lawsuit against Fifth Third Bank in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Klopfenstein et al. v.
Fifth Third Bank), alleging that the 120% APR that Fifth Third
disclosed on its Early Access program was misleading.

Early Access is a deposit-advance program offered to eligible
customers with checking accounts. The plaintiffs sought to
represent a nationwide class of customers who used the Early Access
program and repaid their cash advances within 30 days.

On October 31, 2012, the case was transferred to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. In 2013, four
similar putative class actions were filed against Fifth Third Bank
in federal courts throughout the country (Lori and Danielle
Laskaris v. Fifth Third Bank, Janet Fyock v. Fifth Third Bank,
Jesse McQuillen v. Fifth Third Bank, and Brian Harrison v. Fifth
Third Bank).

Those four lawsuits were transferred to the Southern District of
Ohio and consolidated with the original lawsuit as In re: Fifth
Third Early Access Cash Advance Litigation (Case No.
1:12-CV-00851).

On behalf of a putative class, the plaintiffs sought unspecified
monetary and statutory damages, injunctive relief, punitive
damages, attorney's fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest.

On March 30, 2015, the court dismissed all claims alleged in the
consolidated lawsuit except a claim under the TILA. On January 10,
2018, plaintiffs filed a motion to hear the immediate appeal of the
dismissal of their breach of contract claim.

On March 28, 2018, the court granted plaintiffs' motion and stayed
the TILA claim pending that appeal. On April 26, 2018, plaintiffs
filed their notice of appeal for the breach of contract claim with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Oral argument on
plaintiffs' appeal was held on January 29, 2019.

Fifth Third Bancorp operates as a diversified financial services
company in the United States. Fifth Third Bancorp was founded in
1858 and is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.


FIFTH THIRD: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Nov. 7
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third 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 a hearing to consider
final approval of the settlement resolving the Plaintiff Damages
Class is scheduled for November 7, 2019.

In April 2006, the Bancorp was added as a defendant in a
consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit originally filed
against Visa(R), MasterCard(R) and several other major financial
institutions in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York (In re: Payment Card Interchange Fee and
Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 05-MD-1720).

The plaintiffs, merchants operating commercial businesses
throughout the U.S. and trade associations, claimed that the
interchange fees charged by card-issuing banks were unreasonable
and sought injunctive relief and unspecified damages.

In addition to being a named defendant, the Bancorp is currently
also subject to a possible indemnification obligation of Visa and
has also entered into judgment and loss sharing agreements with
Visa, MasterCard and certain other named defendants.

In October 2012, the parties to the litigation entered into a
settlement agreement. On January 14, 2014, the trial court entered
a final order approving the class settlement. A number of merchants
filed appeals from that approval. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit held a hearing on those appeals and on June 30,
2016, reversed the district court's approval of the class
settlement, remanding the case to the district court for further
proceedings.

On March 27, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States denied a
petition for writ of certiorari seeking to review the Second
Circuit's decision.

Pursuant to the terms of the overturned settlement agreement, the
Bancorp had previously paid $46 million into a class settlement
escrow account. Approximately 8,000 merchants requested exclusion
from the class settlement, and therefore, pursuant to the terms of
the overturned settlement agreement, approximately 25% of the funds
paid into the class settlement escrow account had been already
returned to the control of the defendants.

The remaining approximately 75% of the settlement funds paid by the
Bancorp are currently maintained in the escrow account. More than
500 of the merchants who requested exclusion from the class filed
separate federal lawsuits against Visa, MasterCard and certain
other defendants alleging similar antitrust violations.

These individual federal lawsuits were transferred to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

While the Bancorp is only named as a defendant in one of the
individual federal lawsuits, it may have obligations pursuant to
indemnification arrangements and/or the judgment or loss sharing
agreements.

On June 5, 2018, the defendants in the consolidated class action
reached an agreement to settle in principle with the proposed
plaintiffs' class seeking monetary damages (the "Plaintiff Damages
Class"). On September 17, 2018, those parties signed a settlement
agreement (the "Amended Settlement Agreement") superseding the
original settlement agreement entered into in October 2012.

The Amended Settlement Agreement included, among other terms, a
release from participating class members for liability for claims
that accrue no later than five years after the Amended Settlement
Agreement becomes final.

The Amended Settlement Agreement provided for a total payment by
all defendants of $6.24 billion, composed of approximately $5.3
billion held in escrow and an additional $900 million.

The Bancorp's allocated share of the putative settlement is within
existing reserves. If more than 15% of class members (by payment
volume) opt out of the class, up to $700 million of the settlement
payment may be returned to the defendants.

On September 18, 2018, the Plaintiff Damages Class filed a Motion
for Preliminary Approval of the Amended Settlement Agreement. On
January 24, 2019, the Court issued an order preliminarily approving
the settlement.

A hearing on final approval of the settlement is scheduled for
November 7, 2019.

This settlement does not resolve the claims of the separate
proposed plaintiffs' class seeking injunctive relief or the claims
of merchants who are pursuing separate lawsuits. The ultimate
outcome in this matter, including the timing of resolution,
therefore remains uncertain.

Fifth Third Bancorp operates as a diversified financial services
company in the United States. Fifth Third Bancorp was founded in
1858 and is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.


FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Thompson Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Thompson a/k/a Julia Penamon, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Financial Recovery
Services, Inc., LVNV Funding, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants,
Case No. 19-cv-12291 (D. N.J., May 8, 2019), seeks damages and
declaratory relief under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

Financial Recovery Services is a debt collector with address at
4510 W. 77th St., Ste. 200, Edina, MN 55435 who was assigned to
collect an obligation owed by Thompson to Citifinancial, Inc. It
sent a collection letter that omitted the requirement that a
consumer must dispute the debt in writing. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Yaakov Saks, Esq.
     YAAKOV SAKS
     Stein Saks, PLLC
     285 Passaic Street
     Hackensack, NJ 07601
     Tel: (201) 282-6500
     Fax: (201) 282-6501
     Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com



FIRST AMERICAN: Barajases Sue over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------
ANTONIO BARAJAS and KATHLEEN BARAJAS, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. FIRST AMERICAN
FINANCIAL CORPORATION and FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case 8:19-cv-01078 (C.D. Cal., June 3, 2019), seeks
damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under applicable
law including Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, California Code of
Civil Procedure, and Catalyst Theory.

First American has admitted that its current and former customers'
personally identifiable information (PII) were exposed as a result
of their system. As a result of First American's negligence,
Plaintiffs and members of the Class and Subclass have suffered and
will suffer injury.

The Plaintiffs relied upon First American's representations that it
would maintain Plaintiffs' information securely, and reasonably
expected that First American would take reasonable measures to
ensure data security of sensitive information. As of the filing of
this complaint, First American has not provided Plaintiffs with any
notice of the existence of the data breach, the lawsuit says.

First American's extensive advertising on the security of its
systems shows that First American understood the value this creates
for a consumer. However, First American was not running even the
most basic of security tests.

Beginning in June 2004, the Plaintiffs entered the market to buy
Plaintiffs' home. Utilizing First American's services, the
Plaintiffs purchased or refinanced several of their residential
homes between June 2004 and February 2016. In the process of using
First American's services, Plaintiffs received several documents
electronically from First American. These documents contained
Plaintiffs' personally identifiable information (PII). These
documents were allegedly made publicly accessible on the internet
due to First American's negligent use of URLs.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
          Nicholas R. Barthel, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  jason@kazlg.com
                  nicholas@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Matt Schultz, Esq.
          Bill Cash, Esq.
          Brenton Goodman, Esq.
          LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL,
             RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, P.A.
          Pro Hac Vice to be filed
          316 S Baylen St Ste 600
          Pensacola, FL 32502-5996
          Telephone: (850) 435-7140
          Facsimile: (850) 436-6140
          E-mail: mschultz@levinlaw.com
                  bcash@levinlaw.com
                  bvigodsky@levinlaw.com

               - and -

          HYDE & SWIGART
          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

FIRST SOURCE: Ulrich Sues Over Illegal Collection Activities
------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Ulrich individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated consumers, Plaintiff, v. First Source Advantage, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-12377 (D. N.J., May 21, 2019) is a class
action suit seeking redress for violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Act.

First Source Advantage is a debt collections service provider
headquartered in Amherst, New York. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Paul Force, Esq.
      STEIN SAKS, PLLC
      285 Passaic Street
      Hackensack, NJ 07601
      Tel: (201) 282-6500 Ext. 107
      Fax: (201) 282-6501
      Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com


FORD MOTOR: Dawson Files Product Liability Suit in E.D. Michigan
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ford Motor Company.
The case is styled as Dustin Dawson, Rick Shawley on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ford
Motor Company, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-11728-BAF-RSW (E.D.
Mich., June 10, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Product Liability.

Ford Motor Company, incorporated on July 9, 1919, is a global
automotive and mobility company. The Company's business includes
designing, manufacturing, marketing, and servicing a line of
Fordcars, trucks, and sport utility vehicles (SUVs), as well as
Lincoln luxury vehicles.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Lynn L. Sarko, Esq.
     Keller Rohrback
     1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Phone: (206) 623-1900
     Email: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com


FORD MOTOR: Hubert Files Suit Over Erroneous Fuel Economy Ratings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Hubert, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Ford Motor Company, Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-02125 (C.D. Ill., May 9, 2019) seeks redress for Defendant's
breach of express warranties and for violations of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act.

Hubert purchased a new 2018 Ford F-150 XL from Heller Ford, an
authorized Ford dealership, located in El Paso, Illinois. He claims
that Ford's fuel economy ratings were erroneous and overstated.

Ford engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing,
marketing, warranting, distributing, selling, and leasing
automobiles. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
      DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY LLC
      11th Floor, 10 North Dearborn Street
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 214-7900
      Email: alevitt@dlcfirm.com

             - and -

      Joel E. Brown, Esq.
      Suite 1300, 416 Main St
      Peoria, IL 61602
      Tel: (309) 673-4357
      Fax: (309) 673-6119
      Email: jebrownlaw@sbcglobal.net


GAMESTOP CORP: Baker Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
MARK BRANDON BAKER and JACOB O'BRYANT, Individually, and on behalf
of themselves and other similarly situated current and former
employees, Plaintiffs, v. GAMESTOP CORP. d/b/a Spring Mobile, a
Delaware Corporation, and SPRING COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS, LLC,
d/b/a Spring Mobile, formerly Spring Communications Holdings, Inc.,
a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-02375-SHM-jay (W.D. Tenn., June 7, 2019) is a collective
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), to recover
unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation and other damages owed
to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated current and former
employees who are members of a class and currently or previously
employed by Defendants.

The Defendants have and continue to employ a uniform payment
structure for its retail sales associates which violates the FLSA's
overtime policies because the commission payments and/or
non-discretionary bonuses earned by Plaintiffs and those similarly
situated employees are not included in such employees' regular rate
when overtime payments are calculated, says the complaint.

Moreover, the Defendants failed to include commission payments
and/or nondiscretionary bonuses in the regular rate of pay for
Plaintiffs and those similarly situated resulting in underpayment
of overtime. Overtime was paid solely on Plaintiffs' base hourly
rate rather than Plaintiffs regular rate, which generally requires
the inclusion of commission payments and non-discretionary bonuses
in the regular rate when calculating overtime, adds the complaint.


Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as sales persons on an
hourly-plus-commission basis.

Spring Mobile was also known as Technology Brands, a division, or
segment, of GameStop that sells AT&T compatible phones, AT&T data
plans, cell phone accessories and DirectTV Service.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
     J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
     Robert E. Turner IV, Esq.
     Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq.
     JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
     262 German Oak Drive
     Memphis, TN 38018
     Phone: (901) 754-8001
     Fax: (901) 759-1745
     Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
            rbryant@jsyc.com
            rturner@jsyc.com
            nbishop@jsyc.com


GEICO INDEMNITY: Jimenez Files Class Action in Connecticut
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Geico Indemnity Co.
The case is styled as Josee Jimenez, Maryana Glas and all other
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Geico Indemnity Co,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00897-MPS (D. Conn., June 10, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance.

The Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO) is an American
auto insurance company with headquarters in Chevy Chase,
Maryland.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     William E. Murray, Esq.
     Law Offices of William E. Murray, LLC
     41 North Main Street, Suite 204
     West Hartford, CT 06107
     Phone: (860) 969-0619
     Fax: (860) 969-0554
     Email: bill@billmurraylegal.com


GENIE ENERGY: IDT Energy Still Defends Mackey & Hernandez Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Genie Energy Ltd. 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 IDT Energy continues to
defend a class action lawsuit initiated by Scott Mackey and Daniel
Hernandez.

On October 5, 2018, named plaintiffs Scott Mackey and Daniel
Hernandez filed a putative class action complaint against IDT
Energy in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 et seq.

The named plaintiffs filed the suit on behalf of: (1) a putative
Cell Phone class consisting of all persons in the U.S. to whom IDT
Energy and/or a third party acting on IDT Energy's behalf allegedly
made one or more telemarketing calls promoting IDT Energy's goods
or services to their cellular telephone number through the use of
an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or
prerecorded voice within the four year period preceding the filing
of the complaint and (2) a putative Do-Not-Call class consisting of
all persons in the U.S. who allegedly received more than one call
from IDT Energy and/or some party acting on IDT Energy's behalf
promoting IDT Energy's goods or services in a 12-month period on
their cellular phone or residential telephone line and whose number
appears on the National Do-Not-Call registry within the four year
period preceding the filing of the complaint.

On November 30, 2018, IDT Energy filed its Answer and Defenses to
the complaint and the parties are now engaged in discovery. IDT
Energy denies the allegations in the complaint, which it believes
to be completely, meritless and plans to vigorously defend this
action.

Based upon the Company's preliminary assessment of this matter, a
loss based on the merits is not considered probable, nor is the
amount of loss, if any, estimable as of March 31, 2019.

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

Genie Energy Ltd., through its subsidiaries, operates as a retail
energy provider; and an oil and gas exploration company. The
company operates through three segments: Genie Retail Energy; Genie
Energy Services; and Genie Oil and Gas, Inc. Genie Energy Ltd. was
incorporated in 2001 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.


GENIE ENERGY: Says Remaining Class Action Liability Totals $400,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Genie Energy Ltd. 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 remaining balance
of the company's liability related to a class-action lawsuit was
$0.4 million.

On March 13, 2014, July 2, 2014 and July 15, 2014, named plaintiffs
in Pennsylvania, New York and New Jersey commenced three separate
putative class-action lawsuits against IDT Energy, Genie Retail
Energy (GRE), Genie Energy International Corporation (GEIC), and
Genie (collectively, "IDTE") contending, among other things, that
they and other former and current customers of IDTE were injured as
a result of IDTE's allegedly unlawful sales and marketing
practices.

The Company denied any basis for those allegations and/or
wrongdoing. On July 5, 2017, the Company entered into a settlement
of all three actions to further its efforts to address its
customers' concerns.

On July 31, 2018, the Magistrate Court issued a report and
recommendation recommending approval of the settlement and
reduction of the attorneys' fees. On October 18, 2018, the Court
entered a final order approving the Settlement Agreement.

Under the Settlement Agreement, the Company agreed to pay certain
amounts to resolve the lawsuits and obtain a release of claims that
were, or could have been, asserted in the lawsuits or that are
related to, or arise out of the conduct alleged in the lawsuits or
similar conduct, wherever it may have occurred.

The settlement payment includes payments to customers who timely
made a claim, class counsel, and the named plaintiffs, as well as
the cost of a claims administrator for administrating the claims
process.

The period for class members to make claims has expired, and in
first quarter of 2018, based on the claims received and related
administrative costs, the Company estimated that the total
settlement payment will be approximately $7.6 million.

At March 31, 2019, the remaining balance of the liability related
to the class-action lawsuit was $0.4 million included in other
current liabilities in the consolidated balance sheet.

Genie Energy Ltd., through its subsidiaries, operates as a retail
energy provider; and an oil and gas exploration company. The
company operates through three segments: Genie Retail Energy; Genie
Energy Services; and Genie Oil and Gas, Inc. Genie Energy Ltd. was
incorporated in 2001 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.


GOLDEN EMPIRE: Coffman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GOLDEN EMPIRE TOWING,
INC. The case is styled as CRAIG COFFMAN ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF, ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AND ON BEHALF OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC,
Plaintiff v. GOLDEN EMPIRE TOWING, INC., Defendants, Case No.
BCV-19-101600 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., June 10, 2019).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited".

Golden Empire Towing, Inc. was founded in 1994. The company's line
of business includes furnishing automotive services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by DAVID T. MARA, ESQ.



GOPRO INC: Settlement in N.D. Cal. Class Suit Wins Preliminary OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GoPro, 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 has issued an order granting
the lead plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement in the shareholder class action in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.

On November 16, 2016, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
(the 2016 Shareholder Class Action) was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California against the
Company and Nicholas D. Woodman, the company's Chairman and CEO,
Brian McGee, the company's CFO, and Anthony Bates, the company's
former President (Defendants).

The complaint purports to bring suit on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the Company's publicly traded securities between
September 19, 2016 and November 4, 2016. The complaint purports to
allege that Defendants made false and misleading statements about
the Company's business, operations and prospects in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, fees and costs.

On February 6, 2017, the court appointed lead plaintiff and lead
counsel. On March 14, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint against the Company and certain of its officers (GoPro
Defendants) on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's
publicly traded securities between September 19, 2016 and November
8, 2016.

On April 13, 2017, the GoPro Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the amended complaint. On July 26, 2017, the court denied that
motion and directed the plaintiff to amend its complaint to add all
defendants the plaintiff intended to sue. On August 4, 2017, the
plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which Defendants
answered on September 8, 2017.

On September 11, 2018, the parties participated in a mediation
session and following the mediation, reached an agreement in
principle to settle the action.

On April 26, 2019, the Court issued an order granting the lead
plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of the settlement.

GoPro said, "The settlement, which is subject to final approval of
the Court, among other conditions, will be funded entirely by the
Company's insurance carriers."

GoPro, Inc. develops and sells cameras, drones, and mountable and
wearable accessories in the United States and internationally. The
company was formerly known as Woodman Labs, Inc. and changed its
name to GoPro, Inc. in February 2014. GoPro, Inc. was founded in
2004 and is headquartered in San Mateo, California.


GOPRO INC: Shareholders Won't File Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------
GoPro, 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' counsel filed a notice
of intention not to file an amended complaint.

Beginning on January 9, 2018, the first of four purported
shareholder class action lawsuits (the 2018 Shareholder Class
Action) was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company, Nicholas D.
Woodman, the company's Chairman and CEO, Brian McGee, the company's
CFO.  Similar complaints were filed on January 11, 2018 and January
24, 2018.

On April 20, 2018, the court consolidated the four cases and
appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On June 18, 2018, the
plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Amended Complaint (the
Complaint).

The Complaint purports to bring suit on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the Company's publicly traded securities between November
2, 2017 and January 5, 2018.

The Complaint adds Mr. Prober, GoPro's former COO, as a defendant
(together with GoPro, Mr. Woodman and Mr. McGee (Defendants)), and
purports to allege that the Defendants made false and misleading
statements about the Company's business, operations and prospects
in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the 1934 Act), asserts claims under Section 20A of the
1934 Act against Mr. Woodman and Mr. McGee, and seeks unspecified
compensatory damages, fees and costs.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint on August
17, 2018 and the hearing on the motion to dismiss took place on
November 5, 2018. On March 15, 2019, the Court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The plaintiffs'
amended complaint was due on or before April 29, 2019.

On April 26, 2019, the plaintiffs' counsel filed a notice of
intention not to file an amended complaint.

GoPro, Inc. develops and sells cameras, drones, and mountable and
wearable accessories in the United States and internationally. The
company was formerly known as Woodman Labs, Inc. and changed its
name to GoPro, Inc. in February 2014. GoPro, Inc. was founded in
2004 and is headquartered in San Mateo, California.


H.E.B. INC: Cung Seeks Damages for Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------
Thang Cung, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. H.E.B., Inc.; H-E-B, LP; Tokyo Gardens
Catering, L.L.C.; and Thang Mawi, Defendants, Case No.
5:19-cv-00637 (W.D. Tex., June 7, 2019) is an action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), for declaratory judgment, monetary
damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs,
including reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of Defendants'
failure to pay Plaintiff and other salaried cooks lawful overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiff was required to work more than 40 hours a week; however,
Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff for all time worked up to
40 hours nor for time worked over 40 hours a week. Plaintiff and
other similarly situated employees regularly worked 60 hours per
week throughout their tenure with Defendants. Plaintiff and other
sushi employees did not receive an overtime premium of one and
one-half times the minimum wage for their hours worked during weeks
in which they worked more than 40 hours for Defendants, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a sushi preparer from March
3, 2019, until May 31, 2019.

H.E.B., Inc. and/or H-E-B, LP own(s) and/or operate(s) more than
340 grocery stores across the state of Texas and Mexico, and engage
TGC to prepare sushi under HEB's registered Sushiya brand and in
HEB's grocery stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Merideth Q. McEntire, Esq.
     Josh Sanford, Esq.
     SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
     One Financial Center
     650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411
     Little Rock, AR 72211
     Phone: (501) 221-0088
     Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
     Email: steve@sanfordlawfirm.com
            merideth@sanfordlawfirm.com


HARTFORD CASUALTY: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge ruled for
Hartford Casualty Insurance in a case where it refused to defend a
law firm against a class action accusing it of culling names and
addresses from accident reports to mail advertisements, as such
acts were excluded from the policy.

A copy of the Order is available at:

         https://is.gd/Zb1fOr


HARTZ HOTEL: Murtadha Seeks Minimum Pay, Withheld Gratuities
------------------------------------------------------------
AL SADIK MURTADHA, on behalf of himself and the Class, Plaintiff,
v. HARTZ HOTEL SERVICES, INC., TRIBECA GRAND HOTEL, INC. d/b/a THE
ROXY HOTEL, SOHO GRAND HOTEL, INC. d/b/a SOHO GRAND HOTEL, and
CONSTANTINO MILANO, Defendant, Case No. 155757/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.
New York Cty., June 10, 2019) seeks to recover from Defendants
unpaid minimum wage due to an invalid tip credit deduction,
improper meal credit deductions, unlawfully retained gratuities,
statutory penalties, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and
costs, pursuant to the New York Labor Law ("NYLL").

The complaint says the Plaintiff MURTADHA did not receive a proper
wage and hour notice or proper wage statements with his wage
payments each period. Plaintiff MURTADHA and Class members did not
receive proper notice that Defendants were claiming a tip credit.
The Defendants deducted a  meal credit from Plaintiff MURTADHA's
wages every day, although he was not given time to eat at least
three times per week. During Plaintiff's employment, Defendants
unlawfully retained tips that were owed to Plaintiff and Class
members, in violation of NYLL, says the complaint.

Plaintiff AL SADIK MURTADHA was hired by Defendants and/or their
predecessors, as applicable, to work as a server and room service
worker in May 2012.

Defendants operate two hotels in New York City under the trade
names "The Roxy Hotel" located at 2 6th Avenue, New York, NY 10013
and "Soho Grand Hotel" at 310 West Broadway, New York, NY
10013.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     C.K. Lee, Esq.
     Anne Seelig, Esq
     LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
     148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
     New York, NY 10011
     Phone: 212-465-1180
     Fax: 212-465-1181


HEALTH INSURANCE: Mislead Consumers, Belin Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH E. BELIN and CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HEALTH
INSURANCE INNOVATIONS, INC. and HEALTH PLAN INTERMEDIARIES
HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-61430-FAM (S.D. Fla.,
June 7, 2019) is a case stemming from fraudulent misrepresentations
and omissions made for the purpose of leading consumers, including
Class Plaintiffs and class members, to believe they were purchasing
comprehensive medical insurance, when they instead were purchasing
limited benefit indemnity plans, medical discount plans and other
non-ACA-compliant products.

Unscrupulous health insurance scammers continue to besiege American
consumers. One such scam involves the marketing and sale of
"limited benefit indemnity plans" and "medical discount plans."
These plans are not comprehensive, "major medical" insurance. They
do not comply with the Affordable Care Act ("ACA"). At best, they
are supplemental products that defray a fraction of the
out-of-pocket costs, such as deductibles, coinsurance and copays,
that sometimes arise from ACA compliant plans. These products
represent less than 1% of the health insurance marketplace. Two
groups of Florida companies, working together, defrauded hundreds
of thousands of consumers nationwide, by leading those consumers to
believe that their limited benefit indemnity plans and medical
discount plans were major medical insurance. This lawsuit takes aim
at the second group of companies that directed, aided and abetted
the Simple Health fraud: Health Insurance Innovations, Inc.
("HIIQ") and Health Plan Intermediaries Holdings, LLC ("HPIH")
(collectively, "Defendants").

The Defendants developed the limited benefit indemnity plans and
the distribution channel through which consumers were defrauded. In
connection with the fraudulent scheme, Defendants paid Simple
Health extremely generous commissions and plied it with millions of
dollars in financing. As a result, Simple Health developed into
Defendants' largest and most profitable third-party distributor of
limited benefit indemnity plans, medical discount plans and other
products, generating hundreds of millions of dollars in fees and
premiums — nearly 50% of all revenues generated by Defendants.
This happened by defrauding that vulnerable group of Americans who
do not have comprehensive medical insurance. Consumers were told,
through a uniform script read to them by Simple Health's sales
agents, a set of lies and omissions that included, among other
falsehoods, the misrepresentation that they were purchasing a "PPO"
from a reputable, "A-rated" insurance carrier. In truth, consumers
received "virtually worthless" limited indemnity plans and medical
discount plans. For Defendants' knowing and substantial assistance
to Simple Health, and for their part in the enterprise they
developed and directed, Defendants must be held to account to
consumers like Class Plaintiffs Elizabeth Belin and Chris Mitchell,
says the complaint.

Plaintiffs are residents of the State who purchased Defendants'
health insurance.

Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. ("HIIQ") is distributor of
health and life insurance products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jason R. Doss, Esq.
     THE DOSS FIRM, LLC
     The Brumby Building
     127 Church Street, Suite 220
     Marietta, GA 30060
     Phone: (770) 578-1314
     Facsimile: (770) 578-1302
     Email: jasondoss@dossfirm.com

          - and -

     Jeffrey C. Schneider, Esq.
     Jason K. Kellogg, Esq.
     Alexander Strassman, Esq.
     Tal Aburos, Esq.
     LEVINE KELLOGG LEHMAN SCHNEIDER + GROSSMAN LLP
     201 South Biscayne Boulevard
     Citigroup Center, 22nd Floor
     Miami, FL 33131
     Phone: (305) 403-8788
     Facsimile: (305) 403-8789
     Primary email: jcs@lklsg.com
            jk@lklsg.com
            ags@lklsg.com
            ta@lklsg.com
     Secondary email: mt@lklsg.com
            mco@lklsg.com
            ah@lklsg.com


HECLA MINING: Continues to Defend Lawson Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Hecla Mining 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 company continues
to defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, Lawson v.
Klondex Mines Ltd., et al., No. 3:18-cv-00284.

On July 20, 2018, the company acquired all of the issued and
outstanding common shares of Klondex Mines Ltd. ("Klondex") for
consideration valued at $2.27 per Klondex share (the
"Arrangement"). The acquisition resulted in our 100% ownership of
three land packages in northern Nevada totaling approximately 110
square miles and containing operating or previously-operating mines
with a history of high-grade gold production, along with various
other gold properties.

Following the announcement of the company's proposed acquisition of
Klondex, Klondex and members of the Klondex board of directors were
named as defendants in several putative stockholder class actions
brought by purported stockholders of Klondex challenging the
proposed merger.

The lawsuits were all filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Nevada. On December 18, 2018, the remaining three
cases were consolidated into a single case, Lawson v. Klondex Mines
Ltd., et al., No. 3:18-cv-00284 (D. Nev. June 15, 2018).

The plaintiffs generally claim that Klondex issued a proxy
statement that included misstatements or omissions, in violation of
sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, to obtain
rescissory damages and recover attorneys' fees and costs.

Hecla said, "Although it is not possible to predict the outcome of
litigation matters with certainty, each of Klondex and its
directors believe that each of the lawsuits are without merit, and
the parties intend to vigorously defend against all claims
asserted."

Hecla Mining Company, together with its subsidiaries, discovers,
acquires, develops, and produces precious and base metal properties
worldwide. The company offers lead, zinc, and bulk flotation
concentrates to custom smelters and brokers; and unrefined gold and
silver bullion bars to precious metals traders. Hecla Mining
Company was founded in 1891 and is headquartered in Coeur d'Alene,
Idaho.


ICU MEDICAL: Bid to Dismiss Saline Solution-Related Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
ICU 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 defendants are
awaiting a court order on their motion for dismissal of the second
amended complaint in the intravenous saline solutions class action
suit.

Beginning in November 2016, purported class actions were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against Pfizer, Inc. subsidiaries, Hospira, Inc., Hospira
Worldwide, Inc. and certain other defendants relating to the
intravenous saline solutions part of the HIS business.

Plaintiffs seek to represent classes 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 U.S. manufacturer defendants conspired
together to restrict output and artificially fix, raise, maintain
and/or stabilize 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.

On July 5, 2018, the District Court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the operative complaint for failing to state a valid
antitrust claim, but allowed the plaintiffs to file a second
amended complaint.

On September 6, 2018, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
adding new allegations in support of their conspiracy claims and
adding ICU as a defendant.

All defendants have filed a motion to dismiss this second amended
complaint. Briefing is complete and we are awaiting the Court's
ruling.

ICU Medical said, "On February 3, 2017, we completed the
acquisition of the HIS business from Pfizer. This litigation is the
subject of a claim for indemnification against us by Pfizer and a
cross-claim for indemnification against Pfizer by us under the HIS
stock and asset purchase agreement."

ICU Medical, Inc. develops, manufactures, and sells medical devices
used in vascular therapy, critical care, and oncology applications
worldwide. ICU Medical, Inc. was founded in 1984 and is
headquartered in San Clemente, California.


IMPERIAL GUARD: Faces Sharp Suit in Western District of Tennessee
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Imperial Guard and
Detective Services, Inc. The case is captioned as Robert Sharp on
his own behalf and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals,
the Plaintiff, vs. Imperial Guard and Detective Services, Inc. also
known as: Imperial Security Services, Inc. also known as: Imperial
Guard Service, Inc. also known as: Imperial Detective and Guard
Services, Inc.; and Brewer Guard and Detective Services, Inc. also
known as: Brewer Detective Service also known as: Brewer Detective
Worldwide Investigations, the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-02332-JTF-cgc (W.D. Tenn., May 24, 2019). The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge John T. Fowlkes, Jr.

Imperial Guard And Detective Services, Inc. was founded in 1968.
The Company's line of business includes providing detective, guard,
and armored car services.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Marc Reed Edelman, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA - Tampa
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 577-4722
          Facsimile: (813) 257-0572
          E-mail: medelman@forthepeople.com

INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Settlement Reached in New York Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Insys Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company has agreed
to a settlement with the plaintiff in the consolidated class action
suit in  the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, subject to negotiation of, and agreement upon, additional
terms.

On or about March 17, 2017, a complaint (captioned Kayd Currier v.
Insys Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case 1:17-cv-01954-PAC) was filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the company and certain of its then-current and
former officers.

The complaint was brought as a purported class action on behalf of
purchasers of the company's securities between February 23, 2016,
and March 15, 2017.

In general, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the
anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws by making
materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's
business and financial results during the class period, thereby
artificially inflating the price of our securities.

On or about March 28, 2017, a second complaint making similar
allegations (captioned Hans E. Erdmann v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc.,
et al., Case 1:17-cv-02225-PAC) was filed in the same Court.

On May 31, 2017, the Court consolidated the first and second
complaint and appointed lead counsel in the consolidated action.

On July 31, 2017, the lead counsel filed a consolidated complaint.
On October 11, 2017, the Court held a pre-motion conference, at
which the Court granted leave to plaintiffs to again amend the
complaint. The amendment was filed on October 27, 2017, and the
company moved to dismiss.

The Court subsequently dismissed the complaint as to Santosh
Vetticaden, the company's former Interim CEO and Chief Medical
Officer, and otherwise denied our motion to dismiss. Insys filed
its answer on June 26, 2018. The plaintiffs in both actions seek
unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

Insys Therapeutics said, "We have agreed to a settlement with the
plaintiff, subject to negotiation of, and agreement upon,
additional terms."

Insys Therapeutics, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company,
focuses on cannabinoids and drug delivery systems that address
unmet patient needs. Insys Therapeutics, Inc. is headquartered in
Chandler, Arizona. On June 10, 2019, INSYS Therapeutics, Inc.,
along with its affiliates, filed a voluntary petition for
reorganization under Chapter 11 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the District of Delaware.


INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Still Defends Di Donato Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Insys Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Richard Di Donato v. Insys
Therapeutics, Inc., et al.

On or about February 2, 2016, a complaint (captioned Richard Di
Donato v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case 2:16-cv-00302-NVW)
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona against the company and certain of its current and former
officers.

The complaint was brought as a purported class action on behalf of
purchasers of the company's common stock between March 3, 2015 and
January 25, 2016. In general, the plaintiffs allege that the
defendants violated the anti-fraud provisions of the federal
securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements regarding our business, operations and compliance with
laws during the class period, thereby artificially inflating the
price of our common stock.

On June 3, 2016, the Court appointed Clark Miller to serve as lead
plaintiff. On June 24, 2016, the plaintiff filed a first amended
complaint naming a former employee of Insys Therapeutics, Inc. as
an additional defendant and extending the class period.

On December 22, 2016, the plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint, primarily to add allegations relating to an indictment
of Michael L. Babich and certain of our former employees announced
on December 8, 2016, and to extend the class period from August 12,
2014 through December 8, 2016.

On January 12, 2017, the defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended complaint. Oral arguments were heard by the Court on July
28, 2017, and the Court granted the motion in part and denied it in
part. T

he plaintiff subsequently moved for leave to further amend the
complaint, which the company opposed. The Court denied plaintiff's
motion on March 31, 2018, and Insys filed its answer on April 15,
2018. Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to certify class, which
the company opposed. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary
damages and other relief.

Insys Therapeutics said, "We continue to vigorously defend this
matter."

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

Insys Therapeutics, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company,
focuses on cannabinoids and drug delivery systems that address
unmet patient needs. Insys Therapeutics, Inc. is headquartered in
Chandler, Arizona. On June 10, 2019, INSYS Therapeutics, Inc.,
along with its affiliates, filed a voluntary petition for
reorganization under Chapter 11 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the District of Delaware.


INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Trial in Opioid-Related Suits to Begin October
------------------------------------------------------------------
Insys Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the Court has set
certain opioid-related class actions cases for a litigation track,
and those cases will move forward toward trial, which is scheduled
to commence October 21, 2019.

The company been named along with various other opioid
manufacturers, opioid distributors, prescribers, pharmacies, and
others in complaints focused on the national opioid epidemic filed
by various cities, counties, states, Native American tribes, and
third-party payers in many state and federal courts in Alabama,
Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia,
Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and West
Virginia.

The company is involved in more than 800 of these cases, the
majority of which have been consolidated into multi-district
litigation (MDL No. 2804) in the Northern District of Ohio. Most of
the cases in the multi-district litigation are presently stayed
while the Court seeks to facilitate a resolution.

On April 2, 2018, the United States filed a motion to participate
in settlement discussions and as a friend of the court.

Additionally, the Court set certain cases for a litigation track,
and those cases will move forward toward trial, which is scheduled
to commence on October 21, 2019.

Additionally, the Court recently set another set of cases for a
subsequent litigation track.

The company has also been named, along with various other opioid
manufacturers and distributors, in putative class action complaints
that seek to assert claims allegedly related to the national opioid
epidemic on behalf of (1) purchasers of health insurance between
1996 and the present, and (2) children born addicted to opioids.
Most of these cases have been consolidated into MDL No. 2804.  

Finally, Insys has been named in at least one lawsuit in which a
personal injury plaintiff sued Insys and other opioid manufacturers
for harm allegedly caused by a tortfeasor who was addicted to
opioids.

Insys Therapeutics, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company,
focuses on cannabinoids and drug delivery systems that address
unmet patient needs. Insys Therapeutics, Inc. is headquartered in
Chandler, Arizona. On June 10, 2019, INSYS Therapeutics, Inc.,
along with its affiliates, filed a voluntary petition for
reorganization under Chapter 11 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the District of Delaware.


INTELEMEDIA COMMS: Cunningham Sues over Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
CRAIG CUNNINGHAM, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. INTELEMEDIA COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
INTELEMEDIA PREMIER LEADS LLC, JOHN DOE ALLSTATE AGENCY, and THE
ALLSTATE CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03713 (N.D.
Ill., June 4, 2019), seeks to enforce the consumer-privacy
provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in response to
widespread public outrage about the proliferation of intrusive,
nuisance telemarketing practices.

According to the complaint, the Allstate Corporation offers its
services through a series of captive insurance agents, such as the
Defendant John Doe Allstate Agency. John Doe Agent hired
Intelemedia Premier Leads LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of
Intelemedia Communications, Inc., who made a pre-recorded
telemarketing call to a cellular telephone number of Mr. Cunningham
for the purposes of advertising Allstate goods and services using
an automated dialing system, which is prohibited by the TCPA.

The Plaintiff never consented to receive the call, which was placed
to him for telemarketing purposes. Because telemarketing campaigns
generally place calls to thousands or even millions of potential
customers en masse, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of
proposed nationwide classes of other persons who received illegal
telemarketing calls from or on behalf of the Defendants.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          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

               - and -

          Lauren E. Urban, Esq.
          2425 N. Spaulding Ave., Floor 2
          Chicago, IL 60647
          Telephone: (419) 344-1146
          E-mail: lauren.elizabeth.urban@gmail.com

               - and -

          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Telephone: (508) 221-1510
          E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com

INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Bid to Dismiss Connecticut Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Interactive Brokers 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 awaiting
a court decision on its motion to dismiss the new complaint in the
Connecticut class action suit.

On December 18, 2015, a former individual customer filed a
purported class action complaint against Interactive Brokers LLC
(IB LLC), Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. (IBG, Inc.), and Thomas
Frank, PhD, the Company's Executive Vice President and Chief
Information Officer, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut.

The complaint alleges that the purported class of IB LLC's
customers were harmed by alleged "flaws" in the computerized system
used to close out (i.e., liquidate) positions in customer brokerage
accounts that have margin deficiencies. The complaint seeks, among
other things, undefined compensatory damages and declaratory and
injunctive relief.

On September 28, 2016, the District Court issued an order
granting the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint in its
entirety, and without providing plaintiff leave to amend. On
September 28, 2017, plaintiff appealed to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

On September 26, 2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal
of plaintiff's claims of breach of contract and commercially
unreasonable liquidation but vacated and remanded back to the
District Court plaintiff's claims for negligence. On November 30,
2018, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the new complaint on January
15, 2019 requesting that the District Court dismiss the remaining
negligence claims.

Interactive Brokers said, "Regardless of the ultimate outcome of
the motion to dismiss, the Company does not believe that a
purported class action is appropriate given the great differences
in portfolios, markets and many other circumstances surrounding the
liquidation of any particular customer’s margin-deficient
account."

IB LLC and the related defendants intend to continue to defend
themselves vigorously against the case and, consistent with past
practice in connection with this type of unwarranted action, any
potential claims for counsel fees and expenses incurred in
defending the case may be fully pursued against the plaintiff.

Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. operates as an automated electronic
broker worldwide. It specializes in executing and clearing trades
in securities, futures, foreign exchange instruments, bonds, and
mutual funds. Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. was founded in 1977
and is headquartered in Greenwich, Connecticut.


INTERMOLECULAR INC: Franchi Sues over False Proxy Statements
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Intermolecular,
Inc. and its Board of Directors for alleged violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1943 in connection with the a merger
transaction's proxy statement. The case is captioned ADAM FRANCHI,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. INTERMOLECULAR, INC., KENNETH H. TRAUB, CHRIS KRAMER,
IRWIN FEDERMAN, MARVIN D. BURKETT, GEORGE SCALISE, MATTHEW S.
FURNAS, ADAM SCHEER, and JONATHAN SCHULTZ, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01054-UNA (D. Del., June 6, 2019).

On May 28, 2019, defendants filed a proxy statement with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the
proposed transaction on May 6, 2019, pursuant to which
Intermolecular, Inc. will be acquired by affiliates of Merck KGaA,
EMD Group Holding II, Inc. and EMD Performance Semiconductor
Services Corp. However, the proxy statement has omitted material
information with respect to the proposed transaction, which renders
the proxy statement false and misleading. The proxy statement
failed to disclose Intermolecular's financial projections and the
analyses performed by its financial advisor, Cowen and Company, in
connection with the proposed transaction.

Intermolecular is a Delaware corporation and maintains its
principal executive offices at 3011 N. First Street, San Jose,
California.  Intermolecular's common stock is traded on the NASDAQ
Global Select Market under the ticker symbol IMI. According to its
website, Intermolecular is the trusted partner for advanced
materials innovation. The company has a ten-year track record
helping leading companies accelerate and de-risk materials
innovation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


J & J SNACK: Botello Sues over Collection of Biometric Identifiers
------------------------------------------------------------------
DOMINIC BOTELLO, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiff, vs. J & J
SNACK FOODS CORP., the Defendant, Case No. 2019CH06790 (Ill. Cir.,
June 4, 2019), alleges that Defendant violated the Biometric
Information Privacy Act and compromised the privacy and security of
the biometric identifiers and information of Plaintiff and other
similarly-situated workers.

The Defendant is a publicly-traded company that produces various
food items, including soft pretzels, Italian ice, ICEEs, and baked
goods. On August 16, 2017, the Defendant acquired the Labriola
Baking Company in Alsip, Illinois. Labriola Baking Company
primarily produced soft pretzels at its Alsip facility. From
approximately April 2017 to September 2018, Plaintiff worked as a
crew lead at the Alsip, Illinois facility.

Starting in approximately January 2018, the Defendant required
Plaintiff and other workers to use a biometric time clock system to
record their time worked. The Defendant required Plaintiff and
other workers to scan their fingerprints in one of Defendant's
biometric time clocks each time they started and finished working a
shift. Unlike an employee identification number or employee
identification card, fingerprints are unique and permanent
identifiers.

By requiring workers to scan their fingerprints to record their
time, instead of using identification numbers or badges only,
Defendant ensured that one worker could not clock in for another.
Thus, there's no question that Defendant benefited from using
biometric time. But there's equally no question that Defendant
placed workers at risk by using their clocks.

As a result, Illinois restricted private entities, like Defendant,
from collecting, storing, using, or transferring a person's
biometric identifiers and information without adhering to strict
informed-consent procedures established by the Biometric
Information Privacy Act.

Defendant collected, stored, used, and transferred the unique
biometric fingerprint identifiers, or information derived from
those identifiers of the Plaintiff and others similarly situated
without following the detailed requirements of the Biometric
Information Privacy Act, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          77 West Washington St., Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 419-1008
          E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
                  zflowerree@flsalaw.com

JONES FINANCIAL: Bland Discrimination Class Suit Ongoig
-------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.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
discrimination class action suit entitled, Bland v. Edward D. Jones
& Co., L.P., et al., is ongoing.

On May 24, 2018, Edward Jones and JFC were named as defendants in a
putative class action lawsuit (Bland v. Edward D. Jones & Co.,
L.P., et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois by a former financial advisor.  

An amended complaint was filed on September 24, 2018, under 42
U.S.C. Section 1981, alleging that the defendants discriminated
against the former financial advisor and financial advisor trainees
on the basis of race.  

On November 26, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint adding an allegation of discrimination of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The lawsuit seeks equitable and injunctive relief, as well as
compensatory and punitive damages.  

Edward Jones and JFC deny the allegations and intend to vigorously
defend this lawsuit.

The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary,
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered
broker-dealer. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded
in 1871 and is based in Des Peres, Missouri.


JONES FINANCIAL: Consolidated McDonald Suit Concluded
-----------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.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 court
in the consolidated McDonald and Schultz suits has granted final
approval to the parties' settlement and dismissed the consolidated
suit with prejudice.

On August 19, 2016, The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. (JFC),
Edward Jones and certain other defendants were named in a putative
class action lawsuit (McDonald v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et
al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974, as amended, by a participant in the Edward D. Jones & Co.
Profit Sharing and 401(k) Plan (the "Retirement Plan").  

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to Retirement Plan participants and seeks declaratory and
equitable relief and monetary damages on behalf of the Retirement
Plan.  

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the McDonald lawsuit which
was granted in part dismissing the claim against JFC, and denied in
part as to all other defendants on January 26, 2017.

On November 11, 2016, a substantially similar lawsuit (Schultz, et
al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) was filed in the same
court. The plaintiffs consolidated the two lawsuits by adding the
Schultz plaintiffs to the McDonald case, and the Schultz action was
dismissed.  

The plaintiffs filed their first amended consolidated complaint on
April 28, 2017. On December 13, 2018, the court entered a
preliminary order approving a class action settlement agreement
reached among the parties.

Following a fairness hearing held on April 18, 2019, the court
entered judgment on April 22, 2019 in which it granted final
approval of the settlement, effected a full release of claims by
the settlement class in favor of the defendants, and dismissed the
consolidated lawsuit with prejudice.

The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary,
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered
broker-dealer. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded
in 1871 and is based in Des Peres, Missouri.


JONES FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Anderson Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.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
company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Anderson,
et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.

On March 30, 2018, Edward Jones and its affiliated entities and
individuals were named as defendants in a putative class action
(Anderson, et. al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et. al.) filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.


The lawsuit was brought under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended (the "Securities Act"), and the Exchange Act, as well as
Missouri and California law and alleges that the defendants
inappropriately transitioned clients from commission-based accounts
to fee-based programs.  

The plaintiffs have requested declaratory, equitable, and exemplary
relief, and compensatory damages.

Edward Jones and its affiliated entities and individuals deny the
allegations and intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit.

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

The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary,
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered
broker-dealer. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded
in 1871 and is based in Des Peres, Missouri.


JONES FINANCIAL: Wins Dismissal of Bland FLSA Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.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 court
in the case, Bland, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P, et. al.,
has entered an order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss all
claims, but permitting the plaintiffs to amend and re-file certain
of their claims.

On March 13, 2018, The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. (JFC)
and Edward Jones were named as defendants in a purported collective
and class action lawsuit (Bland, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co.,
L.P, et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois by four former financial advisors.

The lawsuit was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act as well
as Missouri and Illinois law and alleges that the defendants
unlawfully attempted to recoup training costs from departing
financial advisors and failed to pay all overtime owed to financial
advisor trainees among other claims.  

The lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory
and liquidated damages.  

JFC and Edward Jones deny the allegations and intend to vigorously
defend against the allegations in this lawsuit.

On March 19, 2019, the court entered an order granting the
defendants' motion to dismiss all claims, but permitting the
plaintiffs to amend and re-file certain of their claims.

The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary,
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered
broker-dealer. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded
in 1871 and is based in Des Peres, Missouri.


JORDAN'S FURNITURE: Donlan Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
AMIE DONLAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated. Plaintiffs, v. JORDAN'S FURNITURE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 19-1614 (Mass. Commonwealth, June 7, 2019) seeks to recover
unpaid wages owed to Plaintiff and all other similarly situated
individuals who have worked as sales representatives for
Defendant.

Although the sales representatives often work more than 40 hours in
a week, and routinely work Sundays and holidays, Jordan's does not
pay its sales representatives any overtime compensation or other
premium pay. In addition, Jordan's has required its sales
representatives to work Sundays without paying them 1.5 times their
regular hourly rate. As a result of these practices, Jordan's has
violated the overtime provision of the Massachusetts Minimum Fair
Wage Law and the Massachusetts Wage Act, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Donlan worked for Jordan's at its store in Natick,
Massachusetts, as a sales representative from about December 2018
to about April 2019.

Jordan's owns and operates a chain of furniture and mattress retail
stores in Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Hillary Schwab, Esq.
     Brant Casavani, Esq.
     FAIR WORK P.C.
     192 South Street. Suite 450
     Boston, MA 02111
     Phone: (617)607-3261
     Fax: (617)488-2261
     Email: hillary@fairworklaw.com
            brant@fairworklaw.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Settles Dads' Parental-Leave Class Action for $5MM
------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
JPMorgan Chase agreed on May 30 to pay $5 million to settle a class
action brought by male employees who said the bank denied them
equal paid parental leave after their children were born.

Chase employee Derek Rotondo, represented by the American Civil
Liberties Union and attorneys with Outten & Golden, filed both the
complaint and proposed settlement on May 30 in Cincinnati federal
court. He says that after the birth of his children, Chase
discriminated against him by limiting his paid parental leave. He
had asked Chase to give him 14 weeks leave after the birth of his
son.

"I love my children, and all I wanted was to spend time with them
when they were born," Rotondo said in a statement. "I'm proud that
since I filed my charge, Chase has clarified its policy to ensure
that both male and female employees who wish to be the primary
parental caregiver have equal access to those benefits."

Under its former policy, Chase let biological mothers take 16 weeks
of paid parental leave while fathers were only eligible to take two
weeks off.

Rotondo first filed a complaint with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission in 2017. Chase quickly clarified its policy
giving him 16 weeks of leave later that same year as well as making
sure that primary caregiver status was gender-neutral.

His attorney Freda Levenson, legal director for the ACLU of Ohio,
said she hopes other companies follow Chase's example.

"It's up to the family, not the employer, to determine what their
caregiving arrangements will look like. In order for women to
compete on an even playing field at work, we need to be sure men
can play an active role at home. American companies need to
implement policies that don't promote gender stereotypes," Levenson
said in a phone interview.

The $5 million settlement will compensate up to 5,000 dads denied
paid primary caregiver leave from 2011 to 2017 and will cover their
legal fees and administrative costs. A class member with more than
one child could receive compensation for multiple claims, Levenson
said.  

Chase has agreed to continue its gender-neutral policy on paid
parental leave and to train its employees on how to administer it.


"We are pleased to have reached an agreement in this matter and
look forward to more effectively communicating the policy so that
all men and women employees are aware of their benefits," JPMorgan
Chase's counsel Reid Broda said. "We thank Mr. Rotondo for bringing
the matter to our attention."

The advocacy group Paid Family and Medical Leave for Everyone
Working in the U.S. released an employer scorecard last year
finding that 72% of the nation's largest employers offer equal paid
leave to both parents.

The group's spokeswoman Meshal DeSantis said the shift represents
changing attitudes toward gender roles, adding that millennial men
view parenting as a central part of their identity.   

"I think it was a win for dads and a win for dads at Chase,"
DeSantis said in a phone interview. "Categorizing one parent as
primary and one as secondary is just not the way people think in
2019."

A copy of the Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class
Action Settlement, Conditional Certification of the Settlement
Class, Appointment of Plaintiff's Counsel as Class Counsel, and
Approval of the Proposed Notice of Settlement and Class Action
Settlement Procedure ("Motion"), and Memorandum in Support is
available at:

          https://is.gd/5USeou


LA RUTA 75: De La Ossa Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------
ANGELICA DE LA OSSA, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. LA RUTA 75, LLC a Florida Limited Liability Company, RICARDO
MARTINEZ MELO, individually Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-22386-DPG
(S.D. Fla., June 10, 2019) is a Complaint against Defendants under
the provisions of the Fair Labor Standard Act of 1938.

Throughout her employment with La Ruta, Plaintiff routinely worked
for La Ruta on Monday through Sunday, for a total of 63 hours per
week, 40 regular hours and eight hours overtime. Notwithstanding,
La Ruta, willfully and intentionally failed/refused to pay to
Plaintiff the federally required minimum and overtime rates for all
hours she worked, says the complaint. La Ruta knew of the overtime
requirements of the FLSA and willfully/intentionally/recklessly
failed to investigate whether their payroll practices were in
accordance with the FLSA. As a result, Plaintiff has suffered
damages and is entitled to receive overtime and minimum wage
compensation, the complaint asserts.

Plaintiff De La Ossa was employed by Defendants as a Waitress at
the restaurant located in Hialeah Gardens, Florida.

La Ruta operated a restaurant business in Miami-Dade County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Henry Hernandez, Esq.
     Law Office of Henry Hernandez, P.A.
     2655 Le Jeune Road, Suite 802
     Coral Gables, FL 33134
     Phone: 305.771.3374
     Email: Henry@HHLAWFLORIDA.com

          - and -

     Monica Espino, Esq.
     Espino Law, PL
     2655 S. LeJeune Road, Suite 802
     Coral Gables, FL 33134
     Phone: 305.704.3172
     Fax: 305.722.7378
     Email: me@espino-law.com


LG ELECTRONICS: Bentley Brings Suit Over Defective Refrigerators
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL BENTLEY, ROBERT DEGNER, CHERYL ERVIN, AND SAM LEE, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC. Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-13554-MCA-MAH (W.D. Tenn., June 7, 2019) is a class action
brought on behalf of individuals who purchased refrigerators
manufactured by LG that are equipped with linear compressors.

According to the complaint, a latent defect causes failure of the
refrigerator's linear compressor--a central component responsible
for cooling. The compressor defect renders the LG Refrigerators
unable to perform their most basic function: cooling and preserving
food and beverages. When the compressor defect manifests, the
refrigerator warms and its perishable contents spoil, unless they
are moved to a working refrigerator or cooler. Although
refrigerators last 13 years on average, the LG Refrigerators have
been failing en masse within 36 months. LG previously settled a
class action alleging its refrigerators are defective. The claims
extinguished by the judgment in that case, however, are limited to
those involving purchases before January 29, 2014, which marks the
beginning of the class period in this case. LG has continued
selling defective refrigerators that have failed at extremely high
rates--a "pandemic," according to one news report. Despite its
knowledge of the compressor defect, LG sold and continues to sell
the LG Refrigerators without alerting purchasers to the problem,
the complaint asserts.

When consumers have made warranty claims for malfunctioning LG
Refrigerators, LG has not replaced them with working units or
offered refunds, the complaint adds. Instead, LG has attempted
futile repairs or replaced defective compressors with other
defective compressors, a practice that, for many, has resulted in
repeated refrigerator failures. Consumers who bought LG
Refrigerators have been forced to live out of coolers or
prematurely buy replacement refrigerators. The compressor defect
existed in each LG Refrigerator at the time it was sold. Plaintiffs
were deprived of the benefit of their bargain and bring this action
to obtain relief for themselves and others who purchased an LG
Refrigerator.

Plaintiffs purchased Kenmore-branded LG Refrigerators manufactured
by Defendant.

LG designed, manufactured, promoted, distributed, and sold the LG
Refrigerators, pricing them in the range of $1,400 to $7,000.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
     CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
     One Haverford Centre
     361 West Lancaster Avenue
     Haverford, PA 19041
     Phone: (610) 642-8500
     Email: bfj@chimicles.com

          - and -

     Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
     Jordan Elias, Esq.
     Adam E. Polk, Esq.
     Simon S. Grille, Esq.
     GIRARD SHARP LLP
     601 California Street, 14th Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94108
     Phone: (415) 981-4800
     Email: dgirard@girardsharp.com
            jelias@girardsharp.com
            apolk@girardsharp.com
            sgrille@girardsharp.com


LION RAISINS: Summary Judgment Rulings in Mason Upheld
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEREMY MASON, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LION
RAISINS, INC., Defendant and Appellant, Case No. F076202 (5th
Cir.), Judge Bert Levy of the Court of Appeals of California for
the Fifth District affirmed the trial court's orders denying the
motion for summary judgment and the petition to compel
arbitration.

Plaintiff Mason brought the class action lawsuit against his former
employer, Defendant Lion Raisins, asserting statutory claims for
alleged violations of the Labor Code relating to wages, overtime,
rest and meal periods, wage records, and other related statutory
claims.  His original class action complaint for damages was filed
on March 4, 2015.  

In the second amended complaint, the Plaintiff asserts on his own
behalf and on behalf of the purported class members, a number of
specific violations of the Labor Code by the Defendant, including
as follows: unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid
rest period premium, unpaid minimum wage, final wages not timely
paid, noncompliant wage statements, failure to keep required
payroll records, and unreimbursed business expenses.  Based on the
above violations, the Plaintiff also asserted a violation of
California's unfair competition law.  The prayer for relief sought,
among other things, declaratory relief, recovery of damages
resulting from the violations, statutory penalties and statutory
attorney fees.

In response, after first participating in the litigation of the
case for a substantial period of time, the Defendant filed (i) a
motion for summary judgment and (ii) a petition to compel
arbitration, contending in both instances that the Plaintiff failed
to follow the grievance and arbitration procedure set forth in a
collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") applicable to his.

The trial court denied both motions because, among other reasons,
the relevant language of the CBA did not reflect an agreement to
arbitrate the Plaintiff's statutory claims.  The Defendant appeals.


The Defendant's notice of appeal also sought review of the trial
court's order denying its motion for summary judgment, even though
not itself an appealable order, because it constituted an
intermediate ruling involving the merits of the issues that were at
stake in, and potentially affected, the petition to compel
arbitration.

Judge Levy holds that the CBA in the case did not contain an
agreement requiring arbitration of the Plaintiff's statutory
claims, which means that the trial court properly denied the
Defendant's motion for summary judgment and petition to compel
arbitration.

He also concludes that substantial evidence supported the trial
court's finding of waiver.  The Defendant's extensive litigation
over a period of two years, when viewed in its nature and entirety,
in combination with the substantial delay and expense thereof, was
inconsistent with an intent to pursue arbitration and was
prejudicial to the Plaintiff's ability to obtain any meaningful
benefits of arbitration.  Therefore, he affirms the trial court's
finding that the Defendant waived any right it may have had to
obtain arbitration of the parties' dispute under the CBA
arbitration provision.

He further concludes that the trial court correctly denied the
Defendant's motion for summary judgment on the ground that it
failed to prove the existence of the CBA and/or its applicability
to the Plaintiff.

Since the declaration showed at least some foundational grounds
upon which the declarant would have personal knowledge of the CBA
and its contents, the Judge thinks it was arguably minimally
sufficient.  But even if the trial court erred in ruling that the
declaration was insufficient to authenticate the CBA, no reversible
or prejudicial error has been shown because of the other clear and
persuasive grounds for affirming the trial court's denial of the
petition as discussed in the Opinion, including (i) the failure to
show the arbitration provision clearly and unmistakably applied to
statutory claims and (ii) waiver.

Finally, he need not consider the question of whether the
arbitration provision is unconscionable, because he has concluded
that other compelling grounds exist for affirming the trial court's
orders.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Levy affirmed the orders denying the
motion for summary judgment and the petition to compel arbitration.
Costs on appeal are awarded to the Plaintiff.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 10, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/hFOfex from Leagle.com.

Keith C. Rickelman -- rickek1@nationwide.com -- and Bertram T.
Kaufmann for Defendant and Appellant.

Lawyers for Justice, Edwin Aiwazian -- edwin@lfjpc.com -- Arby
Aiwazian -- arby@lfjpc.com -- Elizabeth Parker-Fawley --
elizabeth@lfjpc.com; Girardi/Keese and V. Andre Sherman for
Plaintiff and Respondent.


LVNV FUNDING: Misreported Interests & Fees, Howard et al. Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against LVNV Funding, LLC
and Resurgent Capital Services, LP for violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act. The case is captioned TRAVIS HOWARD,
VANESSA HOWARD, WILLIAM SIMMS, CHARLES NEFF, STACY ADAMS-NEFF, and
GWEN SNYDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. LVNV FUNDING, LLC, and RESURGENT CAPITAL
SERVICES, LP, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00093-KRG (W.D. Pa.,
June 6, 2019).

Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants are engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading practice of misreporting interest and
fees as principal on the proof of claims it files in consumer
bankruptcy cases.

LVNV Funding, LLC is a limited liability company with its principal
place of business in Greenville, South Carolina. LVNV is engaged in
purchasing consumer debts with the purpose of collecting on that
debt. Resurgent Capital Services LP is a limited partnership with
its principal place of business in Greenville, South Carolina.
Resurgent's sole business is collecting debts owed to others. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Mark G. Moynihan, Esq.
     MOYNIHAN LAW, P.C.
     2 Chatham Center, Suite 230
     Pittsburgh, PA 15219
     Telephone: (412) 889-8535
     E-mail: mark@moynihanlaw.net

             - and -

     Kevin Abramowicz, Esq.
     BCJ LAW LLC
     186 42nd Street, P.O. Box 40127
     Pittsburgh, PA 15201
     Telephone: (412) 223-5740
     E-mail: kevina@bcjlawyer.com


LYFT INC: Oliver Suit Transferred to Southern District of Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ANTHONY A. OLIVER, individually and on behalf of a class
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. Lyft, Inc., a
Delaware Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01488 (Filed
March 21, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Georgia (Savannah) on June 4, 2019. The
Southern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:19-cv-00125-WTM-CLR to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated individuals, brings this class action complaint against
Lyft, Inc. to stop Defendant's practice of making unauthorized text
message calls to consumer’s cellular telephones, and to obtain
redress for all persons injured by its conduct.

Lyft, Inc. is a transportation network company based in San
Francisco, California and operating in 640 cities in the United
States and 9 cities in Canada. It develops, markets, and operates
the Lyft mobile app, offering car rides, scooters, and a
bicycle-sharing system.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members:

          Edwin I. Aimufua, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF EDWIN I. AIMUFUA
          11150 Sepulveda Blvd, Suite # A
          Mission Hills, CA 91345-1126
          Telephone: (747) 246 – 4141
          Facsimile: (818) 855 – 1118
          E-mail: eia@aimufualaw.com

Attorneys for the Defendant:

          Daniel Paul Hart, Esq.
          Kerry McCoy Friedrichs, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          1075 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 2500
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 885-1500
          Facsimile: (404) 892-7056

MCDONALD'S USA: Refused to Pay Minimum Wages for Service Crew
-------------------------------------------------------------
RENAND BIENNESTIN, and other similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiff, v. McDonald's USA, LLC, an Illinois Company d/b/a
Heisner Enterprises Partnership, the Defendant, Case No.
9:19-cv-80726-DMM (S.D. Fla., June 3, 2019), seeks recover money
damages for unpaid minimum wages and for retaliation under the laws
of the United States and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff, and those similarly
situated, performed services for Defendant and did not get paid
what they were owed, and in the case of the Plaintiff, not even
minimum wages. The additional persons who may become the Plaintiffs
in this action are weekly-paid employees and/or former employees of
Defendant who are and who were subject to the unlawful payroll
practices and procedures of Defendant and were not properly paid
minimum wages.

The Defendant knew and/or showed reckless disregard for the
provisions of the Act concerning the payment of minimum wages and
remains owing the Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, these
minimum wages since the commencement of the Plaintiff's and those
similarly situated employees' employment with Defendant, and the
Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, are entitled to recover
double damages.

The Defendant willfully and intentionally refused to pay the
Plaintiff minimum wages as required by the laws of the United
States as set forth above and remains owing the Plaintiff the
minimum wages since the commencement of the Plaintiff's employment
with Defendant, the lawsuit says.

McDonald's USA, LLC operates and franchises restaurants in the
United States. It also provides nutrition information to its
customers. The company was incorporated in 2004 and is based in Oak
Brook, Illinois. McDonald's USA, LLC operates as a subsidiary of
McDonald's Corp.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
          SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
          20900 N.E. 30 th Avenue, Ste. 800
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 503 5131
          Facsimile: (888) 270 5549
          E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com

MDL 2492: Banks Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, RODNEY BANKS, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01599 (Filed
April 22, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on June 4, 2019. The
Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-03633 the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to
obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's
reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of
student-athletes.

The Banks case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re:
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013.
These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of
former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they
suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed
information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion
injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1)
the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not
sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions
pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents'
arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first
filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the
litigation, the Panel said.

Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight
related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative
classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The
Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves
student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the
putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope.
Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely
overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is
persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining
actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the
scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common
factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of
concussions in football players and its policies governing the
protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions
seek medical monitoring for putative class members.

In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions
relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries
sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions,
including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of
concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is
Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727.

NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER S LANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: 713 554 9099
          Facsimile: 713 554 9098
          E-mail: jefile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312 589-6370
          Facsimile: 312 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com

MDL 2492: Boose Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, BRENDA BOOSE, as Personal Representative of the Estate of
Dorian Boose, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-1234 (Filed March 27,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on June 4, 2019. The
Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-03625 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to
obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's
reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of
Washington State University student-athletes.

The Boose case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re:
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013.
These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of
former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they
suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed
information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion
injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1)
the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not
sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions
pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents'
arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first
filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the
litigation, the Panel said.

Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight
related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative
classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The
Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves
student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the
putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope.
Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely
overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is
persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining
actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the
scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common
factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of
concussions in football players and its policies governing the
protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions
seek medical monitoring for putative class members.

In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions
relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries
sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions,
including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of
concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is
Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727.

NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER S LANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: 713 554 9099
          Facsimile: 713 554 9098
          E-mail: jefile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312 589-6370
          Facsimile: 312 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com

MDL 2492: Chipps Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, DALE CHIPPS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-1594 (Filed April 22,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on June 4, 2019. The
Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-03628 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to
obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's
reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of
Towson University student-athletes.

The Chipps case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re:
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013.
These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of
former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they
suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed
information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion
injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1)
the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not
sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions
pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents'
arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first
filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the
litigation, the Panel said.

Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight
related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative
classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The
Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves
student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the
putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope.
Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely
overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is
persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining
actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the
scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common
factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of
concussions in football players and its policies governing the
protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions
seek medical monitoring for putative class members.

In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions
relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries
sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions,
including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of
concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is
Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727.

NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER S LANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: 713 554 9099
          Facsimile: 713 554 9098
          E-mail: jefile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312 589-6370
          Facsimile: 312 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com

MDL 2492: Miolen Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, DOUG MIOLEN, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01219 (Filed
March 26, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on June 4, 2019. The
Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-03624 the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to
obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's
reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of
student-athletes.

The Miolen case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re:
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013.
These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of
former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they
suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed
information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion
injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1)
the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not
sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions
pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents'
arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first
filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the
litigation, the Panel said.

Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight
related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative
classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The
Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves
student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the
putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope.
Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely
overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is
persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining
actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the
scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common
factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of
concussions in football players and its policies governing the
protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions
seek medical monitoring for putative class members.

In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions
relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries
sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions,
including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of
concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is
Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727.

NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER S LANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: 713 554 9099
          Facsimile: 713 554 9098
          E-mail: jefile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312 589-6370
          Facsimile: 312 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com

MDL 2492: Proebstle Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, MICHAEL PROEBSTLE, as Personal Representative of the
Estate of Richard Proebstle, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL
COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-1791 (Filed May 2, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on
June 4, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-03635 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to
obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's
reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of
Michigan State University student-athletes.

The Proebstle case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re:
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013.
These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of
former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they
suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed
information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion
injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1)
the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not
sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions
pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents'
arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first
filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the
litigation, the Panel said.

Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight
related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative
classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The
Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves
student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the
putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope.
Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely
overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is
persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining
actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the
scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common
factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of
concussions in football players and its policies governing the
protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions
seek medical monitoring for putative class members.

In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions
relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries
sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions,
including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of
concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is
Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727.

NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER S LANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: 713 554 9099
          Facsimile: 713 554 9098
          E-mail: jefile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312 589-6370
          Facsimile: 312 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com

MDL 2672: Settlement in ASHERS Clean Diesel Suit Has Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MDL MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, This Order Relates
To: City of St. Clair Shores, 15-6167 Travalio, 15-6168 George Leon
Family Trust, 15-6168 Charter Twp. of Clinton, 16-190 Wolfenbarger,
16-184, Case No. 2672 CRB (JSC) (N.D. Cal.), Judge Charles R.
Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California granted (i) the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of
the settlement, and (ii) the Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys'
fees and costs.

In November 2018, the Court preliminarily approved a class
settlement between the parties in the American Depository Receipts
("ADRs") class action.  The claims administrator subsequently
mailed notice of the settlement to potential class members, and the
deadline for potential class members to file claims, opt out, or
object to the settlement has now passed.  On May 10, 2019, the
Court held a hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval
of the settlement and on Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees
and costs.

In the Preliminary Approval Order, the Court conditionally
certified the class.  The class definition has not changed and the
Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) requirements remain satisfied.  Judge Breyer
accordingly certified the class for purposes of the settlement and
appointed ASHERS and Miami Police as te Class Representatives, and
James A. Harrod of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as the
Class Counsel.

The Lead Counsel seeks an attorneys' fees award equal to 25% of the
settlement fund, net of expenses, which equates to approximately
$11.92 million.  The Lead Counsel also seeks reimbursement of
$4,940.49 for ASHERS' and $2,387.50 for Miami Police's costs and
expenses related to their representation of the settlement class.

The Judge concludes that final approval of the settlement is
appropriate.  The settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable.  He
also concludes that the Plaintiffs' Counsel vigorously litigated
the action, and the requested award reflects their effort, the
contingency risks they assumed, and the results they achieved.  He
has reviewed ASHERS's and Miami Police's declarations and their
expense records, and is satisfied that their reimbursement requests
are reasonable.

For the reasons stated, Judge Breyer granted the Plaintiffs' motion
for final approval of the settlement agreement.  He confirmed the
appointment (i) of James A. Harrod of Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP as the Lead Counsel; (ii) of Epiq Class Action &
Claims Solutions, Inc. as the Claims Administrator; and (iii) of
Arkansas State Highway Employees' Retirement System and Miami
Police Relief and Pension Fund as the Class Representatives.  The
Judge granted the Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
expenses.

A separate judgment consistent with the Order, and an attached list
of the persons and entities that have requested exclusion from the
settlement class, will be issued.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 10, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/J7myKp from Leagle.com.

Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey --
rob@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice,
Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com --
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart --
astewart@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G.
Shapiro
-- tshapiro@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro,
Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague --
avague@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin & White, Casey Erin
Lucier -- clucier@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J.
Baker, III -- chuck.baker@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge
and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker -- ctucker@rhodesokla.com -- Rhodes
Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Dana Woodrum Lang --
dana.lang@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, David
M.
Eisenberg -- eisenberg@bscr-law.com -- Sterchi, Cowden & Rice,
LLC,
Henry Buist Smythe, Jr. -- henry.smythe@wbd-us.com -- Womble
Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller --
hfeller@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, William R. Scherer
--
wscherer@conradscherer.com -- Conrad and Scherer, LLP, J. Randolph
Bibb, Jr. -- rbibb@lewisthomason.com -- Lewis, Thomason, King,
Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., James K. Toohey -- tooheyj@jbltd.com --
Johns & Bell LTD, Jeffrey Lance Chase -- JChase@herzfeld-rubin.com
-- Chase Kurshan Herzfeld & Rufin LLC, Jeffrey S. Rugg --
jrugg@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Jennifer
Marino Thibodaux -- jthibodaux@gibbonslaw.com -- Gibbons PC.


MDL 2741: Salah v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
YASER M. SALAH and SUMAR SALAH, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-00785 (Filed March 29, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco) on May 23, 2019. The Northern District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-03079-VC to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Plaintiff'
injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated
victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

The Salah Case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The
Plaintiff alleges that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. The Plaintiff also alleges that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MDL 2741: Shockey v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
LEROY SHOCKEY and BARBARA J. SHOCKEY, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-00788 (Filed March 29, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco) on May 23, 2019. The Northern District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-03080-VC to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Leroy
Shockey's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

The Salah Case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The
Plaintiffs allege that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. The Plaintiff also alleges that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MDL 2804: Suit by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of LA Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Insys Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit initiated by Blue Cross and Blue
Shield of Louisiana and HMO Louisiana, Inc.

On December 10, 2018, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana and
HMO Louisiana, Inc., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint in the
United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, against
Insys Therapeutics, Inc.  

Plaintiffs bring claims for violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c)
(RICO), violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(d) (RICO conspiracy),
civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment,  and violation of the Alaska
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, the Arizona
Consumer Fraud Act, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act,
the California Unfair Competition Law, the Colorado Consumer
Protection Act, the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, the
Delaware Consumer Fraud Act, the District of Columbia Consumer
Protection Procedures Act, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act, the Idaho Consumer Protection Act, the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the Indiana
Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act,
the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act, the Maryland Consumer
Protection Act, the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, the Minnesota
Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act, the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act, the Nevada
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the New Hampshire Consumer
Protection Act, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, the New Mexico
Unfair Trade Practices Act, New York General Business Law Section
349, the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act,
the North Dakota Unlawful Sales or Advertising Practices Act, the
Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Oklahoma Consumer
Protection Act, the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law, the Rhode Island Unfair Trade Practices
and Consumer Protection Act, the South Dakota Deceptive Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law, the Virginia Consumer
Protection Act, the Washington Consumer Protection Act, the West
Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act, and the Wisconsin
Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Insys said, "We tagged this case for inclusion in MDL No. 2804, to
which the plaintiff objected. We intend to vigorously defend this
matter."

Insys Therapeutics, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company,
focuses on cannabinoids and drug delivery systems that address
unmet patient needs. Insys Therapeutics, Inc. is headquartered in
Chandler, Arizona. On June 10, 2019, INSYS Therapeutics, Inc.,
along with its affiliates, filed a voluntary petition for
reorganization under Chapter 11 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the District of Delaware.


MERCOLA.COM: Brown Files Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing
--------------------------------------------------------
RUSSELL BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MERCOLA.COM HEALTH RESOURCES, LLC a
Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-00385 (M.D. Fla., June 10, 2019) seeks to secure redress
for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

To promote its services, Defendant engages in unsolicited
marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process. Through
this action, 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. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on
behalf of himself and members of the class, and any other available
legal or equitable remedies.

Plaintiff is a natural person who was a resident of Yavapai County,
Arizona.

Defendant is an online store that sells health-related products and
supplements.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
     Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
     SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
     14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205
     Miami, FL 33132
     Phone (305) 479-2299
     Facsimile (786) 623-0915
     Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
            gberg@shamisgentile.com

          - and -

     Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
     Jordan D. Utanski, Esq.
     EDELSBERG LAW, PA
     19495 Biscayne Blvd. #607
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Phone: (305) 975-3320
     Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
            utanski@edelsberglaw.com



MONSANTO COMPANY: Ibroms Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
LARRY IBROM and LORRAINE IBROM, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-02823-VC (E.D. Mo., April
25, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, as
a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Larry Ibrom's
injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated
victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Nightingale Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT E. NIGHTINGALE III, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-03078-VC (E.D. Mo., March 29, 2019),
seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Plaintiff's
injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated
victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Thompson Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROGER THOMPSON, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 3:19-cv-02822-VC (E.D. Mo., April 25, 2019), seeks to
recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Plaintiff's
injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated
victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Wauters Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
GERALD J. WAUTERS, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-02796-VC (E.D. Mo., April 23, 2019),
seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Plaintiff's
injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated
victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

NABRIVA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Enriquez Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Nabriva Therapeutics plc 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, Larry
Enriquez v. Nabriva Therapeutics PLC, and Ted Schroeder, Case No.
19-cv-04183 (S.D.N.Y.).

The putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and
its Chief Executive Officer on May 8, 2019.

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the Company's securities between November 1, 2018 and
April 30, 2019.

The complaint generally alleges that the Company and its Chief
Executive Officer violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements
and omitting to disclose material facts concerning the Company's
submission of an New Drug Application (NDA) to the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) for marketing approval of CONTEPO for the
treatment of cUTI in the United States and the likelihood of such
approval.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, and other
costs.  

The case is still in its initial stage and a lead plaintiff has not
yet been appointed.

Nabriva Therapeutics plc, a biopharmaceutical company, engages in
the research and development of anti-infective agents to treat
infections in humans. The company was formerly known as Nabriva
Therapeutics Forschungs GmbH and changed its name to Nabriva
Therapeutics plc in 2007. Nabriva Therapeutics plc was incorporated
in 2005 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


NATERA INC: Appeal from IPO Case Decision Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Natera, 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' appeal from the court's
order granting the company's motion for judgment on the pleadings
in a California class action lawsuit over the company's initial
public offering remains pending.

On each of February 17, 2016, March 10, 2016, March 28, 2016 and
April 4, 2016, purported class action lawsuits were filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Mateo (the "San Mateo Superior Court"), against Natera, its
directors, certain of its officers and 5% stockholders and their
affiliates, and each of the underwriters of the Company's July 1,
2015 initial public offering (the "IPO").

The complaints assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the Registration
Statement and Prospectus for the Company's IPO contained materially
false or misleading statements, and/or omitted material information
that was required to be disclosed, about the Company's business and
prospects.

Among other relief, the complaints seek class certification,
unspecified compensatory damages, rescission, attorneys' fees, and
costs.

The Company removed these actions to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, and the actions were
subsequently remanded back to the San Mateo Superior Court.

The Company has appealed the remand and discovery has been stayed,
or held, pending the appeal.

The Company also filed a demurrer, or a request for dismissal as a
matter of law, in the San Mateo Superior Court, which was granted
on October 23, 2017. The San Mateo Superior Court demurred the
claims under Sections 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, without leave to re-file. The San Mateo Superior
Court granted the demurrer as to Section 11 of the Act with leave
to re-file.  

Plaintiffs refiled an amended complaint on November 22, 2017. The
Company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings under the
amended complaint on January 25, 2018, which the plaintiffs
opposed. Hearings on the motion were held in May and July of 2018.
On August 7, 2018 the judge granted the Company's motion for
judgment on the pleadings, without leave to amend, and ordered that
judgment be entered in favor of the defendants.

Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on or about October 18, 2018.

The Company intends to continue to defend the matter vigorously,
but cannot provide any assurance as to the ultimate outcome or that
an adverse resolution would not have a material adverse effect on
its financial condition and results of operations.

The Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome and is unable
to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss, if
any, that could result from any unfavorable outcome.

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

Natera, Inc., a diagnostics company, provides preconception and
prenatal genetic testing services. The company was formerly known
as Gene Security Network, Inc. and changed its name to Natera, Inc.
in 2012. Natera, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in
San Carlos, California.


NATERA INC: Faces TCPA Class Action in N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
Natera, 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 purported Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)
class action suit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

On March 15, 2019, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the company in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, alleging that the plaintiff
received an unauthorized text message to her cellular telephone in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Among other
relief, the complaint seeks statutory and other damages, injunctive
relief, attorneys' fees, and costs.

Natera said, "The Company intends to vigorously defend the matter
but cannot provide any assurance as to the ultimate outcome or that
an adverse resolution would not have a material adverse effect on
its financial condition and results of operations. The Company is
unable to predict the ultimate outcome and is unable to make a
meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, that
could result from any unfavorable outcome."

Natera, Inc., a diagnostics company, provides preconception and
prenatal genetic testing services. The company was formerly known
as Gene Security Network, Inc. and changed its name to Natera, Inc.
in 2012. Natera, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in
San Carlos, California.


NATIONAL VISION: De La Cruz Suit Asserts FCRA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
LUIS A. DE LA CRUZ, an individual, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL VISION, INC.; and DOES 1
thru 50, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01062-BEN-KSC
(S.D. Cal., June 6, 2019) is a class action against the Defendants
to seek punitive damages for their willful violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff filled out Defendant's
standard "Application for Employment" ("standard FCRA form"), which
form permits Defendant to obtain a consumer report verifying
Plaintiff's background and experience.  This form is a single
"document" for purposes of the FCRA and consists of a purported
disclosure and authorization.

However, the complaint says the Defendant's FCRA disclosure is
invalid on two separate grounds. First, Defendant's FCRA disclosure
violates the "standalone" disclosure requirement in the FCRA (the
FCRA disclosure must be "in a document that consists solely of the
disclosure"). Second, Defendant's FCRA disclosure violates the
"clear and conspicuous disclosure" requirement in the FCRA because
Defendant's FCRA disclosure combines other information including a
liability release provision and is not "clear" or "conspicuous" as
required by law.

Since Defendant's standard FCRA disclosure is non-complaint,
Plaintiff was confused regarding the nature of his rights under the
FCRA and accordingly did not give valid authorization for Defendant
to procure a consumer report in violation of the FCRA, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff applied, was hired and performed work for Defendant in
California from August 22, 2017 through February 20, 20 19 as a
non-exempt hourly employee.

Defendant is an optical retailer specializing m providing health
maintenance organization, vision care, benefit plan, and optometric
services, including offering optical accessory products, eyeglasses
and contact lenses primarily in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
     Kelsey M. Szamet, Esq.
     Kingsley & Kingsley, APC
     16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
     Encino, CA 91436
     Phone: (818) 990-8300
     Fax: (818) 990-2903
     Email: eric@kingsleykingsley.com
            kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com

NCAA: Grant Sues over Grand Valley State Student-Athletes' Safety
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW GRANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02208-JRS-MPB (S.D.
Ind., June 3, 2019), seeks redress for injuries sustained a result
of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of
generations of Grand Valley State University (GVSU)
student-athletes.

According to the complaint, nearly 100,000 student-athletes sign up
to compete in college football each year, and it's no surprise why.
Football is America's sport and Plaintiff and a Class of football
players were raised to live and breathe the game. During football
season, there are entire days of the week that millions of
Americans dedicate to watching the game. On game days, hundreds of
thousands of fans fill stadium seats and even more watch around the
world. Before each game, these players -- often mere teenagers --
are riled up and told to do whatever it takes to win and, when
playing, are motivated to do whatever it takes to keep going.

But up until 2010, NCAA kept players and the public in the dark
about an epidemic that was slowly killing college athletes. During
the course of a college football season, athletes absorb more than
1,000 impacts greater than 10 Gs (gravitational force) and, worse
yet, the majority of football-related hits to the head exceed 20
Gs, with some approaching 100 Gs. To put this in perspective, if
you drove your car into a wall at 25 miles per hour and weren't
wearing a seatbelt, the force of you hitting the windshield would
be around 100 Gs. Thus, each season these 18, 19, 20, and
21-year-old student-athletes are subjected to repeated car
accidents.

Over time, the repetitive and violent impacts to players' heads led
to repeated concussions that severely increased their risks of
long-term brain injuries, including memory loss, dementia,
depression, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy ("CTE"), Parkinson's
disease, and other related symptoms. Meaning, long after they
played their last game, they are left with a series of neurological
events that could slowly strangle their brains. For decades, NCAA
knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions,
concussion-related injuries, and sub-concussive injuries (referred
to as "traumatic brain injuries" or "TBIs") that resulted from
playing college football, but recklessly disregarded this
information to protect the very profitable business of "amateur"
college football.

While in school, Grand Valley football players were under
Defendant's care. Unfortunately, Defendant did not care about the
off-field consequences that would haunt students, like Plaintiff
Geist, for the rest of their lives. Despite knowing for decades of
a vast body of scientific research describing the danger of
traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like those Plaintiff experienced,
Defendant failed to implement adequate procedures to protect
Plaintiff and other Grand Valley football players from the
long-term dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly and
for profit.

As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and
countless former Grand Valley football players suffered brain and
other neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football. As such,
Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate
those players' rights and hold the NCAA accountable, the lawsuit
says.

NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 554 9099
          Facsimile: (713) 554 9098
          E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589 6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589 6378
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com

NEW INDUSTRIES: Court Narrows Claims in Lawrence FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Louisiana issued an Order granting in part and denying in part
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned
JERKYLE LAWRENCE, et al., v. NEW INDUSTRIES, LLC. Civil Action No.
16-994. (W.D. La.).

The Plaintiffs, 17 individuals who were employed as laborers by
Defendant New Industries, LLC (Defendant), allege that the
Defendant did not pay overtime wages or minimum wages in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiffs also allege
that Defendant violated Louisiana Revised Statute Section
23:1163(A) by requiring employees to contribute $1 for every hour
worked into a pool of money called the safety pool, which the
Plaintiffs allege the Defendant used to satisfy workers'
compensation obligations.

The Defendant raises two issues in the motion for summary
judgment.

First, the Defendant argues that summary judgment should be granted
with respect to the Plaintiffs' FLSA claims because time the
Plaintiffs allegedly spent putting on and taking off PPE, walking
to the time clock, and gathering tools is not compensable under the
PPA and/or the de minimum rule.

Second, the Defendant contends that the Plaintiffs' state law
claims must be dismissed because there is no evidence establishing
that the Defendant's employees contributed to the safety pool.

In reply, the Defendant contends that these claims must be
dismissed because they were not raised in either the Complaint or
the Amended Complaint.  Alternatively, the Defendant argues that
the Plaintiffs have not presented sufficient evidence to survive
summary judgment. Accordingly, the Court will address each of these
issues in turn.

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Plaintiffs do not oppose
dismissal of the state law claims. Additionally, Plaintiffs do not
oppose dismissal of the FLSA claims of Plaintiffs Jerkyle Lawrence,
Craig Reaux, Trevor Alcina, Dontrell Brown, Dale Mitchell, Cody
Chauvin, Leroy Jones, Joaquin Mirajes, Freddie Lewis, Christobal
Lopez, and Anthony Lightfoot.

Accordingly, the Court will grant summary judgment with respect to
the state law claims and the FLSA claims of Plaintiffs Jerkyle
Lawrence, Craig Reaux, Trevor Alcina, Dontrell Brown, Dale
Mitchell, Cody Chauvin, Leroy Jones, Joaquin Mirajes, Freddie
Lewis, Christobal Lopez, and Anthony Lightfoot.

The Plaintiffs originally opposed dismissal of the FLSA claims
brought by Plaintiffs Stanley King, Norman Lightfoot, Kevin
Jennings, Alvin Griffin, and Ray Aucoin. However, on June 4, 2019,
the parties filed a notice of voluntary dismissal and dismissed the
claims of Alvin Griffin, Norman Lightfoot, and Raymond Aucoin with
prejudice.

Plaintiffs Stanley King and Kevin Jennings also dismissed their
claims that they were not paid by Defendant for work they performed
during lunch periods with prejudice, but maintained their claims
that they were not paid for setting up and putting away tools
before and after their workshifts.

On June 5, 2019, the Court granted a Motion for Discovery Sanctions
Pursuant to FRCP Rule 37 and dismissed the claims of Plaintiff
Arthur Thompson without prejudice. Therefore, the only claims that
remain are Plaintiffs Kevin Jennings and Stanley King's claims that
they were not paid for setting up and putting away tools before and
after their workshifts.

Claims Raised for the First Time in Opposition to the Motion for
Summary Judgment

The Defendant contends that the Plaintiffs have improperly raised
new claims in opposition to the motion for summary judgment.

Specifically, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiffs did not
allege in either the Complaint or the Amended Complaint that they
were not paid for work performed during their lunch breaks.

The Defendant also asserts that the claim that the Plaintiffs were
not paid for time spent setting up equipment was not alleged in
either the Complaint or the Amended Complaint.

A properly pleaded complaint must give fair notice of what the
claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. Accordingly, the
Fifth Circuit has stated that district courts do not abuse their
discretion when they disregard claims or theories of liability not
present in the complaint and raised first in a motion opposing
summary judgment.

The Defendant asserts that the claim that the Plaintiffs were not
paid for time spent setting up equipment was not alleged in either
the Complaint or the Amended Complaint.

However, the Court finds this argument unavailing. In the Amended
Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant requires its
laborers to gather the tools that they will need and meet at 6:00
am for a safety meeting. The Amended Complaint also alleges that at
the end of the day employees must put away Defendant's tools. In
opposition to the motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs present
declarations of Stanley King and Kevin Jennings, stating that they
were not paid for setting up and/or putting away their equipment,
including a sub arc welding machine, rope, come along tools, and
welding equipment.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a tool as something such as an
instrument or apparatus used in performing an operation or
necessary in the practice of a vocation or profession.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines equipment as the set of articles
or physical resources serving to equip a person or thing. The items
described in Plaintiffs' declarations appear to fall under the
common definition of both tools and equipment. Therefore, the Court
concludes that this claim was properly raised in the Amended
Complaint.

Accordingly, the Court will proceed to address whether Defendants
are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs' claims that they
were not paid for time spent setting up and putting away tools or
equipment.

Whether Defendants are Entitled to Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs'
Claims that They were not Paid for Time Spent Setting Up and
Putting Away Tools or Equipment

The FLSA mandates that no employer shall employ any of his
employees for a workweek longer than forty hours unless such
employee receives compensation for his employment in excess of the
hours above specified at a rate not less than one and one-half
times the regular rate at which he is employed.

In opposition to the motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs
present declarations of Stanley King and Kevin Jennings, stating
that they were not paid for setting up and/or putting away their
equipment. The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs presented
insufficient evidence to overcome summary judgment because the
Plaintiffs have not pointed to any evidence establishing that the
alleged unpaid work put them above 40-hours per week or reduced
their pay below minimum wage.

The Court finds this argument unavailing because the FLSA generally
requires employers to pay employees for all hours worked.119
Furthermore, it is undisputed that each Plaintiff clocked in when
he came to work but was not paid until the safety meeting began.
Therefore, the amount of overtime work performed by each Plaintiff
can readily be calculated at trial.

The Defendant contends that these tasks are not compensable under
the PPA because they are preliminary and postliminary activities.
The Defendant also asserts that the time spent performing these
activities was de minimis.

The Defendant contends that the Plaintiffs' declarations do not
establish that the Defendant had actual or constructive knowledge
that the Plaintiffs performed the work without pay, as required by
the FLSA.

Whether the Activities are Excluded from Coverage under the PPA

In particular, the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 amended the FLSA to
provide that employers are not required to compensate employees
for: (1) walking, riding, or traveling to and from the actual place
of performance of the principal activity or activities which such
employee is employed to perform and (2) activities which are
preliminary to or postliminary to said principal activity or
activities,which occur either prior to the time on any particular
workday at which such employee commences, or subsequent to the time
on any particular workday at which he ceases, such principal
activity or activities.

In this case, Kevin Jennings states that he was employed as a
rigger and was responsible for cutting new rope lengths and
selecting and testing the come-along tools required for the
workday. Stanley King states that he set up his welding equipment
before the shift began, and that he needed more time than the five
minutes allotted to return his equipment.

The Plaintiffs have presented evidence showing that they could not
complete their job duties as riggers and welders without first
completing these preliminary and postliminary activities.
Plaintiffs have presented evidence to show that these preliminary
or postliminary activities are integral and indispensable to the
principal activities that Plaintiffs are employed to perform in
that the activities were ones that Plaintiffs could dispense with
if they were to perform their principal activities.

Therefore, the Court concludes that these activities are
compensable under the FLSA.

Whether Time Spent Performing these Activities was De Minimis

Even if an activity might otherwise be compensable, courts may
disregard de minimis claims concerning only a few seconds or
minutes of work beyond the scheduled working hours. As the Fifth
Circuit has recognized, most courts have found daily periods of
approximately 10 minutes de minimus even though otherwise
compensable.

Kevin Jennings and Stanley King have presented evidence showing
that they were not compensated for 10 to 15 minutes per day.
Specifically, Kevin Jennings states that it took him 10 to 15
minutes per day to cut the rope lengths and 5 minutes to select the
come-along tools, and he was not paid for this time.147 Finally,
Stanley King states that it took him 10 to 15 minutes to set up the
welding equipment and 10 to 15 minutes to put the equipment away,
and he was not paid for this time. Accordingly, the Court concludes
that these tasks may have involved more than a de minimis amount of
time and may be compensable.

Therefore, Defendant is not entitled to summary judgment as a
matter of law with respect to the FLSA claims of Kevin Jennings and
Stanley King.

Whether Defendant had Actual or Constructive Knowledge of the Work

The Fifth Circuit has determined that a plaintiff must show that he
or she was employed during the time period for which he or she
seeks overtime compensation, which requires the plaintiff to show
that the employer had actual or constructive knowledge that the
plaintiff was working overtime. Constructive knowledge exists if an
employer exercising reasonable diligence would become aware that an
employee is working overtime.

In this case, the parties do not dispute that each Plaintiff
clocked-in when he arrived at work but was not paid until the
morning safety meeting began. Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs did
not begin working until after the morning meeting.

In opposition, Plaintiffs have presented declarations of Kevin
Jennings and Stanley King showing that they performed work before
the morning meeting began. Considering that Defendant was aware of
the times that Plaintiffs clocked into work each day, there is a
disputed issue of material fact as to whether Plaintiffs were
working during the time-period between when they clocked in and
when the morning safety meeting began and whether Defendant had
actual or constructive knowledge that Plaintiffs were working
during that period.

Accordingly, the Court denies the motion for summary judgment as to
the FLSA claims of Kevin Jennings and Stanley King.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 6, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y6bp8bko from Leagle.com.

Kevin R Jennings & Stanley King, Plaintiffs, represented by William
Henry Beaumont, William H. Beaumont Law, Jonathan Mille Kirkland,
Beaumont Costales, R. Brent Cueria, Cueria Law Firm & Roberto Luis
Costales, Costales Law Office, 3801 Canal Street, New Orleans, LA,
70119

New Industries L L C, Defendant, represented by Joel P. Babineaux,
Babineaux Poche et al &Karen T. Bordelon, Babineaux Poche et al.,
1201 Camellia BoulevardThird FloorLafayette, LA 70508


NIGHTSTAR THERAPEUTICS: Wheby Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nightstar Therapeutics plc 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, Earl M. Wheby, Jr. v. Nightstar Therapeutics plc et al.,
has been voluntarily dismissed.

Three shareholder complaints have been filed in connection with the
pending acquisition of the Company by Biogen (the "Acquisition").

On April 23, 2019, Stephen Bushansky, a purported holder of
American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") of the Company, filed a
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, captioned Stephen Bushansky v. Nightstar
Therapeutics plc et al., Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-10903, against
the Company and each member of its board of directors (the
"Board").

On April 26, 2019, Earl Wheby, a purported Company shareholder,
filed a putative federal securities class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware,
captioned Earl M. Wheby, Jr. v. Nightstar Therapeutics plc et al.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00761-UNA, against the Company, each member of the
Board and Biogen Inc.

Also on April 26, 2019, Brennan Evans, a purported Company
shareholder, filed a complaint in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, captioned Brennan Evans v.
Nightstar Therapeutics plc et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-03743, against
the Company and each member of the Board.

On May 1, 2019, the plaintiff in Wheby voluntarily dismissed his
complaint without prejudice.

The complaints generally allege, among other things, that the
defendants violated federal securities laws and regulations by
disseminating or allowing to be disseminated a proxy statement in
connection with the Acquisition that purportedly omits or
misrepresents material information.

The complaints seek, among other things, relief enjoining the
defendants from proceeding with the Acquisition and any vote on the
Acquisition; or, in the event the Acquisition is completed,
rescinding the Acquisition and setting it aside or awarding
rescissory damages.

The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.

Nightstar said, "It is possible that additional lawsuits related to
the Acquisition may be filed in the future."

Nightstar Therapeutics plc, a clinical-stage gene therapy company,
focuses on developing and commercializing novel one-time treatments
for patients suffering from rare inherited retinal diseases in the
United Kingdom. The company was incorporated in 2017 and is
headquartered in London, the United Kingdom. As of June 7, 2019,
Nightstar Therapeutics plc operates as a subsidiary of Biogen Inc.


NOVA LIFESTYLE: Continues to Defend Barney Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Nova LifeStyle, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a federal class action suit initiated by George Barney.

On December 28, 2018, a Federal class action complaint was filed by
George Barney against the Company and its former and current CEOs
and CFOs (Thanh H. Lam, Ya Ming Wong, Jeffery Chuang and Yuen Ching
Ho) in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, claiming the Company violated federal securities laws
and pursuing remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Security Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 (the "Complaint").

The Complaint seeks to recover compensatory damages caused by the
Company's alleged violations of federal security laws during the
period from December 3, 2015 through December 20, 2018.

In reliance solely on a blog appearing in Seeking Alpha on December
21, 2018, the Complaint states that the Company made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the
Company overstated its purported strategic alliance with a customer
in China to operate as lead designer and manufacturer for all
furnishings in such customer's planned $460 million senior care
center in China; (2) the Company inflated its reported sales in
2016 and 2017 with the Company's two major customers; and (3) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.  

The Audit Committee engaged the Company's auditor to perform
special procedures to confirm the reported sales.  

Those procedures included but were not limited to the examination
and testing of relevant documentation relating to the sales made by
the Company to the customers identified in the purported research
report for the periods 2015-2018, and 100% sampling of all
transactions between the Company and the subject customers.  

The Audit Committee finished its special procedures in March 2019
and the Company's independent auditor has reported to the Audit
Committee that, regarding the four subject customers mentioned in
the purported research report, the special procedures resulted in
no evidence of fictitious sales or of fictitious customers.

Pursuant to a Stipulation approved by the Court, any amendment to
the complaint must be filed by May 29, 2019 and no response is
required until the earlier of 45 days after an amended complaint is
filed or May 29, 2019 (should no amendment be filed).

Nova LifeStyle, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs,
manufactures, markets, and sells residential and commercial
furniture for middle and upper middle-income consumers worldwide.
Nova LifeStyle, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in
Commerce, California.


NOVATION COMPANIES: Appeal in NJ Carpenters' Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Novation Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the appeal from the
court's order approving the settlement of the class action lawsuit
by the New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund remains pending.

On May 21, 2008, a purported class action case was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the New
Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated. Defendants in the case included NovaStar
Mortgage Funding Corporation ("NMFC") and NovaStar Mortgage, Inc.
("NMI"), wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company, and NMFC's
individual directors, several securitization trusts sponsored by
the Company ("affiliated defendants") and several unaffiliated
investment banks and credit rating agencies.

The case was removed to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. On June 16, 2009, plaintiff filed an
amended complaint.

Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, alleging that the defendants
violated Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, by making allegedly false statements regarding mortgage
loans that served as collateral for securities purchased by
plaintiff and the purported class members.

On August 31, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's claims, which the court granted on March 31, 2011, with
leave to amend. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on May
16, 2011, and the Company again filed a motion to dismiss.

On March 29, 2012, the court dismissed plaintiff's second amended
complaint with prejudice and without leave to replead. Plaintiff
filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit (the "Appellate Court"). On March 1, 2013, the
Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the lower court, which had
dismissed the case.

Also, the Appellate Court vacated the judgment of the lower court
which had held that plaintiff lacked standing, even as a class
representative, to sue on behalf of investors in securities in
which plaintiff had not invested, and the appellate court remanded
the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.

On April 23, 2013 plaintiff filed its memorandum with the lower
court seeking a reconsideration of the earlier dismissal of
plaintiff's claims as to five offerings in which plaintiff was not
invested, and on February 5, 2015, the lower court granted
plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and vacated its earlier
dismissal.

On March 8, 2017, the affiliated defendants and all other parties
executed an agreement to settle the action, with the contribution
of the affiliated defendants to the settlement fund being paid by
their insurance carriers.

The court certified a settlement class and granted preliminary
approval to the settlement on May 10, 2017.  

One member of the settlement class objected to the settlement and
sought a stay of the final settlement approval hearing on the
ground that it did not receive notice of the settlement and had no
opportunity to timely opt out of the class.  

After the court rejected the motion for a stay, the objector filed
an appeal and requested a stay of the district court proceedings
pending disposition of the appeal. The court of appeals denied the
temporary stay of the district court proceedings and on October 19,
2018 dismissed the appeal as moot.  

Following the court of appeals' denial of the objector's petition
for rehearing, the district court on March 7, 2019 held a fairness
hearing.  

On March 8, 2019, the district court issued a memorandum and order
approving the settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate, and
dismissing the action with prejudice.  

Following entry of judgment, the objector filed a notice of appeal
on March 26, 2019.  

Novation Companies said, "Assuming the settlement approval becomes
final, which is expected, the Company will incur no loss. The
Company believes that the affiliated defendants have meritorious
defenses to the case and, if the settlement approval does not
become final, expects them to defend the case vigorously."

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

Novation Companies, Inc., through its subsidiary, Healthcare
Staffing, Inc., provides outsourced health care staffing and
related services primarily to Community Service Boards in Georgia.
It also owns a portfolio of mortgage securities. The company was
formerly known as NovaStar Financial, Inc. and changed its name to
Novation Companies, Inc. in May 2012. Novation Companies, Inc. was
founded in 1996 and is based in Kansas City, Missouri.


NOVUS THERAPEUTICS: Discovery to be Completed by July 12
--------------------------------------------------------
Novus Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that discovery related to a
motion for class certification and standing issues in the case, Wu
v. Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., must be completed by July
12, 2019.

On December 5, 2016, a putative securities class action was filed
in the Massachusetts State Court, entitled Wu v. Tokai
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., 16-3725 BLS.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of purchasers of Tokai
common stock in or traceable to Tokai's initial public offering
(IPO). On December 19, 2016, defendants removed the Wu Action to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, where it
was captioned Wu v. Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.,
16-cv-12550.

On January 6, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the Wu
Action to Massachusetts State Court. On September 28, 2017, the
court stayed the case pending a decision by the United States
Supreme Court in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement
Fund, S. Ct. Case No. 15-1439. On March 20, 2018, the United States
Supreme Court ruled in Cyan that state courts have subject matter
jurisdiction over covered class actions alleging only Securities
Act claims and that such actions are not removable to federal
court.

On March 22, 2018, plaintiff moved for leave to submit the Cyan
decision in support of plaintiff's remand motion. On March 27, 2018
the Wu Action was remanded to the Massachusetts State Court. On May
3, 2018, plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint.
Following the refiling of the Jackie888 Action in Massachusetts
State Court, on June 28, 2018, plaintiff Wu moved to consolidate
the Jackie888 Action with the Wu Action.

On June 29, 2018, plaintiffs Jackie888 and Wu filed a consolidated
complaint. On July 6, 2018, the Jackie888 Action was consolidated
with the Wu Action.

Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on August
15, 2018, plaintiffs filed their opposition thereto on September
28, 2018, and defendants filed their reply in support of their
motion on October 19, 2018.

In addition, Defendants moved to strike the class allegations in
the consolidated complaint on August 15, 2018, plaintiffs filed
their opposition thereto on September 11, 2018, and defendants
filed their reply in support of their motion on September 21, 2018.


The court held a hearing on November 15, 2018 on defendants' motion
to strike. On December 20, 2018, the court denied defendants'
motion to strike. The court held a hearing on December 20, 2018 on
defendants' motion to dismiss.  

On January 8, 2019, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss.
On February 6, 2019, the court entered a scheduling order, pursuant
to which discovery on merits issues was stayed pending the court's
resolution of class certification. On April 18, 2019, the court
held a hearing as to plaintiff Wu's failure to respond to
defendant’s discovery requests.  

The court issued an order requiring plaintiff Wu to serve written
responses to the pending discovery requests by May 10, 2019.  

According to the order, if plaintiff Wu fails to do so, her
individual action will be subject to dismissal with prejudice.
Discovery on class certification and standing issues must be
completed by July 12, 2019.  

Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and defendants' motion
to dismiss for lack of standing shall be filed on or by August 22,
2019, oppositions thereto shall be filed on or by September 19,
2019, and replies in support shall be filed on or by October 10,
2019.  The court scheduled a hearing for October 23, 2019 on the
motions.

Headquartered in Irvine, California, Novus Therapeutics, Inc., is a
pharmaceutical company that focuses on developing products for
patients with disorders of ear, nose, and throat. Its lead product
is (OP-02), a surfactant-based combination drug product for
patients at risk for, or with, otitis media (OM) (middle ear
inflammation with or without infection). The company also has a
foam-based drug delivery technology (OP-01) that could be used to
deliver drugs into the ear, nose, and sinus cavities.


ORCHIDS OF ASIA: Class Action Over Video Recordings Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Izzy Kapnick, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
attorneys defending New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft against
solicitation-of-prostitution charges convinced a Florida judge to
suppress video evidence that police claim shows Kraft engaging in
paid sex acts at a day spa.

Palm Beach County Circuit Judge Leonard Hanser ruled on May 13
evening that the Jupiter Police Department's collection of
undercover video in a day spa prostitution sting was
unconstitutional because detectives did little to minimize
recording of disrobed patrons who were getting legal massages.

Though he found Jupiter police established probable cause, Hanser
wrote that officers ran afoul of Fourth Amendment protections by
not establishing written surveillance guidelines that would avoid
the recording of partly naked, innocent customers.

"The fact that some totally innocent women and men had their entire
lawful time spent in a massage room fully recorded and viewed
intermittently by a detective-monitor is unacceptable and results
from the lack of sufficient pre-monitoring written guidelines," the
judge wrote.

The months-long investigation yielded misdemeanor
solicitation-of-prostitution charges against Kraft and more than 20
other men who are accused of paying for sexual gratification at the
now-shuttered Orchids of Asia massage parlor in Jupiter.

Hua Zhang and Lei Wang are charged with felonies for allegedly
deriving proceeds from prostitution at the spa.

Jupiter police had applied for a so-called "sneak-and-peak" warrant
for the spa in January after obtaining statements from spa patrons
who purportedly admitted to engaging in sexual activity at Orchids
of Asia.

Once they secured the warrant, police reported a fake
suspicious-package threat as a way to evacuate the premises before
slipping in and placing hidden cameras to record the alleged sexual
activity, according to Kraft's attorneys.

Prosecutors argued to the court in April  that the search warrant
application was "exhaustive" and included "strict guidelines" to
limit camera placement to areas where criminal activity was
believed to be occurring.

But Hanser found that police still fell short of the minimization
requirements for electronic surveillance laid out in federal case
law. He wrote that the department improperly allowed video
monitoring of disrobed women in the spa even though the pre-warrant
investigation had yielded evidence of only male clientele engaged
in solicitation.

The judge added that over the five days of secret video-monitoring,
police failed to cut off surveillance of certain customers who were
keeping their underpants on during their massages, a sign Hanser
said should've indicated to police that prostitution was not taking
place in those instances.

Under the judge's the May 13 order, the video of Kraft allegedly
getting manually pleasured at the spa cannot be used as evidence
against him.

Kraft is represented by Alex Spiro and William Burck from the Quinn
Emanuel firm, along with Jack Goldberger as local counsel.

In a parallel criminal case against the alleged spa operators, Palm
Beach County Circuit Judge Joseph Marx granted a motion for a
protective order to seal all video evidence collected by police at
Orchids of Asia until the fair trial rights of those defendants are
not at risk – until a jury is sworn in, or the case is resolved
pre-trial.

Meanwhile, a class action lawsuit filed by customers of the spa is
pending in Palm Beach court over the allegedly illegal recordings.

Media companies have argued to the court that the Kraft video
should be released under Florida's Public Records Act regardless of
whether it is suppressed as evidence.


PAPA MURPHY'S: Brown Files Securities Class Action in Wash.
-----------------------------------------------------------
EVAN BROWN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. PAPA MURPHY'S HOLDINGS INC., JEAN M. BIRCH,
WELDON SPANGLER, NOAH A. ELBOGEN, BENJAMIN HOCHBERG, YOO JIN KIM,
ALEXANDER C. MATINA, DAVID MOUNTS, JOHN SHAFER, KATHERINE L.
SCHERPING, ROB WEISBERG and NORTH POINT ADVISORS LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 3:19-cv-05514 (W.D. Wash., June 7, 2019) is a class action
brought by Plaintiff against Papa Murphy's Holdings Inc., the
Company's financial advisor, North Point Advisors LLC, and the
members of the Company's board of directors for their violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On April 10, 2019, Papa Murphy's entered into an agreement and plan
of merger, whereby shareholders of Papa Murphy's common stock will
receive $6.45 in cash for each share of Papa Murphy's stock they
own (the "Offer Price"). On April 25, 2019, in order to convince
Papa Murphy's shareholders to tender their shares, the Board
authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading
Schedule 14D-9 Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the
Securities and Exchange Commission. Therein, the Defendants touted
the fairness of the Offer Price to the Company's shareholders, but
misled investors with respect to the Company's financial
projections, the value of the Company, and the fairness of the
Offer Price, notes the complaint.

The Defendant North Point created a downwardly revised set of
projections (the "Base Case") to illegitimately lower management's
significantly higher projections (the "Management Case") for use in
the valuation analyses underlying their fairness opinion. Without
the use of these adulterated projections, North Point would not
have been able to find the Offer Price "fair" to Papa Murphy's
shareholders. The Board, aware of the illegitimate alterations,
touted North Point's misleading fairness opinion as a positive
factor and recommended Papa Murphy's shareholders tender their
shares in the Tender Offer based on the misleading fairness
opinion. The Tender Offer expired at one minute after 11:59 p.m.
(12:00 midnight), New York City time, on May 22, 2019 (the
"Expiration Date") and Papa Murphy's shareholders were cashed out
of their shares for the inadequate Offer Price. For these reasons,
Defendants have violated the Exchange Act. Accordingly, Plaintiff
seek to recover damages resulting from Defendants' violations of
the Exchange Act, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a shareholder of Papa Murphy’s.

Papa Murphy’s, incorporated on March 29, 2010, is a holding
company. The Company, together with its subsidiaries, is a
franchisor and operator of the Take 'N' Bake pizza chain in the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roger M. Townsend, Esq.
     BRESKIN JOHNSON TOWNSEND, PLLC
     1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3670
     Seattle, WA 98104
     Phone: 206-652-8660
     Fax: 206-652-8290
     Email: rtownsend@bjtlegal.com

          - and -

     Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
     MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
     The Empire State Building
     350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
     New York, NY 10118
     Phone: 212-971-1341
     Fax: 212-202-7880
     Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com


PETEYS LIC: Hernandez Seeks Minimum & OT Pay for Restaurant Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS ALBERTO HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PETEYS LIC LLC (D/B/A
PETEY'S BURGER), PETER NICHOLAS KARALEKAS, and GEORGE KAROLHIS, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03299 (E.D.N.Y., June 3, 2019), seeks
to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, Mr. Hernandez is a former employee of
Defendants. The Defendants own, operate, or control a fast food
restaurant, located at 3017 30th Avenue, Astoria, NY 11102 under
the name "Petey's Burger". Mr. Hernandez was employed as a delivery
worker, a dishwasher, and a food preparer at the restaurant.

The Plaintiff was ostensibly employed as a delivery worker.
However, he was required to spend a considerable part of his work
day performing non-tipped duties, including but not limited to
dishwashing, preparing food, cutting potatoes, tomatoes and onions,
sweeping and mopping, organizing the inventory when the delivery
came, bringing up ingredients for the cooks from the basements,
taking out the garbage, and wiping down the windows (non-tipped
duties).

Hernandez worked in excess of 40 hours per week, without
appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours
compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the Defendants
failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and
failed to pay Plaintiff Hernandez appropriately for any hours
worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional
overtime premium.

Further, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Hernandez the required
"spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10
hours a day. The Defendants employed and accounted for Plaintiff
Hernandez as a delivery worker in their payroll, but in actuality
his duties required a significant amount of time spent performing
the non-tipped duties alleged above.

The Defendants paid Plaintiff Hernandez at a rate that was lower
than the required tip-credit rate. However, under both the FLSA and
NYLL, Defendants were not entitled to take a tip credit because
Plaintiff Hernandez's non-tipped duties exceeded 20% of each
workday, or 2 hours per day, whichever is less in each day. The
Defendants employed the policy and practice of disguising Plaintiff
Hernandez's actual duties in payroll records by designating him as
a delivery worker instead of as a non-tipped employee. This allowed
Defendants to avoid paying Plaintiff Hernandez at the minimum wage
rate and enabled them to pay him at the lower tip-credit rate
(which they still failed to do), the lawsuit says.

In addition, the Defendants maintained a policy and practice of
unlawfully appropriating Plaintiff Hernandez's and other tipped
employees’ tips and made unlawful deductions from Plaintiff
Hernandez's and other tipped employees' wages [BN].

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

PINNACLE FOODS: Hawaii Court Narrows Claims in Amended Maeda Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MCHAEL MAEDA and ILIANA SANCHEZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PINNACLE
FOODS INC.; DOES 1 THROUGH 50, Defendants, Civil No. 18-00459
JAO-RLP (D. Haw.), Judge Jill A. Otake of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Hawaii granted in part and denied in part the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint.

The putative consumer class action arises out of the sale and
marketing of Defendant Pinnacle's Hawaiian brand snacks, including:
Hawaiian Kettle Style Potato Chips, Original; Hawaiian Kettle Style
Potato Chips, Luau BBQ; Hawaiian Kettle Style Potato Chips, Sweet
Maui Onion; Hawaiian Kettle Style Potato Chips, Ginger Wasabi;
Hawaiian Kettle Style Potato Chips, Hulapeno; Hawaiian Kettle Style
Potato Chips, Mango Habanero; Hawaiian Luau Barbeque Rings; and
Hawaiian Sweet Maui Onion Rings.  The Plaintiffs allege that they
purchased these snacks due to false and deceptive labeling,
packaging, and advertising, which misled them into believing that
the snacks are made in Hawai`i from local ingredients.

The Plaintiffs commenced the action on Oct. 12, 2018 in the Circuit
Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawai'i.  The Defendant
removed the action on Nov. 23, 2018.  The Plaintiffs allege that
although the Hawaiian Snacks are manufactured in Algona,
Washington, Defendant markets them in such a manner as to mislead
consumers into believing that they were manufactured in Hawai'i.

The Plaintiffs assert the following claims: (1) violation of
Hawai'i's made in Hawai'i statute; (2) violation of Hawai'i's
Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Haw. Rev. Stat. Chapter
480); (3) violation of Hawai'i's false advertising law; (4)
violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act; (5)
violation of California's unfair competition law; (6) violation of
California's false advertising law; (7) breach of express warranty;
(8) breach of implied warranty; (9) common law fraud; (10)
intentional misrepresentation; (11) negligent misrepresentation;
and (12) quasi-contract/unjust enrichment/restitution.

The three proposed classes identified by the Plaintiffs are as
follows:

     a. Hawaii Class: All persons, who, within the relevant statute
of limitations period, purchased any of the Hawaiian Snacks, in the
State of Hawai'i.

     b. California Class: All persons, who, within the relevant
statute of limitations period, purchased any of the Hawaiian
Snacks, in the State of California.

     c. California Consumer Subclass: All persons, who, within the
relevant statute of limitations period, purchased any of the
Hawaiian Snacks for personal, family, or household purpose, in the
State of California.

In their prayer for relief, the Plaintiffs request a declaration
that the Defendant's conduct violates the law; restitution;
damages; punitive damages; attorneys' fees and costs; and pre and
post judgment interest.

The Defendant moves to dismiss.  It seeks dismissal of the
Complaint with prejudice on the following grounds: (1) the Court
lacks personal jurisdiction over the claims asserted by Plaintiff
Iliana Sanchez; (2) the Plaintiffs' consumer protection claims fail
because the Plaintiffs have not alleged an actionable
misrepresentation; (3) the Plaintiffs' common law claims fail as a
matter of law; and (4) the Plaintiffs lack standing to seek
prospective injunctive relief.

Judge Otake granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint.  Plaintiff
Sanchez's claims are dismissed with prejudice for lack of personal
jurisdiction.  The Made in Hawaii claim (Count 1) is dismissed with
prejudice.  The UDAP claim (Count 2), California consumer
protection claims (Counts 4-6), breach of warranty claims (Counts 7
and 8), and fraud/intentional misrepresentation claims (Count 9 and
10) are dismissed with leave to amend.

The Judge denied the Motion as to the unnamed non-resident class
members, the Hawai'i false advertising claim (Count 3), the
negligent misrepresentation claim (Count 11), the
quasi-contact/unjust enrichment/restitution claim (Count 12), and
the request for injunctive relief.

Among other things, the Judge finds that Plaintiff Maeda adequately
states a claim for false advertising.  The Plaintiff alleges that
the Defendant has represented and continues to represent to the
public, through deceptive packaging and marketing, that the
Hawaiian Snacks are products made in Hawaii which is misleading
because the Hawaiian Snacks are made in the continental United
States.  He asserts that the Defendant has violated HRS Section
708-871 by disseminating misleading information when it knows,
knew, or should have known through the exercise of reasonable care
that the representation was and continues to be misleading.

He also finds that under ordinary notice pleading standards, and
accepting Plaintiff Maeda's factual allegations as true, the
Plaintiff adequately states a claim for negligent
misrepresentation.  Plaintiff Maeda asserts that the Defendant made
misrepresentations concerning the origin of the Hawaiian Snacks
knowing they were false, to induce him and other consumers to rely
on the representations, upon which they relied, and he suffered
damages as a result.

He further finds that while Plaintiff Maeda asserts breach of
warranty claims, an express contract does not exist between the
parties.  Even if a contract existed, Plaintiff Maeda may set out
two or more statements of a claim or defense alternatively or
hypothetically, either in a single count or defense or in separate
ones.  If a party makes alternative statements, the pleading is
sufficient if any one of them is sufficient.  The Judge
additionally finds that Plaintiff Maeda's allegations adequately
state a quasi-contract/unjust enrichment/restitution claim under
both Hawai'i and California law.

Plaintiff Maeda may file an amended pleading by June 10, 2019
correcting the deficiencies identified herein and in conformance
with the Order.  Failure to do so will result in the dismissal of
the action.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 10, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/rEIBkL from Leagle.com.

Michael Maeda & Iliana Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Brandee J.
Faria -- bjkfaria@perkinlaw.com -- Perkin & Faria & Aubry Wand, The
Wand Law Firm, P.C.

Pinnacle Foods Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew G. Phillips
-- andrew.phillips@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP, pro hac vice,
Angela M. Spivey, Alston & Bird LLP, pro hac vice, Jesse J.T.
Smith, McCorriston Miller Mukai MacKinnon LLP & David J. Minkin --
info@m4law.com -- McCorriston Miller Mukai MacKinnon.


POPULAR INC: Awaits New Briefing Schedule in Camacho Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Popular, 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 of Appeals
has entered an order where it consolidated three pending appeals
related to the same subset of facts in Lilliam Gonzalez Camacho, et
al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al., thus, the briefs filed
by the Appellants were vacated and the Clerk of the Court has yet
to set a new briefing schedule.

Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (BPPR) has been named a defendant in a
putative class action captioned Lilliam Gonzalez Camacho, et al. v.
Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al., filed before the United
States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico on behalf of
mortgage-holders who have allegedly been subjected to illegal
foreclosures and/or loan modifications through their mortgage
servicers.

Plaintiffs maintain that when they sought to reduce their loan
payments, defendants failed to provide them with such reduced loan
payments, instead subjecting them to lengthy loss mitigation
processes while filing foreclosure claims against them in parallel
(or dual tracking).

Plaintiffs assert that such actions violate the Home Affordable
Modification Program ("HAMP"), the Home Affordable Refinance
Program ("HARP") and other federally sponsored loan modification
programs, as well as the Puerto Rico Mortgage Debtor Assistance Act
and the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA").

For the alleged violations stated above, plaintiffs request that
all defendants (over 20, including all local banks), be held
jointly and severally liable in an amount no less than $400
million. BPPR waived service of process in June 2017 and filed a
motion to dismiss in August 2017, as did most co-defendants.

In March 2018, the District Court dismissed the complaint in its
entirety. After being denied reconsideration by the District Court,
on August 2018, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

On January 22, 2019, the Appellants filed their brief. Appellees'
filed a request for extension of time to file their brief, until
March 27, 2019. However, on March 12, 2019, the Court of Appeals
entered an order where it consolidated three pending appeals
related to the same subset of facts. Thus, the briefs filed by the
Appellants were vacated and the Clerk of the Court has yet to set a
new briefing schedule.

Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail,
mortgage, and commercial banking products and services. Popular,
Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto
Rico.


POPULAR INC: Bid for Reconsideration in Maura Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Popular, 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 are awaiting
a court ruling on their motion for reconsideration in the case,
Yiries Josef Saad Maura v. Banco Popular, et al.

Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (BPPR) has also been named a defendant
in another putative class action captioned Yiries Josef Saad Maura
v. Banco Popular, et al., filed by the same counsel who filed the
Gonzalez Camacho action, on behalf of residential customers of the
defendant banks who have allegedly been subject to illegal
foreclosures and/or loan modifications through their mortgage
servicers.

As in Gonzalez Camacho, plaintiffs contend that when they sought to
reduce their loan payments, defendants failed to provide them with
such reduced loan payments, instead subjecting them to lengthy loss
mitigation processes while filing foreclosure claims against them
in parallel, all in violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA),
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), the Equal
Credit Opportunity Act ("ECOA"), the Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA"), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and
other consumer-protection laws and regulations. Plaintiffs did not
include a specific amount of damages in their complaint.

After waiving service of process, BPPR filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint on the same grounds as those asserted in the Gonzalez
Camacho action (as did most co-defendants, separately). BPPR
further filed a motion to oppose class certification, which the
Court granted, denying the motion for class certification in
September 2018.

On April 5, 2019, the Court entered an Opinion and Order granting
BPPR's and several other defendants' motions to dismiss with
prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration on April
15, 2019, which Popular timely opposed and which remains pending.

Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail,
mortgage, and commercial banking products and services. Popular,
Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto
Rico.


POPULAR INC: Court to Rule on Validity of Endorsement in "Torres"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Popular, 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 overseeing
the case, Ramirez Torres, et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico,
et al., has agreed to first rule on the validity of the endorsement
and set an injunction hearing for September 2019 in case the
validity of the endorsement is upheld.

Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (BPPR) has separately been named a
defendant in a putative class action complaint captioned Ramirez
Torres, et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al, filed before
the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance, San Juan Part.

The complaint seeks damages and preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief on behalf of the purported class against the same
Popular Defendants, as well as other financial institutions with
insurance brokerage subsidiaries in Puerto Rico.

Plaintiffs essentially contend that in November 2015, Antilles
Insurance Company obtained approval from the Puerto Rico Insurance
Commissioner to market an endorsement that allowed its customers to
obtain reimbursement on their insurance deductible for good
experience, but that defendants failed to offer this product or
disclose its existence to their customers, favoring other products
instead, in violation of their duties as insurance brokers.
Plaintiffs seek a determination that defendants unlawfully failed
to comply with their duty to disclose the existence of this new
insurance product, as well as double or treble damages (the latter
subject to a determination that defendants engaged in monopolistic
practices in failing to offer this product).

Between late March and early April of 2017, co-defendants filed
motions to dismiss the complaint and opposed the request for
preliminary injunctive relief. A co-defendant filed a third-party
Complaint against Antilles Insurance Company.

A preliminary injunction and class certification hearing originally
scheduled for April 6, 2017 was subsequently postponed, pending
resolution of the motions to dismiss.

In July 2017, the Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. In
August 2017, plaintiffs appealed this judgment and, in March 2018,
the Court of Appeals reversed the Court of First Instance's
dismissal.

In May 2018, all defendants filed their respective Petitions of
Certiorari to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, which denied review.

On May 2, 2019, a hearing was held in the Court of First Instance,
where the parties requested that the Court first determine the
validity of the endorsement obtained by Antilles Insurance Company
and approved by the Puerto Rico Insurance Commissioner, which was
challenged by the co-defendant in the third-party complaint.

The Court agreed to first rule on the validity of the endorsement
and set an injunction hearing for September 2019 in case the
validity of said endorsement is upheld.

Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail,
mortgage, and commercial banking products and services. Popular,
Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto
Rico.


POPULAR INC: Status and Settlement Conference Set for Oct. 22
-------------------------------------------------------------
Popular, 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 status and settlement
conference in the Hazard Insurance Commission-Related Litigation is
set for October 22, 2019.

Popular, Inc., Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (BPPR) and Popular
Insurance, LLC (the "Popular Defendants") have been named
defendants in a putative class action complaint captioned Perez
Diaz v. Popular, Inc., et al., filed before the Court of First
Instance, Arecibo Part.

The complaint seeks damages and preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief on behalf of the purported class against the
Popular Defendants, as well as Antilles Insurance Company and
MAPFRE-PRAICO Insurance Company (the "Defendant Insurance
Companies").

Plaintiffs allege that the Popular Defendants have been unjustly
enriched by failing to reimburse them for commissions paid by the
Defendant Insurance Companies to the insurance agent and/or
mortgagee for policy years when no claims were filed against their
hazard insurance policies. They demand the reimbursement to the
purported "class" of an estimated $400 million plus legal interest,
for the "good experience" commissions allegedly paid by the
Defendant Insurance Companies during the relevant time period, as
well as injunctive relief seeking to enjoin the Defendant Insurance
Companies from paying commissions to the insurance agent/mortgagee
and ordering them to pay those fees directly to the insured.

A motion for dismissal on the merits, which the Defendant Insurance
Companies filed shortly before hearing, was denied with a right to
replead following limited targeted discovery.

The Court of Appeals and then the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, both
denied the Popular Defendants' request to review the lower
court’s denial of the motion to dismiss.

In December 2017, plaintiffs sought to amend the complaint and, on
January 2018, defendants filed an answer thereto.

Separately, in October 2017, the Court entered an order whereby it
broadly certified the class after which the Popular Defendants
filed a certiorari petition before the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals
in relation to the class certification, which the Court declined to
entertain.

In November 2018 and in January 2019, Plaintiffs filed voluntary
dismissal petitions against MAPFRE-PRAICO Insurance Company and
Antilles Insurance Company, respectively. Hence, now the Popular
Defendants remain the sole defendants in this action.

A status conference was held in March 2019, where, among other
things, plaintiffs stated that they sought to make changes to the
certified class that seek to better define the size of the class as
well as the scope of the remedies sought by the plaintiffs. The
plaintiffs submitted their proposed changes to the class on April
8, 2019, which were timely opposed by Popular. A status and
settlement conference is set for October 22, 2019.

Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail,
mortgage, and commercial banking products and services. Popular,
Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto
Rico.


PRO AM AUTOS: Does Not Pay Overtime, Hawkins et al Say
------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
Anthony Birdsong and Pro Am Autos, LLC d/b/a Hampstead Pre-Owned
for alleged violations of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Maryland Wage and Hour Law and the Maryland Wage Payment Collection
Law. The case is captioned DALTON J. HAWKINS - and - TERRELL MOORE,
For themselves and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs, v. ANTHONY BIRDSONG – and - PRO AM AUTOS, LLC d/b/a
HAMPSTEAD PRE OWNED, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01685-RDB (D.
Md., June 6, 2019).

Plaintiff Dalton J. Hawkins alleges the Defendants failed to pay
appropriate overtime compensation to its employees who worked more
than 40 hours per week.

Pro Am Autos, LLC d/b/a Hampstead Pre-Owned is a limited liability
company organized under the laws of the State of Maryland. Pro Am
operates a used car sales lot and maintenance service that includes
auto body repair services. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Andreas N. Akaras, Esq.
     Stephen J. Whelan, Esq.
     BREGMAN, BERBERT, SCHWARTZ & GILDAY, LLC
     7315 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 800 West
     Bethesda, MD 20814
     Telephone: (301) 656-2707


PROTECTIVE LIFE: Advance Trust Suit in Alabama Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Protective Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Advance Trust &
Life Escrow Services, LTA, as Securities Intermediary of Life
Partners Position Holder Trust v. Protective Life Insurance
Company, Case No. 2:18-CV-01290.   

Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA, as Securities
Intermediary of Life Partners Position Holder Trust v. Protective
Life Insurance Company, Case No. 2:18-CV-01290, is a putative class
action that was filed on August 13, 2018 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

Plaintiff alleges that the Company required policyholders to pay
unlawful and excessive cost of insurance charges. Plaintiff seeks
to represent all owners of universal life and variable universal
life policies issued or administered by the Company or its
predecessors that provide that cost of insurance rates are to be
determined based on expectations of future mortality experience.

The plaintiff seeks class certification, compensatory damages,
pre-judgment and post judgment interest, costs, and other
unspecified relief.

Protective Life said, "The Company is vigorously defending this
matter and cannot predict the outcome of or reasonably estimate the
possible loss or range of loss that might result from this
litigation."

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

Protective Life Insurance Company, a stock life insurance company,
provides financial services through the production, distribution,
and administration of insurance and investment products primarily
in the United States. The company operates through Life Marketing,
Acquisitions, Annuities, Stable Value Products, and Asset
Protection segments. The company was founded in 1907 and is based
in Birmingham, Alabama. Protective Life Insurance Company is a
subsidiary of Protective Life Corporation.


PROVIDENT TRUST: Response to First Amended Murray Suit Due June 21
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NOEL C. MURRAY, DR. SWARNA PERERA, and JOYCE E.
FRIEDMAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. PROVIDENT TRUST GROUP, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:18-cv-01382-MMD-GWF (D. Nev.), Magistrate Judge George
Foley, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
ordered that that Defendant will have up to, and including, June
21, 2019, to respond to the First Amended Class Action Complaint.

The parties stipulate and request that the Court extends the time
by which the Defendant must respond to the First Amended Class
Action Complaint by 30 days up to, and including, June 21, 2019.
The Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Class Action Complaint on
May 8, 2019, in which they allege the Defendant breached
contractual duties as custodian of their Individual Retirement
Accounts.  They seek certification to represent a class of
similarly situated individuals across the country.

The Defendant was served with the First Amended Class Action
Complaint via PACER on May 8, 2019, and the Defendant's response is
currently due May 22, 2019.  The Counsel for the Defendant has
requested additional time to evaluate the Plaintiffs' allegations
and prepare a response, taking into account the exercise of due
diligence.  The Counsel for the Plaintiffs has agreed to the
request.

In light of the foregoing, the parties agreed and Magistrate Judge
Foley granted, that the Defendant will have up to, and including,
June 21, 2019, to respond to the First Amended Class Action
Complaint.

It is the first request for an extension of time in this regard.
The Stipulation is entered into in good faith and not for purposes
of delay.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 15, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/hk6SBD from Leagle.com.

Noel C. Murray & Swarna Perera, Dr., Plaintiffs, represented by
Christopher J. Gray, Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C., pro
hac vice, Joshua Kons -- Practic -- Law Offices of Joshua B. Kons,
LLC, pro hac vice, Michael James Giarrusso, Law Office of
Christopher J. Gray, P.C., pro hac vice & Martin L. Welsh, Law
Office of Hayes & Welsh.

Joyce E. Friedman, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J. Gray,
Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C., pro hac vice, Joshua B.
Kons, Law Offices of Joshua B. Kons, LLC, pro hac vice & Martin L.
Welsh, Law Office of Hayes & Welsh.

Provident Trust Group, LLC, 1AC, Defendant, represented by Michael
James Slocum -- slocumm@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP, pro hac
vice, Robert Harris Bernstein -- bernsteinrob@gtlaw.com --
Greenberg Traurig LLP, pro hac vice, Jason Hicks --
hicksja@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP & Mark E. Ferrario --
ferrariom@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig.


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Fernandez Sues over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------
JORGE M. FERNANDEZ, JR. and HECTOR J. VALDES, individually and on
behalf of all those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN
MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, INC., OPTUM360 SERVICES, INC., QUEST
DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED, and DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-13398 (D.N.J., June 4, 2019), alleges that Defendants
failed to protect the confidential information of millions of
patients -- including financial information (e.g., credit card
numbers and bank account information), medical information,
personal information (e.g., Social Security Numbers), and/or other
protected health information as defined by the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"). The
Defendants' wrongful disclosure has harmed Plaintiffs and the
Classes, believed to include thousands of individuals.

Quest is a provider of medical diagnostic testing services. It
performs medical tests that aid in the diagnosis or detection of
diseases, and that measure the progress of or recovery from a
disease. On June 3, 2019, Quest publicly admitted in a filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission that: "On May 14, 2019,
American Medical Collection Agency (AMCA), a billing collections
vendor, notified Quest and Optum360 LLC, [Quest's] revenue cycle
management provider," of a massive data breach compromising the
Sensitive Information of 11.9 million Quest patients, and most
likely others (the "Data Breach").

Quest's SEC filing disclosed that, "between August 1, 2018 and
March 30, 2019 an unauthorized user had access to AMCA's system
that contained information that AMCA had received from various
entities, including Quest Diagnostics, and information that AMCA
collected itself, include[ing] financial information (e.g., credit
card numbers and bank account information), medical information,
and other personal information (e.g., Social Security Numbers)."

Quest apparently allowed hackers to access Plaintiffs' and other
Class Members' Sensitive Information for some seven months and did
nothing to let the victims know about the Data Breach for nearly a
year after it began. Although Quest knew of the Data Breach at
least as of May 14, 2019, and although AMCA knew of it even
earlier, neither took any steps to notify patients whose
information was affected until June 3, 2019, at which point Quest
only did so through an SEC filing, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the the Plaintiff:

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          Parvin Aminolroaya, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
          Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
          Telephone: (973) 639-9100

               - and -

          Jennifer Scullion, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          77 Water Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 584-0700

               - and -

          Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
          Bart D. Cohen, Esq.
          NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10036-8718
          Telephone: (917) 438-9189

               - and -

          Michael E. Criden, Esq.
          CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
          7301 SW 57th Court, Ste. 515
          South Miami, FL 33143
          Telephone: (305) 357-9000

               - and -

          Paul J. Geller, Esq.
          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Mark S. Reich, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Grauberger Sues over Personal Medical Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
EMORY GRAUBERGER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS
INCORPORATED; OPTUM360 SERVICES, INC.; and AMERICAN MEDICAL
COLLECTION AGENCY, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-03102
(N.D. Cal., June 4, 2019), alleges that Defendants have violated
Civil Code section 56.101 of the Confidentiality of Medical
Information Act, through their failure to maintain and preserve
preserves the confidentiality of the medical information of
Plaintiff and Class and Subclass.

Quest is a large provider of medical diagnostic testing services,
touching the lives of 30% of American adults each year. On June 3,
2019, in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
Quest admitted that on May 14, 2019, AMAC had notified Quest and
Optum360 LLC of the existence of a massive data breach comprising
the personal information of 11.9 million Quest patients.

Between August 1, 2018 and March 30, 2019, an unauthorized third
party had access to AMCA's system, which contained information that
AMCA had received from Quest Diagnostics and which AMCA collected
itself. Personal information that was located in these systems
included financial information, medical information, and other
personal information. The Defendants allowed hackers to access
Plaintiff's and putative class members' personal information for
seven months without notifying the victims about the breach over a
year.

The Plaintiff utilized Quests' services over several years,
including most recently in or around January of 2019. Upon
information and belief, Plaintiff's personal and/or financial
information was disclosed and released during this breach. As of
the filing of this Complaint, Defendants have yet to notify
Plaintiff of the alleged data breach, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
          Nicholas R. Barthel, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  jason@kazlg.com
                  nicholas@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Matt Schultz, Esq.
          Bill Cash, Esq.
          Brenton Goodman, Esq.
          LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL, RAFFERTY
          & PROCTOR, P.A.
          316 S Baylen St Ste 600
          Pensacola, FL 32502-5996
          Telephone: (850) 435-7140
          Facsimile: (850) 436-6140
          E-mail: mschultz@levinlaw.com
                  bcash@levinlaw.com
                  bvigodsky@levinlaw.com

               - and -

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Mayer Sues over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------
JOHANNA A. MAYER, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS, INC.;
OPTUM360 SERVICES, INC.; AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY and
DOES 1 through 100, the Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01029-JGB-SHK
(C.D. Cal., June 5, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to
maintain reasonable and/or adequate security measures to protect
Plaintiff's and other Class members' personally identifiably
information (PII)/protected health information (PHI) from
unauthorized access and disclosure, apparently lacking, at a
minimum: (1) reasonable and adequate security measures designed to
prevent this attack even though Defendants knew or should have
known that it was a prized target for hackers; and (2) reasonable
and adequate security protocols to promptly detect the unauthorized
intrusion into and removal of PII/PHI from its provider database
pertaining to nearly 12 million Data Breach victims.

On June 3, 2019, Quest Diagnostics, one of the largest blood
testing providers in the country, announced a data breach whereby
nearly 12 million of its customers, including Plaintiff and
putative Class members, had their PII and PHI accessed by
unauthorized parties due to the negligent data security of AMCA,
one if its billing collections vendors.  Specifically, the PII and
PHI accessed included, but was not limited to, Plaintiff's and
Class members' personal information (e.g. Social Security Numbers),
financial information (credit card numbers and bank account
information), and medical information.

In its SEC filing relating to the Data Breach, Quest Diagnostics
announced that unauthorized parties accessed between August 1, 2018
and March 30, 2019 AMCA's system, which contained Plaintiff's and
Class members' PII and PHI.  AMCA only learned of the Data Breach
as a result of receiving information from a security compliance
firm that works with credit card companies.

Given AMCA's relationship to Quest Diagnostics -- AMCA provides
services to Optum360, which in turn provides payment services to
Quest Diagnostics -- Plaintiff and Class members were blindsided by
the Data Breach announcement given most have never heard of AMCA or
Optum360 and were unaware that their information would be shared
with these entities, causing additional emotional harm.  AMCA first
learned of the Data Breach on or around March 30, 2019 but waited
more than three months to notify Plaintiff and Class members of the
Data Breach.

While nearly  12 million Data Breach victims sought out and/or paid
for diagnostics testing and medical care from Defendants, thieves
were hard at work, stealing and using their hard-to-change Social
Security numbers and highly sensitive PII/PHI for nearly one year
without the victims' knowledge. Defendants' lax security practices
that allowed this intrusion to occur have worsened Plaintiff's and
other Class members' lives by, among other injuries: (a) adding to
their already heightened financial obligations by placing them at
increased risk of fraudulent charges; (b) complicating diagnosis,
prognosis, and treatment for their severe medical conditions by
placing them at increased risk of having inaccurate medical
information in their files; and/or (c) increasing the risk of other
potential personal, professional, or financial harms that could be
caused as a result of having their PII/PHI exposed.

Prior to the Data Breach, Quest Diagnostics acknowledged in its
Notice of Privacy Practices that it is "committed to protecting the
privacy of your identifiable health information" and that it would
only use Plaintiff and Class members PII/PHI for certain limited
purposes, such as for treatment, payment, or healthcare operations
purposes and for other purposes permitted or required by law. Quest
Diagnostics represented that it would abide by these obligations,
but failed to live up to its own promises as well as its duties and
obligations required by law and industry standards.

Contrary to its promises to help patients improve the quality of
their lives through secure data practices, Defendants' conduct has
instead been a direct cause of the ongoing harm to Plaintiff and
other Class members whose suffering has been magnified by the Data
Breach, and who will continue to experience harm and data
insecurity for the indefinite future, the lawsuit says.

As a result of Defendants' willful failure to prevent the Data
Breach, Plaintiff and Class members are more susceptible to
identity theft and have experienced, will continue to experience,
and face an increased risk of financial harms, in that they are at
substantial risk of identity theft, fraud, and other harm [BN].

Counsel for Plaintiff and Putative Class:

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

               - and -

          Robert L. Esensten, Esq.
          Jordan S. Esensten, Esq.
          ESENSTEN LAW
          12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1660
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 279-3090
          Facsimile: (310) 207-5969
          E-mail: resensten@esenstenlaw.com
                  jesensten@esenstenlaw.com

QUORUM HEALTH: Discovery Ongoing in Suit v. Watsonville Community
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Quorum Health Corporation 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 discovery is ongoing in
the class action suit entitled, Mary Della-Maggiora, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Watsonville Community Hospital, entity unknown, and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive (Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Santa Cruz).

On January 22, 2018, Plaintiff filed a purported class action
alleging violations of California Labor Code Section 226(a). On May
14, 2018, Plaintiff filed her Second Amended Class Action
Complaint.

The Second Amended Class Action Complaint contains two causes of
action. The first cause of action is brought by Plaintiff in her
individual capacity and as potential class representative for all
other Watsonville Community Hospital employees for alleged
violations of Labor Code Section 226(a), subsections (6), (8), and
(9).

The second cause of action is brought under the California Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004 by Plaintiff in her individual
capacity and as "appointed" representative of the State of
California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, for alleged
violations of Labor Code Section 226(a), subsection (9).

Plaintiff generally alleges that the paystubs issued to Watsonville
employees did not include all information required by California
Labor Code Section 226(a). The case is in discovery, and
Watsonville Community Hospital is vigorously defending itself in
this matter.

The Company is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
However, it is reasonably possible that the Company may incur a
loss in connection with this matter.

The Company is unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of
such reasonably possible loss because discovery has only recently
started and the case remains in its early stages. Under some
circumstances, losses incurred in connection with adverse outcomes
in this matter could be material.

Quorum Health Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides
hospital and outpatient healthcare services in the United States.
Its hospital and outpatient healthcare services include general and
acute care, emergency room, general and specialty surgery, critical
care, internal medicine, diagnostic, obstetric, psychiatric, and
rehabilitation services. The company was incorporated in 2015 and
is headquartered in Brentwood, Tennessee.


QUORUM HEALTH: Discovery Ongoing in Zwick Partners Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Quorum Health Corporation 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 discovery is ongoing in
the case, Zwick Partners LP and Aparna Rao, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Quorum Health
Corporation, Community Health Systems, Inc., Wayne T. Smith, W.
Larry Cash, Thomas D. Miller and Michael J. Culotta.

On September 9, 2016, a shareholder filed a purported class action
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee against the Company and certain of its former officers.

On April 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint
adding additional defendants, Community Health Systems, Inc. (CHS),
Wayne T. Smith and W. Larry Cash.

The Second Amended Complaint alleges claims for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons (other than defendants) who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of the Company between May 2, 2016 and August 10, 2016.


On June 23, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, which
Plaintiff opposed on August 22, 2017. On April 19, 2018, the Court
denied the Company's motion to dismiss, and the Company filed its
answer to the Second Amended Complaint on May 18, 2018.

On July 13, 2018, Plaintiff filed its motion for class
certification, which Defendants opposed on August 31, 2018. On
March 29, 2019, the Court granted the motion and certified the
class.

Defendants have filed a petition for permission to appeal the class
certification decision with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals,
which petition is currently pending.

On September 14, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint
adding additional alleged misstatements. On October 12, 2018,
Defendants moved to dismiss the new allegations, and, on March 29,
2019, the Court granted the motion and dismissed the new
allegations.

The case is in discovery, and the Company is vigorously defending
itself in this matter. The Company is unable to predict the outcome
of this matter.

Quorum Health said, "However, it is reasonably possible that the
Company may incur a loss in connection with this matter. The
Company is unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of
such reasonably possible loss because discovery has only recently
started and the case remains in its early stages. Under some
circumstances, losses incurred in connection with adverse outcomes
in this matter could be material."

Quorum Health Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides
hospital and outpatient healthcare services in the United States.
Its hospital and outpatient healthcare services include general and
acute care, emergency room, general and specialty surgery, critical
care, internal medicine, diagnostic, obstetric, psychiatric, and
rehabilitation services. The company was incorporated in 2015 and
is headquartered in Brentwood, Tennessee.


R. CARTER PATE: Schmidt Sues Board for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIK SCHMIDT, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
stockholders of BIOSCRIP, INC., Plaintiff, v. R. CARTER PATE,
DANIEL E. GREENLEAF, DAVID GOLDING, MICHAEL GOLDSTEIN, CHRISTOPHER
SHACKELTON, MICHAEL G. BRONFEIN and STEVEN NEUMAN, Defendants, Case
No. 2019-0430 (Del. Chancery Ct., June 7, 2019) is a Verified Class
Action Complaint against the members of the board of directors of
BioScrip for breaching their fiduciary duties.

On March 14, 2019, BioScrip and Option Care entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger pursuant to which BioScrip and Option
Care agreed to combine their respective businesses in an all-stock
transaction. Under the Merger Agreement, BioScrip will issue over
542 million new shares of common stock to Option Care's sole
shareholder, HC I (a/k/a Omega Parent, which is owned by investment
funds affiliated with Madison Dearborn Partners, LLC ("Madison
Dearborn Partners") and Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc.
("Walgreens")). Upon completion of the Proposed Transaction,
Madison Dearborn Partners (and affiliated entities) and Walgreens
will beneficially own approximately 80% of the combined publicly
traded company on a fully diluted basis, and current BioScrip
shareholders will own the remaining 20% (the "Exchange Ratio"). The
transaction is expected to be completed "in the second half of
2019," and the combined company's common stock will continue to be
listed on the Nasdaq Global Market. Because BioScrip will issue
additional shares totaling more than 20% of its current outstanding
common stock, and because applicable stock exchange rules require
an issuer, such as BioScrip, to obtain stockholder approval before
such issuances, the Merger Agreement provides that the approval of
the Share Issuance Proposal by BioScrip's stockholders is a
necessary condition to closing the Proposed Transaction. The Merger
Agreement also provides that the approval of the Amended Charter
Proposal and Series A COD Amendment Proposal are necessary
conditions to closing the Proposed Transaction.

On April 30, 2019, BioScrip filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission a Preliminary Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A,
which serves to solicit BioScrip stockholder votes in favor of the
Proposals. According to the Proxy Statement, Jefferies LLC and
Moelis & Company LLC acted as financial advisors to BioScrip in
connection with the Proposed Transaction, but only Moelis provided
the BioScrip Board with an opinion that the Exchange Ratio was
purportedly fair, from a financial point of view, to BioScrip.

The complaint asserts that the Proxy Statement fails to properly
disclose to BioScrip stockholders (i) Moelis' conflicts of
interests with respect to certain entities involved with or
interested in the Proposed Transaction and (ii) the potential
amount (or circumstances for the receipt) of a "discretionary fee"
that Moelis may receive in connection with the Proposed
Transaction. This omitted information is patently material because
it is imperative for BioScrip stockholders to be able to understand
what factors might have influenced Moelis' analytical efforts in
providing an opinion concerning the fairness of the Exchange Ratio
to BioScrip. In order to fairly assess the Proposed Transaction and
decide how to vote on the Proposals, and to assess whether to rely
on Moelis' fairness opinion in casting those votes, BioScrip
stockholders, such as Plaintiff, are entitled to know all material
information concerning Moelis' merger-related compensation and
conflicts of interest. Further, BioScrip stockholders voting on the
Proposals would find the omitted information concerning Moelis
merger-related compensation and conflicts of interest material in
determining how to vote. Without disclosure of this information,
BioScrip stockholders are left guessing as to whether Moelis'
conflicts of interest tainted the process, and will be unable to
cast informed votes on the Proposals and fully exercise their
franchise rights in connection with the Proposed Transaction, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff is a stockholder of BioScrip, and has owned BioScrip
common stock at all material times alleged in this Complaint.

Defendant R. Carter Pate is Chairman of the BioScrip Board.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
     KASKELA LAW LLC
     18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100
     Newtown Square, PA 19073
     Phone: (888) 715-1740

          - and -

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


RA MEDICAL SYSTEMS: Derr Sues Over Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------
ERVIN DERR, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. RA MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., DEAN IRWIN,
ANDREW JACKSON, MELISSA BURSTEIN, MARTIN BURSTEIN, RICHARD HEYMANN,
MAURICE BUCHBINDER, MARTIN COLOMBATTO, RICHARD MEJIA, JR., PIPER
JAFFRAY & CO., CANTOR FITZGERALD & CO., SUNTRUST ROBINSON HUMPHREY,
INC., NOMURA SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., and MAXIM GROUP LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01079-LAB-NLS (S.D. Cal., June 7,
2019) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Ra Medical securities pursuant
and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus
(collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection
with the Company’s September 2018 initial public offering.
Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants, under the
Securities Act of 1933.

On September 27, 2018, the Company filed its prospectus on Form
424B4 with the SEC, which forms part of the Registration Statement.
In the IPO, the Company sold 4,485,000 shares of common stock at a
price of $17.00 per share. The Company received proceeds of
approximately $67.6 million from the Offering. The proceeds from
the IPO were purportedly to be used for expansion of its direct
sales force and marketing of its products; clinical studies for new
products and product enhancements; and other research and
development activities, working capital, and general corporate
purposes. On March 14, 2019, the Company revealed that the fourth
quarter 2018 financial results were negatively impacted by issues
related to the hiring and training of qualified sales personnel as
well as production limitations in the Company's manufacturing
process. On this news, the Company’s share price fell $2.14,
nearly 33%, to close at $4.43 per share on March 15, 2019, on
unusually heavy trading volume. By the commencement of this action,
Ra Medical stock was trading as low as $4.00 per share, a nearly
77% decline from the $17 per share IPO price.

The complaint asserts that the Registration Statement was false and
misleading and omitted to state material adverse facts.
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
the Company's evaluation of sales personnel candidates was
inadequate; (2) that the Company's training program for sales
personnel was inadequate; (3) that, as a result, the Company could
not reasonably assure that its newly hired sales personnel were
adequately experienced; (4) that, as a result, the Company would
suffer a shortage of qualified sales personnel; (5) that the
Company's manufacturing process could not reasonably support
increased catheter production; (6) that, as a result, the Company
would suffer production delays; and (7) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of Defendants'
wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the
market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class
members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Ervin Derr purchased or otherwise acquired Ra Medical
securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement
issued in connection with the Company's IPO.

Ra Medical is a medical device company that purports to use its
excimer laser-based platform for treatment of vascular and
dermatological immune mediated inflammatory diseases.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RADIUS HOLDINGS: Eilbacher Sues over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARYANN EILBACHER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. RADIUS HOLDINGS, LLC f/k/a RADIUS
GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-14193-XXXX
(S.D. Fla., June 3, 2019), seeks to recover damages resulting from
Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant regularly uses the United
States Postal Service and telephone in the collection of consumer
debts. Defendant is registered in the State of Florida as a
consumer collection agency, license number CCA0900498. The
Defendant regularly collects or attempts to collect consumer debts
for other parties.

The Defendant sought to collect a consumer debt from the Plaintiff
arising from an alleged delinquency on a credit card debt. The
alleged debt was incurred by the Plaintiff at Sears department
stores for household goods and personal items. On or about August
8, 2018, November 30, 2018 and December 30, 2018, the Defendant
mailed, or caused to be mailed to the Plaintiff's attorney, Demand
Letters seeking payment of the alleged debt.

Pursuant to the FDCPA, the Plaintiff is entitled to be free from
the use of false, deceptive or misleading means in Defendant's
attempts to collect a debt from the Plaintiff. The Defendant's
Demand Letters falsely and misleadingly pronounce the Plaintiff's
rights as it pertains to whether the Defendant may contact her at
her place of employment regarding the debt, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Florida in Saint Lucie
County.

The Defendant is a Pennsylvania limited liability company and is
engaged in the business of collecting consumer debts. The Defendant
operates from offices located at 50 W. Skippack Drive, Ambler,
Pennsylvania 19002.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff:

          Leo W. Desmond, Esq.
          DESMOND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          5070 Highway A1A, Suite D
          Vero Beach, FL 32963
          Telephone: 772.231.9600
          Facsimile: 772.231.0300
          E-mail: lwd@desmondlawfirm.com

RECRO PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss IV Meloxicam-Related Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Recro Pharma, 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 a class
action lawsuit pending before the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania are awaiting the court's decision
on a motion to dismiss.

On May 31, 2018, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Case No. 2:18-cv-02279-MMB) that purported to state a claim for
alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated thereunder, based on statements made
by the Company concerning the NDA for IV meloxicam.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and other costs.

On December 10, 2018, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
that asserted the same claims and sought the same relief but
included new allegations and named additional officers and
directors as defendants.

On February 8, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint in its entirety, which the lead plaintiff opposed
on April 9, 2019. On May 9, 2019, the Company filed its response
and briefing was completed on the motion to dismiss. No hearing
date has been set.

The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and intends
to vigorously defend against it.

Recro Pharma said, "The lawsuit is in the early stages and, at this
time, no assessment can be made as to its likely outcome or whether
the outcome will be material to the Company."

Recro Pharma, Inc. operates as a specialty pharmaceutical company.
It operates through two divisions, an Acute Care, and Contract
Development and Manufacturing (CDMO). The company was formerly
known as Recro Pharma I, Inc. and changed its name to Recro Pharma,
Inc. in August 2008. Recro Pharma, Inc. was founded in 2007 and is
based in Malvern, Pennsylvania.


REDBOX AUTOMATED: Ebanks Files Suit Over Spam Messages
------------------------------------------------------
SHAW AND EBANKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. REDBOX AUTOMATED RETAIL, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2019CH06908 (Circuit Ct. Cook Cty., Ill., June 6, 2019)
seeks to stop Defendant's practice of making unsolicited text
message calls to cellular telephones, and to obtain redress for all
persons injured by its conduct under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

In an effort to promote its business, Defendant engaged in an
invasive and unlawful form of marketing: the transmission of
unauthorized advertisements in the form of "text message" calls to
the cellular telephones of consumers throughout the nation. By
effectuating these unauthorized text message calls--"wireless spam"
or "SMS Messages"--Defendant has violated consumers' statutory and
privacy rights and has caused consumers actual harm, not only
because consumers were subjected to the aggravation and invasion of
privacy that necessarily accompanies wireless spam, but also
because consumers have to pay their cell phone service providers
for the receipt of such wireless spam, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is now and was at all times relevant to this lawsuit, a
resident of Maryland.

Defendant is the operator of a national DVD, Btu-ray, and video
game rental service.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
     MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
     55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
     Chicago, IL 6060l
     Phone: (312) 893-7002
     Fax: (312) 275-7895
     Email: eturin@mcgpc.com


REGULUS THERAPEUTICS: Polat Class Action Ongoing
------------------------------------------------
Regulus 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 company continues
to defend a consolidated class action suit initiated by Baran Polat
and Li Jin.

On January 31, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed by
Baran Polat in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California, or District Court, against the company,
Paul C. Grint (the company's former Chief Executive Officer), and
Joseph P. Hagan (then the company's Chief Operating Officer and
currently the company's President and Chief Executive Officer).

The complaint includes claims asserted, on behalf of certain
purchasers of the company's securities, under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. In
general, the complaint alleges that, between January 21, 2016, and
June 27, 2016, the defendants violated the federal securities laws
by making materially false and misleading statements regarding the
company's business and the prospects for RG-101, thereby
artificially inflating the price of our securities.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief.


On February 10, 2017, a second putative class action complaint was
filed by Li Jin in the District Court against the Company, Mr.
Hagan, Dr. Grint, and Timothy Wright, the Company's Chief Research
and Development Officer. The Complaint alleges claims similar to
those asserted by Mr. Polat. The actions have been related.

On February 17, 2017, the District Court entered an order stating
that defendants need not answer, or otherwise respond, until the
District Court enters an order appointing, pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, lead plaintiff and lead
counsel, and the parties then submit a schedule to the District
Court for the filing of an amended or consolidated complaint and
the timing of defendants' answer or response.

On April 3, 2017, two motions for consolidation of the two actions,
appointment of lead plaintiff and approval of counsel were filed in
the actions, or the Consolidation and Lead Plaintiff Motions.

On October 26, 2017, the District Court entered an order
consolidating the cases, appointing lead plaintiffs, and appointing
lead counsel for lead plaintiffs.

On December 22, 2017, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint against the Company, Dr. Grint, Mr. Hagan, and Michael
Huang (the company's former Vice President of Clinical
Development). The consolidated complaint alleges that between
February 17, 2016 and June 12, 2017, the Defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, by making materially false and misleading statements
regarding RG-101.

The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and
an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

On February 6, 2018, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint. On March 23, 2018, plaintiff filed their
opposition to the motion and on April 24, 2018, defendants filed
their response.

No hearing date has been set.

Regulus said, "We intend to vigorously defend this matter."

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

Regulus Therapeutics Inc. operates within the biopharmaceutical
industry. The Company's products aim to treat and prevent hepatitis
C infections, cardiovascular, fibrosis, oncology,
immuno-inflammatory, and metabolic diseases. Regulas Therapeutics
offers its services worldwide. Regulus Therapeutics Inc. was
founded in 2007 and is headquartered in San Diego, California.


RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS: Foster Seeks OT Wages for Sales Reps
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Residential Programs, Inc., et al.,
targets Defendants' practices and policies of not paying its
non-exempt employees, including Plaintiff and other
similarly-situated employees, for all hours worked, in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Constitution, and the Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

According to the complaint, RPI operates a for-profit fund-raising
telemarketing business. RPI solicits donations for various
organizations, often political, and generally pays approximately
10-15% of the money raised to the intended recipient of the
donations and retains approximately 85-90% of the money raised. The
call center operated by Defendant RPI is in Athens, Ohio. The
Defendant also employs telephone sales representatives who work
remotely and perform the same tasks as the telephone sales
representatives who work in the Athens call center.

The Plaintiff is employed by Defendant RPI at the Athens, Ohio call
center. The Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees were
employed as telephone sales representatives. The Plaintiff and
other similarly-situated employees are non-exempt employees under
the FLSA. The Defendants' practice and policy of not paying
Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees overtime
compensation at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate
of pay for all of the hours they worked over 40 in a workweek
violated the OMFWSA.

By failing to pay Plaintiff and other similarly-situated
employees’ overtime compensation, Defendants willfully, knowingly
and/or recklessly violated the provisions of the OMFWSA and the
Ohio Constitution, the lawsuit says.

The case is captioned as Troy Foster, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Residential Programs,
Inc. Christopher Way Eatontown, NJ 07724; Robert Bayer 1006 C East
State Street Athens, OH 45701; Lee Ostrowsky Christopher Way
Eatontown, NJ 07724; and Dan Lass 1006 C East State Street Athens,
OH 45701, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02358-GCS-KAJ (S.D.
Ohio., June 4, 2019).[BN]

Attorneys for the the Plaintiff:

          Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
          FRADIN LAW
          8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104
          Skokie, IL 60076
          E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com
          Telephone: 847 986-5889
          Facsimile: 847 673-1228

REYNOLDS MACHINE: Rounds Off Work Time & Avoids OT Pay, Abukar Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ABDIFATAH ABUKAR individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. REYNOLDS MACHINE CO. LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 19-CV-838 (E.D. Wisc., June 5, 2019), alleges that
Reynolds Machine has a common policy and practice of impermissibly
rounding the start and end times of its hourly employees' work
hours so as to deny employees for compensation for all hours
worked. As a result, Reynolds Machine has denied Plaintiff
Abdifatah Abukar and the putative class members of overtime pay in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as well as
overtime pay and agreed-upon wages in violation of Wisconsin law.

The Plaintiff and the putative class members are, or were, hourly
employees of Defendant Reynolds Machine Company, LLC at times since
June 5, 2016. The Plaintiff Abukar and the Rounding Class have
sustained losses in their compensation as a proximate result of
Reynolds Machine's violations, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
          Summer H. Murshid, Esq.
          Timothy P. Maynard, Esq.
          HAWKS QUINDEL S.C.
          222 East Erie Street, Suite 210
          PO Box 442
          Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
          Telephone: 414-271-8650
          Facsimile: 414-271-8442
          E- mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com
                   smurshid@hq-law.com
                   tmaynard@hq-law.com

ROLEX WATCH USA: Gabriyelian Sues over ADA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Rolex Watch U.S.A.,
Inc. for violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA).
The case is captioned Sedrak Gabriyelian v. Rolex Watch U.S.A.,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-04577-JAK-MAA (C.D. Cal., May 27,
2019). This civil rights-related case is assigned to Hon. Judge
John A. Kronstadt.

Rolex Watch U.S.A. manufactures and sells luxury timepieces for men
and women. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jason Christopher Martinez, Esq.
     RM LAW GROUP LLP
     3200 Guasti Road Suite 100
     Ontario, CA 91761
     Telephone: (714) 975-4811
     Facsimile: (866) 494-2073
     E-mail: jmartinez@rmlawgroupllp.com


ROUND SKY: Made Unauthorized Phone Calls, Bezdikian Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
HARO BEZDIKIAN, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. ROUND SKY, INC. d/b/a
CASH ADVANCE USA, LTD., a Nevada corporation, and DOES 1 through
25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05047-DMG-RAO (C.D.
Cal., June 10, 2019) is a class action against Defendants who have
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act through their
unauthorized contact of consumers on the consumers' respective
cellular telephones.

The Defendants have violated the TCPA by negligently, knowingly,
willfully, and/or intentionally causing an automatic dialer to dial
Plaintiff's cellular phone line, and using a pre-recorded voice
message in the inception of the same phone calls, in violation of
the TCPA despite Plaintiff's registration of his number on the
National Do Not Call Registry, thereby violating Plaintiff's
federal statutory rights, and invading his right to privacy,
without his express written, implied, and/or oral consent, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff is, and at all times relevant to this action was, a
California resident of the County of Los Angeles.

ROUND SKY, INC. is a Nevada corporation doing business as "Cash
Advance".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael H. Boyamian, Esq.
     BOYAMIAN LAW, INC.
     550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
     Glendale, CA 91203-1922
     Phone: 818.547.5300
     Facsimile: 818.547.5678
     Email: michael@boyamianlaw.com


SERVICE LIGHTING: Reid Files Suit Over ADA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------
Valentin Reid, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Service Lighting and Electrical Supplies,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-04166 (S.D. N.Y., May 8, 2019), is
a class action suit over violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990.

Service Lighting and Electrical Supplies, Inc. --
http://www.1000bulbs.com/-- sells replacement lighting products,
as well as residential, commercial, and industrial lighting
fixtures on the Internet in the United States. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dov Michael Mittelman, Esq.
      STEIN SAKS, PLLC
      285 Passaic Street
      Hackensack, NJ 07601
      Tel: (201) 282-6500
      Email: mittelmandov@yahoo.com


SIGNAL HILL: Virtual Auditors, Inspectors Seek Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER DUNSTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SIGNAL HILL TELECOM SERVICES US,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00877 (W.D. Wash., June 6, 2019)
seeks to recover for Defendant's willful violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and other applicable rules,
regulations, statutes, and ordinances.

Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, were subjected to
Defendant's policy and practice of failing to properly compensate
its Virtual Quality Auditors and Virtual Cellular Installation
Inspectors (collectively, "VQAs"), for overtime premiums as
required pursuant to the FLSA. Plaintiff has not been compensated
for overtime premiums for any hours worked over 40 in a workweek.
Instead, Plaintiff only receives his day rate of pay for work
completed, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Dunston is currently employed by Defendant as an at-home
VQA.

Defendant "offers virtual inspection solutions with 20+ years
experience of over 200,000 physical inspections" and has "conducted
over 30,000 virtual inspections since 2016".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Adam J. Berger, Esq.
     SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER
     810 Third Avenue, Suite 500
     Seattle, WA 98194
     Phone: 206-622-8000
     Email: berger@sgb-law.com

          - and -

     Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
     JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
     444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
     Saint Paul, MN 55101
     Phone: (612) 436-1800
     Fax: (612) 436-1801
     Email: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com


SIGNATURE FLIGHT: Boddie Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
MIKKI BODDIE, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SIGNATURE FLIGHT SUPPORT CORPORATION,
a Delaware corporation; BBA AVIATION USA. INC.; a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case
4:19-cv-03044-DMR (Cal. Super., June 3, 2019), seeks to recover
wages and penalties from unpaid wages earned and due, including but
not limited to unpaid minimum wages, unpaid and illegally
calculated overtime compensation, illegal meal and rest period
policies, failure to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting
employees, failure to indemnify employees for necessary
expenditures and/or losses incurred in discharging their duties,
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to
maintain required records, and interest, attorneys' fees, costs,
and expenses under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class Members were
employed by Defendants under employment agreements that were partly
written, partly oral, and partly implied. The Defendants acted
pursuant to their policies and practices of not paying Plaintiffs
all wages earned and due, through methods and schemes which
include, but are not limited to, failing to pay overtime premiums;
failing to provide rest and meal periods; failing to properly
maintain records; failing to provide accurate itemized statements
for each pay period; failing to properly compensate for necessary
expenditures; and requiring, permitting or suffering the employees
to work off the clock, in violation of the California Labor Code
and the applicable Welfare Commission Order.

As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful actions of
Defendants, the Plaintiffs have suffered, and continue to suffer,
from loss of earnings in amounts as yet unascertained, but subject
to proof at trial, and within the jurisdiction of the Court, the
lawsuit says.

Signature Flight Support Corporation, a fixed base operator,
provides support services for business and private aviation. Its
services include refueling, hangarage, technical aircraft
maintenance, repair and overhaul, aircraft charter and management,
commercial flights, and hotel reservation services.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Mikael H. Stahle, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Ave.
          No. 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266,
          Telephone: 855 888-2166
          E-mail: maternlawgroup.com


SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Continues to Defend 22 Price-Fixing Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. said it is aware of 22 putative
class action lawsuits against it, the company disclosed 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.

Most of these lawsuits were also brought against other broadcasters
and other defendants, including, in certain cases, unidentified
"John Doe" defendants. The lawsuits allege that the defendants
conspired to fix prices for commercials to be aired on broadcast
television stations throughout the United States, in violation of
the Sherman Antitrust Act, and, in one case, state consumer
protection and tort laws.

The lawsuits seek damages, attorneys' fees, costs and interest, as
well as injunctions against adopting practices or plans that would
restrain competition in the ways the plaintiffs have alleged.

The lawsuits followed published reports of a DOJ investigation last
year into the exchange of pacing data within the industry.

The Company believes the class action lawsuits are without merit
and intends to vigorously defend itself against all such claims.

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

Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. operates as a television
broadcasting company in the United States. It owns or provides
various programming, operating, sales, and other non-programming
operating services to television stations. The company was founded
in 1986 and is headquartered in Hunt Valley, Maryland.


SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Komito Class Action Suit Re-Captioned
---------------------------------------------------------
Sinclair Broadcast Group, 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 initiated by Edward Komito
but is now captioned In re Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.
Securities Litigation, case No. 1:18-CV-02445-CCB.

On August 9, 2018, Edward Komito, a putative Company shareholder,
filed a class action complaint (the "Initial Complaint") in the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland (the
"District of Maryland") against the Company, Christopher Ripley and
Lucy Rutishauser, which action is now captioned In re Sinclair
Broadcast Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, case No.
1:18-CV-02445-CCB (the "Securities Action").  

On March 1, 2019, lead counsel in the Securities Action filed an
amended complaint, adding David Smith and Steven Marks as
defendants, and alleging that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing false or misleading disclosures
concerning (a) the Merger prior to the termination thereof; and (b)
the DOJ investigation concerning the alleged exchange of pacing
information.  

The Securities Action seeks declaratory relief, money damages in an
amount to be determined at trial, and attorney's fees and costs.

The Company believes that the allegations in the Securities Action
are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against the
allegations.

Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. operates as a television
broadcasting company in the United States. It owns or provides
various programming, operating, sales, and other non-programming
operating services to television stations. The company was founded
in 1986 and is headquartered in Hunt Valley, Maryland.


SPARK THERAPEUTICS: Defending Against Suits over Roche Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Spark 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 company is
defending against multiple class action suits related to its merger
with Roche Holdings, Inc.

On February 22, 2019, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the Merger Agreement) with Roche Holdings, Inc.
(Roche) and 022019 Merger Subsidiary, Inc. (Merger Sub). Pursuant
to the Merger Agreement, and upon the terms and subject to the
conditions thereof, Merger Sub has commenced a cash tender offer
(the Tender Offer) to acquire all of the issued and outstanding
shares of the Company's common stock at a price per share of
$114.50, net to the seller of such shares in cash, without
interest, subject to any withholding of taxes required by
applicable law.

On March 7, 2019, a putative securities class action complaint,
Wang v. Spark Therapeutics, Inc. et al., No. 1:19-cv-00479, or the
Wang Complaint, was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware by purported company stockholder Elaine
Wang against the company and its directors in connection with the
merger.

On March 11, 2019, a putative securities class action complaint,
Kent v. Spark Therapeutics, Inc. et al., No. 1:19-cv-00485, or the
Kent Complaint, was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware by purported company stockholder Michael
Kent against the company, its directors, the Merger Sub, and Roche
in connection with the merger.

On March 18, 2019, a putative securities class action complaint,
Newman v. Spark Therapeutics, Inc. et al., No. 1:19-cv-00528, or
the Newman Complaint, was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware by purported company stockholder
Arthur Newman against the company and its  directors in connection
with the merger.

On March 20, 2019, a putative securities class action complaint,
Gomez v. Spark Therapeutics, Inc. et al., No. 1:19-cv-02487, or the
Gomez Complaint, was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York by purported company stockholder
Zarrin Gomez against the company and its directors in connection
with the merger.  

The Wang Complaint, the Kent Complaint, the Newman Complaint and
the Gomez Complaint allege that the Schedule 14D-9 filed on March
7, 2019 in connection with the merger omitted certain supposedly
material information.

The Wang Complaint, the Kent Complaint, the Newman Complaint and
the Gomez Complaint assert claims against all the defendants for
violation of Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act, and against our
directors, and in the case of the Kent Complaint, Roche, and in the
case of the Gomez Complaint, our company, for violation of Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The Wang Complaint, the Kent Complaint and the Gomez Complaint also
assert claims against all defendants for violation of Section 14(d)
of the Exchange Act.

The Wang Complaint, the Kent Complaint, the Newman Complaint and
the Gomez Complaint seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well
as damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On April 18, 2019, a complaint, Grant v. Bennett, et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-02615, or the Grant Complaint, was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against
certain trustees at the University of Pennsylvania, the company and
Roche, alleging intellectual property infringement and false claims
by the trustees and seeks, among other relief, to enjoin the
licensing of all adeno-associated virus patents by the University
of Pennsylvania to the company and the consummation of the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement.

Spark Therapeutics said, "We, and our board, believe that the Wang
Complaint, the Kent Complaint, the Newman Complaint, the Gomez
Complaint and the Grant Complaint are without merit and we, our
board, the Merger Sub, and Roche intend to defend vigorously
against such claims. Additional similar cases may also be filed in
connection with the tender offer or the merger."

Spark Therapeutics, Inc. focuses on the development of gene therapy
products for patients suffering from debilitating genetic diseases.
Spark Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 2013 and is headquartered
in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.


STERLING JEWELERS: Berg Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA BERG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. STERLING JEWELERS, INC. d/b/a KAY JEWELERS,
a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-22396-XXXX
(S.D. Fla., June 10, 2019) is an action for statutory damages and
other legal and equitable remedies resulting from the illegal
actions of Defendant in transmitting advertisement and
telemarketing text messages to the cell phones belonging to
Plaintiff and numerous other similarly situated persons using an
automatic telephone dialing system without anyone's prior express
written consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

To combat decreasing diamond sales caused by the "blood diamond"
effect and to offset costs incurred in civil litigation alleging it
fostered sexual harassment in the workplace, Defendant resorted to
unsolicited text message marketing campaigns to sustain its
revenues and harmed thousands of innocent consumers in the process,
says the complaint.

Through this action, Plaintiff seeks 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.

Plaintiff is citizen and resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida.

Defendant is one of the world's largest retailers of diamond
jewelry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David P. Milian, Esq.
     Ruben Conitzer, Esq.
     CAREY RODRIGUEZ MILIAN GONYA LLP
     1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700
     Miami, FL 33131
     Phone: (305) 372-7474
     Facsimile: (305) 372-7475
     Email: dmilian@careyrodriguez.com
            rconitzer@careyrodriguez.com
     Secondary: ecf@careyrodriguez.com
            cperez@careyrodriguez.com


SUN LIFE: Glidewell Sues over Denial of Disability Benefits
-----------------------------------------------------------
ROBIN GLIDEWELL, the Plaintiff, v. SUN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF
CANADA, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00210 (E.D. Tex., June 4,
2019), alleges that Defendant wrongfully denied benefits to the
Plaintiff under the governing long-term disability benefits policy.
The Defendant is accordingly liable under Section 1132(a)(l)(B) of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act for all benefits due
but not paid to Plaintiff under the policy, prejudgment interest
thereon and her attorney's fees and expenses and costs of court.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed as a
Pre-Funding QC Auditor, and covered by a short-term disability
benefits policy and a long-term disability benefits policy
administered and insured by Defendant. Beginning on November 14,
2016, the Plaintiff could no longer continue to work because of
medical conditions associated with scoliosis, multiple herniated
discs and related back and arm pain.

After November 14, 2016, the Plaintiff applied for and received
short-term disability benefits. The Plaintiff then further applied
for long-term disability benefits. Such benefits were payable
through November 14, 2018 under an "own occupation" disability
standard focusing on the ability of Plaintiff to perform the
material and substantial duties of her occupation, but were paid
only from February 13, 2017 through July 31, 2018.

By letter dated August 1, 2018, Defendant denied, as of that date,
continued long-term disability benefits to the Plaintiff. By letter
dated October 8, 2018, Plaintiff appealed the August 1, 2018
denial. By letter dated January 11, 2019, Defendant upheld its
decision to deny continued long-term disability benefits to
Plaintiff after August 1, 2018. The Defendant denied continued
long-term disability benefits to Plaintiff despite a September 6,
2018 physician's note of Michael Hisey, M.D., her orthopedic
surgeon, indicating that Plaintiff could not sit, stand, or walk
longer than 20 minutes at a time and that Plaintiff was in constant
pain. Dr. Hisey also emphasized that Plaintiff's condition would
prohibit Plaintiff from most jobs, even sedentary jobs, given her
inability to perform multiple activities typically required in
such
jobs, in light of her multiple multilevel spine fusions.

By its denial letters dated August 1, 2018 and January 11, 2019,
the Defendant improperly relied upon a standard of disability
distinct from the applicable own occupation standard provided for
in the long-term disability benefits policy, improperly ignored
Plaintiff's medical condition reflected in certain medical records
of Plaintiff, improperly misrepresented certain medical records of
Plaintiff, improperly dismissed the significance of other medical
records of Plaintiff and improperly ignored statements of
Plaintiff's impairments received from her treating physician, Dr.
Hisey or as of September 6, 2018. The Defendant further ignored the
findings of a physician it engaged to review Plaintiff's claim, Dr.
William Sligar, M.D., who, in light of Dr. Hisey's assessment of
Plaintiff's restrictions and limitations as of September 6, 2018,
the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff:

          Robert E. Goodman, Jr.
          KILGORE & KILGORE, PLLC
          3109 Carlisle Street
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (214) 379-0823
          Facsimile: (214) 379-0840
          E-mail: reg@kilgorelaw.com

SWITCH INC: Bid to Dismiss Cai Class Action Pending
---------------------------------------------------
Switch, 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 the case, Cai v. Switch,
Inc. et al., are awaiting the court's decision on a motion to
dismiss.

Four substantially similar putative class action complaints,
captioned Martz v. Switch, Inc. et al. (filed April 20, 2018);
Palkon v. Switch, Inc. et al. (filed April 30, 2018); Chun v.
Switch, Inc. et al. (filed May 11, 2018); and Silverberg v. Switch,
Inc. et al. (filed June 6, 2018), were filed in the Eighth Judicial
District of Nevada, and subsequently consolidated into a single
case (the "State Court Securities Action").

Additionally, on June 11, 2018, one putative class action complaint
captioned Cai v. Switch, Inc. et al. was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "Federal Court
Securities Action," and collectively with the State Court
Securities Action, the "Securities Actions") and subsequently
transferred to the Eighth Judicial District of Nevada in August
2018 and the federal court appointed Oscar Farach lead plaintiff.

These lawsuits were filed against Switch, Inc., certain current and
former officers and directors and certain underwriters of Switch,
Inc.'s initial public offering (IPO) alleging federal securities
law violations in connection with the IPO.

These lawsuits were brought by purported stockholders of Switch,
Inc. seeking to represent a class of stockholders who purchased
Class A common stock in or traceable to the IPO, and seek
unspecified damages and other relief.

In October 2018, the state court granted defendants motion to stay
the State Court Securities Action in favor of the Federal Court
Securities Action. In November 2018, the plaintiffs in the State
Court Securities Action filed a petition for writ of mandamus
challenging the stay order.

In February 2019, Switch, Inc. filed an answer to this petition and
plaintiffs in the State Court Securities Action filed their reply
in March 2019.

The Supreme Court of Nevada has not yet issued its ruling on this
petition. In October 2018, the lead plaintiff of the Federal Court
Securities Action filed an amended complaint.

In November 2018, Switch, Inc. and other defendants filed a motion
to dismiss for failure to state a claim and a motion to strike.

Switch, Inc. believes that these lawsuits are without merit and
intends to continue to vigorously defend against them.

Switch, Inc., through its subsidiary, Switch, Ltd., provides
colocation space and related services primarily to technology and
digital media companies in the United States. It develops and
operates data centers in Nevada and Michigan. Switch, Inc. was
founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada.


T-MOBILE USA: Persichetti Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against T-Mobile USA, Inc.
for alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The
case is captioned WILLIAM PERSICHETTI, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. T-MOBILE USA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02424-WMR (N.D. Ga., May 28, 2019).

Plaintiff William Persichetti alleges that T-Mobile is engaged in
sending unsolicited text message calls for telemarketing purposes
without instituting procedures for maintaining a list of persons
who request not to receive such text message calls.

T-Mobile is a Delaware corporation with headquarters at 12920 SE
38th Street Bellevue, Washington. The company provides wireless
voice and data services in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Justin T. Holcombe, Esq.
     Kris Skaar, Esq.
     SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP
     133 Mirramont Lake Drive
     Woodstock, GA 30189
     Telephone: (770) 427-5600
     Facsimile: (404) 601-1855
     E-mail: jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com
             kskaar@skaarandfeagle.com
        
             - and -

     James M. Feagle, Esq.
     Cliff R. Dorsen, Esq.
     SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP
     2374 Main Street, Suite B
     Tucker, GA 30084
     Telephone: (404) 373-1970
     Facsimile: (404) 601-1855
     E-mail: jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com
             cdorsen@skaarandfeagle.com

             - and -

     Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
     Simon S. Grille, Esq.
     GIRARD SHARP LLP
     601 California Street, Suite 1400
     San Francisco, CA 94108
     Telephone: (415) 981-4800
     Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
     E-mail: dgirard@girardsharp.com
             sgrille@girardsharp.com


TARGET CORPORATION: Montgomery Sues Over Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
SHERRY MONTGOMERY and YESENIA ALBA, on behalf of themselves, all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TARGET CORPORATION, a
Minnesota corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-04924 (C.D. Cal., June 6, 2019) is a
class action against Defendants for alleged violations of the Labor
Code and Business and Professions Code. Plaintiff seeks to recover
unpaid wages, restitution and related relief on behalf of
themselves, all others similarly situated.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have failed to provide them and
all other similarly situated individuals with meal periods; failed
to provide them with rest periods; failed to pay them premium wages
for missed meal and/or rest periods; failed to pay them premium
wages for missed meal and/or rest periods at the regular rate of
pay; failed to pay them at the designated wage scale; failed to
reimburse them for all necessary business expenses; failed to
provide them with accurate written wage statements; and failed to
pay them all of their final wages following separation of
employment, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as non-exempt, hourly employees.

TARGET CORPORATION is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein,
a Minnesota corporation doing business in the State of
California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Shaun Setareh, Esq.
     William M. Pao, Esq.
     Alexandra R. Mclntosh, Esq.
     SETAREH LAW GROUP
     315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315
     Beverly Hills, CA 90212
     Phone (310) 888-7771
     Facsimile (310) 888-0109
     Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com
            william@setarehlaw.com
            alex@setarehlaw.com


TAUNTON PRESS: Sued for Automatic-Renewal of Magazine Subscriptions
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID MITCHELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. THE TAUNTON PRESS, INC., a Connecticut
corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
37-2019-00029474-CU-BT-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., June
10, 2019) is an action alleging that The Taunton Press, Inc.
violates California law by enrolling consumers in automatic-renewal
magazine subscriptions and posting charges to consumers' credit
cards, debit cards, or third-party payment accounts without
providing the "clear and conspicuous" disclosures required by the
California Automatic Renewal Law. The same course of conduct also
violates the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and the Unfair
Competition Law.

Traditionally, magazine publishers sold subscriptions on the basis
of a schedule that reflects a fixed price for a definite term (such
as one, two, or three years). Under that arrangement, the consumer
selects the desired price/term combination and submits payment.
Later, when the end of the term is approaching, the consumer is
notified that the subscription will soon come to an end and is
provided with a renewal offer. If the consumer wishes to renew, he
or she selects the desired price/term combination for the renewal
period and submits the corresponding payment. Alternatively, if the
consumer does not renew, the subscription comes to an end. During
the 1990s, some marketers came to view the traditional model as a
constraint on sales and profits and advocated instead adoption of a
"negative option" model. In a "negative option," the seller
"interprets a customer's failure to take an affirmative action,
either to reject an offer or cancel an agreement, as assent to be
charged for goods or services". One variety of the negative option
model is an arrangement in which a magazine subscription will be
"automatically renewed" and thus continue indefinitely unless and
until the consumer takes affirmative steps to cancel.

The Defendants have implemented a negative option model in which
they "automatically renew" subscriptions, and they do so in a way
that violates California law, says the complaint. Unbeknownst to
Plaintiff and without his consent, Defendants enrolled Plaintiff in
a program under which his subscription would automatically renew.
Thereafter, in or about April 2018, without Plaintiff's
authorization, Defendants posted a charge to Plaintiff's credit
card in the amount of $34.95. If Plaintiff had known that
Defendants were going to enroll him in an automatic renewal
program, he would not have requested any subscription and would not
have paid any money to Defendants, adds the complaint.

Plaintiff David Mitchell is an individual residing in San Diego
County, California.

The Taunton Press, Inc. is a Connecticut corporation that does
business in San Diego County, including the marketing of magazine
subscriptions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     JAMES T. HANNINK, ESQ.
     ZACH P. DOSTART, ESQ.
     DOSTART HANNINK & COVENEY LLP
     4180 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 530
     La Jolla, CA 92037-1474
     Phone: 858-623-4200
     Fax: 858-623-4299
     Email: jhannink@sdlaw.com
            zdostart@sdlaw.com


TELIGENT INC: Bid to Dismiss Econazole Antitrust Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Teligent, 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 motion to dismiss
the class action suit entitled, In re Generic Pharmaceuticals
Pricing Antitrust Litigation, is pending.

To date, thirteen putative class action antitrust lawsuits have
been filed against the Company along with co-defendants, including
Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. and Perrigo New York Inc.,
regarding the pricing of generic econazole nitrate cream
("econazole").

The class plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide or state classes
consisting of persons who directly purchased, indirectly purchased,
paid and/or reimbursed patients for the purchase of generic
econazole from July 1, 2014 until the time the defendants'
allegedly unlawful conduct ceased or will cease.

The class plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged overcharges
for econazole during the alleged period of conspiracy, and certain
of the class plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief against the
defendants.

All actions have been consolidated by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
for pre-trial proceedings as part of the In re Generic
Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation matter.

On October 16, 2018 the court dismissed the class plaintiffs'
claims against the Company with leave to replead. On December 21,
2018 the class plaintiffs filed amended complaints, which the
Company moved to dismiss on February 21, 2019.

This motion remains pending.

Teligent, Inc., a specialty generic pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and sells generic topical, branded
generic, and generic injectable pharmaceutical products in the
United States and Canada. The company was formerly known as IGI
Laboratories, Inc. and changed its name to Teligent, Inc. in
October 2015. Teligent, Inc. was founded in 1977 and is based in
Buena, New Jersey.


TELIGENT INC: Continues to Defend Mo-Kan Iron Workers Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Teligent, 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 initiated by Mo-Kan Iron Workers
Pension Fund.

On April 15, 2019, Mo-Kan Iron Workers Pension Fund, on behalf of
itself and all other persons or entities, except defendants, who
purchased Teligent common stock between May 2, 2017 and November 7,
2017, commenced a putative class action against the Company and its
CEO, Jason Grenfell-Gardner, alleging violations of the securities
laws.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made materially
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational
and compliance policies.

The plaintiff has agreed to adjourn the response date until after
the completion of the lead plaintiff appointment process under the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

Teligent said, "Due to the early stage of the case, we are unable
to form a judgment at this time as to whether an unfavorable
outcome is either probable or remote or to provide an estimate of
the amount or range of potential loss. We believe the claims are
without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend against them."

Teligent, Inc., a specialty generic pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and sells generic topical, branded
generic, and generic injectable pharmaceutical products in the
United States and Canada. The company was formerly known as IGI
Laboratories, Inc. and changed its name to Teligent, Inc. in
October 2015. Teligent, Inc. was founded in 1977 and is based in
Buena, New Jersey.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces 2 Shareholder Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that shareholder claim in two
federal class actions that Teva Pharmaceuticals juggled its books
to appear more profitable than it was, and fixed prices, costing
investors when the share price tanked.

A copy of the Complaint is available at:

         https://is.gd/UtxfE6


TIFFANY & CO: Gabriyelian Sues over ADA Violations
--------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Tiffany and Co. for
alleged violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA).
The case is captioned Sedrak Gabriyelian v. Tiffany and Company, et
al, Case No. 2:19-cv-04578-AB-SK (C.D. Cal., May 27, 2019). This
civil rights-related case is assigned to Hon. Judge Andre Birotte
Jr.

Headquartered in New York City, Tiffany & Co. is a luxury jewelry
and specialty retailer. The company is engaged in selling jewelry,
sterling silver, china, crystal, stationery, fragrances, water
bottles, watches and personal accessories, as well as some leather
goods. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jason Christopher Martinez, Esq.
     RM LAW GROUP LLP
     3200 Guasti Road Suite 100
     Ontario, CA 91761
     Telephone: (714) 975-4811
     Facsimile: (866) 494-2073
     E-mail: jmartinez@rmlawgroupllp.com


TRIBUNE MEDIA: Antitrust Suits over TV Ad Rates Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
Tribune Media 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 an amended consolidated
complaint has been filed in the litigation over alleged
price-fixing of television advertising rates.

Starting in July 2018, a series of plaintiffs filed putative class
action lawsuits against the company, Tribune Broadcasting Company,
Sinclair, and other named and unnamed defendants (collectively, the
"Defendants") alleging that the Defendants coordinated their
pricing of television advertising, thereby harming a proposed class
of all buyers of television advertising time from one or more of
the Defendants since at least January 1, 2014.

The plaintiff in each lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and money
damages caused by the alleged antitrust violations.

Currently, twenty-two lawsuits have been filed, and were
consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois. Lead counsel for
the plaintiffs was appointed on January 23, 2019. The plaintiffs
then filed an amended, consolidated complaint on April 3, 2019.

Tribune Media said, "We believe the above lawsuits are without
merit and intend to defend them vigorously."

Tribune Media Company, through its subsidiaries, operates as a
diversified media and entertainment company in the United States.
The company was formerly known as Tribune Company and changed its
name to Tribune Media Company in July 2014. Tribune Media Company
was founded in 1847 and is based in Chicago, Illinois.


TRIBUNE MEDIA: Bid to Dismiss Arbitrage Event-Driven Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tribune Media 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 motion to dismiss
the amended complaint filed by The Arbitrage Event-Driven Fund is
ongoing.

On September 10, 2018, The Arbitrage Event-Driven Fund filed a
putative securities class action complaint (the "Securities
Complaint") against the company and members of its senior
management in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.

The Securities Complaint alleges that Tribune Media Company and its
senior management violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act by misrepresenting and omitting material facts concerning
Sinclair's conduct during the Sinclair Merger approval process.

On December 18, 2018, the Court appointed The Arbitrage
Event-Driven Fund and related entities as Lead Plaintiffs.

On January 31, 2019, Lead Plaintiffs and two other named plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended
Complaint eliminates the claim under Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and adds a claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act related
to a November 29, 2017 public offering of the company's Class A
Common Stock by Oaktree Tribune, L.P. ("Oaktree").

The Amended Complaint also names certain members of the Board of
Directors of Tribune Media Company as defendants.

The Amended Complaint also includes claims against Oaktree, Oaktree
Capital Management, L.P. and Morgan Stanley & Co, LLC. The lawsuit
is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the company's
Class A Common Stock between November 29, 2017 and July 16, 2018,
contemporaneously with Oaktree's sales in the November 29, 2017
public offering or pursuant or traceable to that offering.
Plaintiffs seek damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

On March 29, 2019, the Company and the individual Tribune Media
Company defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint.


The Court has set a deadline of May 10, 2019 for the Plaintiffs to
file their opposition brief and June 7, 2019 for the Company and
the individual Tribune Media Company defendants to file a reply.

Tribune Media said, "We believe this lawsuit is without merit and
intend to defend it vigorously.

Tribune Media Company, through its subsidiaries, operates as a
diversified media and entertainment company in the United States.
The company was formerly known as Tribune Company and changed its
name to Tribune Media Company in July 2014. Tribune Media Company
was founded in 1847 and is based in Chicago, Illinois.


TUBBY TODD BATH: Shami Sues Over Deceptive Product Ads
------------------------------------------------------
EZRA SHAMI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. TUBBY TODD BATH CO., Defendant, Case No.
155757/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Kings Cty., June 10, 2019) is a class
action arising out of the fraudulent, deceptive and misleading
conduct of Defendant.

Specifically, for years Defendant has represented that its
consumer-oriented products, all of which target children and/or
women, are "100% Natural" and "Gentle." In fact, however, TTB's's
products (including those purchased by Plaintiff) contain a number
of non-natural, synthetic, harsh and unsafe ingredients that are
not disclosed to--and, in fact, are concealed from--the online
customer at the time of purchase. Although at times TTB uses the
word "Natural" instead of "100% Natural," a reasonable consumer
acting reasonably under the circumstances believes that TTB's
products contain only natural, as opposed to synthetic,
ingredients.

In addition to "100% Natural," TTB represents that its products are
safe and gentle.  But TTB's purportedly "100% natural" and "gentle"
products, including those that Plaintiff purchased, contain
numerous synthetic chemicals, including some that are toxic and
many that are known irritants. Indeed, some are suspected
carcinogens or otherwise carry a high risk of harm to product
users. Not only are such products not "100% natural" and not
"gentle" but, moreover, they are potentially harmful to consumers,
with no warning of the danger posed, notes the complaint.

As a result of Defendant's unfair, unlawful, fraudulent and
deceptive practices, Defendant uniformly misled Plaintiff and other
consumers into believing that (a) TTB products were gentle, and (b)
that TTB products were "100% Natural." If not for the Defendant's
false representations, Plaintiff and other consumers would not have
purchased such products, and certainly not at the price they paid,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff purchased a set of three Tubby products.

Defendant marketed, advertised, and/or distributed the products
during the Class Period throughout the United States, including in
New York and all of its counties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark Schlachet, Esq.
     Law Offices of Mark Schlachet
     3515 Severn Road
     Cleveland, OH 44118
     Phone: (216) 225-7559
     Facsimile: (216) 932-5390 Email:
     Email: markschlachet@me.com

          - and -

     Brittany Weiner, Esq.
     Imbesi Law P.C.
     450 7th Avenue, Suite 1408
     New York, NY 10123
     Phone: (646) 767-2271
     Facsimile: (212) 658-9177
     Email: brittany@lawicm.com


TUPAZ HOMES: Cevallos Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
GLORIA CUBANGBANG CEVALLOS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TUPAZ HOMES LLC; ROSARIO
TUPAZ; and DOES 1 to 100, Defendants, Case No. 19CV348681 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., June 7, 2019) is a class action in
response to Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff overtime wages in
violation of Labor Code; failure to furnish Plaintiff accurate
itemized statements of true wages earned and true hours worked in
violation of Labor Code. All such failures also constitute
violations of Business and Professions Code.

The Defendants employed Plaintiff but was not and is not paid the
applicable overtime rate/double time rate for all hours worked over
eight hours in any workday and for all hours worked more than 40
hours in the workweek, and/or was not provided accurate itemized
wage statements, all as required by California law, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff is an individual and during the four years preceding the
Complaint was continuously employed by Defendants as a caregiver.

Defendants own, run, operate, and manage several care homes in the
County of Santa Clara, State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Allan A. Villanueva, Esq.
     Law Office of Allan A. Villanueva
     6701 Koll Center, Suite 250
     Pleasanton, CA 94566
     Phone (925) 968-4326
     Facsimile (650) 479-3086



TWILIO INC: Settlement in Flowers Suit Wins Final Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Brad Seligman of the Alameda County Superior Court in
California entered an order of final approval and judgment dated
June 13 to the $10 million settlement of the case, Angela Flowers
v. Twilio Inc.

Twilio 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 on February 18, 2016, a putative class
action complaint was filed in the Alameda County Superior Court in
California, entitled Angela Flowers v. Twilio Inc.

The complaint alleges that the Company's products permit the
interception, recording and disclosure of communications at a
customer's request and are in violation of the California Invasion
of Privacy Act. The complaint seeks injunctive relief as well as
monetary damages.

On January 2, 2018, the court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the plaintiff’s class certification motion. The
court certified two classes of individuals who, during specified
time periods, allegedly sent or received certain communications
involving the accounts of three of the Company's customers that
were recorded. Following mediation, on January 7, 2019, the parties
signed a long form settlement agreement, providing for a payment of
$10 million into a common fund and injunctive relief involving
certain updates to Twilio's Acceptable Use Policy and customer
documentation.

The total Settlement Fund will be distributed in the following
amounts:

     (1) approximately $5.886 million for the Settlement Class of
over 400,000;

     (2) estimated settlement administration expenses of $410,000;

     (3) $20,000 to the Class Representative for her work in
creating the Settlement; and

     (4) up to $3,333,333.33 in attorneys' fees and a separate
amount for out-of-pocket litigation costs (expected to be no more
than $350,000) as awarded by the Court.

In addition to the monetary relief, for a period of two years
following Final Judgment, Twilio will update its Acceptable Use
Policy to specify that its customers must secure all legally
required consents prior to using Twilio's services to record
communications.

On January 15, 2019, the court entered an order granting
preliminary approval of the settlement, and the parties signed an
amended settlement agreement to conform to the court's order. A
final approval hearing was scheduled for June 11, 2019.

Twilio said, "Given insurance coverage, the Company continues to
estimate its potential liability in the Flowers matter to be $1.7
million and carries this reserved amount in its condensed
consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2019, presented
elsewhere in this Quarterly Report on Form 10‑Q."

Twilio Inc. provides a cloud communications platform that enables
developers to build, scale, and operate communications within
software applications in the United States and internationally. The
company's programmable communications cloud provides a set of
application programming interfaces that enable developers to embed
voice, messaging, and video capabilities into their applications.
Twilio Inc. was founded in 2008 and is headquartered in San
Francisco, California.


TWO BROTHERS: Illegally Retained Tips, Branch Claims
----------------------------------------------------
NADIA BRANCH, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. TWO BROTHERS ENTERTAINMENT CONSULTANTS LLC D/B/A
GENTLEMEN’S QUARTERS, SUMMIT ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION, JURY
TRIAL REQUESTED PHILLIP TRICOLLA and ERIC TRICOLLA, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:19-cv-03291 (E.D.N.Y., June 3, 2019), seeks to recover
unpaid wages, illegally retained tips, liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and all other appropriate
legal and equitable relief, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York State Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have engaged in a policy
and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and others similarly
situated to regularly work without being paid any hourly wages as
required by applicable federal and state law, as Plaintiff was only
permitted to retain the tips she received as a dancer at
Defendants' establishment. At no time was Plaintiff provided with
any records concerning the wages she was to or did receive.

The Defendants own and operate GQ in Baldwin, New York. The
Plaintiff was hired in January 2017 to work as a dancer for
Defendants in GQ. The Plaintiff's duties consisted of, among other
things, dancing for customers at GQ. At the time of her hire,
Plaintiff received no notices from Defendants concerning
information such as a rate of pay, overtime rate of pay, frequency
of payment, regular pay day, or other information as required by
the NYLL. During her employment with Defendants, Plaintiff worked a
consistent schedule. The Plaintiff generally worked Wednesdays
through Saturdays, and some Sundays, from 10:00 p.m. until 4:00
a.m.. During her employment, Plaintiff only received tips as her
compensation, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff, the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the
Class Members:

          Yale Pollack, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF YALE POLLACK, P.C.
          66 Split Rock Road
          Syosset, NY 11791
          Telephone: (516) 634-6340
          Facsimile: (516) 634-6341
          E-mail: ypollack@yalepollacklaw.com

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Refuses to Approve Settlement
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that taking back his preliminary
approval of a class action settlement between Uber and its drivers
over the "upfront" pricing model, a federal judge said on May 7 he
won't approve a deal in which many of the drivers will receive
"less than the administrative costs of mailing the check."

A copy of the Order Rejecting Proposed Class Settlement is
available at:

         https://is.gd/Vs3TwN


UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Mulls Bid to Dismiss New York Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Ubiquiti Networks, 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 defendants in the
consolidated class action suit in New York are preparing to move to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint but will refrain from
filing such motion pending receipt of further guidance from the
court.

On February 21, 2018, a purported class action, captioned Paul
Vanderheiden v. Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. et al., No. 18-cv-01620
(the "Vanderheiden Action"), was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers.

The Vanderheiden Action complaint alleges that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and/or
misleading statements, including purported overstatements of the
Company's online community user engagement metrics and accounts
receivable.

On February 28, 2018 and March 13, 2018, substantially similar
purported class actions, captioned Xiya Qian v. Ubiquiti Networks,
Inc. et al., No. 18-cv-01841 (the "Qian Action") and John Kho v.
Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. et al., No. 18-cv-02242 (the "Kho Action",
together with the Vanderheiden Action and the Qian Action, the
"Class Action"”), respectively, were filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On October 24, 2018, the court consolidated the Class Actions and
appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel (the "Consolidated Class
Action"). Plaintiff filed its Consolidated Amended Complaint on
December 24, 2018.

On March 21, 2019, Defendants informed the Court that they were
prepared to move to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint but
that, consistent with the Court's individual practices, they would
refrain from filing that motion pending receipt of further guidance
from the Court.

Ubiquiti said, "While the Company believes that the Consolidated
Class Action is without merit and plans to vigorously defend
itself, there can be no assurance that the Company will prevail.
The Company cannot currently estimate the possible loss or range of
losses, if any, that it may experience in connection with this
litigation."

Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. develops networking technology for service
providers, enterprises, and consumers. It focuses on three
principal technologies, including high-capacity distributed
Internet access, unified information technology, and consumer
electronics for home and personal use. The company was formerly
known as Pera Networks, Inc. and changed its name to Ubiquiti
Networks, Inc. in 2005. Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. was incorporated in
2003 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


UMA EDUCATION: Aylor Sues Over Illegal Use of Consumer Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON AYLOR, on his own behalf and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. UMA EDUCATION, INC., a Foreign
Not For-Profit Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-01398 (M.D.
Fla., June 7, 2019) is a Class Action Complaint against Defendant,
including subsidiaries, divisions and affiliates under the Fair
Credit Reporting Act of 1970, as amended.

The Defendant routinely obtains and uses information in consumer
reports to conduct background checks on prospective employees and
existing employees, and frequently relies on such information, in
whole or in part, as a basis for adverse employment action, such as
denying employment, removal from job assignments, and denying
promotions or other job related opportunities.

The Defendant violated the FCRA by procuring consumer reports on
Plaintiff and other putative class members for employment purposes,
without first providing a clear and conspicuous disclosure before
procuring the report. The Defendant also violated the FCRA by
obtaining consumer reports on Plaintiff and other putative class
members without proper authorization, due to the fact that its
disclosure forms fail to comply with the requirements of the FCRA.
Based on these violations, Plaintiff asserts FCRA claims against
Defendant on behalf of himself and classes consisting of
Defendant's employees and prospective employees, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff is a consumer/applicant who was the subject of a consumer
report used for employment purposes by Defendant.

Defendant is a corporation and user of consumer reports as
contemplated by the FCRA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Phone 813-223-5505
     Fax: 813-257-0572
     Email: MEdelman@forthepeople.com


UNITED STATES: Inmates Hit Solitary Confinement, Lack of Med. Care
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jac'quann Harvard, J.H., a minor, by and through his parent and
natural guardian, Valentine Robinson, Angel Meddler, Juan Espinosa,
Jerome Burgess (a/k/a Sham'la God Allah) and James W. Kendrick,
Jr., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Mark Inch, in his official capacity as Secretary of
the Florida Department of Corrections and Florida Department of
Corrections, an Agency of the State of Florida Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-00212 (N.D. Fla., May 8, 2019) seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief to address violations of the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the
Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act.

Plaintiffs are inmates at the Florida Department of Corrections.
Harvard, 18 years old, is diagnosed with bipolar disorder and
prescribed anti-anxiety medications. Defendants refused to modify
their isolation policies and practices to accommodate Ms. Harvard's
disability and protect her from harm caused by isolation. J.H., 17
years old, is a black teenager in isolation at Florida State
Prison. Defendants removed him from a housing unit with other
teenage boys to serve 90 days in disciplinary confinement. He has
now suicidal tendencies and suffers from depression. Meddler, 21
years old, is diagnosed her with asthma, anxiety and mood
disorders. She has now suicidal tendencies, anxiety, mental
agitation, poor impulse control, disturbed sleep, and paranoia.
Espinosa, 58 years old, is diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia,
major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder and also suffers
from tumors in his throat that impede his ability to eat and
swallow. In January 2019, he permanently and completely lost his
voice after a surgical procedure to remove one of the tumors. He
can no longer speak. Burgess, 46 years old, is paralyzed on the
left side and cannot urinate without the assistance of a catheter.
He is diagnosed with seizure disorder and major depressive
disorder. He has been in isolation since September 25, 2017.
Kendrick, 39 years old, is diagnosed with diabetes, high blood
pressure and obesity and has also developed depression in
isolation.

Mark Inch is the Secretary of Corrections for the Florida
Department of Corrections. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Kelly Knapp, Esq.
      SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
      4770 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 760
      Miami, FL 33137
      Telephone: (786) 347-2056
      Email: kelly.knapp@splcenter.org

             - and -

      Shalini Goel Agarwal, Esq.
      Sumayya Saleh, Esq.
      SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
      106 East College Ave., #1010
      Tallahassee, FL 32302
      Telephone: (850) 521-3024
      Email: shalini.agarwal@splcenter.org
             sumayya.saleh@splcenter.org
             - and -

      Lisa Graybill, Esq.
      SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
      201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2000
      New Orleans, LA 70170
      Telephone: (334) 549-0498
      Email: lisa.graybill@splcenter.org

             - and -

      Andrea Costello, Esq.
      Christopher M. Jones, Esq.
      Jennifer Painter, Esq.
      FLORIDA LEGAL SERVICES
      122 E. Colonial Drive, Suite 100
      Orlando, FL 32801
      Telephone: (407) 801-0332
      Email: andrea@floridalegal.org
             christopher@floridalegal.org
             jennifer.painter@floridalegal.org

             - and -

      Dante P. Trevisani, Esq.
      FLORIDA JUSTICE INSTITUTE, INC.
      100 SE 2nd St., Ste. 3750
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 358-2081
      Email: dtrevisani@floridajusticeinstitute.org


VICE MEDIA: Website not Accessible to Deaf People, Jones Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
KAHLIMAH JONES, Individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. VICE MEDIA LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03283 (E.D.N.Y., June 3, 2019),
contends that the Defendant denies deaf and hard-of-hearing
individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods
and services that it provides to non-disabled individuals, through
http://www.Vice.com(Website) and related domains owned by
Defendant.

The Defendant provides a wide array of goods and services to the
public through its Website. However, the Website contains access
barriers that make it difficult for deaf and hard-of-hearing
individuals to use the Website. In fact, the access barriers make
it impossible for deaf and hard-of-hearing users to comprehend the
audio portion of videos that are posted on the Website. Defendant
thus excludes the deaf and hard of hearing from the full and equal
participation in the growing Internet economy that is increasingly
a fundamental part of the common marketplace and daily living. In
the wave of technological advances in recent years, assistive
technology is becoming an increasingly prominent part of everyday
life, allowing deaf and hard-of-hearing people to fully and
independently access a variety of services, including online
videos.

The Plaintiff, who currently lives in New York City, is a deaf
individual. She brings this civil rights class action lawsuit
against Defendant for failing to design, construct, and/or own or
operate a website that is fully accessible to, and independently
usable by, deaf and hard-of-hearing people.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Class:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          44 Court Street, Suite 1217
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone (917) 373-9128
          E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com

VIRTU FINANCIAL: Faces Bittner and Mareno Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------
Virtu Financial, 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, together
with ProShares Trust I, has been named as a defendant in the cases,
Bittner v. ProShares Trust II, et al., and Mareno v. ProShares
Trust II, et al.

On February 27, 2019, and March 1, 2019, the Company was named as a
defendant in Bittner v. ProShares Trust II, et al., No. 19-cv-1840,
and Mareno v. ProShares Trust II, et al., No. 19-cv-1955,
respectively. The complaints were filed in federal district court
in New York on behalf of putative classes, and have been designated
as related to the Ford v. ProShares Trust II, et al., No. 19-cv-886
action because they assert substantially similar allegations to
those in the Ford complaint.

The complaints do not specify the amount of alleged damages.

The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends
to defend itself vigorously.

Virtu Financial, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides
market making and liquidity services through its proprietary,
multi-asset, and multi-currency technology platform to the
financial markets worldwide. Virtu Financial, Inc. was founded in
2008 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


VIRTU FINANCIAL: Faces Ford Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------
Virtu Financial, 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, together
with ProShares Trust II, is facing a class action suit entitled,
Ford v. ProShares Trust II, et al.

On January 29, 2019, the Company was named as a defendant in Ford
v. ProShares Trust II, et al., No. 19-cv-886.

The complaint was filed in federal district court in New York on
behalf of a putative class, and asserts claims against the Company
and numerous other financial institutions under Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933 in connection with trading in a ProShares
inverse-volatility ETF. The complaint does not specify the amount
of alleged damages.

The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends
to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

Virtu Financial, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides
market making and liquidity services through its proprietary,
multi-asset, and multi-currency technology platform to the
financial markets worldwide. Virtu Financial, Inc. was founded in
2008 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


VIRTU FINANCIAL: Retirement Fund's Suit Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
Virtu Financial, 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 itself from a class action suit entitled, Chester County
Employees' Retirement Fund v. KCG Holdings, Inc., et al.

On July 20, 2017 (the "KCG Closing Date"), the Company completed
the all-cash acquisition of KCG Holdings, Inc. ("KCG") (the
"Acquisition of KCG").

In connection with the Acquisition of KCG, a previously filed
complaint, which was initially captioned Greenway v. KCG Holdings,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2017-421-JTL and filed on behalf of a
putative class in Delaware Chancery Court, was recaptioned Chester
County Employees' Retirement Fund v. KCG Holdings, Inc., et al.,
amended and refiled on February 14, 2018 to include claims for the
alleged breach of fiduciary duties against former KCG board
members, claims against each of the Company and Jefferies LLC for
allegedly aiding and abetting the KCG board members' alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty and a claim against the Company and
Jefferies LLC for alleged civil conspiracy.

The amended complaint was again amended on July 16, 2018 with the
filing of the Verified Second Amended Class Action Complaint (the
"Second Amended Complaint") to include additional factual
allegations.

No amount of damages is stated in the Second Amended Complaint,
against which Virtu is defending itself vigorously.

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

Virtu Financial, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides
market making and liquidity services through its proprietary,
multi-asset, and multi-currency technology platform to the
financial markets worldwide. Virtu Financial, Inc. was founded in
2008 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


VOLKSWAGEN: Parrish Sues Over Vehicle Transmission Defects
----------------------------------------------------------
DOMINIQUE PARRISH and EVAN WOOD, individually, and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. VOLKSWAGEN
GROUP OF AMERICA, INC. a Delaware limited liability company,
Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-01148-AG-KES (C.D. Cal., June 10, 2019)
is a consumer class action concerning a failure to disclose
material facts and a safety concern to consumers for Plaintiffs and
on behalf of all persons in the United States who purchased or
leased any 2019 Seventh Generation (A7) Volkswagen Jetta vehicle
equipped with an Aisin AWF8F35 8-Speed Automatic Transmission
("Class Vehicles").

The complaint contends that Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold the Class Vehicles
without disclosing that the Class Vehicles' Aisin AWF8F35 8-Speed
Automatic Transmission  was defective. The all-new 2019 Volkswagen
Jetta made its global debut at the 2018 North American
International Auto Show in Detroit Michigan. Dr. Matthias Erb,
Volkswagen Chief Engineering Officer, North American Region, said
that VWGoA "knew buyers demand good value, and our innovations will
prove their value in everyday use." One of those innovations was
the Transmission, which Defendant said was a "major boost which
provides a wide band of drive ratios that allow more efficient
running at higher speeds." However, in everyday use, the Class
Vehicles have proven to be unreliable, far from an efficiently
running vehicle, and a safety hazard to its drivers and others.

Indeed, the Transmission is defective in that it grates, scuffs,
scrapes, grinds, and ultimately suffers broken seals and oil leaks,
resulting in catastrophic failure, asserts the complaint. On
information and belief, the Transmission Defect arises from the
torque converter. The Transmission Defect is inherent in each Class
Vehicle and was present at the time of sale. VWGoA undertook
affirmative measures to conceal the Transmission Defect and other
malfunctions through, among other things, "Technical Tips" issued
to its authorized repair facilities. These Technical Tips confirmed
VWGoA's knowledge of the Transmission Defect, but disregarded its
importance and cited it as "normal operating characteristics".

The Transmission Defect is material because it poses a serious
safety concern, the complaint says. As attested by Class Members in
scores of complaints to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, and other online forums, the Transmission Defect
can impair any driver's ability to control his or her vehicle and
greatly increase the risk of collision. The Transmission Defect is
also material because consumers incur significant and unexpected
repair costs. VWGoA's failure to disclose, at the time of purchase,
the Transmission's marked tendency to fail is material because no
reasonable consumer expects to spend hundreds, if not thousands, of
dollars to repair or replace essential transmission components. Had
VWGoA disclosed the Transmission Defect, Plaintiffs and Class
Members would not have purchased the Class Vehicles or would have
paid less for them, notes the complaint.

Plaintiffs purchased new 2019 Volkswagen Jetta equipped with the
Transmission.

VWGoA designs, manufactures, markets, distributes, services,
repairs, sells, and leases passenger vehicles, including the Class
Vehicles, nationwide, and in California and Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

          - and -

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


W14 MARKET: Washington Sues over Time Shaving Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN WASHINGTON, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class, the Plaintiff, vs. W14 MARKET LLC d/b/a GANSEVOORT
MARKET, JOHN DOE CORPORATION d/b/a GANSEVOORT MARKET, CHRISTOPHER
REDA, and JINSUP AN, the Defendants, Case No. 155527/2019 (N.Y.
Sup., June 3, 2019), want the Defendants to pay for unpaid wages
due to time shaving, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, statutory
penalties and attorneys' fees and costs under the New York Labor
Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants knew of and/or showed a
willful disregard for the provisions of the FLSA as evidenced by
their failure to compensate Plaintiff and FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs for all hours worked, including overtime hours, when
Defendants knew or should have known such was due. The Defendants
failed to properly disclose or apprise Plaintiff and FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs of their rights under the FLSA.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' willful disregard
of the FLSA, Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are entitled
to liquidated (i.e., double) damages pursuant to the FLSA. Due to
the intentional, willful and unlawful acts of Defendants, Plaintiff
and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs suffered damages in an amount not
presently ascertainable of unpaid wages and unpaid overtime wages,
plus an equal amount as liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b).

All the Class members were subject to the same corporate practices
of Defendants, as alleged, (i) failing to pay proper wages due to
time-shaving, (ii) failing to pay proper overtime premium for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, including those due to
time-shaving, (iii) failing to provide Class members with proper
wage statements with every payment of wages, and (iv) failing to
properly provide notices to Class members, at date of hiring and
annually, per requirements of the New York Labor Law, the lawsuit
says.

The Defendants operate a food services market under the trade name
"Gansevoort Market," currently located at 353 W. 14th Street, New
York, New York 10014.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016

WASHINGTON MTA: Harriott et al. Allege Discriminatory Termination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) for the
anti-discrimination provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964. The case is captioned KENNETH HARRIOTT and TONY OJOH, On
behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-01656 (D.D.C., June 6, 2019). Plaintiffs brings this
lawsuit on behalf of all others similarly situated:
African-American and foreign-born persons of color in Office of
Quality Assurance, Internal Compliance & Oversight (QICO)
terminated under Angel Pena, the managing Director of the QICO.
WMATA has allegedly engaged in systemic discrimination in favor of
white employees.

WMATA is an interstate compact agency that operates transit service
in Washington metropolitan area. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bruce A. Fredrickson, Esq.
     Cedar P. Carlton, Esq.
     Geoffrey H. Simpson, Esq.
     WEBSTER& FREDRICKSON, PLLC
     1775 K Street, NW, Suite 600
     Washington, DC 20006


WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Discovery Still Ongoing in Shanklin Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wilhelmina International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that discovery is still
ongoing in the putative class action lawsuit initiated by Alex
Shanklin.

On October 24, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was brought
against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Alex Shanklin and
others (the "Shanklin Litigation"), in New York State Supreme Court
(New York County) by the same lead counsel who represented
plaintiffs in a prior, now-dismissed action brought by Louisa Raske
(the "Raske Litigation").

The claims in the Shanklin Litigation initially included breach of
contract and unjust enrichment allegations arising out of matters
similar to the Raske Litigation, such as the handling and reporting
of funds on behalf of models and the use of model images.

Other parties named as defendants in the Shanklin Litigation
include other model management companies, advertising firms, and
certain advertisers. On January 6, 2014, the Company moved to
dismiss the Amended Complaint in the Shanklin Litigation for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and other
grounds, and other defendants also filed motions to dismiss.

On August 11, 2014, the court denied the motion to dismiss as to
Wilhelmina and other of the model management defendants. Further,
on March 3, 2014, the judge assigned to the Shanklin Litigation
wrote the Office of the New York Attorney General bringing the case
to its attention, generally describing the claims asserted therein
against the model management defendants, and stating that the case
"may involve matters in the public interest."

The judge's letter also enclosed a copy of his decision in the
Raske Litigation, which dismissed that case.

Plaintiffs retained substitute counsel, who filed a Second and then
Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint
asserts causes of action for alleged breaches of the plaintiffs'
management contracts with the defendants, conversion, breach of the
duty of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment.

The Third Amended Complaint also alleges that the plaintiff models
were at all relevant times employees, and not independent
contractors, of the model management defendants, and that
defendants violated the New York Labor Law in several respects,
including, among other things, by allegedly failing to pay the
models the minimum wages and overtime pay required thereunder, not
maintaining accurate payroll records, and not providing plaintiffs
with full explanations of how their wages and deductions therefrom
were computed.

The Third Amended Complaint seeks certification of the action as a
class action, damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus
interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the
court deems proper.

On October 6, 2015, Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss as to most
of the plaintiffs’ claims. The Court entered a decision granting
in part and denying in part Wilhelmina's motion to dismiss on May
26, 2017.

The Court (i) dismissed three of the five New York Labor Law causes
of action, along with the conversion, breach of the duty of good
faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment causes of action, in
their entirety, and (ii) permitted only the breach of contract
causes of action, and some plaintiffs' remaining two New York Labor
Law causes of action to continue, within a limited time frame.

The plaintiffs and Wilhelmina each appealed and the decision was
affirmed on May 24, 2018.

On August 16, 2017, Wilhelmina timely filed its Answer to the Third
Amended Complaint, and discovery in this action is continuing.  

The Company believes the claims asserted in the Third Amended
Complaint are without merit, and intends to continue to vigorously
defend the action.

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

Wilhelmina International, Inc. primarily engages in the fashion
model management business. It specializes in the representation and
management of models, entertainers, artists, athletes, and other
talent to various clients, including retailers, designers,
advertising agencies, print and electronic media and catalog
companies. Wilhelmina International, Inc. was founded in 1967 and
is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Discovery Underway in Pressley Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wilhelmina International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that discovery is
proceeding in the lawsuit initiated by former Wilhelmina model
Shawn Pressley.  The case is now led by Roberta Little as sole
named plaintiff.

On June 6, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was brought
against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Shawn Pressley and
others (the "Pressley Litigation"), in New York State Supreme Court
(New York County) by the same counsel representing the plaintiffs
in the Shanklin Litigation, and asserting identical, although more
recent, claims as those in the Shanklin Litigation.

The Amended Complaint, asserting essentially the same types of
claims as in the Shanklin action, was filed on August 16, 2017.
Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on
September 29, 2017, which was granted in part and denied in part on
May 10, 2018. Some New York Labor Law and contract claims remain in
the case.  

Discovery is proceeding, and Ms. Pressley has withdrawn from the
case, leaving Roberta Little as the sole named plaintiff in the
Pressley Litigation.

The Company believes the claims asserted in the Pressley Litigation
are without merit, and intends to continue to vigorously defend the
action.

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

Wilhelmina International, Inc. primarily engages in the fashion
model management business. It specializes in the representation and
management of models, entertainers, artists, athletes, and other
talent to various clients, including retailers, designers,
advertising agencies, print and electronic media and catalog
companies. Wilhelmina International, Inc. was founded in 1967 and
is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


WLP EXECUTIVE: Does not Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Bird Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL BIRD, DARRIUS WILLIAMS, and DONTAE TRAVIER, on behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated employees, Plaintiffs, v. WLP
EXECUTIVE PROTECTION GROUP, LLC, RON WARE, JAMES PITTS, and JEFFREY
LILLARD, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00442 (W.D. Mich., June 7,
2019) is a collective action brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated current and/or former hourly
employees of Defendants to recover damages for Defendants' willful
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and its
attendant rules and regulations.

The Defendants willfully violated the FLSA by knowingly suffering
or permitting Plaintiffs to work in excess of 40 hours per week
without paying overtime compensation at a rate of one-and-one-half
times the regular rate, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs currently work for Defendants as hourly, non-exempt
employees.

Defendants are in the business of providing security services to
their customers, including the deployment of security guards.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jesse L. Young, Esq.
     Thomas J. Cedoz, Esq.
     KREIS ENDERLE, P.C.
     8225 Moorsbridge, P.O. Box. 4010
     Kalamazoo, MI 49003-4010
     Phone: (269) 324-3000
     Email: jyoung@kehb.com
            tcedoz@kehb.com


ZEE.DOG LLC: Fischler Says Web Site Not Accessible to Blind
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Zee.Dog, LLC for
alleged violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act, the New
York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law.
The case is captioned BRIAN FISCHLER, Individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ZEE.DOG, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03377 (E.D.N.Y., June 6, 2019).
Plaintiff Brian Fischler alleges that Zee.Dog, LLC failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its website,
www.zeedog.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable
by the blind or visually-impaired people. Accordingly, Plaintiff
Fischler seeks a permanent injunction to cause Defendant to change
its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its
Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

Zee.Dog, LLC is a foreign limited liability company that is
organized under Florida law and is authorized to do business in New
York. The company designs and builds dog accessories and other pet
products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
     Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
     LIPSKY LOWE LLP
     630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
     New York, NY 10017-6705
     Telephone: (212) 392-4772
     E-mail: chris@lipskylowe.com
             doug@lipskylowe.com


ZF TRW: Deadline of Copley Class Suit Reply Continued to July 1
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THOMAS COPLEY, MARVIN COYNER, and ELIZABETH EVANS,
Plaintiffs, v. ZF TRW AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS CORP., HYUNDAI MOTOR
AMERICA, INC., AND KIA MOTOR AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00707-RSL (W.D. Wash.), Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle,
continued the deadline for the ZF Defendants to answer, move, or
otherwise plead in response to the Plaintiffs' Class Action
Complaint to July 1, 2019.

On May 10, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint.  In
telephonic and written communication thereafter, the counsel for
Plaintiffs and the counsel for the ZF Defendants agreed to an
extension of time for the ZF Defendants to answer, move, or
otherwise plead in response to the Plaintiffs' Class Action
Complaint.  Such pleading will be filed by July 1, 2019.  The
parties agree and stipulate that there is good cause to continue
the deadline for the ZF Defendants to respond in light of other
recently-filed lawsuits that raise similar allegations.  Judge
Lasnik granted and so ordered.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 21, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/7hmk5v from Leagle.com.

Thomas Copley, Marvin Coyner & Elizabeth Evans, Plaintiffs,
represented by Erika M. Keech, KELLER ROHRBACK LLP, Gretchen
Freeman Cappio -- gcappio@KellerRohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK
LLP, Lynn Lincoln Sarko -- lsarko@KellerRohrback.com -- KELLER
ROHRBACK LLP & Ryan McDevitt -- rmcdevitt@KellerRohrback.com --
KELLER ROHRBACK LLP.

ZF TRW Automotive Holdings Corp, Defendant, represented by William
Randolph Squires, III -- rsquires@corrcronin.com -- CORR CRONIN,
LLP.


ZION OIL: Bid to Dismiss Texas Class Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------
Zion Oil & Gas, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that defendants are seeking
to dismiss a class action suit pending before the the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Following the commencement of the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) investigation, on August 9, 2018, a putative class
action (the "class action") Complaint was filed against Zion,
Victor G. Carrillo, the Company's Chief Executive Officer at such
time, and Michael B. Croswell Jr., the Company's Chief Financial
Officer (collectively, the "Defendants") in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas.

On November 16, 2018, the Court entered an Order in the class
action appointing lead plaintiffs and approving lead counsel and on
January 22, 2019, an Amended Complaint was filed. On February 1,
2019, a Corrected Amended Class Action Complaint was filed.

The suit alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the SEC and Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") against all defendants and
alleges violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Section
15 of the Securities Act against the individual defendants.

The alleged class period is from February 13, 2018 through November
20, 2018.

On March 13, 2019, a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Corrected
Amended Complaint was filed on behalf of Zion, Victor Carrillo and
Michael B. Croswell, Jr., pleading numerous grounds in support of
their Motion to Dismiss.

Zion Oil & Gas, Inc. operates as an oil and gas exploration company
in Israel. It holds a petroleum exploration license onshore Israel,
the Megiddo-Jezreel License that covers an area of approximately
99,000 acres. The company was founded in 2000 and is headquartered
in Dallas, Texas.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4 Asbestos Cases Filed in Calif. Court on May 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The following cases categorized as "asbestos" cases were on the
docket in the Superior Court of California for San Francisco County
on May 31. All case details are allegations only and should not be
taken as fact:

   (1) Dalal Metwally v. Avon Products Inc.; Bechtel Corp.; Bechtel
Power Corp.; Brenntag North America Inc.; Brenntag Specialties
Inc.; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
(sued Individually; CVS Health Corp.; Charles B.; Christian Dior
Perfumes LLC; Cyprus Amax Minerals Company (sued Individually;
Cyprus Mines Corp.; Dap Products Inc.; Fremont Investors Inc.;
Fremont Properties Inc.; Golden Gate Drywall; Home Depot USA Inc.;
Johnson &; Johnson & Johnson; Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.;
Kelly Moore; Longs Drug; Longs Drug Stores L.L.C.; Lowe's Companies
Inc.; Mary Kay Inc.; Nina Ricci USA Inc.; Pfizer Inc.; Puig USA
Inc.; R.T. Vanderbilt Holding Company Inc.; Revlon Consumer
Products Corp.; Sequoia Ventures; The Sherwin-Williams Co.; Union
Carbide Corp.; Vanderbilt Minerals LLC; Whittaker Clark; Yves Saint
Laurent America Inc.; unnamed defendants, Case No. CGC19276780

Macy M Chan; Charles P. Murrin; Bradford J Dejardin; William Murray
Hake; Alexander G Calfo; James Patrick Cunningham; Bill D.
Fountain; Karl R. Loureiro (defendant's attorneys) and Stuart J.
Purdy (plaintiff's attorney)

   (2) Billie Nichols; Eric Nichols; Jennifer Nichols; Stacey
Nichols v. 3 M Company; A.W. Chesterton Company; Armstrong
International Inc.; Asbestos Companies; Astra Flooring Company;
Atwood & Morrill Co.; CBS Corp.; Cleaver-Brooks Inc.; Crane Co.;
Crown Cork & Seal Company Inc. I; FMC Corp.; General Electric
Company; Goulds Pumps LLC; Greene Tweed & Co.; Hill Brothers
Chemical Company; Honeywell International Inc.; Imo Industries
Inc.; Imo Industrites; Ingersoll-Rand Company; Owens-Illinois Inc.;
Parker-Hannifin Corp.; The Goodyear; Trane USA Inc.; Union Carbide
Corp.; York International Corp.; one or more unnamed defendant,
Case No. CGC19276776

Mordecai D. Boone; Gary D Sharp; Frank D Pond; Charles T Sheldon;
Julie Ann Torres; Alice Wong; Bobbie R. Bailey; Kenneth B Prindle;
Meghan R. Mcmeel; Jennifer A. Cormier; Florence A Mcclain; Marte
Joseph Bassi (defendant's attorneys) and Roger E Gold (plaintiff's
attorney)


   (3) James Hilburn Sr v. Asbestos Corp.; CBS Corp.; Crown Cork;
Foster Wheeler LLC; General Electric Company; Honeywell
International Inc.; Hopeman Brothers Inc.; Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company; Owens-Illinois Inc.; Parker-Hannifin Corp.;
unnamed defendants, Case No. CGC19276783

       Plaintiff's attorney:

       Alan Richard Brayton, Esq.
       Brayton Purcell LLP
       Tel: 800-598-0314
            800-720-4981
            866-259-5044
       Fax: 415-898-1247

   (4) Chick Dee v. Allwood Door Company; American Biltrite Inc.;
Bradley & Son; Crown Cork; International Paper Company; Mindor
Inc.; Weyerhaeuser Company; unnamed defendants, Case No.
CGC19276784

Alan Richard Brayton (plaintiff's attorney)


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found After Senior Living Complex Fire
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Denver reported that the more than 100 residents of a senior
living complex in Colorado Springs who were evacuated because of a
fire won't be able to return for at least two months. The Gazette
reports officials told tenants of the 11-story Regency Tower
Apartments on Wednesday that the top two floors of the building are
contaminated by airborne asbestos.

The tower has asbestos ceilings and flooring that were installed
when it was built in 1965. Crews are expected to start removing the
asbestos.

Officials say some residents will be allowed to retrieve their
belongings.

A blaze erupted on the 10th floor in May.  Authorities are still
investigating the cause of the fire. The fire hospitalized two
people for smoke inhalation, including 89-year-old Darlyne
Justesen. She died a few days later.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 31,840 Claims Pending at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation had pending approximately 31,840 asbestos claims as
of March 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2019.

CBS Corporation states, "The Company is a defendant in lawsuits
claiming various personal injuries related to asbestos and other
materials, which allegedly occurred as a result of exposure caused
by various products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor,
generally prior to the early 1970s.  Westinghouse was neither a
producer nor a manufacturer of asbestos.  The Company is typically
named as one of a large number of defendants in both state and
federal cases.  In the majority of asbestos lawsuits, the
plaintiffs have not identified which of the Company's products is
the basis of a claim.  Claims against the Company in which a
product has been identified most commonly relate to allegations of
exposure to asbestos-containing insulating material used in
conjunction with turbines.

"Claims are frequently filed and/or settled in groups, which may
make the amount and timing of settlements, and the number of
pending claims, subject to significant fluctuation from period to
period.  The Company does not report as pending those claims on
inactive, stayed, deferred or similar dockets that some
jurisdictions have established for claimants who allege minimal or
no impairment.  As of March 31, 2019, the Company had pending
approximately 31,840 asbestos claims, as compared with
approximately 31,570 as of December 31, 2018 and 31,600 as of March
31, 2018.  During the first quarter of 2019, the Company received
approximately 750 new claims and closed or moved to an inactive
docket approximately 480 claims.  The Company reports claims as
closed when it becomes aware that a dismissal order has been
entered by a court or when the Company has reached agreement with
the claimants on the material terms of a settlement.  Settlement
costs depend on the seriousness of the injuries that form the basis
of the claims, the quality of evidence supporting the claims and
other factors.  The Company's total costs for the years 2018 and
2017 for settlement and defense of asbestos claims after insurance
recoveries and net of tax were approximately US$45 million and
US$57 million, respectively.  The Company's costs for settlement
and defense of asbestos claims may vary year to year and insurance
proceeds are not always recovered in the same period as the insured
portion of the expenses.

"Filings include claims for individuals suffering from
mesothelioma, a rare cancer, the risk of which is allegedly
increased by exposure to asbestos; lung cancer, a cancer which may
be caused by various factors, one of which is alleged to be
asbestos exposure; other cancers, and conditions that are
substantially less serious, including claims brought on behalf of
individuals who are asymptomatic as to an allegedly
asbestos-related disease.  The predominant number of pending claims
against the Company are non-cancer claims.  The Company believes
that its reserves and insurance are adequate to cover its asbestos
liabilities.  This belief is based upon many factors and
assumptions, including the number of outstanding claims, estimated
average cost per claim, the breakdown of claims by disease type,
historic claim filings, costs per claim of resolution and the
filing of new claims.  While the number of asbestos claims filed
against the Company has remained generally flat in recent years, it
is difficult to predict future asbestos liabilities, as events and
circumstances may occur, including, among others, the number and
types of claims and average cost to resolve such claims, which
could affect the Company's estimate of its asbestos liabilities."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/FM5EzS


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Has $5.7MM Liability at Mar. 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation has US$5,697,000 asbestos-related
aggregate liability that is probable and estimable as of March 31,
2019, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March
31, 2019.

The Company states, "Like many industrial manufacturers, the
Company is involved in asbestos-related litigation.  In continually
evaluating costs relating to its estimated asbestos-related
liability, the Company reviews, among other things, the incidence
of past and recent claims, the historical case dismissal rate, the
mix of the claimed illnesses and occupations of the plaintiffs, its
recent and historical resolution of the cases, the number of cases
pending against it, the status and results of broad-based
settlement discussions, and the number of years such activity might
continue.  Based on this review, the Company has estimated its
share of liability to defend and resolve probable asbestos-related
personal injury claims.  This estimate is highly uncertain due to
the limitations of the available data and the difficulty of
forecasting with any certainty the numerous variables that can
affect the range of the liability.  The Company will continue to
study the variables in light of additional information in order to
identify trends that may become evident and to assess their impact
on the range of liability that is probable and estimable.

"Based on actuarial information, the Company has estimated its
asbestos-related aggregate liability including related legal costs
to range between US$4,100,000 and US$8,000,000 using actuarial
parameters of continued claims for a period of 37 years from March
31, 2019.  The Company's estimation of its asbestos-related
aggregate liability that is probable and estimable, in accordance
with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles approximates
US$5,697,000, which has been reflected as a liability in the
consolidated financial statements as of March 31, 2019.  The
recorded liability does not consider the impact of any potential
favorable federal legislation.  This liability will fluctuate based
on the uncertainty in the number of future claims that will be
filed and the cost to resolve those claims, which may be influenced
by a number of factors, including the outcome of the ongoing
broad-based settlement negotiations, defensive strategies, and the
cost to resolve claims outside the broad-based settlement program.
Of this amount, management expects to incur asbestos liability
payments of approximately US$2,000,000 over the next 12 months.
Because payment of the liability is likely to extend over many
years, management believes that the potential additional costs for
claims will not have a material effect on the financial condition
of the Company or its liquidity, although the effect of any future
liabilities recorded could be material to earnings in a future
period.

"The Company believes that a share of its previously incurred
asbestos-related expenses and future asbestos-related expenses are
covered by pre-existing insurance policies.  The Company has
engaged in a legal action against the insurance carriers for those
policies to recover these expenses and future costs incurred.  When
the Company resolves this legal action, it is expected that a gain
will be recorded for previously expensed cost that is recovered.
During fiscal 2019 and fiscal 2018, the Company received settlement
payments US$484,000 and US$2,362,000, respectively, net of legal
fees, from its insurance carriers as partial reimbursement for
asbestos-related expenses.  These partial payments have been
recorded as gains in cost of products sold.  The Company is
continuing its actions to recover further past costs and to cover
future costs."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/7aJOUW


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defendants Get Negative Ruling from Pa. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charmaine Little, writing for PennRecord, reported that the
Superior Court of Pennsylvania has overturned summary judgment for
two companies sued over alleged asbestos exposure that possibly led
to a man's death.

Judge Victor P. Stabile authored the May 22 opinion and judges
Paula Francisco Ott and Maria McLaughlin concurred.

Marc Lee Lamson, who is the succeeding executor of Franklin
Lamson's estate, filed the appeal after the Court of Common Pleas
of Philadelphia County ruled in favor of International Paper Co.
and Weyerhaeuser Co. in Lamson's lawsuit. While the lower court
said the Franklin Lamson didn't submit enough evidence, the
Superior Court disagreed.

"We hold that [Lamson] submitted sufficient evidence to create a
genuine issue of material fact on this question," said Stabile
wrote.

Stabile determined if the evidence presented proved that the fire
doors Franklin Lamson worked with that contained asbestos were
manufactured by IP and Weyerhaeuser. The judge pointed out that
Franklin Lamson testified that he had a lot of experience fixing
and installing fire doors. The ruling states one of his colleagues,
who is also a carpenter, backed the testimony and also said
Weyerhaeuser was the supplier for the fire doors. While they didn't
give a specific number, Stabile said those details are more vital
for trial.

"We realize appellees did not admit that every fire door they
manufactured contained asbestos; nor did appellant (Franklin
Lamson) demonstrate that every fire door he worked on contained
asbestos. Nevertheless, appellant did not need to demonstrate that
every fire door contained asbestos in order to survive summary
judgment," the ruling states.

Stabile pointed out that since Franklin Lamson was diagnosed with
mesothelioma, all his estate had to do was prove that IP and
Weyerhaeuser manufactured even some of the doors. The court also
disagreed with the appellees that even if their fire doors had
asbestos, they didn't emit asbestos-filled dust.

Franklin Lamson previously testified that he often drilled into the
fire doors, which could generate dust that included asbestos. The
judge said all of this was enough for Franklin Lamson to survive
summary judgment.

Franklin Lamson worked at the Philadelphia Navy Yard from 1967
until he retired in 1994, first as an inspector and then as a
general foreman. As a part of his job, Franklin Lamson often fixed
fire doors, some that were manufactured by defendant Weyerhaeuser.
Weyerhaeuser and IP admitted that a number of their fire doors had
asbestos, the ruling states.

One physician determined that Franklin Lamson's regular exposure to
asbestos was a factor in his mesothelioma diagnosis. Lamson
responded with a lawsuit and jury demand. The lower court granted
Weyerhaeuser and IP their motions for summary judgment shortly
after the discovery phase, and Lamson appealed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Makes Action Plan for B.F. Goodrich Site
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Kelley, writing for KOAM News Now, reported that the
Environmental Protection Agency is beginning a cleanup plan to
remove dangerous levels of asbestos from B.F. Goodrich, the former
tire plant in Miami, Oklahoma.

A community meeting is shedding light on the EPA's plan of action.


When Carol Benton moved into the area, her neighbors warned her to
keep her children out of the dirt, fearing contamination from the
nearby decommissioned tire plant.

"That was a concern for me because I have four kids that play in
the dirt all the time, you know, so that's always on my mind," said
Benton.

It's on the minds of many Miami citizens present at the EPA's
meeting, discussing their plan of action since taking over the site
last November when it was abandoned in 2014.

"Unfortunately, the owner, the company went into bankruptcy, walked
away from the site and left what we see behind us here which is
about 20 piles, roughly 16,000 cubic yards of demolition debris
contaning asbestos," said Mike McAteer, On Scene Coordinator for
the EPA.

Officials are stepping up security in the area, adding a guard at
night to cut down on trespassers exposing themselves to the harmful
material.

"It can cause lung cancer, obviously, if it gets inhaled. It can
cause non-cancer health affects suchs as asbestosis which is a
scarring of the lungs and a difficulty breathing," said McAteer.

Two building will be wet-demolished to keep any asbetos from
traveling through the air and officials are taking extra
precautions.

"Not only are we keeping it wet, but we're gonna be doing air
monitoring on the perimeter. We have samplers set up that measure
dust that come off the site and we're going to be measuring for
asbestos on a daily basis through the entire cleanup process,"
McAteer explained.

Even so, Benton feels like the EPA should've stepped in a long time
ago.

"I mean it's been closed down for years and they're just now doing
it, I am still concerned because they should've been on it years
ago," said Benton.

The hazardous material will be taken to Prairie View dump in Lamar,
Missouri.

The EPA expects to finish their cleanup efforts by September.

Nearly 200 residents impacted by pollution in the area are still in
litigation with Michelin North America, the company that purchased
BF Goodrich in 1988.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: FDA Finds Asbestos in More Claire's Cosmetics
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Gibson, writing for CBS News, reported that the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration has found asbestos in more cosmetics sold by
Claire's Stores and Beauty Plus Global, with the agency warning
consumers to steer clear of the products.

Both companies voluntarily recalled products that tested positive
for the known carcinogen during the agency's ongoing testing of
cosmetics for asbestos, the FDA stated in its alert. The recalled
products include:

   -- Beauty Plus Global Contour Effects Palette 2, Batch No.
S1603002/PD-C1179

   -- Claire's JoJo Siwa Makeup Set, SKU #888711136337, Batch/Lot
No. S180109

The alert issued by the FDA comes three months after the agency
urged the public to toss out three makeup products sold by Claire's
that tested positive for asbestos. Claire's, a retailer that
markets cosmetics and accessories to adolescent girls, initially
disputed the FDA's findings, but then agreed to pull the products
out of stores.

Claire's products have been under scrutiny since 2017, and U.S.
Public Interest Research Group, a non-profit, also found "high
levels of asbestos" in three of the company's products, it said
late last year.

In an emailed statement, Claire's said it recalled the JoJo
Cosmetic Kit after FDA tests "indicated the possible presence of
trace amounts of asbestos fibers in the powder eyeshadow element of
the kit."

But the company also said it "stands behind the safety of this item
and all other Claire's cosmetic items, as such small trace amounts
are considered acceptable under European and Canadian cosmetic
safety regulations."

In addition, last year Claire's moved to talc-free cosmetic
manufacturing to prevent any further concerns about talc
contamination, said the company, which added it would provide
refunds to anyone who purchased the recalled products.

Shanghai-based Beauty Plus' U.S. subsidiary did not immediately
return a request for comment.

Not banned in U.S.

There is no safe level of exposure to asbestos, according to the
World Health Organization. Inhaling or consuming asbestos can lead
to serious respiratory diseases including lung cancer and
mesothelioma. Banned in the European Union, Canada and the U.K.,
efforts to prohibit asbestos in the U.S. have been blocked amid
lobbying by asbestos suppliers.

A mineral fiber at one time commonly found in construction
materials, asbestos can occur naturally in talc, a mineral also
used in powder-based products such as cosmetics and baby powder.
Consumer products company Johnson & Johnson faces legal claims that
its baby powder and a defunct shower product caused ovarian cancer
and another cancer linked to asbestos. J&J denies its products ever
contained the carcinogen.

Claire's emerged from bankruptcy in October after unloading about
$1.9 billion in debt.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Still Defends PL Lawsuits at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corporation remains a defendant in a "substantial number
of lawsuits" that seek to recover damages for personal injury
allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products
manufactured and/or distributed by our heritage companies in the
past, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "While the overall number of asbestos-related
claims has generally declined in recent years, there can be no
assurance that this trend will continue, or that the average cost
per claim will not further increase.  Asbestos-containing materials
incorporated into any such products were encapsulated and used as
internal components of process equipment, and we do not believe
that any significant emission of asbestos fibers occurred during
the use of this equipment.

"Our practice is to vigorously contest and resolve these claims,
and we have been successful in resolving a majority of claims with
little or no payment.  Historically, a high percentage of resolved
claims have been covered by applicable insurance or indemnities
from other companies, and we believe that a substantial majority of
existing claims should continue to be covered by insurance or
indemnities, in whole or in part.  Accordingly, we have recorded a
liability for our estimate of the most likely settlement of
asserted claims and a related receivable from insurers or other
companies for our estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that
the amounts of recovery are probable.  While unfavorable rulings,
judgments or settlement terms regarding these claims could have a
material adverse impact on our business, financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows, we currently believe the
likelihood is remote.

"Additionally, we have claims pending against certain insurers
that, if resolved more favorably than reflected in the recorded
receivables, would result in discrete gains in the applicable
quarter.  We are currently unable to estimate the impact, if any,
of unasserted asbestos-related claims, although we expect that
future claims would also be subject to then-existing indemnities
and insurance coverage."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/JGAAmD


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Still Faces Lawsuits at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Corporation remains a defendant in lawsuits alleging
personal injury from exposure to asbestos allegedly contained in or
accompanying its products, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the For
the fiscal year ended March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "We have been named as a defendant in lawsuits
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos allegedly
contained in, or accompanying, our products.  We are a co-defendant
with numerous other defendants in these lawsuits and intend to
vigorously defend ourselves against these claims.  The claims are
similar to previous asbestos lawsuits that named us as a defendant.
Such previous lawsuits either were dismissed when it was shown
that we had not supplied products to the plaintiffs' places of work
or were settled by us for immaterial amounts.  We cannot provide
any assurances that any pending or future matters will be resolved
in the same manner as previous lawsuits."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/oOrU4A


ASBESTOS UPDATE: HII Still Defends PI Claims at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. still defends itself against
asbestos-related claims alleging various injuries, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "HII and its predecessors-in-interest are
defendants in a longstanding series of cases that have been and
continue to be filed in various jurisdictions around the country,
wherein former and current employees and various third parties
allege exposure to asbestos containing materials while on or
associated with HII premises or while working on vessels
constructed or repaired by HII.

"The cases allege various injuries, including those associated with
pleural plaque disease, asbestosis, cancer, mesothelioma, and other
alleged asbestos related conditions.  In some cases, several of
HII's former executive officers are also named as defendants.  In
some instances, partial or full insurance coverage is available to
the Company for its liability and that of its former executive
officers.  The costs to resolve cases during the three months ended
March 31, 2019 and 2018, were immaterial individually and in the
aggregate.  The Company's estimate of asbestos-related liabilities
is subject to uncertainty because liabilities are influenced by
numerous variables that are inherently difficult to predict.  Key
variables include the number and type of new claims, the litigation
process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case,
reforms made by state and federal courts, and the passage of state
or federal tort reform legislation.

"Although the Company believes the ultimate resolution of current
cases will not have a material effect on its consolidated financial
position, results of operations, or cash flows, it cannot predict
what new or revised claims or litigation might be asserted or what
information might come to light and can, therefore, give no
assurances regarding the ultimate outcome of asbestos related
litigation."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/7eAsEw


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hospital Worker Wins GBP235K Payout
----------------------------------------------------
Joseph Laws, writing for Daily Mail, reported that a hospital
worker won a GBP235,000 payout from the NHS after his job gave him
cancer.

Wayne Churches, 73, was exposed to asbestos while working as a
hospital engineer for 40 years.

But after retiring, grandfather Mr Churches was diagnosed with
mesothelioma, an aggressive form of cancer, in 2017.

The Aneurin Bevan University Health Board admitted liability over
his disease because he worked in asbestos-clad buildings at Nevill
Hall hospital in Abergavenny, south Wales.

Mr Churches said: 'Back then I just didn't know how much of a
problem it was -- nobody told me.

'I remember going into work at Nevill Hall, and one of the jobs I
had to do regularly was clearing out the air ducts which I now know
were full of asbestos.

'The only equipment I was given was a torch -- nobody wore
protective masks. After I'd finished, I'd just brush the dust off
my clothes and clean myself up as much as I could.'

Father-of-three Mr Churches, from Abergavenny, retired in 2010 but
his health soon began to deteriorate and he was diagnosed with
mesothelioma in June 2017.

He said: 'When you retire you think, 'Now I'm comfortable and I can
do the things I want to do', but mesothelioma starts later in life,
and it lay dormant for years without me knowing.

'The diagnosis was devastating for all of us. I'd always been in
good health and I'd never smoked. I'd taken it in good faith that
the environments I worked in were safe.'

Mr Churches is now undergoing immunotherapy treatment in the hope
it could improve the length and quality of his life. The treatment
is not currently available on the NHS.

He said: 'That's why it was so disappointing that when I most
needed the NHS, there wasn't any help available for me.

'I was only given chemotherapy, but this was never going to get rid
of the mesothelioma. I'm not ready to give up. I want more time
with my wife, children and grandchildren.'

'I've been awarded some financial compensation, but money isn't
everything. We might use some of it to go on holiday -- it's a lot
more expensive for me to go anywhere now because of the equipment I
need for my lungs -- but apart from that we'll probably use it to
help our children out financially or put it into university funds
for our grandchildren.'

'I want others like me, who were exposed to asbestos through their
work, to hear my story and realise immunotherapy is an option, so
that they have more time to spend with the people they love.'

A Welsh Government spokeswoman said: 'Mesothelioma immunotherapy is
still being developed in clinical trials and is not yet ready to be
used as a routine treatment by the NHS.'


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Remains Obliged to Indemnify Xylem at Mar. 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
Xylem Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019, that ITT Corporation (now ITT LLC) is still
obligated to indemnify the Company from liabilities associated with
asbestos matters.

The Company states, "From time to time claims may be asserted
against Xylem alleging injury caused by any of our products
resulting from asbestos exposure.  We believe there are numerous
legal defenses available for such claims and would defend ourselves
vigorously.  Pursuant to the Distribution Agreement among ITT
Corporation (now ITT LLC), Exelis and Xylem, ITT Corporation (now
ITT LLC) has an obligation to indemnify, defend and hold Xylem
harmless for asbestos product liability matters, including
settlements, judgments, and legal defense costs associated with all
pending and future claims that may arise from past sales of ITT's
legacy products.  We believe ITT Corporation (now ITT LLC) remains
a substantial entity with sufficient financial resources to honor
its obligations to us.

"As part of our 2011 spin-off from our former parent, ITT
Corporation (now ITT LLC), Exelis Inc. and Xylem will indemnify,
defend and hold harmless each of the other parties with respect to
such parties' assumed or retained liabilities under the
Distribution Agreement and breaches of the Distribution Agreement
or related spin agreements.  The former parent's indemnification
obligations include asserted and unasserted asbestos and silica
liability claims that relate to the presence or alleged presence of
asbestos or silica in products manufactured, repaired or sold prior
to October 31, 2011, the Distribution Date, subject to limited
exceptions with respect to certain employee claims, or in the
structure or material of any building or facility, subject to
exceptions with respect to employee claims relating to Xylem
buildings or facilities.  The indemnification associated with
pending and future asbestos claims does not expire.  Xylem has not
recorded a liability for material matters for which we expect to be
indemnified by the former parent or Exelis Inc. through the
Distribution Agreement and we are not aware of any claims or other
circumstances that would give rise to material payments from us
under such indemnifications.

"On May 29, 2015, Harris Inc. acquired Exelis.  As the parent of
Exelis, Harris Inc. is responsible for Exelis's indemnification
obligations under the Distribution Agreement."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/dXSMhU


ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Suit Sent Back to Mass. State Court
--------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reported that a federal judge remanded a woman's
asbestos-related lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson to Massachusetts
state court, rejecting the company's argument that the case belongs
in federal court because it is connected to a bankruptcy proceeding
involving J&J's talc supplier, Imerys.

The Defendants removed the case pursuant to federal "related to"
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1452(a) and 1334(b).

The Court strongly questioned whether Johnson & Johnson has carried
its burden of demonstrating "related to" jurisdiction for the
reasons articulated by Judge Sorokin in a related remanded action.
See Mem. & Order at 4-5, Rivera, No. 19-cv-10747-LTS (D. Mass. May
31, 2019) (remanding related case for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction).  Specifically, that Imerys apparently disputes
indemnification and the existence of shared insurance suggests that
the present lawsuit would not "affect [Imerys'] bankruptcy without
the intervention of yet another lawsuit," thereby defeating
"related to" jurisdiction under long-standing case law.  The Court
found it unnecessary for the Court to resolve these factual and
legal issues, however, because equity counsels remand here.

To determine whether equitable grounds exist, courts consider the
following factors: (1) the effect of the action on the
administration of the bankruptcy estate; (2) the extent to which
issues of state law predominate; (3) the difficulty of applicable
state law; (4) comity; (5) the relatedness or remoteness of the
action to the bankruptcy case; (6) the existence of a right to a
jury trial; and (7) prejudice to the party involuntarily removed
from state court.

The Court ruled that consideration of these factors strongly weighs
in favor of remand:

   -- First, trying this case in Superior Court in Massachusetts
will not impact the efficient administration of Imerys' bankruptcy
estate.

   -- Second, state law issues predominate because the Complaint
asserts only state-law claims.

   -- Third, although the state law to be applied in this action is
only of moderate difficulty, "comity counsels in favor of
state-court resolution of state-law claims."

   -- Fourth, Plaintiff's case is only remotely related to the
Imerys bankruptcy proceeding.

   -- Finally, removal will cause significant prejudice to
Plaintiff where her case was nearly trial-ready in Superior Court
after pending for almost two years.

The Plaintiff is slated to have a December 4, 2019 trial date,
which is significantly sooner than any trial would occur were the
Plaintiff's case heard in Delaware, and that trial will be presided
over by Judge Heidi Brieger, who oversees the Asbestos Litigation
docket and therefore has deep familiarity with this case and others
like it.  For these reasons, the Plaintiff's case is best resolved
in the Superior Court.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion to remand is granted.  This
action is remanded to the Massachusetts Superior Court for
Middlesex County.

The case is LORRAINE O'RIORDEN, Plaintiff, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et
al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 19-cv-10751-ADB (D. Mass.).

A full-text copy of the Memorandum and Order penned by Judge
Allison D. Burroughs is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2t6v9hb
from Leagle.com.

Lorraine O'Riorden, Plaintiff, represented by Leah M. McMorris ,
Thornton Law Firm LLP, Andrea Marino Landry , Thornton Law Firm
LLP, David Bricker, Esq. -- dbricker@tenlaw.com -- Thornton Law
Firm, Evan R. Hoffman, Esq. -- ehoffman@tenlaw.com -- Thornton Law
Firm LLP & Leslie-Anne Taylor, Thornton Law Firm LLP.

Johnson & Johnson & Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., Defendants,
represented by Daniel P. McCarthy, Esq. -- dmccarthy@mgmlaw.com --
Manning Gross Massenburg LLP & Marisa K. Pearson, Esq. --
mpearson@mgmlaw.com -- Manning Gross Massenburg LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Deliberating in Calif. Woman's Talc Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Terri Oppenheimer, writing for Mesothelioma.net, reported that in
defending Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder from accusations of
selling talc-based products contaminated with asbestos the
company's attorneys claimed that Patricia Schmitz's mesothelioma
arose spontaneously.  This totally belies all previous
understanding of the fatal disease's origin.

The occasion for the claim was closing arguments in Mrs. Schmitz's
mesothelioma lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson and
Colgate-Palmolive.  Over the past seven weeks, attorneys
representing the 61-year-old former teacher have provided evidence
that the companies were aware that their product contained asbestos
and provided no warnings to the public, and that her 40 years of
talc powder use is what caused her asbestos-related disease.  With
her physicians testifying that she is unlikely to survive the
summer and that she has endured tremendous pain and hardships, she
is seeking compensation for her medical costs, pain and suffering.

Mrs. Schmitz is not alone in her accusations against Johnson &
Johnson's: there have already been several mesothelioma and ovarian
cancer lawsuits heard across the country, with a New York woman
being awarded $325 million in compensatory and punitive damages. A
group of 22 women diagnosed with ovarian cancer was awarded over $4
billion in damages, and there are over 14,000 similar lawsuits
pending against the company. Much of the evidence presented
included internal company documents that referenced concern about
asbestos in the product. Johnson & Johnson has not only denied
those claims, but has also attacked the expert witnesses who have
identified asbestos in their products, as well as providing the
novel argument that Mrs. Schmitz's body spontaneously generated
malignant mesothelioma.

David Siegel, writing for Courtroom View Network, reported that the
California state court jury began deliberations in the first
lawsuit to go to trial involving claims that asbestos allegedly
present in both Colgate-Palmolive's and Johnson & Johnson's
cosmetic talc products caused a woman's fatal cancer.

Schmitz's attorney Joseph Satterley of Kazan Mcclain Satterley &
Greenwood, told jurors during his closing argument that evidence
shown during the trial proved both companies knew their talc
products contained asbestos but didn't warn their customers.

"To continue to sell for years and years a product knowing there is
a cancer risk is not reasonable," Satterley said.

Satterley also represented the plaintiff in the only other J&J talc
case to go to trial in Alameda County, which ended earlier this
year with a $35 million verdict.

J&J attorney Alex Calfo of King & Spalding slammed the scientific
underpinning of the plaintiffs case, arguing Schmitz's mesothelioma
is naturally occurring.

"Not one published study concluded talc causes mesothelioma," Calfo
said, while also calling into question the credibility of the
plaintiff's experts. "Not one single plaintiff witness said Johnson
& Johnson baby powder had asbestos until they were hired by
plaintiff lawyers."

Two other cosmetic talc cases reached a verdict during the
long-running trial.

On May 31 the first J&J talc trial in New York City ended in a $325
million verdict, including $300 million in punitive damages.

Another trial in South Carolina, the third J&J talc trial in the
state so far, ended last month in a defense verdict after just a
few hours of jury deliberations.

Numerous other cosmetic talc cases throughout the country were
slated for trial in recent weeks, but the defendants sought
removals to federal court due to the recent bankruptcy of Imerys,
J&J's talc supplier.

They argue cosmetic talc claims should be consolidated in federal
court in Delaware where Imerys bankruptcy proceedings will play
out, but to date federal judges have largely rejected that position
and remanded numerous cases to state courts.

While the removal delay scuttled a number of trial dates, a few
cases are potentially going forward in the coming weeks. A case
involving J&J could begin in early July in New Jersey, followed by
what will be the first cosmetic talc case in Georgia that same
month.

The current case in California  is captioned Patricia Schmitz v.
Johnson & Johnson, et al, case number RG18923615 in Alameda County
Superior Court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Has $889,000 Liability at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation's subsidiary, Magnetek, recorded
approximately US$889,000 for asbestos-related liability as of March
31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March
31, 2019.

The Company states, "Magnetek has been named, along with multiple
other defendants, in asbestos-related lawsuits associated with
business operations previously acquired but which are no longer
owned.  During Magnetek's ownership, none of the businesses
produced or sold asbestos-containing products.  For such claims,
Magnetek is uninsured and either contractually indemnified against
liability, or contractually obligated to defend and indemnify the
purchaser of these former business operations.  The Company
aggressively seeks dismissal from these proceedings.  Based on
actuarial information, the asbestos related liability including
legal costs is estimated to be approximately US$889,000 which has
been reflected as a liability in the consolidated financial
statements at March 31, 2019."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/7aJOUW


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Still Defends Claims at April 30
----------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation continues to defend itself
against asbestos claims related to its facilities and older vehicle
models, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
April 30, 2019.

The Company states, "Along with other vehicle manufacturers, we
have been subject to an increased number of asbestos-related claims
in recent years.  In general, these claims relate to illnesses
alleged to have resulted from asbestos exposure from component
parts found in older vehicles, although some cases relate to the
alleged presence of asbestos in our facilities.  In these claims,
we are generally not the sole defendant, and the claims name as
defendants numerous manufacturers and suppliers of a wide variety
of products allegedly containing asbestos.

"We have strongly disputed these claims, and it has been our policy
to defend against them vigorously.  Historically, the actual
damages paid out to claimants have not been material in any year to
our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.  It
is possible that the number of these claims will continue to grow,
and that the costs for resolving asbestos related claims could
become significant in the future."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/kguxYl


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NHS Employees Exposed to Asbestos
--------------------------------------------------
Health & Safety Matters reported that Shewsbury and Telford
Hospital NHS Trust has been fined after refurbishment work
undertaken in an accommodation block at Royal Shrewsbury Hospital
exposed Trust employees and contractors to asbestos.

Telford Magistrates' Court heard how in June 2012 Trust employees
were removing fixtures and fittings from the empty flat when they
disturbed asbestos containing materials (ACMs). The Trust then
failed to take adequate measures to deal with the initial release
of asbestos, exposing other contractors who later worked in the
flat.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found
that the Trust did not properly record ACM on their estate. The
Trust had arrangements in place to manage asbestos, however, the
overall management plan for dealing with asbestos was not recorded
in a clear and concise manner or effectively communicated to its
employees and contractors working on site.

The Trust had insufficient auditing procedures to ensure that the
arrangements contained in the policy and management plan were fully
implemented, working properly and effective. The procedures in
place upon the discovery of asbestos were inadequate and the Trust
failed to prevent re-entry into the contaminated area by other
workers.

Shrewsbury and Telford Hospitals NHS Trust of Mytton Oak Rd,
Shrewsbury pleaded guilty to two breaches of the Control of
Asbestos Regulations 2012 and fined GBP16,000 and ordered to pay
costs of GBP18,385.80.

After the hearing HSE inspector David Kivlin said: "The Trust
should have controlled this potentially lethal risk by identifying
the type, location and condition of any
asbestos-containing-materials within the accommodation block at the
Royal Shrewsbury Hospital, by implementing suitable precautions to
prevent its disturbance.

"Although there is no indication that members of the public at the
hospital were exposed as a result of the failings, asbestos related
diseases are currently untreatable and claim the lives of an
estimated 5,000 people per year in the UK.

"This prosecution should act as a reminder, not just to Hospitals
but to anyone in control of the repair and maintenance of
non-domestic premises, of the need to ensure that correct control
measures are put in place to ensure that exposure to asbestos is
prevented, so far as is reasonably practicable."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: OI Inc. Accrues $5-Bil. in 1993-2019 Period
------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois Group, Inc.'s parent company, Owens-Illinois, Inc.
("OI Inc."), has accrued a total of approximately US$5.0 billion
beginning with the initial liability of US$975 million established
in 1993 through March 31, 2019, for its asbestos-related liability
before insurance recoveries.

The Group disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019, that although OI Inc. does not conduct any
operations, it has substantial obligations related to
asbestos-related payments.  OI Inc. relies primarily on
distributions from its direct and indirect subsidiaries to meet
these obligations.

The Company states, "From 1948 to 1958, one of OI Inc.'s former
business units commercially produced and sold approximately US$40
million of a high-temperature, calcium-silicate based pipe and
block insulation material containing asbestos.  OI Inc. sold its
insulation business unit in April 1958.  OI Inc. receives claims
from individuals alleging bodily injury and death as a result of
exposure to asbestos from this product ("Asbestos Claims").  Some
Asbestos Claims are brought as personal injury lawsuits that
typically allege various theories of liability, including
negligence, gross negligence and strict liability and seek
compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages.  Predominantly,
however, Asbestos Claims are presented to OI Inc. under
administrative claims-handling agreements, which OI Inc. has in
place with many plaintiffs' counsel throughout the country
("Administrative Claims").

"Since receiving its first Asbestos Claim, as of March 31, 2019, OI
Inc. in the aggregate has disposed of approximately 400,600
Asbestos Claims at an average indemnity payment of approximately
US$10,000 per claim.  OI Inc.'s asbestos indemnity payments have
varied on a per-claim basis and are expected to continue to vary
considerably over time.  

"Asbestos-related cash payments for 2018, 2017, and 2016 were
US$105 million, US$110 million, and US$125 million, respectively.
OI Inc.'s cash payments per claim disposed (inclusive of legal
costs) were approximately US$86,000, US$83,000 and US$71,000 for
the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017, and 2016, respectively.

"OI Inc.'s objective is to achieve, where possible, resolution of
Asbestos Claims pursuant to claims-handling agreements.  Failure of
claimants to meet certain medical and product exposure criteria in
claims-handling agreements generally has reduced the number of
claims that would otherwise have been received by OI Inc. in the
tort system.  In addition, changes in jurisdictional dynamics,
legislative acts, asbestos docket management and procedures, the
substantive law, the co-defendant pool, and other external factors
have affected lawsuit volume, claim volume, qualification rates,
claim values, and related matters.  Collectively, these variables
generally have had the effect of increasing OI Inc.'s per-claim
average indemnity payment over time.

"Beginning with the initial liability of US$975 million established
in 1993, OI Inc. has accrued a total of approximately US$5.0
billion through March 31, 2019, before insurance recoveries, for
its asbestos-related liability.  OI Inc.'s estimates of its
liability have been significantly affected by, among other factors,
the volatility of asbestos-related litigation in the United States,
the significant number of co-defendants that have filed for
bankruptcy, changes in mortality rates, the inherent uncertainty of
future disease incidence and claiming patterns against OI Inc., the
significant expansion of the types of defendants that are now sued
in this litigation, and the continuing changes in the extent to
which these defendants participate in the resolution of cases in
which OI Inc. is also a defendant.

"OI Inc. continues to monitor trends that may affect its ultimate
liability and analyze the developments and variables likely to
affect the resolution of Asbestos Claims against OI Inc. The
material components of OI Inc.'s total accrued liability are
determined by OI Inc. in connection with its annual comprehensive
legal review and consist of the following estimates, to the extent
it is probable that such liabilities have been incurred and can be
reasonably estimated: (i) the liability for Asbestos Claims already
asserted against OI Inc.; (ii) the liability for Asbestos Claims
not yet asserted against OI Inc.; and (iii) the legal defense costs
estimated to be incurred in connection with the Asbestos Claims
already asserted and those Asbestos Claims OI Inc. believes will be
asserted.

"OI Inc. conducts an annual comprehensive legal review of its
asbestos-related liabilities and costs in connection with
finalizing and reporting its annual results of operations, unless
significant changes in trends or new developments warrant an
earlier review.  As part of its annual comprehensive legal review,
OI Inc. provides historical Asbestos Claims' data to a third party
with expertise in determining the impact of disease incidence and
mortality on future filing trends to develop information to assist
OI Inc. in estimating the total number of future Asbestos Claims
likely to be asserted against OI Inc. OI Inc. uses this estimate,
along with an estimation of disposition costs and related legal
costs, as inputs to develop its best estimate of its total probable
liability.  If the results of the annual comprehensive legal review
indicate that the existing amount of the accrued liability is lower
(higher) than its reasonably estimable asbestos-related costs, then
OI Inc. will record an appropriate charge (credit) to OI Inc.'s
results of operations to increase (decrease) the accrued
liability."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/d6aZ9N


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp., Units Still Face Suits at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Olin Corporation and its subsidiaries remain defendants in legal
proceedings on alleged asbestos exposures, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "We, and our subsidiaries, are defendants in
various other legal actions (including proceedings based on alleged
exposures to asbestos) incidental to our past and current business
activities.  As of March 31, 2019, December 31, 2018 and March 31,
2018, our condensed balance sheets included accrued liabilities for
these legal actions of US$15.8 million, US$15.6 million and US$13.3
million, respectively.  These liabilities do not include costs
associated with legal representation.

"Based on our analysis, and considering the inherent uncertainties
associated with litigation, we do not believe that it is reasonably
possible that these legal actions will materially adversely affect
our financial position, cash flows or results of operations.

"In connection with the October 5, 2015 acquisition of Dow's U.S.
Chlor Alkali and Vinyl, Global Chlorinated Organics and Global
Epoxy businesses, the prior owner of the businesses retained
liabilities related to litigation to the extent arising prior to
October 5, 2015."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/DYwOfp


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Defends 1,070 Suits at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois Group, Inc.'s parent company, Owens-Illinois, Inc.
("OI Inc."), had approximately 1,070 asbestos lawsuits pending as
of March 31, 2019, according to the Group's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2019.

Although OI Inc. does not conduct any operations, it has
substantial obligations related to asbestos-related payments.  OI
Inc. relies primarily on distributions from its direct and indirect
subsidiaries to meet these obligations.

The Group states, "From 1948 to 1958, one of OI Inc.'s former
business units commercially produced and sold approximately US$40
million of a high-temperature, calcium-silicate based pipe and
block insulation material containing asbestos.  OI Inc. sold its
insulation business unit in April 1958.  OI Inc. receives claims
from individuals alleging bodily injury and death as a result of
exposure to asbestos from this product ("Asbestos Claims").  Some
Asbestos Claims are brought as personal injury lawsuits that
typically allege various theories of liability, including
negligence, gross negligence and strict liability and seek
compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages.

"Predominantly, however, Asbestos Claims are presented to OI Inc.
under administrative claims-handling agreements, which OI Inc. has
in place with many plaintiffs' counsel throughout the country
("Administrative Claims").  Administrative Claims require
evaluation and negotiation regarding whether particular claimants
qualify under the criteria established by the related
claims-handling agreements.  The criteria for Administrative Claims
include verification of a compensable illness and a reasonable
probability of exposure to a product manufactured by OI Inc.'s
former business unit during its manufacturing period ending in
1958.  Plaintiffs' counsel present, and OI Inc. negotiates,
Administrative Claims under these various agreements in differing
quantities, at different times, and under a variety of conditions.

"As of March 31, 2019, OI Inc. had approximately 1,070 asbestos
lawsuits pending.  These pending lawsuits do not include an
estimate of potential Administrative Claims that may be presented
under a claims-handling agreement due to the uncertainties around
presentation timing, quantities, or qualification rates.  OI Inc.
considers Administrative Claims to be filed and disposed when they
are accepted for payment."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/d6aZ9N


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chemical Unit Defends Suits at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Quaker Chemical Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2019, that the Company currently estimates
its subsidiary's total liability over the next 50 years for
existing and anticipated future asbestos-related claims to be
approximately US$1.7 million (excluding costs of defense).

The Company states, "The Company previously disclosed in its Annual
Report filed on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018 that
an inactive subsidiary of the Company that was acquired in 1978
sold certain products containing asbestos, primarily on an
installed basis, and is among the defendants in numerous lawsuits
alleging injury due to exposure to asbestos.

"During the three months ended March 31, 2019, there have been no
significant changes to the facts or circumstances of this
previously disclosed matter, aside from on-going claims, immaterial
settlements and routine payments associated with this litigation.

"Based on a continued analysis of the existing and anticipated
future claims against this subsidiary, it is currently projected
that the subsidiary's total liability over the next 50 years for
these claims is approximately US$1.7 million (excluding costs of
defense)."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/uiUD5k


ASBESTOS UPDATE: San Diego Firefighters Exposed to Asbestos
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jane Mundy, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that
hundreds of firefighters exposed to asbestos for nearly two decades
at a training facility might be eligible for asbestos compensation
in the future.

San DiegoUntil last summer, San Diego firefighters were training in
a facility built with asbestos. Because their training activities
involving breaching walls and doors, some firefighters were exposed
to asbestos for hundreds of hours over two decades. Now almost
1,000 firefighters have filed documents to ensure their right to
financial compensation for asbestos cancer.

San Diego Fire Fighters File Asbestos LawsuitFortunately, no active
or retired firefighters have been diagnosed with asbestos-related
cancer and no asbestos lawsuits have been filed -- yet. Rather,
firefighters have filed documents just in case anyone gets sick.
Jesse Connor, union president, said it is just a form that all
employees can submit to risk management to officially record that
they had some type of minor injury or exposure.

Asbestos exposure is far from minor. First responders were
constantly exposed to asbestos in floors, ceilings and walls
without knowing they were at risk for this deadly disease --
asbestos mesothelioma. But some "officials" knew the buildings
contained asbestos and the health hazards they posed, according to
NBC 7 News.

FIREFIGHTER ASBESTOS RISK IGNORED

Thousands of first responders face an added, avoidable health risk.
Firefighters told the news station that they were furious when they
discovered they were exposed to asbestos -- and for such a long
time. The city responded slowly, maybe as long as 15 years to fix
the problem. An investigation by NBC 7 revealed that the fire
department was aware of asbestos risk since at least 2002, and they
"failed to act quickly and decisively to protect first responders
training at San Diego's Fire Academy."

City Councilman Chris Cate criticized city officials. He told the
San Diego Herald Tribune that the city has handled facilities for
public safety training in the "same shortsighted way it's handled
other infrastructure challenges in recent decades, that is, instead
of focusing on long-term solutions that might be more expensive,
city officials have opted for cheaper fixes that come with
problems." Another councilman said that proper facilities for
firefighter training should be a priority.

And Connor encourages retired firefighters who trained in these
facilities to join the 908 firefighters who have already signed
these documents. "If you had an exposure in that 20-plus years,
then you could potentially be eligible for some type of recovery if
you come down with symptoms," the union president said.

Research published in 2013 from the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health found that firefighters die from
certain types of cancer at higher rates than the general U.S.
population. "There were about twice as many fire fighters with
malignant mesothelioma, a rare type of cancer caused by exposure to
asbestos . . . . Exposure to asbestos while fire fighting is the
most likely explanation for this," said researchers.

Although the San Diego training facility was closed last summer --
and not until pressured by the Union, it doesn't close the book on
firefighters who are asking for long-term medical testing. And
possibly legal help should they develop asbestos-related cancer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Has 30 Claims at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Steel Partners Holdings L.P. has approximately 30
pending asbestos claims as of March 31, 2019, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "A subsidiary of BNS Holdings Liquidating Trust
("BNS Sub") has been named as a defendant in multiple alleged
asbestos-related toxic-tort claims filed over a period beginning in
1994 through March 31, 2019.  In many cases these claims involved
more than 100 defendants.  Of the claims settled, the average
settlement was less than US$3,000.  There remained approximately 30
pending asbestos claims as of March 31, 2019.  BNS Sub believes it
has significant defenses to any liability for toxic-tort claims on
the merits.  None of these toxic-tort claims has gone to trial and,
therefore, there can be no assurance that these defenses will
prevail.

"BNS Sub has insurance policies covering asbestos-related claims
for years beginning 1974 through 1988.  BNS Sub annually receives
retroactive billings or credits from its insurance carriers for any
increase or decrease in claims accruals as claims are filed,
settled or dismissed, or as estimates of the ultimate settlement
costs for the then-existing claims are revised.  As of both March
31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, BNS Sub has accrued US$1,349,000
relating to the open and active claims against BNS Sub.  This
accrual includes the amount of unpaid retroactive billings
submitted to the Company by the insurance carriers and also the
Company's best estimate of the likely costs for BNS Sub to settle
these claims outside the amounts funded by insurance.

There can be no assurance that the number of future claims and the
related costs of defense, settlements or judgments will be
consistent with the experience to-date of existing claims and that
BNS Sub will not need to significantly increase its estimated
liability for the costs to settle these claims to an amount that
could have a material effect on the consolidated financial
statements.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/JivCxt



ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Faces 12,594 Claims at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation has 12,594 unresolved asbestos-related
claims at March 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

Union Carbide states, "The Corporation is and has been involved in
a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state
courts during the past four decades.  These suits principally
allege personal injury resulting from exposure to
asbestos-containing products and frequently seek both actual and
punitive damages.  The alleged claims primarily relate to products
that UCC sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
products located on UCC's premises, and UCC's responsibility for
asbestos suits filed against a former UCC subsidiary, Amchem
Products, Inc. ("Amchem").  In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to
demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable loss as a
result of such exposure, or that injuries incurred in fact resulted
from exposure to UCC's products.

"Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue numerous defendants in individual
lawsuits or on behalf of numerous claimants.  As a result, the
damages alleged are not expressly identified as to UCC, Amchem or
any other particular defendant, even when specific damages are
alleged with respect to a specific disease or injury.  In fact,
there are no personal injury cases in which only the Corporation
and/or Amchem are the sole named defendants.  For these reasons and
based upon the Corporation's litigation and settlement experience,
the Corporation does not consider the damages alleged against it
and Amchem to be a meaningful factor in its determination of any
potential asbestos-related liability."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/39qUVd


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $1.2-Bil. Liability at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pending
and future claims and defense and processing costs was US$1,243
million at March 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

Union Carbide states, "The Corporation is and has been involved in
a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state
courts during the past four decades.  These suits principally
allege personal injury resulting from exposure to
asbestos-containing products and frequently seek both actual and
punitive damages.  The alleged claims primarily relate to products
that UCC sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
products located on UCC's premises and UCC's responsibility for
asbestos suits filed against a former UCC subsidiary, Amchem
Products, Inc. ("Amchem").  In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to
demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable loss as a
result of such exposure, or that injuries incurred in fact resulted
from exposure to the Corporation's products.

"The Corporation expects more asbestos-related suits to be filed
against UCC and Amchem in the future, and will aggressively defend
or reasonably resolve, as appropriate, both pending and future
claims.

"The Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pending and
future claims and defense and processing costs was US$1,243 million
at March 31, 2019, and approximately 17 percent of the recorded
liability related to pending claims and approximately 83 percent
related to future claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/39qUVd



                            *********

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 ***