CAR_Public/190624.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, June 24, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 125

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Woods Suit Transferred to Northern Dist. of Florida
77 GRANDVILLE: Hodges Seeks to Certify Servers & Bartenders Class
AARP INC: Court Dismisses 3rd Amended Levay Suit With Prejudice
AIR LINE PILOTS: Class of United Pilots Certified in Bishop Suit
ALASKA AIRLINES: Durkee Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices

ALLIANCE ONE RECEIVABLES: Jacobs Asserts Breach of FDCPA
ALLIED ACCOUNT: Muldowney Alleges Breach of FDCPA in New York
ALPHA BUILDING: Rios Suit Asserts Wage Theft
AMBER ROAD: Plumley Balks at Merger Deal with E2open
AMCOR RIGID: Removes Oates Suit to Eastern District of California

AMERICAN CORADIUS: Raja Files FDCPA Class Action in E.D. New York
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Villarreal et al. Sue over Data Breach
AQUANTIA CORP: Childs Sues Over Marvell Merger Deal
ARIM DROP: Honeywell Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act in Florida
ARS NATIONAL: Khatun Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York

B COMMUNICATIONS: Continues to Defend Maleeff Class Action
BA CREDIT: Settlement in Rule 23(b)(3) Class Has Initial Okay
BANK OF AMERICA: Kaymark Appeals Ruling in Hill Suit to 3rd Cir.
BERKS COUNTY, PA: King Inmates Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
BERKS COUNTY, PA: Seeks 3rd Cir. Review of Ruling in Victory Suit

BLOOM ENERGY: Discovery in Lincolnshire Police Class Suit Stayed
BRAMAN HYUNDAI: Rossano Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
BRE SELECT: Awaits Preliminary Approval of Battaglia Settlement
BRIDGETON LANDFILL: Appeals Memo & Order in Kitchin Class Suit
BRUNSWICK CORP: Robles Seeks to Certify Maintenance Workers Class

CA$INO'SSAGE: Naylor et al. Seek Unpaid Overtime Compensation
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Goldklang Suit Alleges FDCA Violations
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Appeal in Apollo-Merger Related Suit Pending
CELLULAR SALES: Holick Appeals N.D.N.Y. Decision to 2nd Circuit
CGJC HOLDINGS: Medina Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York

CHICAGO, IL: Court Denies Smith's Bid for Class Certification
CHOICE HOTELS: DiFlavis Seeks Certification of Housekeepers Class
CONCORD HOSPITALITY: Martinez Sues over Biometric Data Collection
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeals Judgment in Flushable Wipes Class Suit
CRETE CARRIER: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Gonzalez Labor Suit

CYGILANT INC: Bell Seeks OT Premium Pay for Sales Reps
DELTA AIR: Howard Fan's Labor Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
ECO SHIELD: Fanslau Moves to Certify Class of Service Technicians
ELEPHANT INSURANCE: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in Singleton Suit
ENAGIC USA: Makaron Seeks Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement

ENHANCED RECOVERY: Berryhill's Bid to Certify FDCPA Class Denied
ESSEX PROPERTY: California Court Enters Final Judgment in Giroux
EXP REALTY: Leblang Suit Asserts Invasion of Privacy
EXTELL DEVELOPMENT: Nisbett Suit Alleges ADA Violation
FACEBOOK INC: American Tiger Sues over Social Networking Monopoly

FAIRLIFE LLC: Michael Sues Over False Advertising and Labeling
FAT BRANDS: Continues to Defend Against Consolidated Rojany Suit
FIRST AMERICAN: Allowed Anyone Access to Sensitive Files, Says Suit
FIRST SOLAR: Sol. Gen. Recommends Denial of Writ in Smilovits
FLORIDA COMMUNITY: Seeks Prelim. Okay of Stewart Suit Settlement

FLORIDA: Davis Files Class Action v. DOC Officers
FLOWERS FOODS: Settlement Reached in NY Class Suit
FORSTER & GARBUS: Enderby Files FDCPA Class Action in E.D. New York
FRANKLIN-MADISON: Rodriguez Sues over Discounted Group Insurance
GATOR'S DOCKSIDE: Tiger & Fitzgerald Sue over Unwanted Phone Calls

GEICO GENERAL: Rosenberg Suit Moved to District of Florida
GILEAD SCIENCES: Teamsters Sues over Sales of HIV Drug
GLOBAL CREDIT: Aptheker Sues over Debt Collection Practices
GREENSKY INC: Class Actions over IPO Ongoing
HANJIN INTERNATIONAL: Hernandez Seeks OT Premium Pay

HEALTHRIGHT LLC: Nelson Seeks Certification of Employees Class
HENRIK VIBSKOV: Fischler Alleges Disabilities Act Violation
HERTZ CORPORATION: Kemal Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
HOPFED BANCORP: Bushansky Files Action Over Sale to First Financial
HUNGRYROOT INC: Tatum-Rios Files Class Suit under Disabilities Act

HYUNDAI CO: Elliston et al. Sue over GDI Engine Defects
I3 VERTICALS: Expert Auto Repair Litigation Concluded
ILLINOIS: Perconti Moves to Certify Class of Court Writ Inmates
INUVO INC: Accord Reached over Attorneys' Fees & Expenses
INUVO INC: Franchi Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed

IZEA WORLDWIDE: Settlement in Perez Suit Gets Preliminary Approval
JUN-YAN LLC: Hussein Seeks to Certify Class and to Notify Members
KEYTRONICEMS: Settlement in Vang Class Suit Has Final Approval
KINGSTON DATA: Lawson Alleges Violation Under FDCPA
LEXINGTON LAW: Vergara Sues over Unwanted Marketing Text Messages

LOGAN CENTERS: OT Pay Sought for Mental Health Therapists
MAMMOTH ENERGY: Cantu et al. Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
MASTERS PHARMACEUTICAL: Grand Family Sues over Unsolicited Fax Ads
MCKESSON CORP: Amended Complaint Filed in Pension Trust Fund Suit
MCKESSON CORP: Bid to Stay True Health Chiropractic Suit Denied

MDL 1916: NJ Litigants' Cert. Bid Denied in Alien Tort Litigation
MDL 2807: Alcoa v. Sonic Corp. over Data Breach Moved to Cleveland
MEHMOOD MIAHMED: Momin Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
MERCEDES BENZ: 4th Amended Ferrarri Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
MICHIGAN: Salami Moves for Certification of Parolees Class

MID VALLEY COLLECTION: Knudsen Files Class Suit Under FDCPA
MONITRONICS INT'L: Gets $4.8MM from Insurer
MOSAIC FASHIONS: Nisbett Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
NATIONAL AUTO: Shanahan Sues over Unauthorized Telephone Calls
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Hospitals Can Intervene in Mental Health Care Suit

NEW YORK: Seeks 2nd Circuit Review of Decision in Gulino Suit
NEXMO INC: Removed Giannini Case to Northern Dist. of California
NIAGARA CREDIT: Mahoney Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York
NIO INC: IPO Registration Statement Misleading, Isman Says
NIO INC: Sidoli's Securities Suit Transferred to E.D.N.Y.

NS CALLISOHO: Tatum-Rios Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
NVIDIA CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in California
NVIDIA CORP: Stein v. Mellanox Technologies Ongoing
OHR PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Khanna Class Action Still Pending
OMNICELL INC: Heard Sues over Collection of Biometric Data

OXY USA: Cooper Clark Appeals Kansas Dist. Ct. Ruling to 10th Cir.
PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Haggar et al. Sue over ADA Violations
PARKING REIT: Defending Against Nevada Class Action
PDS BIOTECHNOLOGY: Merger-Related Class Suit Dismissed
PENHALL CO: Kirtland Alleges Labor Code Violations

PINECREST MGS LLC: Wijesinha Sues Over TCPA Violation
PNS STORES: Court Denies Bid to Remand Wellons Labor Class Suit
POWER SOLUTIONS: Settlement in Giunta Suit Granted Final Approval
POWER SOLUTIONS: Treadwell Class Action Ongoing
PRECC INC: Huye Hits Misclassification, Seeks Unpaid Overtime

PURDUE PHARMA: Flint Plumbing Sues Over Opioids Misuse and Abuse
RBS CITIZENS: Reinig Seeks Certification of 10 Sub-Classes
RESHAPE LIFESCIENCES: $197,000 Settlement in Du Fully Accrued
RESTRA REALTY: Phelps Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing
SAGAL MEAT: Guinea Seeks to Recover Unpaid Min., Overtime Wages

SEAFARER RESORT: Honeywell Alleges ADA Violation in Florida
SEQUIUM ASSET: Court Denies Protective Order in Snow FDCPA Suit
SEXY HAIR: Settlement in Crane Class Suit Has Final Approval
SHUTTER.FLY INC: Miracle-Pond Sues Over BIPA Violation
SITO MOBILE: Discovery Ongoing in Roper Class Action

SKIL RESOURCE: Two Attendants Classes Certified in Hardridge Suit
SLM CORPORATION: Hunter Sues Over Unsolicited Calls, Text Messages
SNOOZE HOLDINGS: Sumrall Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
SOUTHEASTERN PIZZA: Smith Sues Over Unreimbursed Expenses
SPAR GROUP: Has $250,000 Liability from Hogan Case Settlement

SQUARETRADE INC: Swinton Seeks Final Approval of Class Suit Deal
ST. LOUIS, MO: Appeals Decision in Ahmad Suit to Eighth Circuit
STEPHEN EINSTEIN: Manashirova Files FDCPA Class Suit in New York
SUPERIOR REAL: Rodriguez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Damages
TAL EDUCATION: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Class Suit in NY Ongoing

THINKDIRECT MARKETING: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Chung Says
TRANS WORLD: Conditional Class Certification in Spack Suit Granted
TRANS WORLD: Loyalty Memberships & Subscriptions Class Suit Ongoing
TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Shupe Moves to Certify Class of Policyholders
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: O'Hanlon Suit Asserts ADA Violation

UNIVERSAL DEVELOPMENT: Burgess Alleges FACTA Violations
UQM TECHNOLOGIES: 3 Merger-Related Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
URGO HOTELS: Fischler Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Wins More Time to Object to Cert. Bid
VERU INC: July 11 Hearing on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

VICTORIA'S SECRET: Lee Seeks Overtime Pay
VILLAGE SUPER: Court Won't Review Yang Conditional Certification
VYTEK INC: Cando Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premium
WHOLESOME FACTORY: Santos et al Seek Unpaid Overtime Compensation
WILLIAMS INDUSTRIAL: Appeal in Budde Class Suit Still Pending

YOGAWORKS INC: Bid to Dismiss IPO-Related Suit Due July 23

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Woods Suit Transferred to Northern Dist. of Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JOHN P WOODS, the Plaintiff, vs 3M COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-1361 (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-01644-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 - 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



77 GRANDVILLE: Hodges Seeks to Certify Servers & Bartenders Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled SHANELL HODGES, On behalf of
herself and those similarly situated v. 77 GRANDVILLE, INC., a
Michigan profit corporation, and KRIS ELLIOTT and DAX HYLARIDES,
individuals, Case No. 1:19-cv-00081-PLM-RSK (W.D. Mich.), seeks an
order for conditional class certification and requests that notice
of this lawsuit be disseminated to the Defendants' current and
former servers and bartenders.

The Defendants own and operate a well-established restaurant and
bar in Grand Rapids, Michigan.  They pay the servers and bartenders
the tipped minimum wage, but do not pay the servers and bartenders
for all the hours they work.  They also require servers and
bartenders to share tips with non-tipped employees, the Plaintiff
asserts.

Ms. Hodges contends that the action arises from a "generally
applicable rule, policy, or practice" pursuant to Section 216(b) of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradley K. Glazier, Esq.
          Robert M. Howard, Esq.
          BOS & GLAZIER, P.L.C.
          990 Monroe Avenue, N.W.
          Grand Rapids, MI 49503
          Telephone: (616) 458-6814
          E-mail: bglazier@bosglazier.com
                  rhoward@bosglazier.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeffrey G. Muth, Esq.
          Matthew M. O'Rourke, Esq.
          MILLER, JOHNSON, SNELL & CUMMISKEY, P.L.C.
          45 Ottawa Avenue, S.W., Suite 1100
          Grand Rapids, MI 49503
          Telephone: (616) 831-1700
          E-mail: muthjg@millerjohnson.com
                  orourkem@millerjohnson.com


AARP INC: Court Dismisses 3rd Amended Levay Suit With Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SIMON LEVAY, JUDITH WILLIS, and LIONEL BROWN,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. AARP, INC., AARP SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1 through
60, Defendants, Case No. 17-09041 DDP (PLAx) (C.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California granted the Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint, and dismissed with
prejudice the Third Amended Complaint.

The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action challenging the
Defendants' marketing and endorsement of insurance policies.  The
Plaintiffs are AARP members who allege to have joined and paid to
be AARP members after being induced through unlawful, misleading
and/or unfair representations of products, services and
endorsements by AARP and/or concealment of AARP's unlawful 'for
profit' business activities.

The Plaintiffs claim that AARP's endorsement of insurance policies
is misleading because it induced them and others to join AARP under
the misrepresentation and guise of advocating for the interests of
seniors in terms of AARP's services when, in fact, AARP's primary
purposes and functions have become to generate gross and excessive
profits for Defendant ASI and its for-profit business partners.
They allege that AARP targeted them with for-profit endorsements,
and that AARP's stamp of approval is only a stamp indicating the
winner of a bidding war.  The Plaintiffs allege that they placed
their trust in the AARP name, while AARP sold their name to the
highest-bidding insurance companies.

The Plaintiffs suffered a loss of money and/or property caused by
their justifiable and detrimental reliance on AARP's
misrepresentations, specifically, they claim to have lost their
payment of member fees to join and/or renew their memberships with
AARP.  The Plaintiffs bring suit against the Defendants alleging
(1) violations of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and
(2) violations of California's False Advertising Law ("FAL").

The Court previously dismissed the First and Second Amended
Complaints and allowed leave to amend.  In the Second Amended
Complaint, the Court identified the Plaintiffs' theory of false and
misleading advertisements as the following: AARP represented that
it endorsed the insurance policies, even though its endorsement did
not mean that those insurance policies were vetted as Superior.
The Court reviewed the complaint for UCL statutory standing and
concluded that "AARP's endorsement was a material fact and that
reasonable consumers could have been misled about the endorsement.
In dismissing the Second Amended Complaint, the Court granted leave
to amend only to (1) allege a viable theory of injury that
corresponded with the measure of damages sought, namely, the cost
of the AARP membership fees, and (2) to sufficiently plead fraud
pursuant to Rule 9(b).

The Defendants now move to dismiss the TAC under Rule 12(b)(6) and
Rule 9(b).

The Defendants argue that the TAC does not allege any statements by
AARP, only advertisements run by United Healthcare and New York
Life.  Magistarte Judge Pregerson disagrees.  He discerns two
alleged AARP representations.  The representations are, (1)
solicitations and ads from AARP in which it represents its status
and role as an advocate for seniors, and (2) the AARP endorsements
on United and New York Life insurance advertisements.  He finds
that the Plaintiffs have identified representations made by AARP.

Next, the Plaintiffs' primary allegation is essentially that the
AARP endorsement represented a promise that the endorsed products
were the "best for seniors."  The Magistrate concludes that the
word "best" in the context of the case is vague.  He further notes
that the Third Amended Complaint does not define what is meant by
this term or what characteristics would make the insurance products
"best for seniors."  The alleged implied representation that
endorsed products are "the best" is not an actionable
representation. Construing the facts in the light most favorable to
the Plaintiffs, he finds that the allegations do not state a claim
for relief.

To the extent that the Plaintiffs also allege that AARP
misrepresented its non-profit status and advocacy role, they fail
to connect this alleged fraudulent conduct with any injury they may
have suffered.  The only viable injury the Plaintiffs allege is
their payment of membership fees.  They do not appear to allege
that they joined AARP based on its non-profit status, but rather,
because they believed AARP's endorsements represented "the best
[products] for seniors.  In any event, receiving revenue is not
necessarily inconsistent with being an advocate for seniors and
endorsing products for seniors.  The Judge concludes that the
alleged representation that AARP's endorsements were selected
irrespective of profits does not adequately state a claim for
relief.

The Plaintiffs have similarly failed to articulate the who, what,
when, where, and how of the alleged misconduct.  They do not
provide any representative ads containing the first alleged
misrepresentation.  They also do not specifically allege which of
the advertisements in Paragraph 27, advertisements showing the AARP
endorsement, they viewed and relied on, or through which channels
they viewed the endorsements.  They only generally allege that they
saw the solicitations and ads from AARP which appear like the ones
set forth in Paragraph 27.  The Plaintiffs are required to provide
allegations of when they joined, what material they found important
in their decision to join AARP, what that material represented to
support their alleged beliefs of the endorsements, and how that
representation was false.  The Magistrate finds that the Plaintiffs
have not met the particularity requirements of Rule 9(b).

The Plaintiffs have had ample opportunity to properly plead their
claims and have failed to do so.  The Magistrate holds that the
Court has twice dismissed with leave to amend and has instructed
the Plaintiffs to plead with particularity as required under Rule
9(b).  A court's discretion to deny leave to amend is
'particularly' broad where the plaintiff has previously amended.
Therefore, the he denied further leave to amend.

Based on the foregoing, Magistrate Judge Pregerson granted the
motion to dismiss.  The Third Amended Complaint is dismissed with
prejudice.

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

Simon Levay, Judith Willis & Lionel Brown, Individually and on
Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, represented
by
Alan I. Schimmel -- aischimmel@spattorneys.com -- Schimmel and
Parks APLC, Arash Homampour -- arash@homampour.com -- Homampour
Law
Firm PLC, Danielle Nicole Lincors -- Danielle@homanpour.com --
Homampour Law Firm &Michael W. Parks -- mwparks@spattorneys.com --
Schimmel and Parks APLC.

AARP, Inc. & AARP Services, Inc., Defendants, represented by Sarah
Beth Burwick -- sarah.burwick@bclplaw.com -- Bryan Cave Leighton
Paisner LLP, Jeffrey S. Russell -- jsrussell@bclplaw.com -- Bryan
Cave LLP, pro hac vice & John W. Amberg -- jwamberg@bclplaw.com --
Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP.


AIR LINE PILOTS: Class of United Pilots Certified in Bishop Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on May 29, 2019, in the case entitled
David Bishop, et al. v. Air Line Pilots Association, International,
Case No. 1:13-cv-06243 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held
before the Honorable Gary Feinerman.

The minute entry states that:

   -- for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
      Opinion and Order, the Defendant's motion to strike class
      allegations and amend its answer is granted in part (as to
      amending the Defendant's answer to assert a statute of
      limitations defense) and denied in part (as to striking the
      amended complaint's class allegations); and

   -- Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is granted.

The class is defined as:

    "All United pilots who, during any part of the period from
     January 1, 2010 through December 18, 2012, worked as a
     United pilot instructor."

According to the Minute Entry, the claim to be tried is whether
ALPA breached its duty of fair representation to the pilot
instructors in its allocation of the $225 million of retroactive
pay provided to United pilots.

Plaintiffs David Bishop and Eric Lish are appointed as class
representatives.  Pursuant to Rule 23(g), Myron M. Cherry and Jacie
C. Zolna of Myron M. Cherry & Associates, LLC, are appointed as
class counsel.

The parties shall confer regarding class notice and shall file a
status report with their joint proposal or competing
proposals.[CC]


ALASKA AIRLINES: Durkee Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Durkee, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-01071-AJB-JLB (S.D. Cal., June 7, 2019) is a putative class
action involving Alaska's solicitation of the sale of travel
insurance products to its passengers.

At the point of air travel purchase on its website, Alaska strongly
encourages its passengers to purchase the travel insurance from its
"preferred provider" Allianz Global Assistance ("AGA"), a
subsidiary of Allianz SE. Indeed, a prospective Alaska passenger
cannot purchase a ticket from Alaska without affirmatively electing
to purchase or to decline the travel insurance product through AGA.
When the Alaska passenger agrees to purchase the travel insurance
product at checkout on Alaska's website the purchase price,
although paid through Alaska,  is set out as a distinct line item
on the purchaser's credit card statement. This directly contrasts
with the base fare and other related add-ons, such as seat
upgrades, which are provided by Alaska and are included in the
total amount charged by Alaska.

Accordingly, a reasonable Alaska passenger like Plaintiff is given
the impression that, although payment is being made through Alaska
as the passenger's agent, the travel insurance product is being
purchased from AGA at the pass-through cost. Then this turns out,
is very much a false impression. Unbeknownst to the purchaser, the
price of the travel insurance product is materially increased to
fund the payment of an undisclosed commission or kickback to
Alaska. Nowhere does Alaska disclose in the ticket contract on its
website that the purchase price of the ravel insurance product
includes a payment to Alaska.

Alternatively, Alaska's receipt of the undisclosed remuneration on
the travel insurance products constitutes and unfair and deceptive
business practice, warranting restitution under the California's
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") in the amount of such undisclosed
kickbacks, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Andrea Durkee is a resident of the state of California.

Alaska Airlines is a Delaware Corporation and subsidiary of Alaska
Air Group, Inc., with its headquarters and principal place of
business in Seattle, Washington.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     MANFRED P. MUECKE, ESQ.
     PATRICIA N. SYVERSON, ESQ.
     BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
     600 W. Broadway, Suite 900
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 798-4593
     Fax: (602) 274-1199
     Email: mmuecke@bffb.com
            psyverson@bffb.com

          - and -

     Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
     Francis J. Balint, Jr., Esq.
     BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
     2325 E. Camelback Rd. Suite 300
     Phoenix, AZ 85016
     Phone: (602) 274-1100
     Fax: (602) 274-1199
     Email: afriedman@bffb.com
            fbalint@bffb.com

          - and -

     Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
     Howard M. Bushman, Esq.
     Joseph M. Kaye, Esq.
     THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
     2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
     Coral Gables, FL 33134
     Phone: (305) 740-1423
     Email: adam@moskowitz-law.com
            howard@moskowitz-law.com
            joseph@moskowitz-law.com


ALLIANCE ONE RECEIVABLES: Jacobs Asserts Breach of FDCPA
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alliance One
Receivables Management, Inc. The case is styled as Gariel V.
Jacobs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Alliance One Receivables Management, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-03447 (E.D. N.Y., June 11, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

AllianceOne Receivables Management , Inc. (ARM) is a third-party
collection agency based in Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David M. Barshay, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 706-5055
   Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com

      - and -

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com




ALLIED ACCOUNT: Muldowney Alleges Breach of FDCPA in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allied Account
Services Inc. The case is styled as Matthew Muldowney, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Allied
Account Services Inc., Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00692-GLS-TWD
(N.D. N.Y., June 11, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Allied Account Services Inc is a debt collection agency located in
Bellmore, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza-Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com



ALPHA BUILDING: Rios Suit Asserts Wage Theft
--------------------------------------------
Martha Rios, Juana Rodriguez, Luis Martinez, Maria Martinez, Rosa
Pinedo, Silvia Ruiz, Miriam Padilla, Patricia Vazquez and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ALPHA BUILDING MAINTENANCE
SERVICE, INC. and WAYNE BAXTROM, Defendants, Case No. 2019CH07021
(Circuit Ct., Cook Cty., Ill., June 11, 2019) is a class action
suit
to vindicate Plaintiffs rights under the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act.

The Defendants operate a janitorial business that provides cleaning
services to various buildings, including schools and universities.
The Defendants have a contract with the Board of Education for
School District 15l in South Holland to provide cleaning services
in the schools. The current contract began August 1, 2018 and
expires on July 3, 2021.

Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as Employees under the District
151 contract cleaning three schools within the district.

Plaintiffs were all victims of wage theft arising out of their
employment for Defendants, says the complaint. These acts of wage
theft include regularly forcing workers to work through unpaid
lunch breaks while requiring them to still clock out, failing to
pay some paychecks and failing to pay a premium wage for jobs
outside their normal duties as required by the contract.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Deanne Medina, Esq.
     Community Activism Law Alliance
     17 N State St, Suite 1380
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 999-0056


AMBER ROAD: Plumley Balks at Merger Deal with E2open
----------------------------------------------------
PATRICK PLUMLEY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. AMBER ROAD, INC., JAMES W. PREUNINGER,
BARRY M. V. WILLIAMS, PAMELA F. CRAVEN, RALPH FAISON, RUDY C.
HOWARD, EAGLE PARENT HOLDINGS LLC, CHICAGO MERGER SUB, INC., and
E2OPEN, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01053-UNA (D. Del.,
June 6, 2019),  alleges that the Defendants violated Sections
14(e), 14(d), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the Solicitation Statement.

The action stems from a proposed transaction announced on May 13,
2019, pursuant to which Amber Road, Inc. will be acquired by Eagle
Parent Holdings, LLC, Chicago Merger Sub, Inc., and E2open, LLC.

On May 12, 2019, Amber Road's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with E2open. Pursuant
to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub commenced a tender
offer (the "Tender Offer") to acquire all of Amber Road's
outstanding common stock for $13.05 per share in cash. The Tender
Offer is scheduled to expire on July 1, 2019.

On June 3, 2019, the defendants filed a Solicitation/Recommendation
Statement (with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission n connection with the Proposed Transaction. The
Solicitation Statement omits material information with respect to
the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Solicitation Statement
false and misleading.

Amber Road is a provider of cloud-based global trade management
software, trade content, and training that helps companies create
value through their global supply chain by improving margins,
achieving greater agility, and lowering risk.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

               - and -

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

AMCOR RIGID: Removes Oates Suit to Eastern District of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amcor Rigid Plastics USA, LLC removes the case, JAMES MARIO OATES,
as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. AMCOR RIGID PLASTICS USA, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendants,
Case No. FCS052653 (Filed April 4, 2019), was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Solano, to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on June
6, 2019. The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:19-at-00463 to the proceeding.

The complaint asserts that Defendants failed to pay all overtime
wages; minimum wage violations; meal period violations; rest period
violations; wage statement violations; waiting time penalties; and,
unfair competition. More specifically, the Plaintiff alleges Amcor
"utilized a timekeeping system which resulted in Plaintiff not
being compensated for all hours actually worked, whether by
rounding, time-shaving, or otherwise," "failed to properly
calculate Plaintiff's regular rate of pay, hereby causing Plaintiff
to be underpaid all of his required overtime wages," "failed to
provide duty-free meal periods and/or a second 30-minute meal
period when Plaintiff worked shifts over 10.0 hours," and "required
Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees to remain on Defendants'
premises during rest periods."[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Krista M. Cabrera, Esq.
          Kaleb N. Berhe, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          3579 Valley Centre Drive, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: 858 847.6700
          Facsimile: 858 792.6773
          E-mail: kcabrera@foley.com
                  kberhe@foley.com

AMERICAN CORADIUS: Raja Files FDCPA Class Action in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Coradius
International, LLC. The case is styled as AfsarThair Raja and Ahad
A Raja, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. American Coradius International, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03452 (E.D. N.Y., June 11, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

American Coradius International LLC is a full service financial
service agency representing banks and finance companies on a
national level.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   David M. Barshay, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 706-5055
   Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com

      - and -

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com


AMERICAN MEDICAL: Villarreal et al. Sue over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
ROSA VILLARREAL, KARINA GRAS and JEFFREY GROSSMAN, individually and
on behalf of all those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, INC., and LABORATORY
CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, the Defendants, Case No.
7:19-cv-05340 (S.D.N.Y., June 6, 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").

LabCorp is one of the world's providers 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. Earlier this year, LabCorp disclosed
that LabCorp Diagnostics processes "2.5 million patient specimens
each week and has laboratory locations throughout the U.S."  On
June 4, LabCorp disclosed that "AMCA has informed LabCorp that it
is in the process of sending notices to approximately 200,000
LabCorp consumers whose credit card or bank account information may
have been accessed. AMCA has not yet provided LabCorp a list of the
affected LabCorp consumers or more specific information about
them."

The AMCA breach impacted 200,000 patients, according to Gemini
Advisory (available at
https://www.databreaches.net/american-medical-collection-agency-breach-impacted-200000-patients-gemini-advisory/)
(accessed June 5, 2019). Gemini Advisory's "research revealed that
the exposure window lasted for at least seven months beginning in
September 2018." ACMA refused to answer questions from Gemini
Advisory at the time. LabCorp's June 4, 2019 SEC filing does not
indicate that it contacted AMCA about the issue at any point prior
to the filing of the complaint.

The Defendants apparently allowed hackers to access Plaintiffs' and
other Class Members' Sensitive Information for at least seven
months and did nothing to let the victims know about the Data
Breach for nearly a year after it began. Although LabCorp should
have known of the Data Breach no later than March 2019, and
although AMCA knew of it far earlier than that, neither took any
steps to notify patients whose information was affected until June
4, at which point LabCorp only did so through an SEC filing. The
Defendants had obligations, arising from promises made to patients
like Plaintiffs and other Class Members, and based on industry
standards, to keep the compromised Sensitive Information
confidential and to protect it from unauthorized disclosures. Class
Members provided their Sensitive Information to LabCorp with the
understanding that LabCorp and any business partners to whom
LabCorp disclosed the Sensitive Information would comply with their
obligations to keep such information confidential and secure from
unauthorized disclosures.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are:

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          Jennifer Scullion, Esq.
          Parvin Aminolroaya, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          77 Water Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 584-0700
          E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
                  jscullion@seegerweiss.com
                  paminolroaya@seegerweiss.com

               - 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
          E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
                  bcohen@nussbaumpc.com

               - and -

          Michael E. Criden, Esq.
          CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
          7301 SW 57th Court, Ste. 515
          South Miami, FL 33143
          Telephone: (305) 357-9000
          E-mail: mcriden@cridenlove.com

AQUANTIA CORP: Childs Sues Over Marvell Merger Deal
---------------------------------------------------
MARCUS CHILDS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. AQUANTIA CORP., FARAJ AALAEI, DMITRY
AKHANOV, BAMI BASTANI, KEN PELOWSKI, GEOFFREY G. RIBAR, SAM
SRINIVASAN, ANDERS SWAHN, LIP-BU TAN, ANTIGUA ACQUISITION CORP.,
and MARVELL TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD., Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01078-UNA (D. Del., June 10, 2019) is a class action on
behalf of the public stockholders of Aquantia Corp. against
Aquantia's Board of Directors for their violations of Section 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, arising out of
the Board's attempt to sell the Company to Marvell Technology Group
Ltd. through its wholly-owned subsidiary Antigua Acquisition Corp.
(collectively, "Marvell").

The complaint alleges that the Defendants have violated Sections of
the Exchange Act by causing a materially incomplete and misleading
preliminary proxy statement to be filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission  on May 29, 2019. The Proxy recommends that
Aquantia shareholders vote in favor of a proposed transaction
whereby Aquantia is acquired by Marvell. The Proposed Transaction
was first disclosed on May 6, 2019, when Aquantia and Marvell
announced that they had entered into a definitive merger agreement
pursuant to which Marvell will acquire all of the outstanding
shares of common stock of Aquantia for $13.25 per share. The deal
is valued at approximately $425 million and is expected to close by
the end of 2019.

A year and a half after going public, the Board agreed to the
Proposed Transaction.

However, the complaint asserts that the Proposed Transaction is the
product of a rushed process that was skewed towards Marvell. The
Company's Chief Executive Officer pressed Marvell and other
interested parties to agree to enter into an agreement by May 6,
2019, causing one party to withdraw a higher bid because the time
frame was too short. In addition, the Merger Consideration is
inadequate, failing to capture the Company's value. The Board's own
financial advisor conducted analyses that implied value ranges
above the Merger Consideration. Furthermore, the Proxy is
materially incomplete and contains misleading representations and
information in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act. Specifically, the Proxy contains materially
incomplete and misleading information concerning the sales process,
financial projections prepared by Aquantia management, and the
financial analyses conducted by Barclays Capital Inc. ("Barclays"),
Aquantia's financial advisor, says the complaint.

For these reasons, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from taking
any steps to consummate the Proposed Transaction unless and until
the material information is disseminated to Aquantia's
shareholders. In the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated
without the material omissions being remedied, Plaintiff seeks to
recover damages resulting from the Defendants' violations.

Plaintiff is the owner of shares of common stock of Aquantia.

Aquantia is a fabless semiconductor company. The Company, which was
founded in 2004, develops advanced high-speed communications
integrated circuits that are an interface between wired information
and digital information.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
     Danielle Rowland Lindahl, Esq.
     ROWLEY LAW PLLC
     50 Main Street, Suite 1000
     White Plains, NY 10606
     Phone: (914) 400-1920
     Facsimile: (914) 301-3514

          - and -

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

ARIM DROP: Honeywell Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act in Florida
------------------------------------------------------------------
Arim Drop Anchor, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Cheri Honeywell, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Arim Drop Anchor, LLC, a Florida
limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-10091-XXXX
(S.D. Fla., June 5, 2019).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
   Jessica L.Kerr, P.A. dba The Advocacy Group
   200 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 504
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 282-1858
   Fax: (844) 786-3694
   Email: service@advocacypa.com



ARS NATIONAL: Khatun Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARS National
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Afroja Khatun, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARS
National Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03450 (E.D.
N.Y., June 11, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

ARS National Services, Inc. offers accounts receivable management
services. The Company provides collection and adjustment services
on claims and other insurance related issues. ARS National Services
serves customers in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David M. Barshay, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 706-5055
   Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com

      - and -

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com



B COMMUNICATIONS: Continues to Defend Maleeff Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
B Communications Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 15, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, the court in the class action
suit initiated Lynne P. Maleeff has dismissed the complaint against
the DBS and Bezeq defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction.

On June 29, 2017, Lynne P. Maleeff commenced litigation on behalf
of a purported class of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the company's shares between March 18, 2015 and
September 6, 2017.

The original defendants were the company, Doron Turgeman (the
company's former CEO), Itzik Tadmor (the company's CFO) and Ehud
Yahalom (the company's former CFO).

On December 8, 2017, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
adding ten new defendants: Shaul Elovitch, Or Elovitch, Ron Eilon,
Stella Handler, David Mizrahi, Micky Neiman, Allon Raveh, Linor
Yochelman, DBS and Eurocom Communications.

The amended complaint alleges a single cause of action against our
company for violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that the
company made false and misleading statements and omissions in our
SEC filings.

On February 20, 2018, the company moved to dismiss the litigation
for failure to state a claim or, alternatively, to stay the
litigation pending the outcome of criminal investigations in
Israel. The company's motion to dismiss asserted that plaintiffs
failed to allege that the company had the required knowledge or
scienter about the purported wrongdoing by other defendants and
that the company did not make any materially false statements.
Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion.

The court issued a decision dated September 27, 2018 granting in
part and denying in part the company's motion to dismiss. The court
dismissed all claims against the company relating to its code of
ethics, internal controls, and compliance with laws generally and
all claims relating to the Bezeq subcommittee reviewing the
Bezeq-Yes transaction except for certain allegations relating to
statements in one particular filing and to allegations regarding
the company's statements about the company or Bezeq's free cash
flow.

The court denied the company's motion to stay without prejudice to
its ability to seek a stay in the future if circumstances change.
On July 12, 2018, motions to dismiss were filed by (1) defendants
Doron Turgeman, Itzik Tadmor, and Ehud Yahalom, all former officers
of the company, (2) Ron Eilon, Micky Neiman and DBS; and (3) Stella
Handler, Allon Raveh, Linor Yochelman, and David Mizrahi, officers
of Bezeq.

On March 28, 2019, the court concluded that the complaint failed to
allege claims against the company's executive officers for either
primary violations of the U.S. securities laws or "control person"
liability for the alleged violations by others of the U.S.
securities laws.  

The court therefore dismissed the complaint against Doron Turgeman,
Itzik Tadmor and Ehud Yahalom. The court also concluded that the
complaint failed to adequately allege personal jurisdiction against
certain executive officers of Bezeq and DBS.  

The court therefore dismissed the complaint against the DBS and
Bezeq defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction.

B Communications said, "We anticipate that the court will issue a
scheduling order shortly setting a schedule for discovery and for
the plaintiffs' motion to certify the litigation as a class
action."

B Communications Ltd., through its subsidiaries, provides a range
of telecommunications services for business and private customers
in Israel. The company was formerly known as 012 Smile.
Communications Ltd. and changed its name to B Communications Ltd.
in March 2010. B Communications Ltd. was founded in 1999 and is
based in Ramat Gan, Israel. B Communications Ltd. is a subsidiary
of Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.


BA CREDIT: Settlement in Rule 23(b)(3) Class Has Initial Okay
-------------------------------------------------------------
BA Credit Card Trust said in its Form 10-D Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 15, 2019, for the monthly
distribution period from April 1, 2019 to April 30, 2019, that the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York has
granted preliminary approval of the settlement with the putative
Rule 23(b)(3) damages class.

In 2005, a group of merchants filed a series of putative class
actions and individual actions directed at interchange fees
associated with Visa and MasterCard payment card transactions.  

These actions, which were consolidated in the District Court under
the caption In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant
Discount Anti-Trust Litigation (Interchange), named Visa,
MasterCard and several banks and bank holding companies, including
Bank of America Corporation ("BAC"), as defendants.  

Plaintiffs alleged that defendants conspired to fix the level of
default interchange rates and that certain rules of Visa and
MasterCard were unreasonable restraints of trade. Plaintiffs sought
compensatory and treble damages and injunctive relief.

On October 19, 2012, defendants reached a settlement with respect
to the putative class actions that the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit rejected.  

In 2018, defendants reached a settlement with the representatives
of the putative Rule 23(b)(3) damages class to contribute an
additional $900 million to the approximately $5.3 billion held in
escrow from the prior settlement.  

BAC's additional contribution is not material to BAC. The District
Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement with the
putative Rule 23(b)(3) damages class in January 2019.

In addition, the putative Rule 23(b)(2) class action seeking
injunctive relief is pending, and a number of individual merchant
actions continue against the defendants, including one against BAC.


BA Credit SAID, "As a result of various loss-sharing agreements,
however, BAC remains liable for a portion of any settlement or
judgment in individual suits where it is not named as a
defendant."

BA Credit Card Trust is a Delaware statutory trust structured to
allow maximum flexibility in issuance of BAseries notes. The trust
consists of receivables generated from Visa, MasterCard and
American Express revolving credit card accounts.


BANK OF AMERICA: Kaymark Appeals Ruling in Hill Suit to 3rd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Non-parties Dale Kaymark and Michael P. Malakoff filed an appeal
from a Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Frederick Hill v. Bank
of America NA, et al., Case No. 2-13-cv-00419, in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

The nature of suit is stated as other contract actions.

The appellate case is captioned as Frederick Hill v. Bank of
America NA, et al., Case No. 19-2026, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee FREDERICK J. HILL, individually and on behalf of
other similarly situated current and former homeowners in
Pennsylvania, is represented by:

          John C. Evans, Esq.
          Danielle R. Grunden, Esq.
          JC EVANS LAW
          436 Seventh Avenue
          Koppers Building, 26th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 642-2300
          E-mail: jcevans@jcevanslaw.com

Defendant-Appellee BANK OF AMERICA NA is represented by:

          Jonathan J. Bart, Esq.
          WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER, P.A.
          Two Penn Center Plaza, Suite 910
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 636-4466
          E-mail: jbart@wilentz.com

               - and -

          Andrew J. Soven, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          2929 Arch Street, Suite 800
          Philadelphia, PA 19104
          Telephone: (215) 252-9554
          E-mail: Andrew.Soven@hklaw.com

Non-Party-Appellant MICHAEL P. MALAKOFF represents himself and
Non-Party-Appellant DALE KAYMARK:

          Michael P. Malakoff, Esq.
          MICHAEL P. MALAKOFF, P.C.
          3214 Ladoga Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15204
          Telephone: (412) 281-4217
          E-mail: malakoff@mpmalakoff.com


BERKS COUNTY, PA: King Inmates Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DERRICK LAMAR KING, et al., Plaintiff, v. BERKS COUNTY
JAIL SYSTEM SUPERVISOR OFFICIALS, et al., Defendants, Civil Action
No. 19-CV-0389 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Cynthia M. Ruffe of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (1)
dismissed King without prejudice, and denied his Motion for
Appointment of Counsel; (2) granted Nuñez leave to proceed in
forma pauperis; (3) dismissed the Complaint; and (4) granted Nuñez
leave to file an amended complaint.

Plaintiffs King and Jose Enrique Nuñez filed the civil action
which raises claims on behalf of a class of inmates based on the
conditions in the Disciplinary Segregation Unit ("DSU") at the
Berks County Jail, where they are currently incarcerated.  Nuñez,
on behalf of the class, seeks a declaration that the conditions
violate the Constitution and an injunction directing Berks County
Jail officials to transfer him and other inmates on the unit to
another unit or jail.  The Complaint specifies that the inmates on
Delta Unit in particular seek this relief as well as damages.

The Complaint names the following individuals as the Defendants:
(1) Kevin S. Barnhardt, identified as overseer of the jail; (2)
Warden Quigley; (3) CDW J. Smith; (4) Russell, identified as "DW of
Operations"; (5) Smith, identified as "DW of Treatment"; (6) Cpt
Castro; and (7) Daniel Vanbilliard, identified as a hearing
officer.  All of the Defendants are named in their official
capacity.  Those individuals were named as the Defendants "due to
their supervisory rank" because they have all possible ability to
take action on the issues in this complaint but fail to do so.

The proposed class of inmates is joined by Delta-Unit;
Disciplinary; BAU; Security, and Protective Custody Statuses housed
on Disciplinary Segregation.  Based on that description of the
proposed class, it appears that the Complaint is based on
conditions of several different units within the DSU.

The Complaint challenges numerous aspects of the conditions in the
DSU.  First, the Complaint asserts a Fourth Amendment claim based
on allegations that officials at the Berks County Jail subject
inmates to an unreasonable and unjustifiable strip and visual body
cavity search when inmates arrive to the DSU.  According to the
Complaint, the strip search has nothing to do with contraband.
Second, the Complaint asserts Eighth and/or Fourteenth Amendment
claims based on deliberate indifference to inmates' serious medical
needs due to failures to provide proper mental health treatment and
dental treatment for those with dental problems, and a failure to
keep contagious inmates separate from others.  Third, the Complaint
alleges that a host of conditions within the DSU are
unconstitutional because there is insufficient ventilation in the
DSU, minimal access to showers, and the unit is infested with mice,
bugs and other unsanitary infestation.  Fourth, the Complaint
asserts that inmates are being denied their right to practice their
religion in connection with religious diets and religious services.
  Fifth, the Complaint asserts claims that that inmates in the DSU
are denied access to the law library and the courts, denied access
to the telephone, and prevented from preparing their defense in
criminal cases.

King and Nuñez also moved to proceed in forma pauperis.

In an Order entered on the docket Feb. 8, 2019, the Court denied
King and Nuñez's Motions because Nuñez failed to file a certified
copy of his prisoner account statement for the six-month period
prior to filing the civil action in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
Section 1915(a)(2), and King's statement was incomplete.  King and
Nuñez were given 30 days to return with that paperwork.  The Order
also dismissed all individuals other than King and Nuñez as the
named Plaintiffs because King and Nuñez, non-attorneys proceeding
pro se, may not represent other individuals in federal court, and
informed King and Nuñez that they may not proceed with the case as
a class action without counsel.

King moved for the appointment of counsel and the Court denied that
Motion as premature because King and Nuñez had not yet returned
with their prison account statements.  King was informed that he
could renew his motion after complying with the Court's Feb. 8,
2019 Order.  Thereafter, King and Nuñez both moved to proceed in
forma pauperis but only Nuñez provided a copy of his prisoner
account statement.  Additionally, Nuñez filed a letter relating to
all of his cases suggesting that each Defendant should have his own
counsel because he is concerned about a conflict of interest.

In an Order entered on the docket April 1, 2019, the Court gave
King another 30 days to return with a certified copy of his prison
account statement in the event he sought to proceed as a plaintiff
in th3 case.  The Order explained that the Court would hold
Nuñez's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis in abeyance to give
King time to comply with the Order and that, if King failed to
comply, he would be dismissed as a party to this case and the case
will continue with Nuñez as the only named Plaintiff.  Around the
same time, King submitted a Motion for the Appointment of Counsel,
which was received by the Court on April 5, 2019, but which is
dated April 1, 2019.

Despite having been given two opportunities to submit an up-to-date
prison account statement, King has failed to do so.  Accordingly,
Judge Ruffe dismissed him without prejudice as the named Plaintiff
to the case, and accordingly, denied his Motion for the Appointment
of Counsel.  The Judge granted Nuñez leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, and dismissed his Complaint with leave to amend.

Any amended complaint must clearly allege facts showing the
conditions to which Nuñez was subjected and must identify the
policy or custom that caused the constitutional violations at
issue.  Nuñez is reminded that he may only challenge conditions to
which he was subjected and may not challenge the conditions in
other units at the Berks County Jail or conditions on his unit to
which he was not subjected.  An appropriate Order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 14, 2019 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/0xeMeH from Leagle.com.

JOSE ENRIQUE NUNEZ, Plaintiff, pro se.


BERKS COUNTY, PA: Seeks 3rd Cir. Review of Ruling in Victory Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The County of Berks filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Theresa Victory, et al. v. County of Berks, Case
No. 5-18-cv-05170, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Mark
A. Kearney denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' renewed motion
for class certification in the lawsuit.

The Renewed Motion is denied without prejudice to be renewed under
a scheduling Order after the issues necessary to be resolved on
either an individual or class basis is defined, but nothing in the
Order affects the Plaintiffs' abilities or standing to seek
injunctive or declaratory relief as to their status, according to
the Order.

The Plaintiffs sought certification of this class:

     All current and future female inmates committed to the Berks
     County Jail System who have the Trusty custody-level
     classification and/or Work Release status but have been
     denied assignment to the Community Reentry Center ("CRC")
     and denied access to the privileges, services, and programs
     available to men assigned to the CRC.

The appellate case is captioned as Theresa Victory, et al. v.
County of Berks, Case No. 19-2193, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees THERESA VICTORY, ALICE VELAZQUEZ DIAZ, AMARA
SANDERS, SAMANTHA HUNTINGTON, ANABELL DEALBA, AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED are represented by:

          Matthew A. Feldman, Esq.
          PENNSYLVANIA INSTITUTIONAL LAW PROJECT
          718 Arch Street
          Suite 304 South
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 925-2966
          E-mail: mfeldman@pailp.org

Plaintiffs-Appellees THERESA VICTORY, ALICE VELAZQUEZ DIAZ
ANABELL DEALBA, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED are represented
by:

          Angus R. Love, Esq.
          Su Ming Yeh, Esq.
          PENNSYLVANIA INSTITUTIONAL LAW PROJECT
          718 Arch Street
          Suite 304 South
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 925-2966
          E-mail: alove@pailp.org
                  smyeh@pailp.org

Defendant-Appellant COUNTY OF BERKS is represented by:

          Matthew J. Connell, Esq.
          Samantha Ryan, Esq.
          MACMAIN LAW GROUP
          433 West Market Street, Suite 200
          West Chester, PA 19382
          Telephone: (484) 318-7106
          E-mail: mconnell@macmainlaw.com
                  SRyan@macmainlaw.com


BLOOM ENERGY: Discovery in Lincolnshire Police Class Suit Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bloom Energy Corporation 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 in the class
action suit initiated by Lincolnshire Police Pension Fund is
stayed.

In March of 2019, the Lincolnshire Police Pension fund filed a
class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Santa Clara against the company, certain
members of its senior management, certain of its directors and the
underwriters in its initial public offering alleging violations
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
for misleading statements or omissions in our Form S-1 Registration
Statement in connection with our July 25, 2018 initial public
offering.

Two related class action cases were subsequently filed in the Santa
Clara County Superior Court against the same defendants containing
the same allegations; Rodriquez vs Bloom Energy et al was filed on
April 22, 2019 and Evan vs Bloom Energy et al. was filed on May 7,
2019.

Bloom Energy said, "As related cases, we expect they will be
consolidated and a case management schedule set. Discovery is
currently stayed."

Bloom Energy Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells
solid-oxide fuel cell systems for on-site power generation. The
company was formerly known as Ion America Corp. and changed its
name to Bloom Energy Corporation in September 2006. Bloom Energy
Corporation was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in San Jose,
California.


BRAMAN HYUNDAI: Rossano Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LAURA ROSSANO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BRAMAN HYUNDAI, INC., a Florida
corporation, MAJOR ADVERTISING LLC, a Florida Limited Liability
Company, and THE STRATICS GROUP, INC., a foreign corporation, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-22327-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 6, 2019),
alleges that Defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, by making unsolicited prerecorded telemarketing calls in
violation of consumers' privacy rights.

Braman -- one of the largest automotive retailers in South Florida
-- knew that it was prohibited by the TCPA from contacting
consumers on their cellular telephones with prerecorded marketing
calls, without their prior express written consent. Nevertheless,
in an obvious attempt to circumvent the TCPA, Braman purchased
private personal contact information of South Florida consumers
from Alesco Data Group, a grey-market data broker, and directed
Major to transmit unsolicited "ringless" voicemails to Plaintiff
and approximately 62,000 other consumers to promote its dealership.


Put simply, Braman's marketing model of purchasing private consumer
data from the grey market and then placing unsolicited marketing
calls to those consumers is exactly why Americans received 48
billion robocalls in 2018, or 1,500 robocalls per second. It also
finally answers the age-old question: "how did that marketer get my
cellphone number?".

The self-proclaimed inventor of the ringless voicemail technology
utilized by Defendants -- Stratics -- not only flaunts the ability
of its technology to invade the privacy of consumers, but also
consumers' inability to stop the invasion of privacy caused
thereby, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendants accountable for their
flagrant violations of the TCPA, and for violating the privacy of
thousands of consumers. The Plaintiff, for herself and a Class of
similarly situated individuals, seeks relief to halt Defendants'
unlawful conduct. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on
behalf of herself and members of the Class, and any other legal or
equitable remedies to redress Defendants' violations of the
TCPA.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Class are:

          Mark J. Dearman, Esq.
          Jason H. Alperstein, Esq.
          Eric S. Dwoskin, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 E. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432-4809
          Telephone: 561 750-3000
          Facsimile: 561 750-3364
          E-mail: mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
                  jalperstein@rgrdlaw.com
                  edwoskin@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: 305 479-2299
          Facsimile: 786 623-0915
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Scott A. Edelsberg, Esq.
          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          2875 NE 191st St. No. 703
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: 305-975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

BRE SELECT: Awaits Preliminary Approval of Battaglia Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRE Select Hotels Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 15, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the parties in the
case, Battaglia v. BRE Select Hotels Corp., Civil Action No.
17-cv-01046, are awaiting the court's preliminary approval of a
settlement agreement.

The Company, as the successor to Apple Six, is subject to claims
for alleged acts of Apple Six that occurred prior to a merger
transaction.

On February 24, 2017, a putative class action, captioned Wilchfort
v. Knight, et al., Civil Action No. 17-cv-01046 (E.D.N.Y.), was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York against BRE Select Hotels Corp, as
successor-in-interest to Apple REIT Six, Inc., Apple Hospitality
REIT, Inc., Apple REIT Seven, Inc., Apple REIT Eight, Inc.
(together with Apple REIT Six, Inc. and Apple REIT Seven, Inc., the
"Apple REITs"), certain of the Apple REITs' directors, officers and
advisors, and Apple Fund Management, LLC.

Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons and entities
who elected to participate in Apple REITs' Dividend Reinvestment
Plans ("DRIPs") between July 17, 2007 and the later of the
termination and/or suspension of the respective DRIPs or February
12, 2014.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the prices at which
plaintiff and the purported class members purchased additional
shares through the DRIPs were artificially inflated and not
indicative of the true value of units in the Apple REITs. Plaintiff
asserts claims for breach of contract, tortious interference with
contract and tortious interference with business expectancy and
breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing and seeks,
among other things, damages and other costs and expenses.

On March 30, 2018, the court granted in part and denied in part the
Company's motion to dismiss and, on April 13, 2018, plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint, captioned Wilchfort et al. v. BRE
Select Hotels Corp., Civil Action No. 17-cv-1046 (E.D.N.Y.).

On May 31, 2018, plaintiff filed a Second Amended Class Action
Complaint, captioned Battaglia v. BRE Select Hotels Corp., Civil
Action No. 17-cv-01046 (E.D.N.Y.), which, among other things,
narrowed the putative class period to February 24, 2011 through
November 29, 2012.

On June 4, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion for class certification.
On June 27, 2018, the Company filed an Answer to the Second Amended
Class Action Complaint.

On March 1, 2019, the parties executed a settlement agreement to
resolve all of plaintiff’s claims without any admission of
wrongdoing for $3.75 million. Also, on March 1, 2019, the plaintiff
filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement
agreement.

The settlement agreement is also subject to final approval by the
court, and there can be no assurance that the court will approve
such settlement.

BRE Select said, "As of March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, the
Company had fully reserved for this settlement amount of $3.75
million in accounts payable, accrued expenses and other
liabilities."

BRE Select Hotels Corp. is a non-listed real estate investment
trust (REIT) focused on the ownership of upscale, extended-stay and
select-service hotels. The company's hotels operate under the
Homewood Suites by Hilton, Hilton Garden Inn, Hampton Inn, Hampton
Inn & Suites, Courtyard by Marriott, Fairfield Inn by Marriott,
Residence Inn by Marriott, SpringHill Suites by Marriott,
TownePlace Suites by Marriott and Marriott, brands. The company is
based in New York.


BRIDGETON LANDFILL: Appeals Memo & Order in Kitchin Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Bridgeton Landfill LLC, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Memo & Order issued on May 8, 2019, in the lawsuit
styled John Kitchin, et al. v. Bridgeton Landfill LLC, et al., Case
No. 4:18-cv-00672-CDP, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri - St. Louis.

The appellate case is captioned as John Kitchin, et al. v.
Bridgeton Landfill, et al., Case No. 19-2072, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees John C. Kitchin, North West Auto Body and Mary
Menke, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
are represented by:

          Celeste Brustowicz, Esq.
          Victor T. Cobb, Esq.
          Barry J. Cooper, Jr., Esq.
          COOPER LAW FIRM
          1525 Religious Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 399-0009
          E-mail: cbrustowicz@sch-llc.com
                  victortcobb@gmail.com
                  bcooper@sch-llc.com

               - and -

          Nathaniel R. Carroll, Esq.
          Ryan A. Keane, Esq.
          KEANE LAW, LLC
          7777 Bonhomme
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 391-4700
          Facsimile: (314) 244-3778
          E-mail: nathaniel@keanelawllc.com
                  ryan@keanelawllc.com

               - and -

          Anthony D. Gray, Esq.
          JOHNSON GRAY LLC
          7710 Carondelet
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 385-9500
          E-mail: agray@johnsongraylaw.com

               - and -

          Kimberly Starr Morr, Esq.
          THE DRISCOLL FIRM
          211 N. Broadway, 40th Floor
          Saint Louis, MO 63102-0000
          Telephone: (314) 932-3232

               - and -

          Ron A. Rustin, Esq.
          920 Fourth Street
          Gretna, LA 70053
          Telephone: (504) 227-8100

Defendants-Appellants Bridgeton Landfill, LLC, Republic Services,
Inc., Allied Services and Rock Road Industries, Inc., are
represented by:

          William Garland Beck, Esq.
          Allyson Elisabeth Cunningham, Esq.
          Peter Flint Daniel, Esq.
          LATHROP GAGE LLP
          2345 Grand Boulevard, Suite 2800
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 292-2000
          Telecopier: (816) 292-2001
          E-mail: wbeck@lathropgage.com
                  acunningham@lathropgage.com
                  pdaniel@lathropgage.com

               - and -

          Patricia L. Silva, Esq.
          LATHROP GAGE LLP
          7701 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 500
          Saint Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 613-2800
          Telecopier: (314) 613-2801
          E-mail: psilva@lathropgage.com


BRUNSWICK CORP: Robles Seeks to Certify Maintenance Workers Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled SANDY ROBLES, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BRUNSWICK CORPORATION
d/b/a MERCURY MARINE, Case No. 2:18-cv-01809-DEJ (E.D. Wisc.),
moves the Court for an order conditionally certifying this
Collective Class:

     All production and maintenance employees who are or have
     been employed by Mercury Marine at it's Fond du Lac campus,
     including Plants 3, 4, 15, 15L, 15S, 17, and 98 at any time
     since November 15, 2015.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly-situated, also moves the Court for an Order:

   (1) conditionally certifying a collective action for the Fair
       Labor Standards Act Collective Class as defined, pursuant
       to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b);

   (2) appointing counsel of record as Collective Action Counsel;

   (3) approving the form and content of the Notice of Pendency
       of Lawsuit;

   (4) ordering Defendant provide Collective Action Counsel a
       list identifying all persons known to the Defendants to
       meet the definition, including their first names, last
       names, last known street address, city, state, zip code,
       phone numbers, and dates of employment in a Microsoft
       Excel spreadsheet within 10 days on the Court's Order
       granting this Motion; and

   (5) permitting the putative Collective Action members 45 days
       from the mailing of the Notice of Collective Action to opt
       in to this lawsuit.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
          Timothy P. Maynard, Esq.
          Summer H. Murshid, Esq.
          HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
          P.O. Box 442
          Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
          Telephone: (414) 271-8650
          Facsimile: (414) 271-8442
          E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com
                  tmaynard@hq-law.com
                  smurshid@hq-law.com


CA$INO'SSAGE: Naylor et al. Seek Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------
SHAWNA NAYLOR, JASMINE GAMBER, SABRINA REEDY, and all others
similarly situated, an individual, the Plaintiffs, vs.
CA$INO'SSAGE, a Nevada corporation; and JENNIFER LUTSI, an
individual, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00963-GMN-GWF (D. Nev.,
June 6, 2019), seeks judgment against the Defendants, jointly and
severally, and in the Plaintiffs' respective favor, for unpaid
wages in a sum to be  proven at trial, liquidated damages equal to
unpaid wages in a sum to be proven at trial, attorneys' fees and
the costs of litigation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938.

According to the complaint, Mesdames Naylor, Gamber and Reedy and
other FLSA Class members are similarly situated inasmuch as they
have been required to work more than 40 hours per week without
receiving overtime compensation.

The Defendants have known Mesdames Naylor, Gamber and Reedy and the
FLSA Class members have performed work that has required payment
of the minimum wage, yet the Defendants have nonetheless operated
under a scheme to deprive the Plaintiffs and the FLSA Class of
minimum wage by failing to properly compensate such individuals for
the time they have worked. The Defendants have acted willfully and
have either known that their conduct violates the FLSA or have
shown reckless disregard for the matter of whether their conduct
violates the FLSA.

As a result of Defendants' violations of the FLSA, the Plaintiffs
and all others similarly situated have incurred harm and loss in an
amount to be determined at trial, along with liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs of litigation, pursuant to the allowances
of Section 216 of Title 29 of the United States Code, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Ronald D. Green, Esq.
          LaTeigra C. Cahill, Esq.
          RANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP, PLLC
          2764 Lake Sahara Drive, Suite 109
          Las Vegas, NV 89117
          Telephone: 702-420-2001
          Facsimile: (305) 437-7662
          E-mail: ecf@randazza.com

               - and -

          Maurice B. VerStandig, Esq.
          THE VERSTANDIG LAW FIRM, LLC
          9812 Falls Road, No. 114-160
          Potomac, MD 20854
          Telephone: (301) 444-4600
          Facsimile: (301) 576-6885
          E-mail: mac@mbvesq.com

CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Goldklang Suit Alleges FDCA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against the Cavalry
Portfolio Services, LLC for violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Act. The case is captioned Goldklang v. Cavalry Portfolio Services,
LLC et al, Case No. 7:19-cv-04954-CS (S.D.N.Y., May 28, 2019). This
consumer credit-related case is assigned to Hon. Judge Cathy
Seibel.

Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC provides financial resolution
services that cover various areas, such as collection account and
debt control. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Paul Force, Esq.
     66 Washington Place
     East Rutherford, NJ 07073
     Telephone: (201) 669-9480
     E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Appeal in Apollo-Merger Related Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 15, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the appeal from a court
decision dismissing the Apollo merger-related suit is still
pending.

Following the January 16, 2014 announcement that CEC Entertainment
had entered into an agreement ("Merger Agreement"), pursuant to
which an entity controlled by Apollo Global Management, LLC and its
subsidiaries merged with and into CEC Entertainment, with CEC
Entertainment surviving the merger ("the Merger"), four putative
shareholder class actions were filed in the District Court of
Shawnee County, Kansas, on behalf of purported stockholders of CEC
Entertainment, against A.P. VIII Queso Holdings, L.P., CEC
Entertainment, CEC Entertainment's directors, Apollo and Merger Sub
(as defined in the Merger Agreement), in connection with the Merger
Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby.

These actions were consolidated into one action (the "Consolidated
Shareholder Litigation") in March 2014, and on July 21, 2015, a
consolidated class action petition was filed as the operative
consolidated complaint, asserting claims against CEC's former
directors, adding The Goldman Sachs Group ("Goldman Sachs") as a
defendant, and removing all Apollo entities as defendants (the
"Consolidated Class Action Petition").

The Consolidated Class Action Petition alleges that CEC
Entertainment's directors breached their fiduciary duties to CEC
Entertainment's stockholders in connection with their consideration
and approval of the Merger Agreement by, among other things,
conducting a deficient sales process, agreeing to an inadequate
tender price, agreeing to certain provisions in the Merger
Agreement, and filing materially deficient disclosures regarding
the transaction.

The Consolidated Class Action Petition also alleges that two
members of CEC Entertainment's board who also served as the senior
managers of CEC Entertainment had material conflicts of interest
and that Goldman Sachs aided and abetted the board’s breaches as
a result of various conflicts of interest facing the bank.

The Consolidated Class Action Petition seeks, among other things,
to recover damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company assumed the defense of the Consolidated Shareholder
Litigation on behalf of CEC's named former directors and Goldman
Sachs pursuant to existing indemnity agreements. On March 23, 2016,
the Court conducted a hearing on the defendants' Motion to Dismiss
the Consolidated Class Action Petition and on March 1, 2017, the
Special Master appointed by the Court issued a report recommending
to the Court that the Consolidated Class Action Petition be
dismissed.

On September 9, 2018, the Court accepted the Special Master's
recommendations and dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety.

On October 8, 2018, the Plaintiff in the Consolidated Shareholder
Litigation filed a notice of appeal of the District Court's
decision. The parties have filed their briefs and are awaiting a
setting for oral argument.

CEC Entertainment said, "While no assurance can be given as to the
ultimate outcome of the consolidated matter, we currently believe
that the final resolution of the action will not have a material
adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position,
liquidity or capital resources."

CEC Entertainment, Inc. develops, operates, and franchises family
dining and entertainment centers (venues) under the names of Chuck
E. Cheese’s and Peter Piper Pizza in the United States and
internationally. The company was formerly known as ShowBiz Pizza
Place, Inc. and changed its name to CEC Entertainment, Inc. in
1998. CEC Entertainment, Inc. was founded in 1977 and is
headquartered in Irving, Texas. CEC Entertainment, Inc. is a
subsidiary of Queso Holdings Inc.


CELLULAR SALES: Holick Appeals N.D.N.Y. Decision to 2nd Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs William Burrell, Jan P. Holick, Jr., Jason Mack, Justin
Moffitt, Steven Moffitt, Timothy M. Pratt and Gurwinder Singh filed
an appeal from a Court ruling issued in their lawsuit styled Holick
v. Cellular Sales of New York, LLC, et al., Case No. 12-cv-584, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York
(Albany).

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 10, 2019, Judge
Norman A. Mordue (i) denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, and (ii) granted the Defendants' motion to decertify
the conditional Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective
action.

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

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

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

The appellate case is captioned as Holick v. Cellular Sales of New
York, LLC, et al., Case No. 19-1397, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners Jan P. Holick, Jr., on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated; Steven Moffitt, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated; Justin Moffitt, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; Gurwinder
Singh, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated;
Jason Mack, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated; Timothy M. Pratt, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated; and William Burrell, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Daniel A. Jacobs, Esq.
          GLEASON, DUNN, WALSH & O'SHEA
          40 Beaver Street
          Albany, NY 12207
          Telephone: (518) 432-7511
          E-mail: djacobs@gdwo.net

Defendants-Respondents Cellular Sales of New York, LLC, and
Cellular Sales of Knoxville, Inc., are represented by:

          Charles Larry Carbo, III, Esq.
          CHAMBERLAIN, HRDLICKA, WHITE, WILLIAMS & AUGHTRY
          1200 Smith Street
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 658-1818
          E-mail: Larry.carbo@chamberlainlaw.com


CGJC HOLDINGS: Medina Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CGJC Holdings LLC.
The case is styled as Fabio Medina On Behalf of Himself and All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. CGJC Holdings LLC doing
business as: Joe & Pats Pizzeria & Restaurant, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-05414 (S.D. N.Y., June 10, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Joe & Pat's Pizzeria & Restaurant is a restaurant offering
house-specialty thin-crust pies, classic pasta dishes & Italian
entrees, located in Staten Island, NY, and has been in business
since 1960.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Amit Kumar, Esq.
     The Law Offices of William Cafaro
     108 West 39th Street, Suite 602
     New York, NY 10018
     Phone: (212) 583-7400
     Fax: (212) 583-7401
     Email: akumar@cafaroesq.com


CHICAGO, IL: Court Denies Smith's Bid for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Andrea R. Wood denied the Plaintiffs' motion for Rule
23(b)(3) class certification in the lawsuit captioned Darnell
Smith, et al. v. City of Chicago, The, et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-03467 (N.D. Ill.).

In addition, the Court denies the City of Chicago's motion to
strike the Plaintiffs' notice of supplemental authority or, in the
alternative, seek leave to file a response brief.

Although the Court does not disagree with the City's concerns about
the procedural posture of the "supplemental authority," upon review
of Plaintiffs' additional matter, the Court finds that it has no
impact on the Court's ruling.[CC]


CHOICE HOTELS: DiFlavis Seeks Certification of Housekeepers Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled GINA DIFLAVIS, for herself
and all others similarly situated v. CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL,
INC. and RAMA CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-03914-GEKP
(E.D. Pa.), asks the Court under the "opt-in" mechanism for
collective actions provided by the Fair Labor Standards Act to
enter her proposed order:

   -- granting conditional class certification; and

   -- authorizing the dissemination of her proposed Class Notice
      to:

      all Clarion Hotel Housekeepers who have worked on a
      full-time hourly basis during the past three years.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Cohen, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP
          604 Spruce Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 873-4836
          E-mail: dcohen@stephanzouras.com

               - and -

          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com


CONCORD HOSPITALITY: Martinez Sues over Biometric Data Collection
------------------------------------------------------------------
ELENA MARTINEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CONCORD HOSPITALITY ENTERPRISES
COMPANY, LLC and MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC. d/b/a SPRINGHILL
SUITES BY MARRIOTT CHICAGO WAUKEGAN/GURNEE, the Defendants, Case
No. 2019CH06848 (Ill. Cir., June 5, 2019), seeks to redress and
curtail each Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and
disclosure of Plaintiff's sensitive and proprietary biometric data.


According to the complaint, when Defendants hire an employee, he or
she is enrolled in their employee database(s) using a scan of his
or her fingerprint to monitor the time worked by their hourly
employees.

While many employers use conventional methods for time tracking
(such as ID badges or punch clocks), Defendants' employees are
required to have their fingerprints scanned by a biometric
timekeeping device.

Biometrics are not relegated to esoteric comers of commerce. Many
businesses -- such as Defendants -- and financial institutions have
incorporated biometric applications into their workplace in the
form of biometric timeclocks or authenticators, and into consumer
products, including such ubiquitous consumer products as checking
accounts and cellphones.

Unlike ID badges or time cards -- which can be changed or replaced
if stolen or compromised -- fingerprints are unique, permanent
biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes
Defendants' employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks.
For example, if a database containing fingerprints or other
sensitive, proprietary biometric data is hacked, breached, or
otherwise exposed - like in the recent Google+, Yahoo, eBay,
Equifax, Uber, Home Depot, Panera, Whole Foods, Chipotle,
Facebook/Cambridge Analytica, and Marriott data breaches or misuses
- employees have no means by which to prevent identity theft,
unauthorized tracking, and other unlawful or improper use of this
highly personal and private information, the lawsuit says.

Concord Hospitality Enterprises Company, LLC, is a hotel management
company located in Raleigh, North Carolina and operates throughout
the United States, including Illinois and in this Circuit. Concord
manages affiliate properties of Marriott International, Inc.,
including Springhill Suites by Marriott Chicago
Waukegan/Gurnee.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: 312 233 1550
          Facsimile: 312 233 1560
          E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  aficzko@stephanzouras.com

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeals Judgment in Flushable Wipes Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants CVS Health Corporation, Costco Wholesale Corporation,
Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Target Corporation, The Procter &
Gamble Company, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Walgreens Boots Alliance,
Inc., filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment entered on
April 12, 2019, in the lawsuit titled The Preserve at Connetquot
Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, et
al., Case No. 17-cv-7050, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York.

The appellate case is captioned as The Preserve at Connetquot
Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, et
al., Case No. 19-1528, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 13, 2019, the
Plaintiff appealed a Court ruling issued in its lawsuit.  That
appellate case is entitled The Preserve at Connetquot Homeowners
Association, Inc. v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, et al., Case No.
19-1407.

The District Court previously issued a Memorandum and Order
granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated
entities that own and/or operate sewage or wastewater treatment
plants or facilities, filed this action against the Defendants,
alleging that the defendants' products labeled as flushable have
caused and will continue to cause injury under strict products
liability, nuisance, trespass, negligence, and negligent
misrepresentation tort theories, breach of express warranty, and
breach of implied merchantability contract theories, and that the
advertising of such products as flushable violates Sections 349 of
the New York General Business Law (NYGBL).[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee The Preserve at Connetquot Homeowners
Association, Inc., Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Mark S. Reich, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          E-mail: mreich@rgrdlaw.com

Defendants-Appellants Costco Wholesale Corporation and CVS Health
Corporation are represented by:

          Courtney Elizabeth Scott, Esq.
          TRESSLER LLP
          One Penn Plaza
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (646) 833-0900
          E-mail: cscott@tresslerllp.com

Defendant-Appellant Costco Wholesale Corporation is represented
by:

          Michael Ruttinger, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          950 Main Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 592-5000
          E-mail: michael.ruttinger@tuckerellis.com

Defendant-Appellant CVS Health Corporation is represented by:

          Rebecca Flynn Briggs, Esq.
          HINCKLEY, ALLEN & SNYDER, LLP
          100 Westminster Street
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: (401) 274-2000
          E-mail: rbriggs@hinckleyallen.com

Defendant-Appellant Kimberly-Clark Corporation is represented by:

          Eamon Paul Joyce, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          787 7th Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 839-8555
          E-mail: ejoyce@sidley.com

Defendant-Appellant The Procter & Gamble Company is represented
by:

          Henry Liu, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          1 CityCenter
          850 10th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 662-5536
          E-mail: hliu@cov.com

Defendant-Appellant Target Corporation is represented by:

          Denise A. Dickerson, Esq.
          SUTTER O'CONNELL
          3600 Erieview Tower
          1301 East 9th Street
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 928-2200
          E-mail: ddickerson@sutter-law.com

Defendant-Appellant Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., is represented
by:

          David Bloom, Esq.
          KAUFMAN, BORGEEST & RYAN LLP
          200 Summit Lake Drive
          Valhalla, NY 10595
          Telephone: (914) 449-1000
          E-mail: wborgeest@kbrlaw.com

Defendant-Appellant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., is represented by:

          Steven R. Kramer, Esq.
          ECKERT, SEAMANS, CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC
          10 Bank Street
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 949-3760
          E-mail: skramer@eckertseamans.com


CRETE CARRIER: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Gonzalez Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff John P. Gonzalez filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
the lawsuit styled John Gonzalez v. Crete Carrier Corporation, Case
No. 2:19-cv-00186-JCC, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
(assigned Case No. 19-00002-00231-0-SEA) was removed on February 7,
2019, from the King County Superior Court to the District Court.

The lawsuit alleges labor related violation.

Crete Carrier offers dry van services; coast-to-coast
temperature-sensitive truckload services to candy, confection, and
beverage industries; and flatbed, drop-deck, RGN, and curtain side
transportation services for agricultural and construction
materials/equipment, and commodity that requires flatbed
equipment.

The appellate case is captioned as John Gonzalez v. Crete Carrier
Corporation, Case No. 19-35446, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant John P. Gonzalez's opening brief is due on
      July 22, 2019;

   -- Appellee Crete Carrier Corporation's answering brief is due
      on August 21, 2019; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant JOHN P. GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Brian Walter Denlinger, Esq.
          ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C.
          2602 North Proctor Street, Suite 205
          Tacoma, WA 98406
          Telephone: (563) 542-3309
          E-mail: bd@ackermanntilajef.com

               - and -

          Craig Justin Ackermann, Esq.
          ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C.
          1180 South Beverly Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 277-0614
          E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com

Defendant-Appellee CRETE CARRIER CORPORATION, a Nebraska
corporation, is represented by:

          Laurence A. Shapero, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5150
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 876-5301
          E-mail: laurence.shapero@ogletree.com


CYGILANT INC: Bell Seeks OT Premium Pay for Sales Reps
------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Cygilant, Inc., Rob
Scott, and Christina M. Lattuca for alleged violations of
Massachusetts General Laws and breach of common law contract. The
case is captioned JEREMY BELL, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated; Plaintiff, v. CYGILANT, INC. f/k/a EIQ
NETWORKS, INC.; ROB SCOTT, individually; AND CHRISTINA M. LATTUCA,
individually; Defendants, Case No. 19-1709E (Mass. Cmmw, Suffolk
Cty., May 28, 2019). Plaintiff Jeremy Bell alleges that the
Defendants failed to pay him and other inside sales representatives
an hourly rate equal to one and one half times their regular hourly
rate for all of the hours that they worked in excess of 40 during
one or more weeks of the their employment for Cygilant.

Cygilant, Inc. f/k/a EiQ Networks, Inc. is a foreign corporation
with a principal place of business located at 60 State St., Suite
620, Boston, Massachusetts. Cygilant is a cybersecurity company
that develops and sells security software and related services.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brook S. Lane, Esq.
     Brant Casavant, Esq.
     FAIR WORK, P.C.
     192 South Street, Suite 450
     Boston, MA 02111
     Telephone: (617) 607-3260
     E-mail: brook@fairworklaw.com
             brant@fairworklaw.com


DELTA AIR: Howard Fan's Labor Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, HOWARD FAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 3:19-cv-01520(Filed on March 22, 2019), was transferred from
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Dolly M.
Gee. The United States District Court for the Central District of
California assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-04599-DMG-AFM to the
proceeding. In this complaint, Plaintiff Howard Fan alleges several
causes of his action including the Defendant's failure to pay
overtime wages and failure to furnish accurate wage statements.

Delta Air Lines, Inc. is a Delaware corporation whose principal
place of business is in Georgia. Delta does business in the state
of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
     Scott A. Brooks, Esq.
     Matthew W. Gordon, Esq.
     MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
     1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
     Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
     Telephone: (310) 531-1900
     Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
     E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
             sbrooks@maternlawgroup.com
             mgordon@maternlawgroup.com

             - and -

     James M. Finberg, Esq.
     Eileen B. Goldsmith, Esq.
     Eric P. Brown, Esq.
     ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
     177 Post Street, Suite 300
     San Francisco, CA 94108
     Telephone: (415) 421-7151
     Facsimile: (415) 362-8064
     E-mail: jfinberg@altber.com
             egoldsmith@altber.com
             ebrown@altber.com


ECO SHIELD: Fanslau Moves to Certify Class of Service Technicians
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned MATTHEW FANSLAU, ANTHONY
HOUSTON, and JOSHUA CRUZ, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ECO SHIELD PEST CONTROL CHICAGO, LLC, ECO
SHIELD PEST CONTROL CORPORATE, LLC, MIKE SAWTELLE, ROBERT DOUG
CARDON, RYAN J. BUCHANAN, GREGORY NYGREN, and GANES MCCULLOCH, Case
No. 1:18-cv-07181 (N.D. Ill.), ask the Court to:

   (1) order conditional certification of this action as a
       representative collective action pursuant to the Fair
       Labor Standards Act on behalf of all Illinois service
       technicians who were paid on a "per house" basis, were not
       paid overtime compensation for time worked in excess of
       forty (40) hours in given workweeks, and who worked for
       Defendants dating back three (3) years from the date of
       notice until the present (the "FLSA Collective");

   (2) order court-facilitated notice of this collective action
       to the FLSA Collective;

   (3) order the Defendants to produce a computer-readable data
       file containing the names, addresses, e-mail addresses,
       telephone numbers, dates of employment, social security
       numbers, and dates of birth of the FLSA Collective;

   (4) order the posting of the collective action notice at a
       location in Defendants' offices where members of the FLSA
       Collective are likely to view it; and

   (5) authorize the Plaintiffs to send the notice, at their
       expense, by U.S. First Class mail and e-mail to all
       members of the FLSA Collective to inform them of their
       right to opt-in to this lawsuit.

The action is brought on behalf of Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated service technicians alleging that the Defendants allegedly
denied them overtime compensation for all time worked in excess of
40 hours in given workweeks in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs' proposed collective is:

     All individuals who were employed or are currently employed
     by the Defendants as service technicians, or any other
     similarly-titled position, at Eco Shield Chicago at any time
     during the three (3) years prior to the date of the
     commencement of this action through the date of judgment in
     this action, and who were not properly compensated for time
     worked in excess of 40 hours in given workweeks.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          Haley R. Jenkins, Esq.
          Anna M. Ceragioli, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
          E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  hjenkins@stephanzouras.com
                  aceragioli@stephanzouras.com


ELEPHANT INSURANCE: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in Singleton Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Tony Cooper and Jessica Singleton filed an appeal from a
Court ruling in their lawsuit styled Jessica Singleton, et al. v.
Elephant Insurance Company, Case No. 6:19-CV-200, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class
action lawsuit was filed on March 8, 2019, over alleged breach of
contract.

Elephant Insurance Company is a foreign insurance company.

The appellate case is captioned as Jessica Singleton, et al. v.
Elephant Insurance Company, Case No. 19-50470, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants JESSICA SINGLETON, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, and TONY COOPER, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Richard David Daly, Esq.
          DALY & BLACK, P.C.
          2211 Norfolk Street
          Houston, TX 77098
          Telephone: (713) 655-1405
          E-mail: rdaly@dalyblack.com

Defendant-Appellee ELEPHANT INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign insurance
company, is represented by:

          Roger D. Higgins, Esq.
          THOMPSON, COE, COUSINS & IRONS, L.L.P.
          700 N. Pearl Street
          Plaza of the Americas
          Dallas, TX 75201-2832
          Telephone: (214) 871-8256
          E-mail: rhiggins@thompsoncoe.com


ENAGIC USA: Makaron Seeks Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled EDWARD MAKARON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ENAGIC USA, INC.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-05145-DDP-E (C.D. Cal.), moves the Court for an
order granting preliminary approval of the parties' class action
settlement.

The Court will commence a hearing on July 1, 2019, at 10:00 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780,
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866)633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com
                  twheeler@toddflaw.com


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Berryhill's Bid to Certify FDCPA Class Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber issued a memorandum opinion and order
in the lawsuit titled CHRISTINA BERRYHILL, individually and on
behalf of a putative class v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY LLC, doing
business as ERC or Enhanced Resource Centers, Case No.
1:17-cv-08059 (N.D. Ill.), granting the Defendant's Motion to
Strike Reply and denying the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class.

Ms. Berryhill defines the class as:

     (1) [A]ll persons similarly situated in the State of
     Illinois (2) from whom Defendant attempted to collect on a
     defaulted T-Mobile consumer account (3) which includes the
     assessment of a collection fee on the consumer's account.

ERC moved to strike all the exhibits attached to Ms. Berryhill's
Reply Brief in Support of her Motion for Class Certification, and
all references to those exhibits in the Reply, on the basis that
parties cannot raise new arguments or facts in a reply brief.

Ms. Berryhill filed suit in November 2017, asserting that the
$69.33 collection fee is unlawful under Illinois law and,
therefore, in violation of the Federal Debt Collection Practices
Act.

In the Court's memorandum opinion and order, Judge Leinenweber
opines that because Ms. Berryhill provides no proof that anyone
else received the same collection letter she did, she has not
established the existence of any common question.  Therefore, the
Court denies her Motion for Class Certification.[CC]


ESSEX PROPERTY: California Court Enters Final Judgment in Giroux
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Oakland Division, has issued a
stipulated final judgment in the case, ANGELE GIROUX on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ESSEX
PROPERTY TRUST, INC., a Delaware Corporation, doing business as
ESSEX PROPERTY, INC. Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-01722-HSG (N.D.
Cal.).

On March 14, 2019, the Court entered the Order Granting Motion for
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Granting Motion for
Class Counsel Attorneys' Fees and Costs.  On May 10, 2019, the
parties filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order requesting that the
Court enters an Order Amending the Final Approval Order to
incorporate a revised version of the Notice of Availability of
Identity Protection.

The parties stipulated, and Judge Gilliam granted, the entry of a
final judgment on the terms set forth in the Final Approval Order
as modified by the Order Amending the Final Approval Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 14, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/4wA9fj from Leagle.com.

Angele Giroux, Plaintiff, represented by Donald W. Heyrich, HKM
Employment Attorneys LLP, Mamta Ahluwalia, HKM Employment Attorneys
LLP & Kyann C. Kalin, Stutheit Kalin LLC.

Essex Property Trust, Inc., doing business as Essex Property, Inc.,
Defendant, represented by Joseph Edward Addiego, III --
joeaddiego@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Martin L. Fineman
-- martinfineman@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP & John
Douglas Freed -- jakefreed@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.


EXP REALTY: Leblang Suit Asserts Invasion of Privacy
----------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL LEBLANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. EXP REALTY, LLC, a Washington Limited
Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-61454-XXXX (S.D.
Fla., June 11, 2019) seeks to secure redress for violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

This case arises from Defendant's transmission of prerecorded voice
messages and text message to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff
and others, promoting Defendant's services and goods. To gain an
advantage over its competitors and increase its revenue, Defendant
engages in unsolicited telemarketing, with no regard for consumers'
privacy rights, harming thousands of consumers in the process,
asserts the complaint.

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 is a natural person who was a resident of Broward County,
Florida.

Defendant is an online real estate brokerage.[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


EXTELL DEVELOPMENT: Nisbett Suit Alleges ADA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Extell Development Company is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Kareem Nisbett, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Extell Development Company, doing
business as: EVGB, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05502-VSB (S.D.
N.Y., June 12, 2019).

Extell Development Company is an Apartment building in New York
City, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



FACEBOOK INC: American Tiger Sues over Social Networking Monopoly
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Tiger Firearms LLC, Farm Diva LLC, and First Shot, LLC on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. Facebook, Inc. and Facebook Payments Inc., the
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00388-BRW (Ark. Cir., June 5, 2019),
is brought on behalf of commercial marketers in Arkansas who use
Defendant's services (the "Class") and who (a) have suffered and
continue to suffer arbitrary or capricious blocking by Defendant of
their advertising on their Facebook Apps; and (b) have suffered and
continue to suffer as a result of Defendant's pattern and practice
of favoring large marketers over smaller ones.

Facebook, Inc. controls the world's three largest social-networking
sites that together boast more than two billion users. Computer
software applications have become known as "apps" and apps are
downloaded by those two billion users to their respective mobile
devices and thus become a "social network" that is the most
powerful advertising platform in the world today. More than 1.5
billion people use the Facebook app every day, and more than 2.7
billion people use the Defendant's group of apps (which group
includes Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, and
Audience Network; collectively, all of these apps are referred to
as the Facebook Apps).

According to the complaint, more than 90% of all mobile device
users in the United States access the Facebook mobile social
networking app in a given month, and approximately 60% of all
mobile device users in the United States access each of the
Defendant's "Instagram" and "Facebook Messenger" social networking
apps in a given month. For perspective, while Facebook owns and
controls the top three most-used social networking apps in the
United States, the fourth most-used, Twitter, is only visited by
38% of all mobile app users in the United States in a given month.
All Facebook Apps, as owned and controlled by the Defendant, have
the dominant market share of the social network advertising market,
thus constituting the quintessential monopoly as defined in
Arkansas law.

By any measure, Defendant's dominance of commercial social
networking is increasing. If Plaintiffs and the Class members wish
to advertise on social networking media, there is no effective
alternative to using the Facebook Apps, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          William P. Creasman, Esq.
          David Slade, Esq.
          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          519 W. 7th St.
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 312-8500
          Facsimile: (501) 312-8505

FAIRLIFE LLC: Michael Sues Over False Advertising and Labeling
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALAIN MICHAEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FAIRLIFE, LLC, MIKE MCCLOSKEY, and SUE
MCCLOSKEY Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03924 (N.D. Ill., June 11,
2019) seeks to represent individuals who purchased numerous bottles
of Defendants' Milk Products based on Defendants' misleading and
false advertising and labeling of the Milk Products. Plaintiff and
each of the class members accordingly suffered an injury in fact
caused by the false, fraudulent, unfair, deceptive, and/or
misleading practices.

Fairlife and its two co-founders, Mike and Sue McCloskey, charge a
premium for their Milk Products by plastering their "promise"--in
bold lettering signed by Mike and Sue McCloskey, on the Products'
labels--that Fairlife provides "Extraordinary care and comfort for
our cows" and "provides extraordinary animal care." They "promise"
on the Products' labels that "exceptional care is taken every step
of the way" and that, through selling their Milk Products, they are
"making the world a better place." Right on the Products' labels,
they urge customers to "visit our flagship farm in Indiana so you
can see for yourself" the "extraordinary care and comfort" that
their cows receive.

But Fairlife's and its founders' "promise" is a sham, asserts the
complaint. Their cows do not receive "extraordinary care and
comfort." As a matter of routine and practice, Fairlife's cows are
tortured, kicked, stomped on, body slammed, stabbed with steel
rebar, thrown off the side of trucks, dragged through the dirt by
their ears, and left to die unattended in over 100-degree heat.
Calves that do not survive the torture are dumped in mass graves.
To add insult to injury, the abuse is rampant even at Fairlife's
"flagship farm in Indiana" that customers are urged to visit on the
Products' labels, the complaint relates.

Plaintiff seeks relief in this action individually, and on behalf
of all purchasers of Defendant's Milk Products, for Defendants'
fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and
violations of various state consumer protection laws.

Plaintiff Mr. Michael purchased Defendant's Milk Products from
Sprouts in California.

Fairlife, LLC manufactures, advertises, sells, distributes, and
markets the Milk Products nationwide, including in Illinois and
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael J. McMorrow, Esq.
     MCMORROW LAW, P.C.
     118 North Clinton St., Suite 108
     Chicago, IL 60661
     Phone: 312.265.0708
     Email: mike@mjmcmorrow.com

          - and -

     L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
     Yeremey Krivoshey, Esq.
     Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
     BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
     1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
     Walnut Creek, CA 94596
     Phone: (925) 300-4455
     Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
     Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
            ykrivoshey@bursor.com
            fklorczyk@bursor.com

          - and -

     Scott. A. Bursor, Esq.
     BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
     2665 S. Bayshore Dr., Suite 220
     Miami, FL 33133
     Phone: 305.330.5512
     Fax: 305.676.9006
     Email: scott@bursor.com


FAT BRANDS: Continues to Defend Against Consolidated Rojany Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action suit entitled, Rojany v. FAT Brands Inc., remains
pending, FAT Brands 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.

On June 7, 2018, plaintiff Eric Rojany, a putative investor in the
Company, filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company,
Andrew Wiederhorn, Ron Roe, Fog Cutter Capital Group, Inc.,
Tripoint Global Equities, LLC and members of the Company's board of
directors, entitled Rojany v. FAT Brands Inc., in the Superior
Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, Case No.
BC708539.

The complaint asserted claims under Sections 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, alleging that the defendants were
responsible for false and misleading statements and omitted
material facts in connection with the Company's initial public
offering, which resulted in declines in the price of the Company's
common stock.

Plaintiff alleged that he intended to certify the complaint as a
class action and sought compensatory damages in an amount to be
determined at trial.

On August 2, 2018, plaintiff Daniel Alden, another putative
investor in the Company, filed a second putative class action
lawsuit against the same defendants, entitled Alden v. FAT Brands,
Inc., in the same court, Case No. BC716017.

On September 17, 2018, Rojany and Alden were consolidated under the
Rojany case caption and number.

On October 10, 2018, plaintiffs Eric Rojany, Daniel Alden,
Christopher Hazelton-Harrington and Byron Marin filed a First
Amended Consolidated Complaint ("FAC") against the Company, Andrew
Wiederhorn, Ron Roe, James Neuhauser, Edward H. Rensi, Fog Cutter
Capital Group Inc. and Tripoint Global Equities, LLC (collectively,
"Defendants"), thereby removing Marc L. Holtzman, Squire Junger,
Silvia Kessel and Jeff Lotman as defendants.

The FAC asserted the same claims as asserted in the original
complaint. On November 13, 2018, Defendants filed a demurrer to the
FAC. On January 25, 2019, the Court sustained Defendants' demurrer
to the FAC, with leave to amend in part. On February 25, 2019,
Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint ("SAC")
against Defendants. On March 27, 2019, Defendants filed a demurrer
to the SAC. The hearing for Defendants' demurrer is scheduled for
June 21, 2019. A stay of discovery in the action remains in effect
pending resolution of Defendants' demurrer to the SAC.  

FAT Brands Inc., a multi-brand franchising company, acquires,
markets, and develops fast casual and casual dining restaurant
concepts. The company was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in
Beverly Hills, California. FAT Brands Inc. is a subsidiary of Fog
Cutter Capital Group Inc.


FIRST AMERICAN: Allowed Anyone Access to Sensitive Files, Says Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID GRITZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, and FIRST AMERICAN TITLE
COMPANY, Case No. 8:19-cv-01009 (C.D. Cal., May 27, 2019), alleges
that despite explicitly promising customers robust data security as
part of the high cost of title services, First American allowed
anyone to access the sensitive files of millions of customers.

Mr. Gritz, whose data at First American was compromised, seeks
compensation for this increased risk of harm, for overpayment for
First American's services (which did not include the promised level
of privacy, confidentiality, or security), and equitable relief
such as business reforms, on behalf of all persons similarly
harmed.

First American Financial Corporation is a Delaware corporation with
its principal place of business in Santa Ana, California.  First
American Title Company is a California corporation with its
principal place of business in Santa Ana.  First American Title
Company is a subsidiary of First American Financial Corporation.

First American is the largest title insurance company in the United
States.  First American earns $5.3 billion per year in revenue from
selling title insurance and other closing services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          Andre M. Mura, Esq.
          David M. Berger, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          505 14th Street, Suite 1110
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 350-9700
          Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
          E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com
                  amm@classlawgroup.com
                  dmb@classlawgroup.com


FIRST SOLAR: Sol. Gen. Recommends Denial of Writ in Smilovits
-------------------------------------------------------------
First Solar, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on May 16, 2019, that the
Solicitor General has filed a submission with the Supreme Court
indicating that in the view of the United States, the petition for
a writ of certiorari in the class action suit entitled, Smilovits
v. First Solar, Inc., et al., should be denied.

On March 15, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit titled
Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-00555-DGC,
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona (the "Arizona District Court") against the Company and
certain of its current and former directors and officers (the
"Defendants").

The complaint was filed on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities between
April 30, 2008 and February 28, 2012 (the "Class Action").

The complaint generally alleges that the Defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
making false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
financial performance and prospects.

The action includes claims for damages, including interest, and an
award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees to the putative
class.

On August 11, 2015, the Arizona District Court granted Defendants'
motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part, and
certified an issue for immediate appeal to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the "Ninth Circuit").

On January 31, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion affirming
the order of the Arizona District Court. On August 6, 2018,
Defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S.
Supreme Court.

On October 9, 2018, the Supreme Court issued an order inviting the
Solicitor General to express the views of the United States.

On November 14, 2018, the Arizona District Court vacated the
previously scheduled trial date until the outcome of the certiorari
petition is clear.

On May 15, 2019, the Solicitor General filed a submission with the
Supreme Court indicating that in the view of the United States, the
petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied. The Supreme
Court has not yet ruled on the petition.

First Solar, Inc. provides photovoltaic (PV) solar energy solutions
in the United States and internationally. It operates in two
segments, Modules and Systems. The company was formerly known as
First Solar Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to First Solar,
Inc. in 2006. First Solar, Inc. was founded in 1999 and is
headquartered in Tempe, Arizona.


FLORIDA COMMUNITY: Seeks Prelim. Okay of Stewart Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit styled CLARK STEWART, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. FLORIDA COMMUNITY LAW
GROUP, P.L., Case No. 6:18-cv-02111-CEM-DCI (M.D. Fla.), asks the
Court to enter an order granting their motion for conditional class
certification and preliminary approval of their proposed settlement
agreement.

Specifically, the Parties jointly move the Court to enter an
order:

   1. preliminarily certifying a class of individuals for
      settlement purposes as set forth in the parties' proposed
      settlement agreement;

   2. preliminarily approving the Agreement pursuant to Rule 23
      of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

   3. conditionally certifying the Plaintiff as the
      named-representative of the Class;

   4. conditionally certifying the Plaintiff's attorneys as
      counsel for the Class;

   5. approving the form of the proposed class notice, and the
      parties' proposed method of distribution of the Class
      Notice to the Class, as set forth in the Agreement; and

   6. setting a final fairness hearing to determine whether the
      proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable.

The Plaintiff has filed a complaint against the Defendant under the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act on behalf of himself and a
putative class of similarly-situated individuals.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Russell S. Thompson, IV, Esq.
          THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC
          5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618
          Mesa, AZ 85206
          Telephone: (602) 388-8898
          Facsimile: (866) 317-2674
          E-mail: rthompson@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com

Defendant Florida Community Law Group, P.L., is represented by:

          Kirsten D. Blum, Esq.
          Charles J. Meltz, Esq.
          GROWER, KETCHAM, EIDE, TELAN & MELTZ, P.A.
          Post Office Box 538065
          Orlando, FL 32853-8065
          Telephone: (407) 423-9545
          Facsimile: (407) 425-7104
          E-mail: kdblum@growerketcham.com
                  cjmeltz@growerketcham.com


FLORIDA: Davis Files Class Action v. DOC Officers
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Julie Jones, in her
official capacity as an employee of the Florida Department of
Corrections. The case is styled as Mark Davis, Mark Geralds, Jesse
Guardado, Joseph Jordan, Robert Rimmer, Steven Stein, Gary Whitton
and Jason Stephens, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Julie Jones, in her official capacity as an
employee of the Florida Department of Corrections, Kevin Jordan, in
his official capacity as an employee o the Florida Department of
Corrections and Barry Reddish, in his official capacity as an
employee of the Florida Department of Corrections, Defendants, Case
No. 3:19-mc-00017-HES-JBT (M.D. Fla., June 12, 2019).

Settlement conference is set for July 31, 2019, at 9:30 a.m. in
Jacksonville Courtroom 10 C before Senior Judge Harvey E.
Schlesinger.

Julie Jones is the former Florida Department of Corrections
chief.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Claire M. Wheeler, Esq.
   Venable LLP
   575 7th Street NW
   Washington, DC 20004
   Tel: (202) 344-4227
   Fax: (202) 344-8300
   Email: Cmwheeler@venable.com

      - and -

   Evan T. Shea, Esq.
   Venable, LLP
   750 E Pratt St, Suite 900
   Baltimore, MD 21202
   Tel: (410) 244-7400
   Fax: (410) 244-7742
   Email: etshea@venable.com

      - and -

   Linda McDermott, Esq.
   McClain & McDermott, PA
   141 NE 30th St
   Wilton Manors, FL 33334
   Tel: (850) 322-2172
   Fax: (954) 564-5412
   Email: lindammcdermott@msn.com

      - and -

   Martin J. McClain, Esq.
   McClain & McDermott, PA
   141 NE 30th St
   Wilton Manors, FL 33334
   Tel: (305) 984-8344
   Fax: (954) 564-5412
   Email: martymcclain@earthlink.net

      - and -

   Matthew T. Shea, Esq.
   Venable, LLP
   750 E Pratt St.,  Suite 900
   Baltimore, MD 21202
   Tel: (410) 244-5212
   Fax: (410) 244-7742
   Email: Mtshea@venable.com

The Defendants are represented by:

   Daniel Andrew Johnson, Esq.
   Office of the Attorney General
   400 S Monroe St
   Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050
   Tel: (850) 414-3300
   Fax: (850) 488-4872
   Email: Daniel.Johnson@myfloridalegal.com

        - and -

   David Welch, Florida Office of the Attorney General
   The Capital, PL-01
   400 S. Monroe Street
   Tallahassee, FL 32399
   Tel: (850) 414-3647
   Fax: (850) 488-4872
   Email: david.welch@myfloridalegal.com



FLOWERS FOODS: Settlement Reached in NY Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 15, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the parties in the
class action suit entitled, In re Flowers Foods, Inc. Securities
Litigation, filed a notice of settlement informing the court that a
settlement in principle of the case had been reached.

On August 12, 2016, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York by Chris B.
Hendley (the "Hendley complaint") against the company and certain
senior members of management (collectively, the "defendants").

On August 17, 2016, another class action complaint was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by Scott
Dovell, II (the "Dovell complaint" and together with the Hendley
complaint, the "complaints") against the defendants.

Plaintiffs in the complaints are securities holders that acquired
company securities between February 7, 2013 and August 10, 2 016.
The complaints generally allege that the defendants made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that
(1) the company's labor practices were not in compliance with
applicable federal laws and regulations; (2) such non-compliance
exposed the company to legal liability and/or negative regulatory
action; and (3) as a result, the defendants' statements about the
company's business, operations, and prospects were false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

The counts of the complaints are asserted against the defendants
pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 under the Exchange Act.

The complaints seek (1) class certification under the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, (2) compensatory damages in favor of the
plaintiffs and all other class members against the defendants,
jointly and severally, for all damages sustained as a result of
wrongdoing, in an amount to be proven at trial, including interest,
and (3) awarding plaintiffs and the class their reasonable costs
and expenses incurred in the actions, including counsel and expert
fees.

On October 21, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York consolidated the complaints into one action
captioned "In re Flowers Foods, Inc. Securities Litigation" (the
"consolidated securities action"), appointed Walter Matthews as
lead plaintiff ("lead plaintiff"), and appointed Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP and Johnson & Weaver, LLP as co-lead counsel for the
putative class.  

On November 21, 2016, the court granted defendants' and lead
plaintiff's joint motion to transfer the consolidated securities
action to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Georgia. Lead plaintiff filed his Consolidated Class Action
Complaint on January 12, 2017, raising the same counts and general
allegations and seeking the same relief as the Dovell and Hendley
complaints.

On March 13, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit which was granted in part and denied in part on March 23,
2018. The court dismissed certain allegedly false or misleading
statements as nonactionable under federal securities laws, and will
allow others to proceed to fact discovery.  

On July 23, 2018, lead plaintiff filed his motion for class
certification. The defendants filed their memorandum of law in
opposition to class certification on October 5, 2018. The court
scheduled a hearing on the class certification motion for February
28, 2019.  

On May 10, 2019, the parties filed a notice of settlement informing
the court that a settlement in principle of the case had been
reached. The settlement in principle remains subject to court
approval.  

The settlement in principle is for $21.0 million and is expected to
be paid by the company's insurance provider.  

Flowers Foods said, "This amount is recorded on the company's
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of April 20, 2019 as an
other current asset due from the insurer and an other accrued
liability due for the settlement in principle.  Recording this
transaction resulted in no impact to the company's Condensed
Consolidated Statements of Income because the expense for the
settlement in principle was offset by the expected recovery from
the insurer."

Flowers Foods, Inc. produces and markets bakery products in the
United States. The company operates through two segments,
Direct-Store-Delivery and Warehouse Delivery. The company was
formerly known as Flowers Industries and changed its name to
Flowers Foods, Inc. in 2001. Flowers Foods, Inc. was founded in
1919 and is headquartered in Thomasville, Georgia.


FORSTER & GARBUS: Enderby Files FDCPA Class Action in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forster & Garbus,
LLP. The case is styled as Deborah Enderby, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Forster & Garbus,
LLP, Mark A. Garbus and Ronald Forster, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-03459 (E.D. N.Y., June 11, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Forster & Garbus, LLP is a debt collection law firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
   775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255
   Huntington, NY 11743
   Tel: (631) 335-1107
   Email: mpash@verizon.net


FRANKLIN-MADISON: Rodriguez Sues over Discounted Group Insurance
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN M. RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FRANKLIN-MADISON GROUP, LLC
(formerly known as Affinion Benefits Group, LLC), HARTFORD LIFE AND
ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, TRANSAMERICA PREMIER LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY (formerly known as Monumental Life Insurance Co.), the
Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01041 (C.D. Cal., June 6, 2019), seeks
restitution for Defendants' violation of the California Unfair
Business Practices Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code section 17200, et
seq.

This is a proposed class action on behalf of California consumers
who (a) held accounts with certain financial institutions, (b)
purchased group Accidental Death & Dismemberment Insurance from
Affinion that was underwritten by an Affinion Affiliated Insurance
Company, and (c) paid for the purchased group AD&D Insurance
through automatic deductions from their bank or credit union
account.

Group insurance is typically sold at discounted rates (compared to
rates available to individuals) because the group typically uses
the collective buying power of its large membership to secure the
broadest coverage available at the lowest premium. But this norm of
expected insurance economics is not present when it comes to the
sale of Affinion's low value (meaning, small value loss) group AD&D
product. Quite the opposite.

Not only is Affinion's group insurance overpriced through its use
of a uniquely devised marketing scheme, but it even costs more than
group insurance underwritten by the same Defendant Insurers which
Affinion does not sponsor. As a result, the ill-gotten profits
which Affinion has amassed over the years is staggering.

In the guise of offering purportedly worthwhile, but discounted
group insurance protection, Defendants induced the Plaintiff and
others like him to purchase Affinion sponsored AD&D Insurance by
withholding material pricing information.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have unlawfully withheld
material information regarding the pricing of the Affinion
sponsored insurance by failing to disclose to the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated California consumers who were customers of
the financial institutions that the group rates they were being
charged included a significant, undisclosed mark-up unrelated to
the Defendant Insurers' costs of providing this insurance that went
into Defendants' (and Affinion's financial institution clients')
pockets. Specifically, the monthly premiums which consumers paid
for Defendants' low value AD&D group insurance product were
inflated by an approximate 60% commission that was paid to
Affinion.

Affinion's business model for purveying group AD&D Insurance is as
shrewdly simple as it is profitable. Affinion advertises itself to
financial institutions as being able to increase their revenues by
building customer loyalty through "add-on" insurance programs which
Affinion offers to provide to the institutions' customers through a
written under the name of the institutions, but at no-cost to the
institutions themselves. Affinion also promises the financial
institutions that they will be compensated based on Affinion's
product sales when they become an Affinion marketing client; and,
in exchange, the financial institutions need only give Affinion
access to their customers' contact and account information (in
order for the institutions' customers to pay the required premium).


At the same time, Affinion has positioned itself to be paid a
supra-competitive commission from a limited number of partnering
insurers in exchange for Affinion allowing them to sell their
insurance to the financial institutions' customers because of
Affinion's unique competitive advantage as the marketing agent for
the financial institutions with access to a vast customer pool.
With these marketing agreements in place between Affinion, its
financial institution clients and its insurance suppliers, each is
poised to handsomely profit from the sale of the inflated group
insurance.

But unlike typical marketing arrangements where the beneficiary of
the marketing itself pays a direct fee to the service provider,
counterintuitively, the end consumer here finances the cost of this
loyalty "add-on" insurance program through an exorbitant commission
that is levied on the product price they pay (and then is kicked
back to both Affinion and the sponsoring financial institution).
What's worse, Affinion misleads the financial institutions'
customers (through its standard solicitation letters co-signed by
the financial institutions and Affinion) into believing that the
amount they pay for this specially offered group insurance is
affordably priced in comparison to similar insurance they could
otherwise buy for themselves (including even from these same
insurers).

Defendants' uniform solicitations, marketing and sales materials
were misleading because they contained half-truths and omitted
information that a reasonable consumer would want to know before
purchasing the group AD&D Insurance. These uniform solicitations
and marketing materials omitted information that Affinion and
Defendant Insurers had a duty to disclose, and thus violate all
three prongs of the UCL (the unlawful, fraudulent and unfair
prongs), the lawsuit says.

Had the Plaintiff known that the rates Defendants charged were not
reasonable with respect to the risk insured because they included a
significant mark-up to pay Affinion approximately 60% of the gross
premium for its marketing services, the Plaintiff would not have
purchased the Affinion sponsored AD&D Insurance.

Because of Defendants' illegal, fraudulent and unfair marketing and
sale of its group AD&D Insurance product, the Plaintiff and others
similarly situated have suffered significant financial injury.

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Annick Persinger, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1970 Broadway - Suite 1070
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 254-6808
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Peter R. Kahana, Esq.
          Amanda Trask, Esq.
          Y. Michael Twersky, Esq.
          John G. Albanese, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: pkahana@bm.net
                  atrask@bm.net
                  mitwersky@bm.net
                  jalbanese@bm.net

GATOR'S DOCKSIDE: Tiger & Fitzgerald Sue over Unwanted Phone Calls
------------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW TIGER and CASEY FITZGERALD, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. GATOR'S DOCKSIDE
GROUP, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
0:19-cv-61411-UU (S.D. Fla, June 6, 2019), seeks damages,
injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable
remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant in
negligently and/or willfully contacting the Plaintiffs on
Plaintiffs' cellular telephones, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiffs' privacy.

On December 12, 2017 and and June 27, 2018, the Plaintiffs sent a
"STOP" message to Defendant, expressly revoking consent to receive
text message advertisements from Defendant. In addition to the
Plaintiffs, a class of similarly situated individuals also sent one
or more "STOP" messages to Defendant revoking their consent to
receive text message advertisements from Defendant.

Despite Defendant's receipt of messages from Plaintiffs and Class
Members which reasonably and clearly revoked consent to be sent
text message advertisements, Defendant sent or caused to be sent
post-revocation text messages to Plaintiffs and Class Members
advertising Defendant's business. The instant action challenges all
such post-revocation text messages that Defendant sent to
Plaintiffs and Class Members during the class period, the lawsuit
says.

The TCPA was designed to prevent calls like the ones described
within this complaint, and to protect the privacy of citizens like
Plaintiff. "Voluminous consumer complaints about abuses of
telephone technology -- for example, computerized calls dispatched
to private homes -- prompted Congress to pass the TCPA.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
          EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC
          425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 524-2820
          Facsimile: (954) 524-2822
          E-mail: seth@epllc.com

               - and -

          Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
          Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.
          EGGNATZ | PASCUCCI
          7450 Griffin Road., Suite 230
          Davie, FL 33314
          Telephone: (954) 889-3359
          Facsimile: (954) 889-5913
          E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com
                  MPascucci@JusticeEarned.com

               - and -

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          E-mail: efilings@sflinjuryattorneys.com

GEICO GENERAL: Rosenberg Suit Moved to District of Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, Randy Rosenberg, D.C., P.A., also known as: Danielle
Russell on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff. vs. GEICO General Insurance Company, the Defendant, Case
No. CACE-19-009964, was removed from the 17th Judicial Circuit in
and for Broward County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida (Miami) on June 6, 2019. The Southern District
of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-22334-XXXX to the
proceeding. The suit alleges insurance related violation.

GEICO General Insurance Company, Inc. provides personal automobile
insurance products. The company operates as a private passenger
auto insurer offering various insurance products, including auto
and motorcycle insurance; boat insurance; home, apartment, and
mobile home insurance; renter's insurance; flood insurance; and
personal umbrella protection. It offers its products and services
in the United States.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Edward Herbert Zebersky, Esq.
          Mark S. Fistos, Esq.
          Michael Trent Lewenz, Esq.
          ZEBERSKY PAYNE, LLP
          110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 2150
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 989-6333
          Facsimile: (954) 989-7781
          E-mail: ezebersky@zpllp.com
                  mfistos@zpllp.com
                  Mlewenz@zpllp.com

Attorneys for GEICO General Insurance Company are:

          Thomas Lee Hunker, Esq.
          COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
          600 North Pine Island Road, Suite 500
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 343-3943
          Facsimile: (954) 474-7979
          E-mail: thomas.hunker@csklegal.com

               - and -

          Peter David Weinstein, Esq.
          COLE SCOTT KISSANE PA
          600 N Pine Island Road, Suite 500
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 343-3929
          Facsimile: (954) 474-7979
          E-mail: peter.weinstein@csklegal.com

GILEAD SCIENCES: Teamsters Sues over Sales of HIV Drug
------------------------------------------------------
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 237 WELFARE FUND and TEAMSTERS LOCAL 237 RETIREES'
BENEFIT FUND, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. GILEAD SCIENCES, INC.; GILEAD
HOLDINGS, LLC; GILEAD SCIENCES, LLC; GILEAD SCIENCES IRELAND UC;
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY; E. R. SQUIBB & SONS, L.L.C.; JAPAN
TOBACCO, INC.; JAPAN TOBACCO INTERNATIONAL U.S.A., INC.; AKROS
PHARMA INC.; JANSSEN R&D IRELAND; and JOHNSON & JOHNSON, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-03142-DMR (N.D. Cal., June 6, 2019),
seeks to recover damages, injunctive relief, and other relief
pursuant to the federal antitrust laws and state antitrust and
consumer protection laws.

According to the complaint, Gilead and its co-conspirators have
engaged in a long-running scheme to restrain competition with
respect to some of the most important drugs used to treat Human
Immunodeficiency Virus ("HIV") infection -- a disease which, if
left untreated, destroys the immune system, leading to Acquired
Immunodeficiency Syndrome ("AIDS") and eventual death. Through an
array of anticompetitive practices -- including horizontal
agreements constituting per se violations of the antitrust laws --
Gilead has acquired and maintained a monopoly in the market for
drugs that comprise the modern HIV treatment regimen known as
"combination antiretroviral therapy" ("cART"). The scheme has
enabled Gilead and its co-conspirators to unlawfully extend patent
protection for their drugs, impair entry by would-be generic
competitors, and charge exorbitant, supracompetitive prices for the
drugs that people living with HIV need to survive.

Gilead dominates the class of drugs that target HIV known as
"antiretrovirals," which are essential to effective HIV therapy.
Modern antiretroviral drug regimens comprise a combination or
"cocktail" of drugs, most often consisting of two
nucleotide/nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors
("NRTIs") taken with at least one antiretroviral drug of another
class, such as an integrase inhibitor, commonly referred to as
"third agents." These antiretroviral cocktails are known as cART
regimens. During most of the relevant time, Gilead was the
exclusive maker (and is still the dominant maker) of one of the
principal NRTIs used in cART regimens: Tenofovir. By controlling
the market for Tenofovir, and through its collusive agreements with
its co-conspirators, Gilead now dominates the market for cART.
Today more than 80% of patients starting an HIV regimen in the
United States, and more than 80% of continuing patients, take one
or more of Gilead's products every day. Gilead's sales of these
products in the United States alone are more than $11 billion
annually.

Gilead maintains a stranglehold on the cART market even though
Tenofovir was discovered more than 30 years ago by researchers in
the Czech Republic. In 2001, Gilead began marketing its patented
formulation of the compound known as tenofovir disoproxil ("TDF"),
quickly reaching sales in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
Gilead expected that generic manufacturers would challenge the
validity of its Tenofovir patents and potentially enter the market
as early as 2009. So, in order to head off the threat of generic
competition, Gilead and each of its co-conspirators BMS, Janssen,
and Japan Tobacco entered into a series of collusive and illegal
horizontal agreements providing that each co-conspirator would not
compete against Gilead's Tenofovir, and would effectively block
other companies from competing against Tenofovir, even after
Gilead's Tenofovir patents expired.

Gilead and its co-conspirators co-formulated TDF with the
co-conspirators' third agents into single pills known as
fixed-dose-combination drugs ("FDCs"). Each of the joint
development agreements prevented the co-conspirator from creating
or marketing a competing version of the FDC formulated with generic
versions of Gilead's TDF even after Gilead's patents expired
(hereinafter a "No-Generics Restraint"). This gave Gilead an
enormous financial incentive to move prescriptions from its
standalone version of TDF to the FDCs, which would be insulated
from generic competition even after TDF's patents expired. And it
meant that Gilead's most likely competitors -- the companies that
could formulate FDCs with generic alternatives to TDF -- had
instead promised not to compete with Gilead. In exchange, the
No-Generics Restraints and joint development agreements enabled
Gilead and the co-conspirator to share the artificially inflated
profits from each other's sales.

As part of the unlawful scheme's quid pro quo, Gilead also agreed
to shield BMS and Janssen's HIV drugs from imminent generic
competition by allowing them to coformulate FDCs that combined
their vulnerable products with a Gilead booster drug, Cobicistat,
which enjoyed much longer patent protection. Just as BMS and
Janssen agreed not to market a competing FDC even after Gilead's 27
patents expired, Gilead returned the favor by agreeing not to
market a competing FDC after the BMS and Janssen patents expired.

Defendants' anticompetitive conduct has also stifled innovation,
causing tens of thousands of people living with HIV to needlessly
suffer debilitating side effects from inferior products. Gilead
delayed getting FDA approval of TAF for more than a decade while it
used the illegal No-Generics Restraints, rather than product
innovations, to protect its market share. The unlawful restraints
also prohibited competing manufacturers from gaining access to the
pharmaceutical compounds needed to formulate new, innovative,
superior, and substantially less expensive treatments -- precluding
the development and marketing of more than two dozen specifically
identifiable HIV treatments. Gilead's unlawful scheme also
altogether foreclosed the availability of an affordable method of
pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) that would prevent HIV infection in
the first place, crippling this nation's ability to stop new HIV
infections.

Plaintiffs seek nationwide injunctive relief pursuant to Section 16
of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. section 26, because, unless enjoined,
the Defendants' unlawful conduct will continue unchecked and
Plaintiffs and those similarly situated will continue to suffer.
Plaintiffs also assert claims for damages for Defendants'
continuing violations of state antitrust and consumer protection
laws.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Kevin F. Ruf, Esq.
          Brian P. Murray, Esq.
          Lee Albert, Esq.
          Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com
                  bmurray@glancylaw.com
                  lalbert@glancylaw.com
                  glinkh@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Eugene Spector, Esq.
          Jeffrey Kodroff, Esq.
          William Caldes, Esq.
          Jeffrey Spector, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF P.C.
          2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          Facsimile: (215) 496-6611
          E-mail: espector@srkattorneys.com
                  jkodroff@srkattorneys.com
                  bcaldes@srkattorneys.com
                  jspector@srkattorneys.com

GLOBAL CREDIT: Aptheker Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTA APTHEKER f/k/a ROBERTA D. WITHAM, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GLOBAL CREDIT &
COLLECTION CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case
No. 9:19-cv-80736-DMM (S.D. Fla., June 5, 2019), seeks to recover
damages caused by Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Global Credit & Collection Corporation is a Delaware Corporation
engaged in the business of collecting consumer debts, which
operates from offices located at 5440 N. Cumberland Street, Suite
300, Chicago, Illinois 60656. The Defendant regularly uses the
United States Postal Service and telephone in the collection of
consumer debts. The Defendant regularly collects or attempts to
collect consumer debts for other parties.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sought to collect a
consumer debt from the Plaintiff arising from an alleged
delinquency on a credit card. The debt was incurred primarily for
personal, household or family purposes.[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

GREENSKY INC: Class Actions over IPO Ongoing
--------------------------------------------
GreenSky, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 15, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the Company and certain
of its officers and directors are currently subject to putative
securities class actions, which have been consolidated, in
connection with the Company's initial public offering.

The Company and certain of its officers and directors, together
with certain underwriters of the Company's initial public offering
(IPO), were named in six putative class actions filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, all of which actions have
been consolidated (In Re GreenSky, Inc. Securities Litigation
(Consolidated Action), Index No. 655626/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (the
"State Case")), and in two putative class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
both of which actions also have been consolidated (In Re GreenSky,
Inc. Securities Litigation (Consolidated Action), Case No.
1:2018-cv-11071-PAE (S.D.N.Y.) (the "Federal Case" and, together
with the State Case, the "Consolidated Cases")).

The Company and its officers and directors named in the
Consolidated Cases intend to defend themselves vigorously in all
respects in regard thereto.

GreenSky said, "Under certain circumstances, the Company may be
obligated to indemnify some or all of the other defendants in the
Consolidated Cases. As the Company has not determined the
likelihood of loss with respect to the Consolidated Cases to be
probable, the Company has not recorded any liability as of March
31, 2019 with respect to either of such actions."

GreenSky, Inc., a technology company, provides point-of-sale
financing and payment solutions to merchants, consumers, and banks.
It offers a proprietary technology infrastructure that support the
full transaction lifecycle, including credit application,
underwriting, real-time allocation to bank partners, document
distribution, funding, settlement, and servicing functions. The
company was incorporated in 2017 and is headquartered in Atlanta,
Georgia.


HANJIN INTERNATIONAL: Hernandez Seeks OT Premium Pay
----------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Hanjin
International Corp et al for alleged violations of the California
Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The
case is captioned ESTEBAN HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself, all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. HANJIN INTERNATIONAL
CORP., a California corporation; INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP,
INC., a Delaware corporation; INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP
(U.S.A.) FRANCHISING, INC., a Delaware corporation; SIX CONTINENTS
HOTELS, INC., a Delaware corporation; INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP
RESOURCES, INC., a Delaware corporation; IHG MANAGEMENT (MARYLAND)
LLC, a Maryland limited liability company; INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19CV348149 (Cal. Super., Santa
Clara Cty., May 29, 2019). Among others, Plaintiff Esteban
Hernandez alleges that the Defendants failed to pay him and all
other similarly situated aggrieved employees overtime wages at the
correct rate and failed to provide them the accurate written wage
statements.

Based in Los Angeles, Hanjin International Corp. owns and operates
real estate properties. It offers the Wilshire Grand Centre, which
comprises a hotel and office buildings, restaurant and retail
spaces, and other amenities. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shaun Setareh, Esq.
     William M. Pao, Esq.
     Alexandra R. McIntosh, Esq.
     SETAREH LAW GROUP
     315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315
     Beverly Hills, CA 90212
     Telephone: (310) 888-7771
     Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
     E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
             william@setarehlaw.com
             alex@setarehlaw.com


HEALTHRIGHT LLC: Nelson Seeks Certification of Employees Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled CANDIE NELSON, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. HEALTHRIGHT, LLC, Case
No. 8:18-cv-02678-JSM-CPT (M.D. Fla.), asks the Court to certify
this class:

     Any employee employed by Defendant HEALTHRIGHT, LLC, who was
     not given a minimum of 60-days advance written notice of
     termination and whose employment was terminated as a result
     of a "mass layoff" or "plant closing" as defined in 20
     C.F.R. Section 639.3 and 29 U.S.C. Section 2101 under the
     Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification [WARN] Act of
     1988.  The class does not include part-time employees as
     defined under 29 U.S.C. Section 2101(a)(8).

Moreover, the Plaintiff seeks an order appointing her as class
representative, appointing the law firm of Florin Gray Bouzas
Owens, LLC as class counsel, and authorizing notice to all class
members.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Miguel Bouzas, Esq.
          Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
          FLORIN, GRAY, BOUZAS, OWENS, LLC
          16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
          Lutz, FL 33558
          Telephone (727) 254-5255
          Facsimile (727) 483-7942
          E-mail: miguel@fgbolaw.com
                  wolfgang@fgbolaw.com


HENRIK VIBSKOV: Fischler Alleges Disabilities Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Henrik Vibskov Americas, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Henrik Vibskov Americas,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05313 (S.D. N.Y., June 5, 2019).

Henrik Vibskov Americas, Inc. is a clothing store in New York City,
New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HERTZ CORPORATION: Kemal Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------
POLAT KEMAL, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, as class representative, Plaintiffs, v. THE HERTZ
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05461 (S.D. N.Y., June 11,
2019) seeks to recover overtime compensation for Plaintiff and
similarly situated individuals who have worked as Location Managers
or in comparable roles with different titles ("LMs") for Defendant
to remedy violations of the New York Labor Law, and supporting
regulations.

The Defendant utilizes LMs as part of its workforce at its rental
locations. To serve their customers' needs and maximize profits,
Defendant regularly requires LMs to work in excess of 40 hours per
week during the New York Class Period. In order to minimize labor
costs, Defendant staffs its rental locations leanly and strictly
manages hours worked by non-exempt, hourly workers to avoid paying
them overtime wages. Because of this, LMs regularly work in excess
of 40 hours per workweek and frequently work ten or more hours a
day. Accordingly, the Defendant has violated the New York Labor Law
by failing to pay LMs, including Plaintiff, the overtime wages they
have earned and to which they are entitled by law, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Kemal was employed by Defendant as a LM from
approximately May 2013 to October 2015 at rental locations in New
York, New York.

Hertz operates its worldwide vehicle rental business through
multiple brands, including Hertz, Dollar, and Thrifty.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Palitz, Esq.
     SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A
     830 3rd Avenue, 5th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: (800) 616-4000
     Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
     Email: mapalitz@shavitzlaw.com

          - and -

     Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
     Camar R. Jones, Esq.
     Tamra C. Givens, Esq.
     SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
     951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
     Boca Raton, FL 33431
     Phone: (561) 447-8888
     Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
     Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
            cjones@shavitzlaw.com
            tgivens@shavitzlaw.com


HOPFED BANCORP: Bushansky Files Action Over Sale to First Financial
-------------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN BUSHANSKY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. HOPFED BANCORP, INC., HARRY J.
DEMPSEY, JOHN E. PECK, MARK D. ALCOTT, MICHAEL L. WOOLFOLK, STEVE
HUNT, THOMAS I. MILLER, RICHARD H. PERKINS, and TED S. KINSEY,
Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00084-TBR (W.D. Ky., June 11, 2019) is
a class action on behalf of the public stockholders of HopFed
Bancorp, Inc. against HopFed and the members of its Board of
Directors, for their violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for breaches of fiduciary duty as a result of
Defendants' efforts to sell the Company to First Financial
Corporation as a result of an unfair process and to enjoin the vote
on the Proposed Transaction.

On January 7, 2019, HopFed and First Financial issued a joint press
release announcing they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger dated January 7, 2019. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, for each share of HopFed common stock they own, HopFed
stockholders may elect to receive, subject to proration: (i) 0.444
shares of First Financial common stock, or (ii) $21.00 in cash (the
"Merger Consideration"). The Merger Consideration is subject to
proration so that the aggregate consideration paid consists of
approximately 50% cash and 50% First Financial common stock. Based
on the closing price of First Financial common stock of $43.01 per
share on January 4, 2019, the implied value of the Merger
Consideration is $20.05 per share. The Proposed Transaction is
valued at approximately $128.3 million.

On April 11, 2019, HopFed and First Financial filed a joint proxy
statement/prospectus on Form S-4, as amended on June 6, 2019, with
the SEC in connection with the Proposed Transaction. However, the
Registration Statement, which recommends that HopFed stockholders
vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits or misrepresents
material information concerning, among other things: (i) the data
and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that support
the fairness opinion provided by the Company's financial advisor
Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc. ("KBW"); and (ii) the background
process leading to the Proposed Transaction.

The failure to adequately disclose such material information
constitutes a violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and is a breach of the Individual Defendants' fiduciary duties
as HopFed stockholders need such information in order to cast a
fully-informed vote or seek appraisal in connection with the
Proposed Transaction, the complaint asserts. Additionally, the
Board erected barriers to lock up the Proposed Transaction and
preclude other bidders from making a successful competing offer for
the Company. The Board entered into the Proposed Transaction to
procure for themselves and senior management of the Company
significant and immediate benefits not available to the Company's
public stockholders, says the complaint.

As such, the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties
to the Company's stockholders by (i) erecting barriers preventing
alternative offers to purchase control of the Company or its
assets; (ii) engaging in self-dealing and obtained for themselves
personal benefits, including personal financial benefits, not
shared equally by Plaintiff or the other stockholders of HopFed
common stock; and (iii) causing the materially incomplete and
misleading Registration Statement to be disseminated to the
Company's stockholders. To remedy the Individual Defendants
misconduct, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief preventing
consummation of the Proposed Transaction, unless and until the
Company adopts and implements a procedure and process to obtain a
transaction that provides the best possible terms for stockholders,
and defendants disclose all material information concerning the
Proposed Transaction to HopFed stockholders.

Plaintiff is a continuous stockholder of HopFed.

HopFed is the holding company for Heritage, a Kentucky state
chartered commercial bank headquartered in Hopkinsville,
Kentucky.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Randall S. Strause, Esq.
     STRAUSE LAW GROUP, PLLC
     804 Stone Creek Pkwy, Suite 1
     Louisville, KY 40223
     Phone: (502) 426-1661
     Email: rstrause@strauselawgroup.com

          - and -

     Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
     Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
     Kelly K. Moran, Esq.
     WEISSLAW LLP
     1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
     New York, NY 10036
     Phone: (212) 682-3025
     Fax: (212) 682-3010


HUNGRYROOT INC: Tatum-Rios Files Class Suit under Disabilities Act
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hungryroot, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Lynette
Tatum-Rios, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hungryroot, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-05464 (S.D. N.Y., June 11, 2019).

Hungryroot is a brand of fresh, clean-ingredient foods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HYUNDAI CO: Elliston et al. Sue over GDI Engine Defects
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Hyundai Motor
Company, Hyundai Motor America, Kia Motors Corporation, and Kia
Motors America, Inc. for alleged violations of several state
consumer protection statutes in connection with their vehicles'
potentially catastrophic engine defects that reportedly lead to
spontaneous engine fires or sudden engine stalls while in motion.
The case is captioned INEZ ELLISTON, MATTHEW RAASCH, LATOYA TAYLOR,
TASHA GILL, GREG COHEN, MARGARET GREENWALT, DIMITRA BERTSOS, JERRY
STANWICK, STEPHANIE COOPER, CHRIS HAZELWOOD, DAVID FEURSTEIN,
FABIAN CONANT, WAYNE ROBERTSON, JOHNATHAN WILSON, GARY BOLDUC,
TANESHA CHERRY, LATONYA FRANKLIN, WENDY MOORE and SAMANTHA BITELY,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, KIA
MOTORS CORPORATION, and KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-04684 (C.D.
Cal., May 29, 2019). Plaintiffs Elliston et al allege that Hyundai
and Kia have been concealing the serious engine defects in its
popular vehicle models equipped with gasoline direct-injection
(GDI) engines.

Hyundai Motor Company  is a South Korean multinational automaker
headquartered in Seoul, South Korea. Hyundai Co. has grown to
become one of the world’s largest automakers and includes over
two dozen auto-related subsidiaries and affiliates. Hyundai Co. is
the parent corporation of Defendant Hyundai Motor America. Hyundai
Co., together with Defendants Hyundai Motor America, Kia Motors
Corporation, and Kia Motors America, Inc., comprise the Hyundai
Motor Group, which manufactures the GDI engines.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard D. McCune, Esq.
     MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
     3281 East Guasti Road, Suite 100
     Ontario, CA 91761
     Telephone: (909) 557-1250
     Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
     E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
             
             - and –

     Derek Y. Brandt, Esq.
     Leigh M. Perica, Esq.
     MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
     101 W. Vandalia Street, Suite 200
     Edwardsville, IL 62025
     Telephone: (618) 307-6116
     Facsimile: (618) 307-6161
     E-mail: dyb@mccunewright.com
             lmp@mccunewright.com


I3 VERTICALS: Expert Auto Repair Litigation Concluded
-----------------------------------------------------
i3 Verticals, 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 the so-called Expert
Auto Litigation has been concluded.

On June 14, 2016, Expert Auto Repair, Inc., for itself and on
behalf of a class of additional plaintiffs, and Jeff Straight
initiated a class action lawsuit against the Company, as alleged
successor to Merchant Processing Solutions, LLC, in the Los Angeles
County Superior Court of California, seeking damages, restitution
and declaratory and injunctive relief (the "Expert Auto
Litigation").

The plaintiffs alleged that Merchant Processing Solutions, LLC, the
Company's alleged predecessor, engaged in unfair business practices
in the merchant services sector including unfairly inducing
merchants to obtain credit and debit card processing services and
thereafter assessing them with improper fees.

On April 10, 2018, the Court granted conditional class
certification and preliminary approval of an agreed settlement of
$995 and scheduled a final fairness hearing for December 2018.

After notice class members expiration of the opt-out/objection
deadline, on December 14, 2018, the Court gave final class
certification and approval of the agreed settlement. The final
judgment and order was entered by the Court on January 23, 2019.

The reserved amount is reflected in accrued expenses and other
current liabilities as of March 31, 2019.

The amount was included in general and administrative expenses in
the consolidated statement of operations for the year ended
September 30, 2017.

The settlement was funded on April 8, 2019 and this matter is
concluded.

i3 Verticals, Inc. provides integrated payment and software
solutions to small- and medium-sized businesses and organizations
in education, non-profit, public sector, property management, and
healthcare markets in the United States. The company was founded in
2012 and is headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee.


ILLINOIS: Perconti Moves to Certify Class of Court Writ Inmates
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled Thomas Perconti v. John
Baldwin, Director of I.D.O.C., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-03566 (N.D.
Ill.), asks the Court to certify a class of:

     all "Court writ inmates" past, present and future who are
     similarly situated at the Northern Receiving
     Center/-Stateville Correctional Center, located at 16830 S.
     Broadway St. Box 112 Crest Hill, IL 60403.

The lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for alleged
violations of the First and Eighth Amendments of the United States
Constitution, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons
Act, the Due Process Clause, and their very own Departmental
Administrative Directives, regulations and policies.[CC]


INUVO INC: Accord Reached over Attorneys' Fees & Expenses
---------------------------------------------------------
A motion for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in the
Spagnolo v. Inuvo, Inc. et al., has been denied, without
prejudice.

"The parties informed the Court by telephone that they had reached
a settlement regarding the pending motion for attorney's fees
filed. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the motion is denied
without prejudice to renewal within 30 days of the date of this
Order if the settlement is not consummated," Judge Jesse M. Furman
of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
held.  "To be clear, any application to renew the motion must be
filed by the aforementioned deadline; any application to renew
filed thereafter may be denied solely on that basis. If the parties
do wish to renew the motion for attorney's fees, they need only
file a letter indicating that they wish to renew the motion; they
need not (and, absent leave of Court, may not) file a new motion or
briefs."

Inuvo, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 15, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019, that on December 19, 2018 and December 20,
2018, respectively, Peter D'Arcy and Morris Akerman, both of whom
claim to be stockholders of Inuvo, filed separate putative class
action lawsuits, captioned D'Arcy v. Inuvo, Inc. et al., No.
1:18-cv-02023- UNA, in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware; and Akerman v. Inuvo, Inc. et al., No.
2:18-cv-02407, in the United States District Court for the District
of Nevada.

The two lawsuits each named Inuvo and the members of Inuvo's board
of directors as defendants.

The D'Arcy action also names ConversionPoint and various entities
created to effect the merger as defendants.

The complaints filed in the lawsuits assert claims under Section
14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act challenging the
adequacy of the disclosures relating to the merger transactions
made in a joint consent solicitation statement/prospectus.

On December 21, 2018, Domenic Spagnolo, another purported
stockholder of Inuvo, filed a substantially similar lawsuit,
captioned Spagnolo v. Inuvo, Inc. et al., No. 1:18-cv-12099, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
This lawsuit also challenges the adequacy of disclosure under the
same sections of the Exchange Act against Inuvo and its directors.

Each of the foregoing lawsuits seeks, among other relief, an
injunction preventing the parties from consummating the merger
transactions, damages in the event the merger transactions are
consummated, and an award of attorneys' fees. Inuvo and
ConversionPoint believe the claims asserted in the lawsuits are
without merit.

The company further believes that the allegations in the lawsuits
have been mooted by the filing of its  amended S-4 Registration
Statement on March 15, 2019.

Inuvo intends to vigorously contest any continued litigation, and
any fee petitions brought by Plaintiffs’ counsels.

On February 4, 2019, Inuvo filed a motion to dismiss, or in the
alternative to stay, the Akerman and Spagnolo actions pending the
resolution of the first-filed D'Arcy case.

Then, on March 4, 2019, Inuvo filed a second motion to dismiss the
Spagnolo action based on a failure to state a claim under the law.


In the Spagnolo action, the court issued an order giving Plaintiff
Spagnolo an opportunity to amend his complaint in response to the
second motion to dismiss, or alternatively, serve his opposition to
the motion to dismiss by March 25, 2019.

Additionally, Plaintiff Spagnolo filed for a preliminary
injunction, seeking to enjoin a shareholder vote on the merger. Per
court order, Inuvo responded to the preliminary injunction on March
1, 2019. Plaintiff Spagnolo replied on March 8, 2019.

Following the filing of the company's amended S-4 Registration
Statement on March 15, 2019, Plaintiff Spagnolo withdrew his motion
for preliminary injunction.

The next day, the court dismissed the Spagnolo action as moot and
set a deadline of April 11, 2019, for Plaintiff Spagnolo to make an
application for attorneys' fees and expenses.

On March 25, 2019, Plaintiff Spagnolo filed a motion for an award
of attorneys' fees and expenses.

Inuvo's opposition was filed on April 23, 2019. Plaintiff
Spagnolo's reply was filed May 9, 2019.

In the Akerman action, following the filing of the company's
amended S-4 Registration Statement on March 15, 2019, Plaintiff
Akerman filed a stipulation of dismissal, dismissing the entire
action, except with respect to a fee and expense request. No
deadline has been set for Plaintiff Akerman to file a fee and
expense request.

Inuvo, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, a technology company,
provides data-driven platforms that automatically identify and
message online audiences across video, mobile, connected TV,
display, and social and native devices, channels, and formats in
the United States.  Inuvo, Inc. was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in Little Rock, Arkansas.


INUVO INC: Franchi Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
Inuvo, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 15, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019, that the class action suit entitled, Franchi
v. Inuvo, Inc. et al., No. A-19-787021-C, has been voluntarily
dismissed.

On January 4, 2019 and January 8, 2019, respectively, two more
purported stockholders of Inuvo, Adam Franchi and Les Thomas,
commenced substantially similar putative class action lawsuits
under Nevada state law, captioned Franchi v. Inuvo, Inc. et al.,
No. A-19-787021-C and Thomas v. Inuvo, Inc. et al., No. T19-57, in
the District Court of the State of Nevada in the County of Clark.

These complaints name Inuvo and the members of Inuvo's board of
directors as defendants. The Franchi action also names
ConversionPoint and various entities created to effect the merger
as defendants.

Both complaints assert breach of fiduciary duties claims arising
from the adequacy of the disclosures relating to the merger
transactions made in a joint consent solicitation statement/
prospectus, and both complaints seek an injunction preventing the
parties from consummating the merger transactions, damages in the
event the merger transactions are consummated and an award of
attorneys' fees.

Inuvo and ConversionPoint believe the claims asserted in the
Franchi and Thomas lawsuits are similarly without merit. The
company believes that the allegations in the lawsuits have been
mooted by the filing of our amended S-4 Registration Statement on
March 15, 2019. ConversionPoint and Inuvo intend to vigorously
contest any continued litigation, and any fee petitions brought by
Plaintiffs' counsel.

On January 25, 2018, the Thomas plaintiff filed a preliminary
injunction seeking to enjoin the merger. A hearing on the
preliminary injunction was held on March 18, 2019.

The Franchi and Thomas complaints seek, among other relief, an
injunction preventing the parties from consummating the merger
transactions, damages in the event the merger transactions are
consummated and an award of attorneys' fees.

Inuvo and ConversionPoint believe the claims asserted in the
lawsuits are without merit.

On February 5 and 14, 2019, Inuvo filed motions to dismiss, or in
the alternative to stay, the Franchi and Thomas actions,
respectively, pending the resolution of the first-filed D'Arcy
action. A hearing on the Franchi motion is yet to be scheduled.

Following the filing of the company's amended S-4 Registration
Statement on March 15, 2019, Plaintiff Thomas filed a stipulation
of dismissal, dismissing the action, but requesting the court
maintain jurisdiction to determine Plaintiff's mootness fee claim.


On April 12, 2019, counsel for Plaintiff Thomas filed a motion for
attorneys' fees and expenses. Inuvo filed its brief in opposition
on May 3, 2019. Plaintiff Thomas's reply is due no later than May
17, 2019. The Thomas court has set the matter for hearing without
argument on May 24, 2019.

On April 11, 2019, Plaintiff Franchi filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal.

Inuvo, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, a technology company,
provides data-driven platforms that automatically identify and
message online audiences across video, mobile, connected TV,
display, and social and native devices, channels, and formats in
the United States.  Inuvo, Inc. was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in Little Rock, Arkansas.


IZEA WORLDWIDE: Settlement in Perez Suit Gets Preliminary Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
IZEA Worldwide, 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 the settlement in the
class action suit entitled, Julian Perez, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. IZEA, Inc., et al., has
won preliminary court approval.

A securities class action lawsuit, Julian Perez, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IZEA, Inc., et al.,
case number 2:18-cv-02784-SVW-GJS was instituted April 4, 2018 in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against the Company and certain of its executive officers on behalf
of certain purchasers of its common stock.

The plaintiffs seek to recover damages for investors under federal
securities laws. The Company believes that the plaintiffs'
allegations are without merit and intends to continue to vigorously
defend against the claims.

However, based upon currently available information and review with
outside counsel, the Company has estimated and accrued a potential
loss of $500,000 representing its deductible on the associated
insurance coverage.

On April 15, 2019, a stipulation of settlement was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California that
contained settlement terms as agreed upon by the company and the
other parties to the Perez class action lawsuit.

The settlement terms as agreed upon by the parties include that,
within 15 business days of execution of the stipulation of
settlement, IZEA's insurer will deposit $250,000 into the
settlement fund.

Within 20 business days of entry of the Court's order of
preliminary approval, the company's insurer will make a payment of
$550,000 and the company will pay the remainder of the Company's
previously accrued insurance deductible (400,000) into escrow to be
used as settlement funds, inclusive of lead plaintiff awards and
lead counsel fees.

The settlement is subject to approval by the U.S. District Court,
and the plaintiff has filed a motion for preliminary approval of
the settlement which the court entered on May 8, 2019.

Upon final approval by the Court, the settlement will require that
the Perez lawsuit be dismissed with prejudice.

IZEA Worldwide said, "In the event that the Court does not approve
the settlement, we intend to vigorously defend against the
claims."

IZEA Worldwide, Inc. creates and operates online marketplaces that
connect marketers and content creators. IZEA Worldwide, Inc. was
founded in 2006 and is headquartered in Winter Park, Florida.


JUN-YAN LLC: Hussein Seeks to Certify Class and to Notify Members
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned Abdullah Hussein and Lutfi
Hussein, On behalf of Themselves and all others similarly situated
v. Jun-Yan, LLC, Yun Yan and "John" Yan, Case No. 2:19-cv-00021-LA
(E.D. Wisc.), move the Court for an order granting Conditional
Class Certification and Court Facilitated Notice of all potential
class members.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Yingtao Ho, Esq.
          THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM, S.C.
          310 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW
          Milwaukee, WI 53203
          Telephone: (414) 271-4500
          Facsimile: (414) 271-6308
          E-mail: yh@previant.com


KEYTRONICEMS: Settlement in Vang Class Suit Has Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Kou Thao Vang and Dao Vang, on behalf Case of
themselves, others similarly situated, and the proposed Rule 23
Class, Plaintiffs, v. KeyTronicEMS and CDR Manufacturing, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-5408 (WMW/BRT) (D. Minn.), Judge
Wilhelmina M. Wright of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota granted (i) the Parties' joint motion for final approval
of their collective and class action settlement, and (ii) the
Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for attorneys' fees and costs.

On May 8, 2019, the Court held a Fairness Hearing to determine
whether the Stipulation of Settlement dated Nov. 7, 2018 should be
finally approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate.  The
Plaintiffs' Counsel has moved for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses consistent with the Attorneys' Fees and
Costs Award set forth in the Stipulation.  The Plaintiffs have
moved for an award of a service payment to the Named Plaintiffs, in
the amount of $500 each, for each Named Plaintiff's contributions
to the case.

Judge Wright has considered all the submissions and arguments of
the Parties.  She finds that the Settlement of the Litigation was
not the product of collusion between the Parties or their
respective counsel, but rather it constitutes the settlement of a
bona fide dispute as a result of arm's-length negotiations
conducted in good faith between the parties and their counsel.

With the exception of Jessica Seim, the individuals identified in
Exhibit 3 to the Parties' joint motion for final settlement
approval will make up the settlement class and will release the
State Law Released Claims.  Exhibit 1 to the Parties' joint motion
for final settlement approval identifies the Settling Plaintiffs
who additionally release their Federal Released Claims.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and Title 29, United
States Code, Sections 201 et. seq., the Judge approved the
Settlement in all respects, including but not limited to (1) the
notice provided to the Putative FLSA Collective Action Members and
the Putative Rule 23 Class Members, (2) the release of the Federal
Released Claims and the State Law Released Claims, and (3) the
amount of the Total Settlement Amount.  The Parties are directed to
perform pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement.  

The Judge awarded the Plaintiffs' Counsel's requested attorneys'
fees in the amount of $36,444.18, as well as costs and expenses
totaling $4,533.84.  Except for the Attorneys' Fees and Costs
Award, the parties are to bear their own costs and fees.  She also
awarded the service payments as requested.  The service payments
will be paid from the Total Settlement Amount in accordance with
the terms of the Stipulation.  She approved the proposed Allocation
of Settlement proceeds as set forth in the Stipulation, and the
parties are directed to distribute the settlement proceeds
accordingly.  

The Judge also approved the National Employment Law Project
("NELP") as the cy pres recipient to receive the amounts of any
uncashed settlement checks, as well as the value of all State Law
Settlement Allocations attributed to Settlement Class Members who
cannot be located through the notice process contemplated by the
Stipulation.

In accordance with the Stipulation, the Judge dismissed from the
Litigation, without prejudice and without further costs, the claims
of Jessica Seim, the Opt-Out Rule 23 Plaintiff, and the FLSA claims
of Moua Yang, the Optin Plaintiff who did not become a Settling
Plaintiff. The statute of limitations for these claims of these
individuals are tolled for 30 days following the date of the Order.
In accordance with the Stipulation, she dismissed all remaining
aspects of the Litigation with prejudice and without further
costs.

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter final judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 14, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Cm14I6 from Leagle.com.

Kou Thao Vang, on behalf of themselves, others similarly situated,
and the proposed Rule 23 Class & Dao Vang, on behalf of themselves,
others similarly situated, and the proposed Rule 23 Class,
Plaintiffs, represented by Rebekah L. Bailey -- bailey@nka.com --
Nichols Kaster, PLLP & Richard A. Williams, Jr., R.A.WILLIAMS LAW
FIRM, P.A.

KeyTronicEMS & CDR Manufacturing, Inc., doing business as Ayrshire
Electronics, Defendants, represented by Ryan E. Mick --
mick.ryan@dorsey.com -- Dorsey & Whitney LLP & Trevor C. Brown --
brown.trevor@dorsey.com -- Dorsey & Whitney, LLP.


KINGSTON DATA: Lawson Alleges Violation Under FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kingston Data and
Credit International, Inc. The case is styled as Quentin T. Lawson,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Kingston Data and Credit International, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 6:19-cv-00255-JCB-KNM (E.D. Tex., June 12, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Kingston Data and Credit International, Inc. is an accounts
receivable management firm assisting creditors with credit
management.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Taxiarchis Hatzidimitriadis, Esq.
   Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd
   2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200
   Lombard, IL 60148
   Tel: (630) 581-5858
   Fax: (630) 575-8188
   Email: thatz@sulaimanlaw.com

      - and -

   Nathan Charles Volheim, Esq.
   Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd
   2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200
   Lombard, IL 60148
   Tel: (630) 568-3056
   Fax: (630) 575-8188
   Email: nvolheim@sulaimanlaw.com




LEXINGTON LAW: Vergara Sues over Unwanted Marketing Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEJANDRO VERGARA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHN C. HEATH, ATTORNEY AT
LAW, PLLC d/b/a LEXINGTON LAW, the Defendant, Case No.
0:19-cv-61419-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 6, 2019), seeks injunctive
relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, and also seeks
statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the class,
and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from
the illegal actions of the Defendant under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant owns and operates a
national credit repair organization that offers its skills and
services to consumers at large. In efforts to drum-up business,
Defendant would often send marketing text messages providing
different types of offers and savings for future purchases without
first obtaining express written consent to send such marketing text
messages as required to do so under the TCPA.

These messages were sent using mass-automated technology through a
third-party company hired by Defendant to send marketing text
messages on Defendant’s behalf en masse.

In sum, the Defendant knowingly and willfully violated the TCPA,
causing injuries to Plaintiff and members of the putative class,
including invasion of their privacy, aggravation, annoyance,
intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion, the lawsuit
says.

The TCPA prohibits: (1) any person from calling a cellular
telephone number; (2) using an automatic telephone dialing system;
(3) without the recipient’s prior express consent, 47 U.S.C.
section.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

          Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1700
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 907-1136
          Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
          E-mail: tom@jibraellaw.com
                  jibrael@jibraellaw.com

LOGAN CENTERS: OT Pay Sought for Mental Health Therapists
---------------------------------------------------------
TAMMY CARDEN, JOYCE HARRIS, SABRINA BROWN, SHERRY HODGE and TIFFANY
BLAKE, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. THE LOGAN CENTERS, the Defendant, Case
No. 3:19-cv-00167-DPM (E.D. Ark., June 5, 2019), alleges that
Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, when Defendant
failed to pay Plaintiffs and others similarly situated employees
lawful overtime premiums for hours worked in excess of 40 per week
when they were employed as hourly "therapists" or "Qualified
Behavioral Health Providers" ("QBHP").

The case is a collective action brought by Plaintiffs and on behalf
of all mental health therapist employees of Defendant at any time
within a three-year period preceding the filing of the complaint.
The Plaintiffs likewise allege that Defendant violated the FLSA
when Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and others similarly
situated lawful overtime premiums for hours worked in excess of 40
per week when they were employed as salaried "mental health
therapists", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

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

MAMMOTH ENERGY: Cantu et al. Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO CANTU and NORBERTO ELIZONDO, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. MAMMOTH
ENERGY SERVICES, INC. d/b/a COBRA ENERGY and HIGHER POWER
ELECTRICAL, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00615 (W.D. Tex.,
June 5, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
damages from Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. and Higher Power
Electrical, LLC under the provisions of section 216(b) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, and the Puerto Rico Wage Payment Statute.

The Plaintiffs and those similarly situated regularly worked for
Defendants in excess of 40 hours each week. The Defendants
allegedly failed to properly compensate Plaintiffs and all other
similarly situated workers. Instead Defendants paid Plaintiffs, and
other workers like him a day rate regardless of the number of hours
worked and regardless of their classification as an employee or
independent contractor, the lawsuit says.

Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. is an integrated oilfield service
company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

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

MASTERS PHARMACEUTICAL: Grand Family Sues over Unsolicited Fax Ads
------------------------------------------------------------------
GRAND FAMILY IMMEDIATE MEDICAL CARE P.C., a New York professional
corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, vs. MASTERS
PHARMACEUTICAL, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company, and MASTERS
DRUG COMPANY, INC. d/b/a MASTERS PHARMACEUTICAL, a Delaware
corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03321 (E.D.N.Y., June
5, 2019), challenges Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited
advertisements via facsimile in violation of the federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax
Prevention Act of 2005.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have sent facsimile
transmissions of unsolicited advertisements to Plaintiff and the
Class in violation of the TCPA, including, but not limited to, the
facsimile transmission of an unsolicited advertisement on or about
January 2019.

The Plaintiff alleges Defendants have sent, and continue to send,
unsolicited advertisements via facsimile transmission in violation
of the TCPA, including but not limited to those advertisements sent
to Plaintiff, the lawsuit says.

Unsolicited faxes damage their recipients. A junk fax recipient
loses the use of its fax machine, paper, and ink toner. An
unsolicited fax wastes the recipient's valuable time that would
have been spent on something else. A junk fax intrudes into the
recipient's seclusion and violates the recipient's right to
privacy. Unsolicited faxes occupy fax lines, prevent fax machines
from receiving authorized faxes, prevent their use for authorized
outgoing faxes, cause undue wear and tear on the recipients' fax
machines, and require additional labor to attempt to discern the
source and purpose of the unsolicited message.

Masters Pharmaceutical, Inc. distributes pharmaceutical and medical
products for pharmacies in the United States. Masters
Pharmaceutical, Inc. was formerly known as DBS Trading, Inc.
Masters Pharmaceutical, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is based in
Mason, Ohio.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
          BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
          85 Miles Avenue
          White Plaines, NY 10606
          Telephone: 914-358-5345
          Facsimile: 212-571-0284
          E-mail: Aytan.Bellin@bellinlaw.com

               - and -

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: 847-368-1500
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com

MCKESSON CORP: Amended Complaint Filed in Pension Trust Fund Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
McKesson Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 15, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2019, that the lead plaintiff Pension
Trust Fund for Operating Engineers has filed an amended complaint
and added insider trading allegations against defendant John
Hammergren.

On December 12, 2018, the Company was served with a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, alleging that McKesson and two of its
officers, CEO John Hammergren and former CFO James Beer, violated
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by reporting profits and
revenues from 2013 until early 2017 that were false and misleading,
due to an alleged conspiracy to fix the prices of generic drugs.

Evanston Police Pension Fund v. McKesson Corporation, No.
3:18-06525.

On February 8, 2019, the court appointed the Pension Trust Fund for
Operating Engineers as the lead plaintiff. On April 10, 2019, the
lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint that added insider
trading allegations against defendant Hammergren.

McKesson Corporation provides pharmaceuticals and medical supplies
in the United States and internationally. It operates in three
segments: U.S. Pharmaceutical and Specialty Solutions, European
Pharmaceutical Solutions, and Medical-Surgical Solutions. McKesson
Corporation was founded in 1833 and is headquartered in Irving,
California.


MCKESSON CORP: Bid to Stay True Health Chiropractic Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
McKesson Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 15, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2019, that the court in True Health
Chiropractic Inc., et al. v. McKesson Corporation, et al., has
denied the company's motion to stay the action pending the decision
by the Supreme Court on the company's petition for writ of
certiorari.

On May 17, 2013, the Company was served with a complaint filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California by True Health Chiropractic Inc., alleging that McKesson
sent unsolicited marketing faxes in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA"), as amended by the Junk
Fax Protection Act of 2005 or JFPA, True Health Chiropractic Inc.,
et al. v. McKesson Corporation, et al., CV-13-02219 (HG).

True Health Chiropractic later amended its complaint, adding
McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates as an additional named plaintiff
and McKesson Technologies Inc. as a defendant.

Both plaintiffs alleged that the Company violated the TCPA because
it sent faxes that did not contain notices regarding how to opt out
of receiving the faxes.

On July 16, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification
and on August 22, 2016, the court denied this motion, based, in
part, on the grounds that identifying solicited faxes would require
individualized inquiries as to consent.

Plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit. In March 2017, however, the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held, in an unrelated
matter, that the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC's) rule
requiring opt-out notices does not apply to solicited fax
advertisements (i.e. those sent with consent.)

On July 27, 2018, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed
in part the district court's denial of class certification and
remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.
Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification on
December 4, 2018.

On January 25, 2019, the Company filed a petition for writ of
certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States, asking the
court to review the ruling by the Ninth Circuit. On April 17, 2019,
the court denied the Company's motion to stay the action pending
the decision by the Supreme Court on the Company's petition for
writ of certiorari.    

McKesson Corporation provides pharmaceuticals and medical supplies
in the United States and internationally. It operates in three
segments: U.S. Pharmaceutical and Specialty Solutions, European
Pharmaceutical Solutions, and Medical-Surgical Solutions. McKesson
Corporation was founded in 1833 and is headquartered in Irving,
California.


MDL 1916: NJ Litigants' Cert. Bid Denied in Alien Tort Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Kenneth A. Marra denied the New Jersey Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification in the multidistrict litigation captioned
IN RE: CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL INC. ALIEN TORT STATUTE AND
SHAREHOLDERS DERIVATIVE LITIGATION, MDL No. 0:08-md-01916-KAM (S.D.
Fla.).

The Order and Opinion relates to the ATS Actions -- Case No.
08-80421-CIV-MARRA (N.J. Action) (Does 1-11) and Case No.
18-80248-CIV-MARRA (Ohio Action).

The New Jersey Plaintiffs seek certification of a "predominance"
class under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
consisting of these individuals:

     All persons who were the victims of (or who are the
     relatives and/or legal representatives of decedent victims)
     of extrajudicial killing; forced disappearance; torture;
     cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment; kidnapping; rape;
     forced displacement; crimes against humanity; or crimes
     against civilians constituting war crimes committed by the
     AUC in the banana-growing regions of Uraba and Magdalena
     from 1995 through 2004.

Judge Marra opines that the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate
the ascertainability of the proposed class.  The Plaintiffs have
also failed to carry their burden of demonstrating that common
questions of law or fact predominate over individual ones.
Finally, the Plaintiffs fail to establish that the class action
mechanism is a superior method of adjudication and hence fail to
establish a premise for certification of a common issues class
under Rule 23(c)(4), Judge Marra explains.

The New Jersey Plaintiffs' alternative motion to certify an
"issues" class under Rule 23(c)(4) is also denied.  The New Jersey
Plaintiffs' attempted reservation of a right to file a consecutive
motion for certification of a limited fund class at some future
point in time is stricken.  No further motions for class
certification shall be entertained.

The Court ruled that the cases will proceed on behalf of the
individually-named plaintiffs.

The Clerk of Court is directed to file a copy of this order in Case
No. 08-MD-1916 and this Order shall apply to each member case in
this MDL litigation previously transferred to, removed to or filed
in this district, including all member cases consolidated in this
proceeding through this date.

In any cases subsequently filed in this district, or subsequently
removed or transferred to this Court, a copy of the most recent
Global Scheduling Order governing "ATS" cases will be provided by
the Clerk to counsel appearing in each new action upon removal or
transfer, according to the Order.  It shall thereafter be the
responsibilities of the parties to review and abide by all
scheduling orders previously entered by the court.

The litigation involves the claims of thousands of Colombian
nationals, who allege that they or their family members were
victims of kidnapping, torture, extrajudicial killings or other
human rights abuses during the Colombian civil war at the hands of
a violent right-wing paramilitary group with financial ties to a
United States-based corporation.  More specifically, the Plaintiffs
contend that Chiquita Brands International, Inc. funneled
approximately $1.7 million to the Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia
(United Self-Defense Groups of Colombia, or the "AUC").

The AUC is a Colombian terrorist organization believed to have
massacred over 100,000 persons in Colombia between 1995 and 2006,
including over 10,000 civilians living in the fertile Uraba and
Magdalena regions where Chiquita operated.  The funds provided by
Chiquita allegedly enhanced the AUC's terror capabilities and
facilitated its killing campaign in the regions where the
Plaintiffs and their families lived.

After Chiquita's financial relationship to the AUC and other
Colombian terror groups gained significant media attention in March
of 2007, when Chiquita pled guilty to making payments to a
designated terrorist organization and agreed to pay a $25 million
fine in criminal proceedings filed in the District of Colombia,
thousands of persons whose family members were allegedly brutalized
by the AUC filed suit in the United States seeking to hold Chiquita
and various of its executive officers accountable for their alleged
role in strengthening the AUC killing machinery.[CC]


MDL 2807: Alcoa v. Sonic Corp. over Data Breach Moved to Cleveland
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Alcoa Community Federal Credit Union individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Sonic
Corporation, Sonic Industries Services Inc., Sonic Capital LLC
Sonic Franchising LLC, Sonic Industries LLC, and Sonic Restaurants,
Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00770, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
(Cleveland) on June 6, 2019. The Cleveland Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:19-sb-55000-JSG to the proceeding.

The Alcoa Community case is being consolidated with MDL 2807 in re:
SONIC CORP. CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION. The MDL was
created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel Multidistrict
Litigation on June 5, 2019. The Panel find that the Plaintiffs in
the actions pending in MDL No. 2807 bring claims on behalf of
consumers affected by the breach. The Plaintiffs bring claims on
behalf of putative classes of financial institutions that issue or
service payment cards and whose customers made purchases from Sonic
stores. Movants argue that (1) the financial institution actions
are not within the scope of the Panel’s initial transfer order;
(2) these actions are unique because they were filed over a year
after the consumer actions and on behalf of a different class; (3)
no efficiencies will be gained by including them in the MDL because
the consumer actions are significantly more advanced; and (4) the
Western District of Oklahoma, where Sonic is headquartered, is a
more appropriate forum for the financial institution actions.

In its June 5, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that these actions
involve common questions of fact with the actions transferred to
MDL No. 2807, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. section 1407 will
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the
just and efficient conduct ofthe litigation.

It is true that these actions are in quite different procedural
postures. The consumer actions are on the cusp of settlement with a
final fairness hearing scheduled for July 2019, while the financial
institution actions are in their nascent stages. But all parties to
the financial institution actions support transfer. And including
these actions would create efficiencies by allowing for easy access
to common discovery and placing the actions before a judge who is
very familiar with the facts and issues in this litigation. It is
unlikely that the financial institution plaintiffs' presence in MDL
No. 2807 will disrupt or delay the consumer class settlement. They
are not members of the putative settlement class, and the
transferee judge can place their actions on a separate litigation
track, if he chooses. The Western District of Oklahoma is the
location of Sonic's headquarters, but no party to the financial
institution actions has sought centralization there. Moreover,
inclusion of the actions in the already-established MDL is the most
efficient path for these actions. Presiding Judge in the MDL is
Hon. Judge James S. Gwin. The lead case is 1:17-md-02807-JSG.[BN]

Attorneys for th Plaintiff are:

          Karen Sharp Halbert, Esq.
          Michael L. Roberts, Esq.
          Stephanie Egner Smith, Esq.
          ROBERTS LAW FIRM, P.A.
          Post Office Box 241790
          Little Rock, AR 72223-1790
          Telephone: (501) 821-5575
          Facsimile: (501) 821-4474
          E-mail: karenhalbert@robertslawfirm.us
                  mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us
                  stephanieegner@robertslawfirm.us

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          Kevin A. Crass, Esq.
          FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK
          Regions Center, Ste. 2000
          400 West Capitol Avenue
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3493
          Telephone: (501) 376-2011

MEHMOOD MIAHMED: Momin Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Aliakber Mustakali Momin, and All Others Similarly Situated v.
Mehmood Ahmed Miahmed, Case No. 4:19-cv-01897 (S.D. Tex., May 27,
2019), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime wages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

In violation of the FLSA, the Defendant failed to pay him and
Members of the Class overtime wages even though they routinely
worked in excess of 40 hours a week for the Defendant and his
businesses, Mr. Momin alleges.

Mehmood Ahmed Miahmed owns, operates and controls several tobacco
and smoke shops around the Houston Metropolitan area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq.
          ALI S. AHMED, P.C.
          One Arena Place
          7322 Southwest Frwy., Suite 1920
          Houston, TX 77074
          Telephone: (713) 223-1300
          Facsimile: (713) 255-0013
          E-mail: aahmedlaw@gmail.com


MERCEDES BENZ: 4th Amended Ferrarri Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEVE FERRARI, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. MERCEDES BENZ
USA, LLC, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-00018-YGR (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California granted Defendant Mercedes Benz
USA, LLC ("MBUSA")'s motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Fourth
Amended Complaint ("4thAC") without leave to amend.

The instant action is a new complaint filed by some of the same
Plaintiffs as the Ferrari et al. v. Autobahn, Inc. et al., Action
No. 4:15-cv-04379-YGR litigation previously dismissed by the Court.
The Plaintiffs filed San Mateo Superior Court and Defendant MBUSA
removed the action to the Court, on the basis of the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005.

Shortly after removal, the Plaintiffs filed a First Amended
Complaint ("FAC").  MBUSA moved to dismiss the FAC, and the Court
granted the motion in part with leave to amend, finding that the
Plaintiffs had failed to allege reliance and injury sufficient to
state a fraud claim based on the allegations that MBUSA had made
false statements about the longevity and superiority of genuine
Mercedes Benz parts.

The Plaintiffs thereafter filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"),
and MBUSA again moved to dismiss.  After the motion to dismiss the
SAC was fully briefed, the Plaintiffs untimely sought leave to file
a Third Amended Complaint ("TAC").  The Court granted the motion to
dismiss with leave to amend and directed the Plaintiffs to amend
the allegations in the proposed TAC accordingly.

In that Order, the Court noted that the proposed TAC laintiffs
submitted still did not address the issue that had caused the Court
to dismiss the fraud-based claim against MBUSA previously: failure
to allege reliance and resulting injury.  The Court noted that
alleging "some but not all" the Plaintiffs relied on the
representations without alleging the facts about whether any
Plaintiff saw the advertising making such representations, only
served to add to the insufficiency of the pleading.

Following the Order, the Plaintiffs filed their TAC on Feb. 6,
2018.  Subsequently, they filed a motion for preliminary approval
of a settlement with the other defendants to this action2 and filed
the 4thAC without first seeking leave of Court to do so.  The Court
initially ordered the Plaintiffs to show cause why the 4thAC should
not be stricken.

Once the parties confirmed that the 4thAC was being filed
consistent with the terms of the settlement, and that all parties
stipulated to its filing, the order to show cause was withdrawn and
the 4thAC was deemed filed.  The instant motion to dismiss is thus
directed to the allegations of the 4thAC.

The Plaintiffs concede that, to the extent the 4thAC alleged claims
against MBUSA based upon the use of non-Genuine Parts for service
and repairs, the Certified Pre-Owned vehicle program, and the use
of the zMax additive, those claims have been settled and released
as part of the class action settlement previously approved by the
Court.  The claims in the 4thAC that remain are based on
allegations that MBUSA falsely represented Genuine Parts to have
greater longevity and superior quality compared to non-Genuine
Parts.  Those claims are: (a) Count Two under the CLRA on behalf of
the class; (b) Count Five under the FAL on behalf of the class; (c)
Count Nine for fraud on behalf of the individual named Plaintiffs
only; and (d) Count Ten for negligent misrepresentation on behalf
of the individual named Plaintiffs only.

Judge Rogers finds that simply alleging misrepresentations without
facts to tie those allegations to any injury suffered by the
Plaintiffs is insufficient to establish that there is an existing
"case or controversy" between the Plaintiffs and MBUSA with respect
to those misrepresentations.  On standing grounds alone, the claims
must be dismissed.

For much the same reasons, the Judge holds that even if the Court
were to find that the Plaintiffs had alleged standing, they have
failed to allege facts to show they relied upon the alleged
misrepresentations and such reliance caused them harm.  In the
absence of any allegation that the Plaintiffs purchased Genuine
Parts, a generalized allegation that MBUSA made misrepresentations
"to entice consumers to enter into transactions involving
higher[-]priced Genuine Mercedes-Benz Parts, and the Plaintiffs
relied on these representations" is insufficient to allege the
fraud-based claims.  In addition, the Plaintiffs fail to allege
that they were exposed to any of the allegedly false advertising.
These gaps lead to the conclusion that they are unable to allege
that they suffered any harm as a result of the alleged
misrepresentations by MBUSA.

In sum, Judge Rogers holds that the Plaintiffs have not alleged
that any one of them purchased a Genuine Part.  In the absence of
such allegations, and with no alleged basis for finding MBUSA's
advertising caused them injury, the motion to dismiss is granted
without leave to amend, and the Plaintiffs' claims against MBUSA
are dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 14, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/r2xbmp from Leagle.com.

Steve Ferrari, Mike Keynejad, John Diaz, Harold Fethe & Ray
Gapasin, Plaintiffs, represented by Herman Franck , Franck and
Associates, Brian William Warwick -- bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com
-- Varnell and Warwick, David K. Lietz --
dlietz@varnellandwarwick.com  -- Varnell and Warwick, Elizabeth
Betowski, Franck and Associates & Janet Robards Varnell --
dlietz@varnellandwarwick.com -- Varnell and Warwick.

Patricia Reuben, individually and as representatives of the Class
of Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Herman
Franck, Franck and Associates, Brian William Warwick, Varnell and
Warwick, Elizabeth Betowski, Franck and Associates & Janet Robards
Varnell, Varnell and Warwick.

Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, Defendant, represented by Helen Yiea Trac
-- helen.trac@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, James Niles
Tansey -- james.tansey@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP &
Regina M. Rodriguez, Hogan Lovells US LLP.


MICHIGAN: Salami Moves for Certification of Parolees Class
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Mohammed Salami moves the Court for class certification and
appointment of class counsel in the lawsuit styled Michael Mohammed
Salami, et al. v. Michigan Parolee Board, Michael Eagen, et al.,
Case No. 2:19-cv-11321-DML-SDD (E.D. Mich.).

The class consists of approximately 300 inmates (parolees) forced
to participate in NA, AA and RSat, which is "higher-power" based,
and if they refuse, they will be returned to prison until they
complete RSat, Mr. Salami asserts.  He contends that the Defendants
have failed to provide 300+ parolees choice of an alternative
non-"higher-power" based program, and are knowingly suppressing
hundreds of parolees' freedom of religion.

Mr. Salami is currently incarcerated at the Saginaw Correctional
Facility, in Freeland, Michigan, and appears pro se.[CC]


MID VALLEY COLLECTION: Knudsen Files Class Suit Under FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mid Valley Collection
Bureau. The case is styled as Jessica Knudsen, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mid Valley
Collection Bureau, Law Offices of Clark Garen, Todd Shields, Donald
Hopp and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-05063 (C.D. Cal., June 11, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Mid Valley Collection Bureau is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Amir J Goldstein, Esq.
   Amir J Goldstein Law Offices
   8032 West Third Street Suite 201
   Los Angeles, CA 90048
   Tel: (323) 937-0400
   Fax: (866) 288-9194
   Email: ajg@consumercounselgroup.com



MONITRONICS INT'L: Gets $4.8MM from Insurer
-------------------------------------------
Monitronics International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 15, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company has
recovered $4,800,000 from one insurance carrier in a
Telemarketing-class action suit settlement.

The Company was named as a defendant in multiple putative class
actions consolidated in U.S. District Court (Northern District of
West Virginia) on behalf of purported class(es) for persons who
claim to have received telemarketing calls in violation of various
state and federal laws.

The actions were brought by plaintiffs seeking monetary damages on
behalf of all plaintiffs who received telemarketing calls made by a
Monitronics Authorized Dealer, or any Authorized Dealer's lead
generator or sub-dealer.

In the second quarter of 2017, the Company and the plaintiffs
agreed to settle this litigation for $28,000,000 ("the Settlement
Amount").

In the third quarter of 2017, the Company paid $5,000,000 of the
Settlement Amount pursuant to the settlement agreement with the
plaintiffs. In the third quarter of 2018, the Company paid the
remaining $23,000,000 of the Settlement Amount. The Company
recovered a portion of the Settlement Amount under its insurance
policies held with multiple carriers.

Monitronics said, "In the fourth quarter of 2018, we settled our
claims against two such carriers in which those carriers agreed to
pay us an aggregate of $12,500,000. In April of 2019, Monitronics
settled a claim against one such carrier in which that carrier
agreed to pay the Company $4,800,000."

Monitronics International, Inc., doing business as Brinks Home
Security, provides security alarm monitoring and related services
to residential and commercial customers in the United States,
Canada, and Puerto Rico. The company was founded in 1994 and is
based in Farmers Branch, Texas. Monitronics International, Inc. is
a subsidiary of Ascent Capital Group, Inc.


MOSAIC FASHIONS: Nisbett Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mosaic Fashions US Limited is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Kareem Nisbett, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mosaic Fashions US Limited doing
business as: Karen Millen, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05463 (S.D.
N.Y., June 11, 2019).

Mosaic Fashions US Ltd. markets apparel products. The Company
offers the retail sale of high quality contemporary women's wear
through specialist shops. Mosaic Fashions US serves customers in
the United States of America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATIONAL AUTO: Shanahan Sues over Unauthorized Telephone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
CATHERINE SHANAHAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL AUTO PROTECTION
CORP., a Florida corporation, MATRIX FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, NATION MOTOR CLUB, LLC, a
Florida limited liability company, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-03788 (N.D. Ill., June 6, 2019), seeks to stop Defendants'
illegal practice of making unauthorized calls that play prerecorded
voice messages to the cellular telephones of consumers nationwide,
and to obtain redress for all persons injured by their conduct.

According to the complaint, the Defendants sell and provide
aftermarket extended auto insurance. As a primary part of marketing
their products and services, Defendants and their agents placed
thousands of automated calls employing a prerecorded voice message
to consumers’ cell phones nationwide.

Unfortunately, the Defendants did not obtain prior express written
consent to place these calls and, therefore, are in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

On June 4, 2019, Plaintiff received a call from Defendants from on
her cell phone. The Defendants were calling from 216-373-7432. When
Plaintiff answered the phone, she heard a prerecorded voice message
advertising extended auto warranties. The prerecorded voice
instructed Plaintiff to "press one" to receive more information.

The Plaintiff "pressed one" and was then connected with Defendants
and/or their agents. The Defendants provided their customer service
number as 844-687-4695. The live telemarketing agent said that he
was selling auto contracts from Defendants. The Plaintiff discussed
the possibility of purchasing the plan from Defendants. The
Plaintiff received a copy of the plan which contained the company
information from Defendants. The Plaintiff never consented to
receive calls from Defendants. The Plaintiff has no relationship
with Defendants and has never requested that Defendants contact
Plaintiff in any manner, let alone place prerecorded voice calls to
Plaintiff’s cell phone.

Congress enacted the TCPA in 1991 to restrict the use of
sophisticated telemarketing equipment that could target millions of
consumers en masse. Congress found that these calls were not only a
nuisance and an invasion of privacy to consumers specifically but
were also a threat to interstate commerce generally, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class are:

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

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Hospitals Can Intervene in Mental Health Care Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, John Doe, v. Commissioner, New Hampshire Department of
Health and Human Services, et al, Civil No. 18-cv-1039-JD (D.
N.H.), Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. of the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Hampshire (i) granted Southern New
Hampshire Medical Center's motion to dismiss; and (ii) granted the
Hospitals' motion to intervene as Plaintiffs.

In the complaint, which was filed on Nov. 10, 2018, Doe alleges
that he is 26 years old and is married with two children.  He is
the breadwinner for the family.  He was admitted to the emergency
room at the Medical Center on Nov. 5, 2018, following a suicide
attempt.  Before he was admitted, Doe explained that he needed help
but also needed to work so that being admitted for an extended
period would cause financial harm to his family.

Because hospital staff thought Doe would not agree to being
admitted to the hospital for treatment, the Medical Center
completed a Petition and Certificate for Involuntary Emergency
Admission under RSA 135-C:27-33.  He was then held at the Medical
Center in a room with a TV but no windows.  He alleges that he
should have had a probable cause hearing by Nov. 8, 2018.  No
hearing was held.  Instead, the Medical Center simply renewed the
Certificate.  When the complaint was filed, Doe did not know when
he would be released.

While he was being detained involuntarily at Medical Center
following a suicide attempt, John Doe filed suit, seeking a writ of
habeas corpus against the Medical Center for his release and
declaratory and injunctive relief from the New Hampshire Department
of Health and Human Services ("NHDHHS") and the New Hampshire
Circuit Court, District Division.

Doe brings a class action in order to address the systemic problems
of emergency mental health care in New Hampshire and to require
change rather than achieve individual relief for himself.  He
brings four claims.  Three claims are designated as class action
claims, and the fourth seeks a writ of habeas corpus to require
NHDHHS and the Medical Center to release him. He does not state the
relief he seeks in each count but instead requests relief
separately at the end of the complaint.

In Count I, Doe brings a claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against
NHDHHS, the Medical Center, and the Circuit Court, District
Division alleging that the practice of involuntary detention
violates the procedural due process requirements of the Fourteenth
Amendment.  He seeks a declaratory judgment that the cited practice
violates the Fourteenth Amendment and an injunction to stop the
practice.  Count II claims that the same practice violates the
procedural due process requirements of Part I, Article 15, of the
New Hampshire Constitution and seeks a declaratory judgment and
injunction.  In Count III, Doe alleges that the Defendants violated
RSA 135-C:31, I by failing to provide due process to detained
individuals until after they are transferred to a designated
receiving facility and seeks a declaratory judgment and an
injunction to stop that practice.

Three days later, Doe voluntarily dismissed his claim against the
Medical Center, Count VI.  The Medical Center has moved to dismiss
all claims against it.  Twenty New Hampshire hospitals and the New
Hampshire Hospital Association, move to intervene as Plaintiffs in
the case.  In support, the Hospitals assert that they have a right
to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) and
alternatively ask that they be permitted to intervene under Rule
24(b).  The Hospitals filed their complaint in intervention which
alleges three claims against the NHDHHS and the Court.

The Hospitals claim that the NHDHHS's policy with respect to
involuntarily admitted patients effects an unlawful taking of the
Hospitals' property in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments and the New Hampshire Constitution, violates their
rights to due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and
violates provisions of RSA chapter 135-C.  The Hospitals name the
Court as a necessary party.  They seek nominal damages and an
injunction.

Although the NHDHHS initially assented to the motion to intervene,
it then filed a notice that it had withdrawn assent because the
Hospitals intended to file a complaint with their own claims
against the NHDHHS.  The NHDHHS and the Court subsequently filed a
joint response in which they state that they again assent to the
motion to intervene but do not waive any argument regarding the
substance of the Hospitals' complaint in intervention.  Doe agrees
that the Hospitals are necessary parties to allow him to obtain the
relief he seeks and takes no position on the scope of the
Hospitals' own claims.

Judge DiClerico holds that the Hospitals have met the requirements
for intervention as a matter of right.  In addition, even if that
were not the case, their claims share the same facts and some of
the same legal questions that are raised by Doe.  Therefore, the
Hospitals may intervene in the action.

For the foregoing reasons, the Judge granted Medical Center's
motion to dismiss.  He also granted the Hospitals' motion to
intervene as Plaintiffs.  The Hospitals will docket immediately
their complaint, as a complaint.

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

John Doe, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron J. Curtis --
aaron.curtis@weil.com -- Weil Gotshal & Manges, pro hac vice, Aaron
J. Shaddy, Weil Gotshal & Manges, pro hac vice, Lara E. Veblen
Trager, Weil Gotshal & Manges, pro hac vice, Theodore E. Tsekerides
-- theodore.tsekerides@weil.com -- Weil Gotshal & Manges, pro hac
vice, Henry Klementowicz, American Civil Liberties Union of New
Hampshire & Gilles R. Bissonnette, American Civil Liberties Union
of New Hampshire.

New Hampshire Hospital Association, Alice Peck Day Memorial
Hospital, Androscoggin Valley Hospital, Catholic Medical Center,
Cheshire Medical Center, Concord Hospital, Cottage Hospital, Elliot
Hospital, Frisbie Memorial Hospital, HCA Health Services of New
Hampshire, Huggins Hospital, Littleton Hospital Association,
LRGHealthcare, Mary Hitchcock Memorial Hospital, Monadnock
Community Hospital, New London Hospital, Southern New Hampshire
Medical Center, Speare Memorial Hospital, Upper Connecticut Valley
Hospital, Valley Regional Hospital & Weeks Medical Center,
Intervenor Plaintiffs, represented by Michael D. Ramsdell --
mramsdell@ramsdelllawfirm.com -- Ramsdell Law Firm PLLC.

NH Department of Health and Human Services, Commissioner, other,
Defendant, represented by Anthony Galdieri, Office of the Attorney
General, Lindsey B. Courtney, NH Department of Justice, Samuel R.V.
Garland, NH Attorney General's Office & Scott Edward Sakowski, NH
Attorney General's Office.

Southern New Hampshire Medical Center, Defendant, represented by
Michael D. Ramsdell, Ramsdell Law Firm PLLC.

New Hampshire Circuit Court District Division, Defendant,
represented by Kelvin A. Brooks, NH Department of Environmental
Services.


NEW YORK: Seeks 2nd Circuit Review of Decision in Gulino Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment
issued on April 25, 2019, in the lawsuit entitled Gulino, et al. v.
Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
originally filed a class action complaint on Nov. 8, 1996.  The
Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the
New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant, the
Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New
York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
Section 2000e et seq., by requiring the Plaintiffs to pass certain
racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a
license to teach in New York City public schools.

The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of
Education, et al., Case No. 19-1532, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Cecilia Marie Grant is represented by:

          Joshua S. Sohn, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          180 Maiden Lane
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 806-1245
          E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com

Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the New York City School
District of the City of New York is represented by:

          Zachary W. Carter, Esq.
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-1000
          E-mail: zcarter@law.nyc.gov


NEXMO INC: Removed Giannini Case to Northern Dist. of California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants removed case, ERIC GIANNINI as an individual and on
behalf of all similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff, vs. EXMO
INC., a Delaware Corporation; VONAGE HOLDINGS CORP a New Jersey
Corporation; and DOES 1-50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC-19-574951
(Filed April 2, 2019), from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Francisco to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on June 5, 2019. The
Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:19-cv-03127-DMR to the proceeding.

The complaint asserts the following causes of action: failure to
provide required meal periods; failure to provide required rest
periods; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay minimum
wages; failure to timely pay wages during employment; failure to
pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees; failure to
maintain required records; failure to furnish accurate, itemized
wage statements; failure to indemnify employees for necessary
expenditures incurred in the discharge of duties; unfair and
unlawful business practices; and penalties under the Private
Attorneys General Act Labor Code section 2698 et seq.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendants

          Kai-Ching Cha, Esq.
          Cheryl A. Kinoshita, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          333 Bush Street, 34th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415 433 1940
          Facsimile: 415 399 8490
          E-mail: kcha@littler.com
                  ckinoshita@littler.com

               - and -

          Britney N. Torres, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2000
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: 916 830 7200
          Facsimile: 916 561 0828
          E-mail: btorres@littler.com

NIAGARA CREDIT: Mahoney Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Niagara Credit
Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as John P Mahoney, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Niagara
Credit Solutions, Inc., LVNV Funding LLC, Resurgent Capital
Services L.P. and Sherman Financial Group, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 2:19-cv-03456 (E.D. N.Y., June 11, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Niagara Credit Solutions Inc or NCS is a debt collection
agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
   775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255
   Huntington, NY 11743
   Tel: (631) 335-1107
   Email: mpash@verizon.net



NIO INC: IPO Registration Statement Misleading, Isman Says
----------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder brought an action under sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 against NIO Inc.; certain of the
Company's senior executives and directors who signed the
registration statement and prospectus in connection with the
Company's initial public offering; and (3) each of the investment
banks that acted as underwriters for the Offering. Plaintiff
alleges that the Registration Statement (filed with the SEC on
September 12, 2018) contained materially incorrect or misleading
statements and/or omitted material information that was required by
law to be disclosed. The claims asserted are purely strict
liability and negligence claims.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are each strictly liable
for such misstatements and omissions therefrom and are so liable in
their capacities as signers of the Registration Statement and/or as
an issuer, statutory seller, offeror, and/or underwriter of the
shares sold pursuant to the Offering.

NIO designs, jointly manufactures, and sells smart and connected
premium electric vehicles, driving innovations in next generation
technologies in connectivity, autonomous driving, and artificial
intelligence.

On September 12, 2018, NIO conducted an IPO through which it
offered 160 million American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") to the
public at a price of $6.26 per share. Each ADS represented one
share of Class A ordinary stock. Ultimately, NIO generated total
proceeds of over $1 billion in connection with its IPO.

According to the Registration Statement, NIO intended to use the
net proceeds from the Offering for: (i) "research and development
of products, services and technology"; (ii) "selling and marketing
and development of sales channels, including NIO Houses"; (iii)
"development of manufacturing facilities and the roll-out of supply
chain"; and (iv) "general corporate purposes and working capital."
Notably, 25% of the net proceeds, or approximately $238.7 million,
was earmarked for the development of NIO's manufacturing facilities
and the roll out NIO's supply chain. Specifically, the Company
estimated that half of the total capital expenditures needed in
connection with the improvements and installation of equipment at
NIO's Shanghai manufacturing facility would be financed using the
net proceeds from the Offering, cash on hand and cash from sales of
vehicles.

NIO's commitment to build its own manufacturing facility in Jia
Ding, Shanghai, dates back to 2017 when it signed a framework
agreement and memorandum with the Chinese government and announced
its goal to open the facility and have it operational by 2019/2020
-- a key selling point to IPO investors, since this meant
manufacturing-related costs were likely to significantly decrease
as NIO would no longer have to rely on and compensate Chinese
government-owned JAC Auto.

The Registration Statement also touted as a "competitive strength"
NIO's mobile application, through which NIO sought to build an
"integrated online and offline community where users can interact
to provide an experience that goes beyond the car." The
Registration Statement indicated that NIO's "mobile application,
featuring moment sharing and an online fan shop, has become an
active online community" with "over 520,000 registered users as of
August 28, 2018."

Unbeknownst to investors, however, the Registration Statement's
representations were materially inaccurate, misleading, and/or
incomplete because they failed to disclose, inter alia, that: (i)
the Company would not build its own manufacturing plant in
Shanghai; (ii) the Company's manufacturing-related costs would
continue to remain high, as NIO would continue to rely on and
compensate state-owned JAC Auto to build its vehicles; (iii) the
number of registered users of the Company's mobile application did
not reflect the active user base; and (iv) as a result, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis. Accordingly, the price of the Company's ADSs was
artificially and materially inflated at the time of the Offering.

As the true facts emerged in the wake of the Offering, the price of
the Company's ADSs fell sharply. Following NIO's revelation on
March 5, 2019, that it was no longer building its own manufacturing
plant and, instead, continuing to rely on and, as a result paying,
JAC Auto, NIO ADSs closed at $7.09 on March 7, 2019, down $3.07 or
over 30%. On May 13, 2019, having disclosed a month earlier that
only 190,000 of the Company's 760,000 registered users were active
daily on peak days in 2018, the Company's ADSs closed at $4.33,
representing a decline of $1.93, or nearly 31%, from NIO's $6.26
IPO price, the lawsuit says.[BN]

The case is captioned ARTHUR ISMAN, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NIO INC., BIN LI,
LOUIS T. HSIEH, LIHONG QIN, PADMASREE WARRIOR, TIAN CHENG, XIANG
LI, HAI WU, YAQIN ZHANG, XIANGPING ZHONG, ZHAOHUI LI, DONALD J.
PUGLISI, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, GOLDMAN SACHS (ASIA) L.L.C.,
J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH
INCORPORATED, DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., CITIGROUP GLOBAL
MARKETS INC., CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, UBS SECURITIES
LLC, and WR SECURITIES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 512490/2019
(N.Y. Sup., June 5, 2019).[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff is:

          Thomas L. Laughlin, Esq.
          Rhiana L. Swartz, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Zimmerman, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 233-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 233-6334
          E-mail: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
                  rswartz@scott-scott.com
                  jzimmerman@scott-scott.com

NIO INC: Sidoli's Securities Suit Transferred to E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
The case, MARK SIDOLI, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NIO INC., BIN "WILLIAM" LI, and
LOUIS T. HSIEH a/k/a TUNG-JUNG HSIEH, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-01320 (Filed on March 12, 2019), was transferred from the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on May 30, 2019. It is now assigned to Hon.
Judge Margo K. Brodie. In this complaint, Plaintiff Mark Sidoli
alleges that Nio engaged in a securities fraud. The United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York assigned Case
No. 19-cv-3188 to the proceeding.

Nio designs, manufactures and sells electric vehicles in the
People's Republic of China, the U.S., Germany and the U.K. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Laurence D. King, Esq.
     Mario M. Choi, Esq.
     KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
     350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Telephone: (415) 772-4700
     Facsimile: (415) 772-4709
     E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com
             mchoi@kaplanfox.com

             - and –

     Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
     Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
     KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
     850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Telephone: (212) 687-1980
     Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
     E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
             jcampisi@kaplanfox.com


NS CALLISOHO: Tatum-Rios Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
NS CalliSoho Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Lynette Tatum-Rios, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NS CalliSoho Inc., NS Calli
Chelsea Inc., NS Calli UES Inc. and Calligaris USA Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05501 (S.D. N.Y., June 11, 2019).

NS Calli Soho Inc (trade name Calligaris New York Chelsea) is in
the Furniture Stores business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



NVIDIA CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
NVIDIA Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 16, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended April 28, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a consolidated class action suit in California entitled,
In Re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation.

On December 21, 2018, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, captioned Iron Workers Joint Funds v.
Nvidia Corporation, et al. (Case No. 18-cv-7669), naming as
defendants NVIDIA and certain of NVIDIA's officers.

The complaint asserts that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange
Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5, by making materially false or misleading
statements related to channel inventory and the impact of
cryptocurrency mining on GPU demand between August 10, 2017 and
November 15, 2018.

The plaintiff also alleges that the NVIDIA officers who they named
as defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The
plaintiff seeks class certification, an award of unspecified
compensatory damages, an award of equitable/injunctive or other
further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

On December 28, 2018, a substantially similar purported securities
class action was commenced in the Northern District of California,
captioned Oto v. Nvidia Corporation, et al. (Case No. 18-cv-07783),
naming the same defendants, and seeking substantially similar
relief.

On February 19, 2019, a number of shareholders filed motions to
consolidate the two cases and to be appointed lead plaintiff and
for their respective counsel to be appointed lead counsel.

On March 12, 2019, the two cases were consolidated under case
number 4:18-cv-07669-HSG and titled In Re NVIDIA Corporation
Securities Litigation. On May 2, 2019, the Court appointed lead
plaintiff and lead counsel.

On January 18, 2019, a shareholder, purporting to act on the behalf
of NVIDIA, filed a derivative lawsuit in the Northern District of
California, captioned Han v. Huang, et al. (Case No. 19-cv-00341),
seeking to assert claims on behalf of NVIDIA against the members of
NVIDIA's board of directors and certain officers.

The lawsuit asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust
enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and violations of Sections
14(a), 10(b), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on the
dissemination of allegedly false and misleading statements related
to channel inventory and the impact of cryptocurrency mining on GPU
demand.

The plaintiff is seeking unspecified damages and other relief,
including reforms and improvements to NVIDIA's corporate governance
and internal procedures.

On February 12, 2019, a substantially similar derivative lawsuit
was filed in the Northern District of California captioned Yang v.
Huang, et. al. (Case No. 19-cv-00766), naming the same named
defendants, and seeking the same relief.

On February 19, 2019, a third substantially similar derivative
lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of California captioned
The Booth Family Trust v. Huang, et. al. (Case No. 3:19-cv-00876),
naming the same named defendants, and seeking substantially the
same relief.

On March 12, 2019, the three derivative actions were consolidated
under case number 4:19-cv-00341-HSG, and titled In re NVIDIA
Corporation Consolidated Derivative Litigation.

The parties stipulated to stay the In re NVIDIA Corporation
Consolidated Derivative Litigation pending resolution of any motion
to dismiss that NVIDIA may file in the In Re NVIDIA Corporation
Securities Litigation.

It is possible that additional suits will be filed, or allegations
received from shareholders, with respect to these same or other
matters, naming us and/or our officers and directors as defendants.


NVIDIA Corporation operates as a visual computing company
worldwide. It operates in two segments, GPU and Tegra Processor.
The company was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Santa
Clara, California.


NVIDIA CORP: Stein v. Mellanox Technologies Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------
NVIDIA Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 16, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended April 28, 2019, that Mellanox Technologies
Ltd. has been named as a defendant in a class action suit entitled,
Stein v. Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., et al.

On March 10, 2019, the comapny entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger, or the Merger Agreement, with Mellanox Technologies Ltd,
or Mellanox, pursuant to which the company will acquire all of the
issued and outstanding common shares of Mellanox for $125 per share
in cash, representing a total enterprise value of approximately
$6.9 billion as of the date of the Merger Agreement.

The closing of the merger is subject to certain conditions,
including the approval by Mellanox shareholders and various
regulatory agencies. If the Merger Agreement is terminated under
certain circumstances involving the failure to obtain required
regulatory approvals, the company could be obligated to pay
Mellanox a termination fee of $350 million.  

On May 3, 2019, an alleged stockholder of Mellanox filed a putative
class action lawsuit alleging that the proxy statement filed by
Mellanox in connection with the stockholder vote on NVIDIA's
pending acquisition of Mellanox violates Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and asserting claims under
those statutes against Mellanox and its board of directors as well
as NVIDIA.

The complaint, which is captioned Stein v. Mellanox Technologies,
Ltd., et al., Case No. 19-2428 (United States District Court,
Northern District of California), seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief and unspecified damages.

A number of other alleged Mellanox stockholders have filed
substantially similar lawsuits against Mellanox and its directors
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California and in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, but to date, NVIDIA has not been named as a
defendant in any of these other lawsuits.

NVIDIA Corporation operates as a visual computing company
worldwide. It operates in two segments, GPU and Tegra Processor.
The company was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Santa
Clara, California.


OHR PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Khanna Class Action Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
OHR Pharmaceutical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 15, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the motion to dismiss
filed in the class action suit initiated by Jeevesh Khanna is still
pending.

On February 14, 2018, plaintiff, Jeevesh Khanna, commenced an
action in the Southern District of New York, against Ohr and
several current and former officers, alleging that they violated
federal securities laws between June 24, 2014 and January 4, 2018.


On August 7, 2018, the lead plaintiffs, now George Lehman and
Insured Benefit Plans, Inc. filed an amended complaint, stating the
class period to be April 8, 2014 through January 4, 2018.

The plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in their
complaint but, in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs, they
seek to maintain the action as a class action and to recover
damages on behalf of themselves and other persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired Ohr common stock during the putative class
period and purportedly suffered financial harm as a result. Ohr and
the individuals dispute these claims and intend to defend the
matter vigorously.

On September 17, 2018, Ohr filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On November 13, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion to strike exhibits
appended to the motion to dismiss, which was fully briefed by the
parties prior to proceeding on the Defendants' motion to dismiss.
On May 10, 2019, the Court entered an order concluding that it is
unable to decide the Plaintiffs' motion to strike independently of
the Defendants' motion to dismiss and will consider the motions
together.

The briefing schedule on Defendants' motion to dismiss was set by
the Court and briefing will conclude in June 2019, based on the
current schedule.

OHR Pharmaceutical said, "This litigation could result in
substantial costs and a diversion of management's resources and
attention, which could harm Ohr's business and the value of the Ohr
common stock."

OHR Pharmaceutical, Inc. operates as a development stage
pharmaceutical company. The company intends to merge with NeuBase
Therapeutics, Inc. that focuses on advancing NeuBase’s
peptide-nucleic acid antisense oligonucleotide technology platform
for the development of therapies to address severe and currently
untreatable diseases caused by genetic mutations. OHR
Pharmaceutical, Inc. is headquartered in New York, New York.


OMNICELL INC: Heard Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
----------------------------------------------------------
COREY HEARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. OMNICELL, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
2019CH06817 (Ill. Cir., June 5, 2019), seeks  to redress and
curtail Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and
disclosure of Plaintiff's sensitive and proprietary biometric
data.

Omnicell is a provider of systems and software solutions primarily
targeting healthcare facilities. Omnicell sells its products and
services to hospitals, pharmacies, healthcare institutions and
others. Chief among the products Omnicell manufactures are
workstations, medication cabinets, controlled substance managers,
and similar systems or devices (collectively referred toas
"Substance Dispensers") which require fingerprint scans from
medical professionals and individual users before medications can
be accessed.

According to ther complaint, Omnicell  I provides its Substance
Dispensers to dozens of hospitals and pharmacies, including St.
Bernard Hospital in Chicago, Illinois. Omnicell requires users to
scan their biometric information, namely their fingerprint, when
using Substance Dispensers to access medication. In the hospital
context, there are typically multiple Substance Dispensers within a
single location. Once a user has registered his or her fingerprint
with the system, they have access to multiple Substance Dispensers
within that hospital.

Omnicell products and systems that require fingerprint scans from
users include, but are not limited to, the following: Omnicell's
Touch & Go (TM) G4 biometric ID system which "incorporates
state-of-the-art biometric hardware and software" that "enables
users to access [Substance Dispensers] via fingerprint scan only"
and Ornnicell' s XT Automated Dispensing Cabinets which feature an
"advanced fingerprint bioID system".

Unlike ID badges or key fobs- which can be changed or replaced if
stolen or compromised -- fingerprints are unique, permanent
biometric identifiers associated with each individual. This exposes
individuals who use Omnicells Substance Dispensers to serious and
irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a database containing
fingerprints or other sensitive, 2proprietary biometric data is
hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed - like in the recent
Google+, Equifax, Uber, Facebook/Cambridge Analytica, and Marriott
data breaches or misuses individuals have no means by which to
prevent identity theft, unauthorized tracking or other unlawful or
improper use of this highly personal and private information.

Biometrics are not relegated to esoteric corners of commerce. Many
businesses -- such as hospitals and pharmacies -- and financial
institutions have incorporated biometric applications into their
workplace in the form of biometric timeclocks, and into consumer
products, including such ubiquitous consumer products as checking
accounts and cell phones,the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq.
          Haley R. Jenkins, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          l00 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: 312 233 1550
          Facsimile: 312.233.1560
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  cmitchell@stephanzouras.com
                  hjenkins@stephanzouras.com

OXY USA: Cooper Clark Appeals Kansas Dist. Ct. Ruling to 10th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Cooper Clark Foundation and Phillip Fink filed an appeal
from a Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Cooper Clark
Foundation, et al v. OXY USA Inc., Case No. 6:18-CV-01222-JWB-KGG,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas - Wichita.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 4, 2019, the
District Court issued a Memorandum and Order denying the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider.

The District Court previously entered an order denying the
Plaintiffs' motion to remand this action to state court.  The
detailed history of the consolidated state court action is set
forth in that order and will not be restated here.  The pertinent
question in that decision was whether a consolidated class action
was merged into a single action under Kansas state law.  If so, the
amount in controversy was established in this case.  In the prior
order, the undersigned conducted a review of Kansas and federal law
and determined that when a plaintiff obtains consolidation under
K.S.A. 60-242(a)(2) of putative class actions with overlapping
claims, classes, and defendants, consolidation results in merger
and CAFA jurisdiction is therefore evaluated based on the amount in
controversy in the merged case.

Therefore, CAFA jurisdiction was established and the motion to
remand was denied, according to the Memorandum and Order.

The Plaintiffs then moved for reconsideration of the District
Court's decision.  The Plaintiffs argue that the District Court
erred by interpreting the state court judge's consolidation order
as a consolidation under 60-242(a)(2) and that the court erred by
not following federal law.

The appellate case is captioned as Cooper Clark Foundation, et al
v. OXY USA Inc., Case No. 19-603, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners COOPER CLARK FOUNDATION, on behalf of itself
and others similarly situated, and PHILLIP FINK, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Barbara Frankland, Esq.
          Scott B. Goodger, Esq.
          Rex Sharp, Esq.
          REX A. SHARP, PA
          5301 West 75th Street
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 901-0500
          E-mail: bfrankland@midwest-law.com
                  sgoodger@midwest-law.com
                  rsharp@midwest-law.com

Defendant-Respondent OXY USA INC. is represented by:

          James M. Armstrong, Esq.
          Mikel L. Stout, Esq.
          FOULSTON SIEFKIN LLP
          1551 North Waterfront Parkway, Suite 100
          Wichita, KS 67206-4466
          Telephone: (316) 267-6371
          E-mail: jarmstrong@foulston.com
                  mstout@foulston.com

               - and -

          Aurra Fellows, Esq.
          Mark C. Rodriguez, Esq.
          VINSON & ELKINS LLP
          1001 Fannin Street, Suite 2500
          Houston, TX 77002-6760
          Telephone: (713) 758-2222
          E-mail: afellows@velaw.com
                  mrodriguez@velaw.com


PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Haggar et al. Sue over ADA Violations
------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Pacific Sunwear of
California, LLC for alleged violations of the Americans With
Disabilities Act (ADA). The case is captioned ELIA HAGGAR; KYO HAK
CHU; VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PACIFIC SUNWEAR OF
CALIFORNIA, LLC, a California corporation; and DOES 1 to 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-04592-ODW-MRW (C.D. Cal.,
May 28, 2019). This civil rights-related case is assigned to Hon.
Judge Otis D. Wright II.

Branded as PacSun, Pacific Sunwear of California Inc. is a
specialty retailer that sells action sports, fashion, and music
influences of the youth-oriented culture and lifestyle in
California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Thiago Coelho, Esq.
     Bobby Saadian, Esq.
     WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
     3055 Wishire Blvd., 12th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90010
     Telephone: (213) 335-2402


PARKING REIT: Defending Against Nevada Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
The Parking REIT, 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 the company has been
named as a defendant in a purported class action suit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada.

On March 12, 2019, a stockholder filed a purported class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada, against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors.  

The complaint purports to assert class action claims on behalf of
all public shareholders of the Company and MVP I between August 11,
2017 and December 15, 2017 in connection with the proxy statements
filed with the SEC to obtain shareholder approval for the merger of
the Company and MVP I (the "proxy statements").  

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the proxy
statements failed to disclose that two major reasons for the merger
and certain charter amendments implemented in connection therewith
were (i) to facilitate the execution of an amended advisory
agreement that allegedly is designed to benefit Mr. Shustek
financially in the event of an internalization and (ii) to give Mr.
Shustek the ability to cause the Company to internalize based on
terms set forth in the amended advisory agreement.

The complaint alleges, among other things, (i) that all defendants
violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder, by disseminating proxy statements that
allegedly contain false and misleading statements or omit to state
material facts; (ii) that the director defendants violated Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act; (iii) that the director defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to the members of the class and to
the Company; and (iv) that the internalization transaction will
unjustly enrich certain directors and officers of the Company.

The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified damages; an
order enjoining the Company's listing on Nasdaq; declaratory
relief; and the payment of reasonable attorneys' fees, accountants'
and experts' fees, costs and expenses.

Parking REIT said, "The litigation is at a preliminary stage. The
Company and the Board of Directors have reviewed the allegations in
the complaint and believe the claims asserted against them in the
complaint are without merit and intend to vigorously defend this
action."

The Parking REIT, Inc., formerly known as MVP REIT II, Inc., is a
Maryland corporation formed on May 4, 2015 and has elected to be
taxed, and has operated in a manner that will allow the Company to
qualify as a real estate investment trust ("REIT") for U.S. federal
income tax purposes beginning with the taxable year ended December
31, 2017; therefore, the Company intends to continue operating as a
REIT for the taxable year ended December 31, 2019. The company is
based in Las Vegas, Nevada.


PDS BIOTECHNOLOGY: Merger-Related Class Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
PDS Biotechnology Corporation 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 the merger-related
class action suits have been dismissed.

On Nov. 26, 2018, Edge Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: EDGE) and PDS
Biotechnology Corporation, a privately-held, clinical-stage cancer
immunotherapy company, announced that their respective boards of
directors have approved a definitive merger agreement.  On March
18, 2019, the companies announced the closing of the merger deal,
following the approval of Edge stockholders on March 14.  Following
the merger, Edge operates as "PDS Biotechnology Corporation" and
the stock trades on the Nasdaq Capital Market beginning on March
18, 2019 under the ticker symbol "PDSB."

Edge and its Board were named as defendants in two individual
lawsuits and two putative class action lawsuits regarding the
Merger, each of which alleged that the registration statement on
Form S-4 (Registration No. 333-228937) filed by Edge on December
21, 2018 omitted material information with respect to the proposed
transaction, which rendered the registration statement on Form S-4
false or misleading.

The case captioned Michael Condon v. Edge Therapeutics et al., case
no. 2:19-cv-00152 (the "Condon Action"), was filed on January 4,
2019 in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

The case captioned Adam Franchi et al. v. Edge Therapeutics et al.,
case no. 1:19-cv-00058-UNA (the "Franchi Action"), was filed on
January 9, 2019 in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware.

The case captioned Jeffrey L. Prince v. Edge Therapeutics et al.,
case no. 1:19-cv-00280 (the "Prince Action"), was filed on January
10, 2019 in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The case captioned Brian Foldenauer et al. v. Edge Therapeutics et
al., case no. 1:19-cv-00280 (the "Foldenauer Action"), was filed on
January 22, 2019 in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware.

The causes of action set forth in each of the Condon Action, the
Franchi Action, the Prince Action and the Foldenauer Action were
(i) a claim against Edge and Edge's board of directors for
violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, as well as (ii) a
claim against Edge's board of directors for violations of Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act. In the Franchi Action, Private PDS was
also named as a defendant in respect of the claim regarding
violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. In each case, the
plaintiffs sought, among other things, injunctive relief,
rescissory damages, and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

On January 18, 2019, the plaintiffs in the Prince Action filed a
motion for a preliminary injunction barring any stockholder vote on
the Merger until revised disclosures was made to Edge's
stockholders, and withdrew the motion for a preliminary injunction
on February 1, 2019.

In March 2019, Edge (and Private PDS, with respect to the Franchi
Action) settled each of the aforementioned actions in their
entirety, and each case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice,
as follows: (i) the Franchi Action was dismissed on March 12, 2019;
(ii) the Condon Action was dismissed on April 22, 2019; and (iii)
the Prince Action and the Foldenauer Action were dismissed on March
14, 2019.

PDS Biotechnology said, "On March 15, 2019, we completed our
previously disclosed reverse merger with Private PDS, which we
refer to as the Merger, pursuant to and in accordance with the
terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of November 23,
2018, as amended on January 24, 2019, by and among Edge, Echos
Merger Sub, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Edge, which we refer to as
Merger Sub, and Private PDS, whereby Private PDS merged with and
into Merger Sub, with Private PDS surviving as our wholly-owned
subsidiary. In connection with and immediately following completion
of the Merger, we effected a 1-for-20 reverse stock split, or the
Reverse Stock Split, and changed our corporate name from Edge
Therapeutics, Inc. to PDS Biotechnology Corporation, and Private
PDS changed its name to PDS Operating Corporation. All of the
outstanding stock of Private PDS was converted into shares of our
common stock or canceled upon closing of the Merger."

PDS Biotechnology Corporation, a clinical stage immuno-oncology
company, develops multifunctional immunotherapeutic products. PDS
Biotechnology Corporation is based in Berkeley Heights, New
Jersey.


PENHALL CO: Kirtland Alleges Labor Code Violations
--------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Penhall Company for
alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the Private
Attorneys' General Act of 2004 (PAGA). The case is captioned
YOLANDA M. KIRTLAND, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, PLAINTIFF, vs. PENHALL COMPANY, a California, and DOES 1
to 100, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV18556 (Cal. Super.,
May 28, 2019).

Plaintiff Yolanda M. Kirtland seeks civil penalties associated with
Penhall's violations of the Labor Code based on: failure to provide
written notice of available sick leave; failure to provide complete
and accurate wage statements; failure to calculate vacation wages
and/or improperly accruing vacation wages; and failing to timely
pay former employees all unpaid wages.

Penhall Company is a California corporation that describes itself
as the largest and most trusted provider of concrete services in
North America. Penhall offers concrete cutting, scanning, coring,
breaking, and removal services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph Lavi, Esq.
     Jordan D. Bello, Esq.
     Vincent Granberry, Esq.
     LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
     8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
     Beverly Hills, CA 90211
     Telephone: (310) 432-0000
     Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
     E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
             jbello@lelawfirm.com
             vgranberry @lelawfirm.com
             
             - and –

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


PINECREST MGS LLC: Wijesinha Sues Over TCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
LAURA WIJESINHA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PINECREST MGS LLC d/b/a MASSAGE GREEN SPA -
PINECREST, a Florida Limited Liability Company, and MASSAGE GREEN
INTERNATIONAL FRANCHISE CORP., a Michigan corporation, Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-22402-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 11, 2019) seeks to
secure redress for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA").

The Defendants' telemarketing consists of sending text messages to
consumers soliciting them to use their massage and spa services.
The Defendants caused thousands of text messages to be sent to the
cellular telephones of Plaintiff and Class Members who either never
provided Defendants with consent to contact them. The Defendants
caused Plaintiff and Class Members injuries, including invasion of
their privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion,
trespass, and conversion, says the complaint.

Through this action, Plaintiff seeks statutory damages on behalf of
herself and Class Members, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the
Defendants.

Plaintiff is a natural person who was domiciled and resided in
Miami Dade County, FL and was a citizen of the State of Florida.

Pinecrest MGS owns a massage and spa business in Pinecrest, Florida
and is a franchisee of Defendant Massage Green.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
     IJH LAW
     1200 Brickell Ave. Suite 1950
     Miami, FL 33131
     Phone: 786.496.4469
     Email: IJHiraldo@IJHlaw.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


PNS STORES: Court Denies Bid to Remand Wellons Labor Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dana M. Sabraw of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California denied the Plaintiffs' motion to remand the
case, S. WELLONS, C. ARREDONDO, S. DAVIS, T. DEFOREEST, W. DUBA, S.
HALL, G. KILGORE, N. LOPEZ, S. MEIJA, T. SELTZER, S. SHARMA, M.
SIMS, J. SMITH, K. TOFT, C. TOLLIVER, M. VIRAMONTES, M. WALTERS, L.
WARNER, D. WILLIAMS, J. WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PNS STORES, INC, a
California corporation; BIG LOTS STORES, INC, an Ohio Corporation,
and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-2913 DMS (WVG)
(S.D. Cal.), to San Diego County Superior Court.

On Jan. 19, 2018, Plaintiff Wellons filed a putative class action
in the San Diego County Superior Court alleging wage and hour
claims under state law against BLSI, an Ohio corporation.  Six days
later, Wellons filed a First Amended Complaint replacing BLSI with
PNS, a California corporation.  PNS and BLSI are affiliated
corporations owned by Big Lots, Inc., an Ohio corporation.  Both
PNS and BLSI operate stores under the name "Big Lots" in several
states, including California.

Wellons subsequently amended the complaint two more times.  In the
Third Amended Complaint ("TAC"), additional Plaintiffs were added:
C. Arredondo, S. Davis, T. Deforeest, W. Duba, S. Hall, G. Kilgore,
N. Lopez, S. Mejia, T. Seltzer, S. Sharma, M. Sims, J. Smith, K.
Toft, C. Tolliver, M. Viramontes, M. Walters, L. Warner, D.
Williams, and J. Wright.  The TAC defines the purported class as
all citizens of the State of California who have been employed
within the State of California by Defendant, PNS Stores, Inc.
[during the class period] in the capacity of Store Manager.  On
Feb. 28, 2018, BLSI filed a motion to intervene in the action,
which the superior court denied in a tentative order on June 7,
2018.

On March 28, 2018, Wellons filed a separate action against PNS
under the California Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA"),
asserting the same factual and legal basis for liability.  On June
28, 2018, the superior court issued a tentative order consolidating
the TAC and PAGA action against PNS, which became final on July 2,
2018.

On Nov. 2, 2018, BLSI filed a renewed motion to intervene in the
consolidated action.  Based on new facts presented, the superior
court granted BLSI's motion in a tentative order and determined
that BLSI was an indispensable party.  After the tentative order
became final, BLSI filed a Complaint in Intervention on Dec. 13,
2018.  The next day, the Plaintiffs appealed the superior court's
order granting BLSI's renewed motion to intervene, which is pending
before the California appellate court.

On Dec. 31, 2018, PNS and BLSI removed the consolidated action
before the Court under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").  

Presently before the Court is the Plaintiffs' motion to remand.
They move to remand on grounds that (1) removal violates the
voluntary-involuntary rule; (2) the superior court exceeded its
jurisdiction under Section 1008(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure;
(3) the "local controversy" exception applies; (4) the "home-state
controversy" exception applies; (5) the Defendants fail to comply
with 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(a); and (6) the Defendants are unable
to meet the amount in controversy.

Judge Sabraw finds that assuming BLSI erred, the Plaintiffs fail to
provide any authority that this error precluded the superior court
from ruling on BLSI's renewed motion to intervene.  In fact, case
law supports the contrary finding.  She also finds that the
Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate the local controversy
exception applies and to show that no other class action has been
filed asserting the same or similar factual allegations against any
of the defendants on behalf of the same or other persons within
three years prior to the filing of the action.  The Judge further
finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate the home-state
controversy exception applies.  Their allegations and the superior
court's findings establish that BLSI is potentially directly liable
to the class.

She overrules the Plaintiffs' objections and finds that the
Defendants have met the amount in controversy.  The Plaintiffs do
not dispute the reasonableness of the Defendants' calculations, and
they have neither acknowledged nor sought to establish that the
class recovery is potentially any less.

Finally, the Judge declines to remand the Plaintiffs' PAGA claims.
She finds that the Court has original jurisdiction over the
Plaintiffs' class claims under CAFA, and supplemental jurisdiction
over their PAGA claims under 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(a).

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Sabraw denied the Plaintiffs'
motion to remand.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 14, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/8LB4Bd from Leagle.com.

S. Wellons, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, C. Arredondo, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, S. Davis, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, T. Deforeest, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, W. Duba, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, S. Hall, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, G. Kilgore,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, N.
Lopez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, S. Mejia, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, T. Seltzer, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, S. Sharma, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, M. Sims, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, J. Smith, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, K. Toft,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, C.
Tolliver, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, M. Viramontes, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, M. Walters, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, L. Warner, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, D. Williams, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated & J. Wright, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by David J. Gallo , Law Offices of David J Gallo.

PNS Stores, Inc., a California corporation, Defendant, represented
by Bethsaida C. Obra-White -- bobrawhite@hbblaw.com -- Haight Brown
& Bonesteel LLP, Mark A. Knueve -- maknueve@vorys.com -- Vorys,
Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP, pro hac vice & Michael J. Ball --
mjball@vorys.com -- Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP, pro hac
vice.

Big Lots Stores, Inc., an Ohio Corporation, Defendant, represented
by Bethsaida C. Obra-White, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP & Mark A.
Knueve, Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP, pro hac vice.


POWER SOLUTIONS: Settlement in Giunta Suit Granted Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Power Solutions International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 16,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the court
overseeing the case, Giunta v. Power Solutions International, Inc.,
No. 1:16-cv-09599, has granted final approval to the settlement.

On August 22, 2016, Sumit Gupta filed a putative stockholder
class-action complaint against the Company, Gary S. Winemaster,
Michael P. Lewis and Daniel P. Gorey in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois (the "Gupta Action").

The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, arising from public filings made
between May 8, 2015 and August 15, 2016.

On October 7, 2016, Peter Stout initiated a second suit, asserting
similar claims against the same defendants (the "Stout Action").

On January 19, 2017, the Court consolidated the Gupta Action and
the Stout Action and appointed Richard Giunta as lead plaintiff.

The consolidated case is captioned Giunta v. Power Solutions
International, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-09599 (N.D. Ill.) (the "Giunta
Action"). The plaintiffs then filed an Amended Class Action
Complaint (the "Amended Complaint") against the Company and certain
current and former officers and directors.

The Amended Complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from public
filings, press releases and conference calls between February 27,
2014 and February 2, 2017.

On January 22, 2019, the parties executed a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement (the "Settlement") to resolve the Giunta
Action. Under the terms of the Settlement, a payment of $8.5
million will be made by the Company and/or its insurers in exchange
for the release of claims against the defendants and other released
parties by the lead plaintiff and all settlement class members and
for the dismissal of the Giunta Action with prejudice.

On May 13, 2019, the court granted final approval of the
settlement.

The Company has accrued for the settlement in "Other accrued
liabilities" and for the full insurance recovery of the settlement
amount in "Prepaid expenses and other current assets" as of
December 31, 2017 and 2016.

Power Solutions said, "No future impact is anticipated on the
Company's financial condition or results of operations."

Power Solutions International, Inc. designs, engineers,
manufactures, markets, and sells engines and power systems
primarily in North America, the Pacific Rim, and Europe. Power
Solutions International, Inc. was founded in 1985 and is
headquartered in Wood Dale, Illinois.


POWER SOLUTIONS: Treadwell Class Action Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------
Power Solutions International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 16,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Jerome
Treadwell.

On October 30, 2018, a putative class-action complaint was filed
against the Company and NOVAtime Technology, Inc. ("NOVAtime") in
the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.

On December 14, 2018, NOVAtime removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division under the Class Action Fairness Act.

Plaintiff has since voluntarily dismissed NOVAtime from the lawsuit
without prejudice and filed an amended complaint on April 11, 2019.


The operable, amended complaint asserts violations of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") in connection with
employees' use of the time clock to clock in and clock out using a
finger scan and seeks statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and
injunctive and equitable relief.

An aggrieved party under BIPA may recover (i) $1,000 per violation
if the Company is found to have negligently violated BIPA or (ii)
$5,000 per violation if the Company is found to have intentionally
or recklessly violated BIPA plus reasonable attorneys' fees.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against this action.

Power Solutions said, "At this time, the Company is unable to
predict the outcome of this matter or provide meaningful
quantification of how the final resolution of this matter may
impact its results of operations, financial condition or cash
flows."

Power Solutions International, Inc. designs, engineers,
manufactures, markets, and sells engines and power systems
primarily in North America, the Pacific Rim, and Europe. Power
Solutions International, Inc. was founded in 1985 and is
headquartered in Wood Dale, Illinois.


PRECC INC: Huye Hits Misclassification, Seeks Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANTOINE HUYE, individually and on behalf of a class comprised of
all Defendant's technicians employed in Illinois and Missouri
during the applicable limitations periods, Plaintiff, v. PRECC,
INC. (formerly known as Premier CC, Inc.), a corporation, and CABLE
BOSS CORP., a corporation, and QUAL-TEK, INC., a corporation,
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-01668 (E.D. Mo., June 11, 2019) seeks
to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other remedies under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the
Illinois' Employee Classification Act, and the Missouri Minimum
Wage Act.

The Defendants employ cable television installation technicians,
whom Defendants have misclassified as "independent contractors."
Plaintiff and Defendants' other Technicians misclassified as
"independent contractors" typically worked more than 40 hours per
week, yet Defendants failed and refused to pay them overtime wages,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff Antoine Huye was employed by Defendants as a Technician
from about November 2016 until about November 2018.

Defendants together own and operate a cable television installation
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark Potashnick, Esq.
     WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
     11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
     St. Louis, MO 63141
     Phone: (314) 997-9150 ext. 2
     Facsimile: (314) 984-810
     Email: markp@wp-attorneys.com

          - and -

     Eli Karsh, Esq.
     LIBERMAN, GOLDSTEIN & KARSH
     230 South Bemiston Ave., Suite 1200
     Clayton, MO 63141
     Phone: (314) 862-3333 ext. 13
     Facsimile: (314) 863-0605
     Email: elikarsh@aol.com


PURDUE PHARMA: Flint Plumbing Sues Over Opioids Misuse and Abuse
----------------------------------------------------------------
FLINT PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY HEALTH CARE FUND, On behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PURDUE
PHARMA L.P., PURDUE PHARMA INC., THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY,
INC., ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC., ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA, INC. n/k/a
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., NORAMCO, INC., ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., JOHNSON
& JOHNSON, TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD., TEVA
PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., CEPHALON, INC., ALLERGAN PLC f/k/a
ACTAVIS PLC, ALLERGAN FINANCE LLC, f/k/a ACTAVIS, INC., f/k/a
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., WATSON LABORATORIES, INC., ACTAVIS
LLC, ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. f/k/a WATSON PHARMA, INC., INSYS
THERAPEUTICS, INC., MALLINCKRODT PLC, MALLINCKRODT LLC, CARDINAL
HEALTH, INC., McKESSON CORPORATION, AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION,
HEALTH MART SYSTEMS, INC., H. D. SMITH, LLC d/b/a HD SMITH, f/k/a
H.D. SMITH WHOLESALE DRUG CO., H. D. SMITH HOLDINGS, LLC, H. D.
SMITH HOLDING COMPANY, CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, WALGREENS BOOTS
ALLIANCE, INC. a/k/a WALGREEN CO., and WAL-MART INC. f/k/a WAL-MART
STORES, INC., RITEAID CORP. Defendants, Case No. 1:19 op-45430-DAP
(N.D. Ohio, June 10, 2019) is an action seeking to prevent future
harm and to redress past wrongs, against Defendants.

Plaintiff asserts two categories of claims: claims against the
pharmaceutical manufacturers of prescription opioid drugs that
engaged in a massive false marketing campaign to drastically expand
the market for such drugs and their own market share, and claims
against entities in the supply chain that reaped enormous financial
rewards by refusing to monitor and restrict the improper
distribution of those drugs.

This case arises from the the misuse, abuse, and over-prescription
of opioids. But few realize that this crisis arose from the opioid
manufacturers' deliberately deceptive marketing strategy to expand
opioid use, together with the distributors' equally deliberate
efforts to evade restrictions on opioid distribution. Manufacturers
and distributors alike acted without regard for the lives that
would be trammeled in pursuit of profit. As a result, in part, of
the proliferation of opioid pharmaceuticals between the late 1990s
and 2015, the life expectancy for Americans decreased for the first
time in recorded history. Drug overdoses are now the leading cause
of death for Americans under 50, notes the complaint.

This suit takes aim at the two primary causes of the opioid crisis:
(a) a marketing scheme involving the false and deceptive marketing
of prescription opioids, which was designed to dramatically
increase the demand for and sale of opioids and opioid
prescriptions; and (b) a supply chain scheme, pursuant to which the
various entities in the supply chain failed to design and operate
systems to identify suspicious orders of prescription opioids,
maintain effective controls against diversion, and halt suspicious
orders when they were identified, thereby contributing to the
oversupply of such drugs and fueling an illegal secondary market.
On the demand side, the crisis was precipitated by the defendants
who manufacture, sell, and market prescription opioids ("Marketing
Defendants"). Through a massive marketing campaign premised on
false and incomplete information, the Marketing Defendants
engineered a dramatic shift in how and when opioids are prescribed.
The Marketing Defendants relentlessly and methodically, but
untruthfully, asserted that the risk of addiction was low when
opioids were used to treat chronic pain, and overstated the
benefits and trivialized the risk of the long-term use of opioids.

On the supply side, the crisis was fueled and sustained by those
involved in the supply chain of opioids, including manufacturers,
distributors, and pharmacies (together, "Defendants"), who failed
to maintain effective controls over the distribution of
prescription opioids, and who instead have actively sought to evade
such controls, the complaint asserts.

Plaintiff Flint Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry Health Care Fund
is a multiemployer health and welfare plan covering eligible
members of various local unions in Detroit and Mid-Michigan.

Defendants distributed and sold into the stream of commerce opioid
drugs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Hunter J. Shkolnik, Esq.
     Paul J. Napoli, Esq.
     Shayna E. Sacks, Esq.
     Salvatore C. Badala, Esq.
     Joseph L. Ciaccio, Esq.
     Napoli Shkolnik PLLC
     360 Lexington Avenue
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 397-1000
     Email: hunter@napolilaw.com
            pnapoli@napolilaw.com
            ssacks@napolilaw.com
            sbadala@napolilaw.com
            jciaccio@napolilaw.com

          - and -

     Frank Gallucci, Esq.
     Plevin & Gallucci Company, L.P.
     55 Public Square, Suite 2222
     Cleveland, OH 44113
     Phone: (216) 861-0804
     Email: fgallucci@pglawyer.com

          - and -

     Michael J. Asher, Esq.
     John D. McClune, Esq.
     Sullivan, Ward, Asher & Patton, P.C.
     25800 Northwestern Highway, Ste. 1000
     Southfield, MI 48075
     Phone: (248) 746-2728
     Email: masher@swappc.com
            jmcclune@swappc.com


RBS CITIZENS: Reinig Seeks Certification of 10 Sub-Classes
----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled ALEX REINIG, KEN GRITZ, and
BOB SODA, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v.
RBS CITIZENS, N.A., Case No. 2:15-cv-01541-AJS (W.D. Pa.), seek
certification of 10 sub-classes under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, as specifically defined in their proposed
order.

The case, first filed in November 2015, concerns allegations by
Mortgage Loan Officers ("MLOs") that they worked overtime hours
off-the-clock pursuant to Defendant Citizens Bank's ("Citizens")
unwritten company-wide policy/practice to discourage accurate
overtime reporting and permit off-the-clock work ("off-the-clock
policy").  After the Court certified the case as a class action
under Rule 23, the Third Circuit permitted an interlocutory appeal
of the class certification order in September 2017.

On December 31, 2018, the Third Circuit vacated this Court's Class
Certification Order and remanded with instructions for the Court to
reassess the record, make explicitly specific findings as to
whether the Plaintiffs' evidence demonstrated that Rule 23(a) and
Rule 23(b)(3) commonality and predominance requirements were met,
and specifically, to address three questions:

   (1) What specific evidence supported the conclusion that
       Citizens implemented and enforced a companywide unwritten
       policy that lead MLOs to work "off-the-clock;"

   (2) What specific evidence establishes Citizens' constructive
       knowledge of this policy; and

   (3) Whether evidence from certain MLOs who testified they were
       never denied a request for overtime fatally undermine
       Rule 23 commonality and predominance, citing Reinig v. RBS
       Citizens N.A., 912 F.3d 115, 129-130 (3d Cir. 2018).[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joshua S. Boyette, Esq.
          Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
          Daniel A. Horowitz, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          1101 Kings Highway N, Suite 402
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 685-7420
          Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
          E-mail: jboyette@swartz-legal.com
                  jswidler@swartz-legal.com
                  dhorowitz@swartz-legal.com

               - and -

          Robert D. Soloff, Esq.
          ROBERT D. SOLOFF, P.A.
          7805 S.W. 6TH Court
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 472-0002
          E-mail: rsoloff@solofflaw.com


RESHAPE LIFESCIENCES: $197,000 Settlement in Du Fully Accrued
-------------------------------------------------------------
ReShape Lifesciences Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 16, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that amount of $197,000
related to the settlement of the class action suit initiated by
Vinh Du, has been fully accrued.

On February 28, 2017, the Company received a class action and
derivative complaint filed on February 24, 2017 in U. S. District
Court for the District of Delaware by Vinh Du, one of the Company's
shareholders.

The complaint named as defendants ReShape Lifesciences, the board
of directors and four members of our senior management, namely,
Scott Youngstrom, Nick Ansari, Peter DeLange and Paul Hickey, and
contained a purported class action claim for breach of fiduciary
duty against the board of directors and derivative claims for
breach of fiduciary duty against the board of directors and unjust
enrichment against our senior management.

The allegations in the complaint related to the increase in the
number of shares authorized for grant under the company's Second
Amended and Restated 2003 Stock Incentive Plan (the "Plan"), which
was approved by the company's shareholders at the Special Meeting
of Shareholders held on December 12, 2016 (the "Special Meeting"),
and to the company's subsequent grant of stock options on February
8, 2017, to the Company's Directors and senior management to
purchase an aggregate of 521 shares of our common stock (the
"Option Grants").

In the complaint, the plaintiff contended that (i) the number of
shares authorized for grant under the Plan, as adjusted by the
board of directors after the Special Meeting for the subsequent
recapitalization of the Company, resulted from an alleged breach of
fiduciary duties by the board of directors, and (ii) the company's
senior management was allegedly unjustly enriched by the subsequent
Option Grants.

The plaintiff sought relief in the form of an order rescinding the
Plan as approved by the shareholders at the Special Meeting, an
order cancelling the Option Grants, and an award to plaintiff for
his costs, including fees and disbursements of attorneys, experts
and accountants.

The parties settled the matter on December 17, 2018. The terms of
the settlement requires the company to (i) rescind and cancel the
Option Grants, with the exception of options that were already
rescinded when certain individuals left the company in the last
fiscal quarter of 2017, (ii) amend the Plan to add a provision
establishing the maximum total annual equity compensation for
non-employee directors and to seek stockholder approval of this
amendment at the Company's next annual meeting of stockholders, and
(iii) proportionally adjust all share reserves and limitations in
the Plan (and any other equity compensation plan for the company)
in connection with any future split of the company's stock during
the next five years unless otherwise brought to and approved by
stockholder vote.

The Company is required to make a payment to the plaintiff of
$197,000, which has been fully accrued in 2018 and is included in
Selling, General and Administrative Expenses in the Consolidated
Statement of Operations.

ReShape Lifesciences Inc., a medical device company, focuses on the
design and development of devices that use neuroblocking technology
to treat obesity, metabolic diseases, and other gastrointestinal
disorders. The company was formerly known as EnteroMedics Inc. and
changed its name to ReShape Lifesciences Inc. in October 2017.
ReShape Lifesciences Inc. was founded in 2002 and is headquartered
in San Clemente, California.


RESTRA REALTY: Phelps Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing
---------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH PHELPS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. RESTRA REALTY, INC., a Florida Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-22406-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 11, 2019)
seeks to secure redress for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

To gain an advantage over its competitors and increase its revenue,
Defendant engages in unsolicited telemarketing, with no regard for
consumers' privacy rights, asserts the complaint.

This case arises from Defendant's transmission of prerecorded
telephone calls and voice messages to the cellular telephones of
Plaintiff and others, promoting Defendant's services and goods. 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 is a natural person who was a resident of Miami-Dade
County, Florida.

Defendant is a web based real estate brokerage firm.[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


SAGAL MEAT: Guinea Seeks to Recover Unpaid Min., Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS OBISPO GUINEA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. SAGAL MEAT MARKET VII INC. d/b/a
SAGAL MEAT, FERNANDO SANCHEZ, JOSE SANCHEZ, and LENIN SANCHEZ,
Jointly and Severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03448 (E.D.
N.Y., June 11, 2019) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and
overtime premium pay owed to Plaintiff pursuant to both the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff also
brings claims for unpaid spread-of-hours premiums and for failure
to provide proper wage notices and wage statements pursuant to NYLL
and the supporting regulations.

For his work, during the relevant time period, Plaintiff was not
paid minimum wages for all hours worked and was not paid overtime
premiums for hours worked over 40 in a given workweek, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff is a former meat market employee at one of Defendants'
meat markets located in Brooklyn, New York.

SAGAL MEAT MARKET VII INC. is an active New York Corporation doing
business as "Sagal Meat Market" and have owned and operated at
least eight meat markets in the New York City area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
     Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
     PELTON GRAHAM LLC
     111 Broadway, Suite 1503
     New York, NY 10006
     Phone: (212) 385-9700
     Email: www.peltongraham.com


SEAFARER RESORT: Honeywell Alleges ADA Violation in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
Seafarer Resort and Beach, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Cheri Honeywell, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Seafarer Resort and Beach, LLC, a
Florida limited liability company, Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-10089-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 5, 2019).

Seafarer Resort and Beach is a cottage waterfront motel located
directly on the Florida Bay in Key Largo, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
   Jessica L.Kerr, P.A. dba The Advocacy Group
   200 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 504
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 282-1858
   Fax: (844) 786-3694
   Email: service@advocacypa.com




SEQUIUM ASSET: Court Denies Protective Order in Snow FDCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOE SNOW, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SEQUIUM ASSET SOLUTIONS, LLC a
Georgia limited liability company, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-03735-JPH-DLP (S.D. Ind.), Judge Doris L. Pryor of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis
Division, denied the Parties' Joint Motion for Entry of Stipulated
Protective Order.

The Parties' proposed protective order seeks to protect personal
information, including the information protected by Fed. R. Civ. P.
5.2, account numbers, account data, systems data, proprietary data,
systems data, financial data, including net worth information,
financial statements and other financial statements.

Judge Pryor does not find good cause at this time to approve the
Parties' proposed protective order.  The request to protect account
data, systems data, proprietary data, systems data, financial data,
including net worth information, financial statements and other
financial statements is too vague, and fails to instill confidence
in the Court that the Parties will know how to properly designate
protected information.

The Judge struggles to comprehend a document that wouldn't fall
under account, systems, proprietary, or financial data in this type
of case, a potential class action involving the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.  Furthermore, the Parties list "systems
data" and "financial statements" twice.  Irrespective of whether
those two categories are listed twice due to oversight or because
they actually reference different documents, ambiguity does not
lend itself to an effective protective order.  If the Parties wish
to more clearly define account data, systems data, proprietary
data, systems data, financial data, including net worth
information, financial statements and other financial statements
they may, after conferring in good faith, file another protective
order for the Court's consideration.

Accordingly, she denied the Parties' protective order.

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

JOE SNOW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Angie K. Robertson --
angie@philippslegal.com -- PHILIPPS AND PHILIPPS, LTD., David J.
Philipps -- davephilipps@aol.com -- PHILIPPS AND PHILIPPS, LTD.,
John Thomas Steinkamp -- steinkamplaw@yahoo.com -- JOHN STEINKAMP &
ASSOCIATES & Mary E. Philipps -- mephilipps@aol.com -- PHILIPPS AND
PHILIPPS, LTD.

SEQUIUM ASSET SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company,
Defendant, represented by Daniel L. Polsby -- dpolsby@clausen.com
-- CLAUSEN MILLER PC & Paige Moray Neel -- pneel@clausen.com --
CLAUSEN MILLER P.C.


SEXY HAIR: Settlement in Crane Class Suit Has Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MOLLY CRANE, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SEXY HAIR CONCEPTS, LLC,
ULTA SALON COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC., Defendants, Civil Action
No. 17-10300-FDS (D. Mass.), Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts has entered Final
Judgment and Order approving the class settlement and certifying
the class.

The matter came before the Court for hearing pursuant to the
Court's Order Preliminarily Approving Class Settlement and
Certifying the Class dated Nov. 14, 2018, on the application of the
Parties for approval of the Settlement among Plaintiff Crane, on
behalf of herself and the Class, and Defendant SHC.  

Having considered all papers filed and proceedings held, and having
received declarations attesting to the mailing of the notice and
the publication of the long-form notice on the Settlement Website
in accordance with the Preliminary Approval Order, and good cause
appearing therefor, Judge Saylor finds that the requirements of
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 are satisfied and that certification of the
proposed Class is appropriate.  He therefore granted final
certification of the following Class (which includes terms defined
in the Settlement): All purchasers of any of the Subject Products
as defined below during the period between Nov. 19, 2002 through
the Effective Date, excluding any purchases made for purposes of
resale.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), the Judge finds that the
Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate, and
is in the best interests of all the Class Members.  He therefore
finally approved the Settlement, and the exhibits appended to that
Settlement.

The Judge awarded the Class Counsel attorneys' fees in the amount
of $750,000, which is equal to approximately 32.2% of the Gross
Settlement Amount, plus reimbursement of their out-of-pocket
expenses in the amount of $6,482.40.  He finds the amount of
attorneys' fees and costs awarded is fair and reasonable.  

In accordance with the Settlement, the Settlement Administrator
will pay from the Administration Account to the Class Counsel all
Court-approved attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses of the Class
Counsel within 30 days of the Effective Date.  All payments of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses to the Class Counsel
in the Action will be made from the Gross Settlement Amount, and
the Released Parties will have no liability or responsibility for
the payment of the Class Counsel's attorneys' fees or expenses
except as provided in the Settlement.

The Judge also awarded to the Plaintiff an Incentive Award of
$2,000.  He finds the amount of the Incentive Awards is fair and
reasonable based upon her service as the class representative on
behalf of the Class.

He authorized disbursement of $430,000 to the Settlement
Administrator, Kurtzman Carson Consultants, to be paid no later
than 30 days after the Effective Date, to compensate the Settlement
Administrator for the tasks performed in connection with class
notice and administration of the Settlement, as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement, the Preliminary Approval Order, and the
Order.

The Judge finds, for purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), that there
is no just reason for delay and expressly directs entry of judgment
as set forth.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 14, 2019 Final Judgment and
Order is available at https://is.gd/k4o6jp from Leagle.com.

Molly Crane, Individually And On Behalf Of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Edward F. Haber,
Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP, Patrick J. Vallely, Shapiro Haber & Urmy
LLP, Thomas G. Shapiro -- tshapiro@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber &
Urmy LLP, Ian J. McLoughlin -- imcloughlin@shulaw.com -- Shapiro,
Haber & Urmy, LLP & Kenneth D. Quat -- ken@quatlaw.com -- Quat Law
Offices.

Sexy Hair Concepts, LLC, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth S.
Gallard -- egallard@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin &
Mellott, LLC, pro hac vice, Keith E. Smith -- smithkei@gtlaw.com --
Greenberg Traurig, LLC, pro hac vice, Lawrence R. Kulig --
lkulig@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC,
David G. Thomas -- thomasda@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP &
Matthew D. Rodgers -- mrodgers@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans
Cherin & Mellott, LLC.

Ulta Salon Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Elizabeth S. Gallard, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, pro hac
vice, Kenneth H. Naide , Bonner, Kiernan, Trebach & Crociata, LLP,
David G. Thomas, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Keith E. Smith, Greenberg
Traurig, LLC, pro hac vice, Lawrence R. Kulig, Eckert Seamans
Cherin & Mellott, LLC & Matthew D. Rodgers, Eckert Seamans Cherin &
Mellott, LLC.


SHUTTER.FLY INC: Miracle-Pond Sues Over BIPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Vernita Miracle-Pond and Samantha Paraf, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SHUTTER.FLY, INC.,
a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2019CH07050 (Circuit
Ct., Cook Cty., Ill., June 11, 2019) is a class action against
Defendant for violations of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act ("BIPA").

In direct violation of each of the provisions the BIPA, Shutterfly
is actively collecting, storing, and using--without providing
notice, obtaining informed written consent or publishing data
retention policies--the biometrics of millions of unwitting
individuals whose faces appear in photographs uploaded to
Shutterfly in Illinoi, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs bring this action for damages and other legal and
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Shutrerfly
in collecting, storing, and using Plaintiffs' and other similarly
situated individuals' biometric identifiers and biometric
information without informed written consent, in direct violation
of BIPA. Plaintiffs also bring this action individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated to prevent Shutterfly from
further violating the privacy rights of both users and non-users of
Shutterfly whose photos are uploaded to Shutterfly from within the
state of Illinois, and to recover statutory damages for
Shutterfly's unauthorized collection, storage, and use of these
individuals' biometrics in violation of BIPA.

Plaintiffs have Shutterfly accounts and their faces appear in
photographs uploaded to Shutterfly within Illinois.

Shutterfly provides its online services to thousands, if not
millions, of Illinois residents.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:


     Katrina Carroll, Esq.
     Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
     CARLSON LYNCH LLP
     111 West Washington Street, Suite 1240
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 750-1265
     Email: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com
            kshamberg@carlsonlynch.com

          - and -

     Tina Wolfson, Esq.
     Theodore Maya, Esq.
     Bradley King, Esq.
     AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
     10728 Lindbrook Drive
     Los Angeles, CA 90024
     Phone: (310) 474-9111
     Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
     Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
            tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
            bking@ahdootwolfson.com

          - and -

     David P. Milian, 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


SITO MOBILE: Discovery Ongoing in Roper Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
SITO Mobile, Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 15, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that discovery is ongoing in
the class action suit initiated by Sandi Roper.

On February 17, 2017, plaintiff Sandi Roper commenced a purported
securities class action against the company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey captioned Roper v.
SITO Mobile, Ltd., Case No. 17-cv-1106-ES-MAH (D.N.J. filed Feb.
17, 2017).

On May 8, 2017, Red Oak Fund, LP, Red Oak Long Fund LP, Red Oak
Institutional Founders Long Fund, and Pinnacle Opportunities Fund,
LP (collectively, "Red Oak") were appointed lead plaintiffs in this
action.

On June 22, 2017, Red Oak filed an amended complaint, purporting to
represent a class of stockholders who purchased the company's
common stock between August 15, 2016 and January 2, 2017 ("Class
Period").

On January 30, 2019, the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey dismissed without prejudice all causes of
action with the exception of claims against a former officer, a
former officer/director, and the Company, arising out of statements
made from November 2016 to January 2017 regarding media placement
revenues.  

The remaining claims are brought under section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
and seek to hold the executives responsible as controlling persons.


The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages  After an
unsuccessful mediation, the parties have commenced discovery.  No
trial date has been set for this action.  

SITO Mobile, Ltd. provides advertisement delivery, measurement and
attribution, and consumer insights using its proprietary
location-based marketing intelligence platform in the United States
and Canada. The company was formerly known as Single Touch Systems,
Inc. and changed its name to SITO Mobile, Ltd. in September 2014.
SITO Mobile, Ltd. was incorporated in 2000 and is based in Jersey
City, New Jersey.


SKIL RESOURCE: Two Attendants Classes Certified in Hardridge Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Carlos Murguia grants the joint motion to conditionally
certify a collective action and proposed notice procedures in the
lawsuit titled ROBERT HARDRIDGE, et al. v. SOUTHEAST KANSAS
INDEPENDENT LIVING RESOURCE CENTER, INC., et al., Case No.
2:18-cv-02544-CM-JPO (D. Kan.).

The Court conditionally certifies these collective action classes
as stipulated by the parties:

   * Joint Employer Class:

     All current and former personal care attendants, or other
     job titles performing similar job duties, employed by any
     combination of Southeast Kansas Independent Living Resource
     Center, Inc., SKIL Fiscal Agent, Inc., and/or individual
     consumers who utilized any payroll-related services provided
     by Southeast Kansas Independent Living Resource Center, Inc.
     or SKIL Fiscal Agent Inc. between October 11, 2015 and the
     present who were not paid overtime wages earned; and

   * SKIL Resource Class:

     All current and former personal care attendants, or other
     job titles performing similar job duties, employed by
     Southeast Kansas Independent Living Resource Center, Inc.
     between October 11, 2015 and the present who were not paid
     overtime wages earned.

The Court approves this stipulated procedure for providing notice
to the putative collective class members:

   1. Within 30 days of this Order, the Defendants' counsel will
      provide the Plaintiffs' counsel with a list of the first
      name, last name, and last known address of all putative
      collective class members;

   2. The Plaintiffs' counsel will be responsible for mailing the
      Court-approved notice and consent form to the putative
      collective class members;

   3. The Plaintiffs' counsel will provide a copy of each consent
      form submitted to the Plaintiffs' counsel to counsel for
      the Defendants; and

   4. Putative collective class members will have forty-five (45)
      days to return the consent to joint form.

The Court approves the parties' form notice to be sent to the
stipulated class.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
          Jennell K. Shannon, Esq.
          JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
          444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
          Saint Paul, MN
          Telephone: (612) 436-1800
          Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
          E-mail: tbecker@johnsonbecker.com
                  jshannon@johnsonbecker.com

               - and -

          J. Brett Milbourn, Esq.
          Thomas V. Bender, Esq.
          HORN AYLWARD & BANDY LLC
          2600 Brand Boulevard, Suite 1100
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 421-0700
          Facsimile: (816) 421-0899
          E-mail: bmilbourn@hab-law.com
                  tbender@hab-law.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Patricia A. Konopka, Esq.
          Ashley E. Dillon, Esq.
          STINSON LLP
          1201 Walnut, Suite 2900
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Telephone: (816) 842-8600
          Facsimile: (816) 691-3495
          E-mail: pat.konopka@stinson.com
                  ashley.dillon@stinson.com


SLM CORPORATION: Hunter Sues Over Unsolicited Calls, Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Hunter, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SLM CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00760-LMB-JFA (E.D. Va., June 11, 2019) is an action for
damages and other equitable and legal remedies resulting from the
unlawful conduct of Defendant in negligently or knowingly and/or
willfully placing calls and sending text messages to the cellular
telephones of Plaintiff and putative Class Members for
non-emergency purposes, using an automatic telephone-dialing system
without their prior express written consent, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff and putative Class Members were not SLM Corporation
customers at the time the calls at issue were placed. Upon
information and belief, these calls were intended for persons other
than Plaintiff and putative Class Members, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Jeremy Hunter is a citizen of the state of Minnesota.

Defendant is a Delaware corporation doing business as Sallie Mae,
originates, services and collects private education loans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John G. Harnishfeger, Esq.
     MURPHY, FALCON & MURPHY
     One South Street, 23rd Floor
     Baltimore, MD 21202
     Phone (410) 951-8744
     Fax: (410) 539-6599
     Email: john.harnish@murphyfalcon.com

          - and -

     John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
     Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Phone 813-223-5505
     Fax: 813-257-0572
     Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
            jcohen@forthepeople.com


SNOOZE HOLDINGS: Sumrall Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------
SARA SUMRALL, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. SNOOZE HOLDINGS INC., Defendants, Case No.
5:19-cv-00642 (W.D. Tex., June 11, 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 hourly employees
overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per week.

Plaintiff was required to work more than 40 hours a week; however,
Defendant would not compensate Plaintiff for all of her time worked
over 40 hours a week and required that some overtime work be done
off the clock. As a direct result of Defendants' policies, even
though Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees worked more than
40 hours in many weeks that they worked for Defendants during time
period relevant to this Complaint, they were not compensated for
all of their overtime hours worked, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a barista, bartender and
server from November of 2018 until May of 2019.

Defendant operates several restaurants known as "Snooze An A.M.
Eatery" in San Antonio, with additional locations across Texas and
in multiple states including Colorado, California and Arizona.[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


SOUTHEASTERN PIZZA: Smith Sues Over Unreimbursed Expenses
---------------------------------------------------------
GAIL SMITH, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. SOUTHEASTERN PIZZA PEOPLE, INC. d/b/a
"Domino's Pizza" and JOHN E. RIDGE, Defendants, Case No.
7:19-cv-00105-FL (E.D. N.C., June 11, 2019) is a collective action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and class action under the
North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, to recover unpaid minimum wages
owed to Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers employed
by Defendants at their Domino's Pizza stores.

The Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own
automobiles to deliver pizzas and other food items to their
customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the
reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles,
Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates
that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable
approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers'
unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal
and state minimum wage during some or all workweeks, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants until approximately June 2017
as a delivery driver at one of Defendants' Domino's Pizza stores.

Defendants operate numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jacob J. Modla, Esq.
     Law Offices of Jason E. Taylor
     454 South Anderson Rd., Suite 303
     Rock Hill, SC 29730
     Phone: 803-328-0898
     Email: jmodla@jasonetaylor.com

          - and -

     Jay Forester, Esq.
     FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
     1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210
     Dallas, TX 75202
     Phone: (214) 210-2100
     Fax: (214) 346-5909
     Email: jay@foresterhaynie.com

          - and -

     Joe P. Leniski, Esq.
     BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
     223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200
     Nashville, TN 37203
     Phone: 615/254-8801
     Facsimile: 615/255-5419
     Email: joeyl@bsjfirm.com


SPAR GROUP: Has $250,000 Liability from Hogan Case Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
SPAR Group, Inc., has recorded a $250,000 liability as a result of
the settlement of a class action lawsuit initiated by Paradise
Hogan, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 15, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

Paradise Hogan was engaged by and provided services to SPAR
Business Services, Inc. SBS as an independent contractor pursuant
to the terms of an "Independent Contractor Master Agreement" with
SBS (prepared solely by SBS) acknowledging his engagement as an
independent contractor.  

On January 6, 2017, Hogan filed suit against SBS and SPAR Group,
Inc. (SGRP) (and part of the Company), styled Civil Action No.
1:17-cv-10024-LTS, in the U.S. District Court for District of
Massachusetts.  

Hogan initially asserted claims on behalf of himself and an alleged
nationwide class of similarly situated individuals who provided
services to SBS and SGRP as independent contractors. Hogan alleged
that he and other alleged class members were misclassified as
independent contractors, and as a result of this purported
misclassification, Hogan asserted claims on behalf of himself and
the alleged Massachusetts class members under the Massachusetts
Wage Act and Minimum Wage Law for failure to pay overtime and
minimum wages, as well as state law claims for breach of contract,
unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and breach of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing.  

In addition, Hogan asserted claims on behalf of himself and the
nationwide class for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act's
overtime and minimum wage provisions. On March 28, 2017, the
Company moved to refer Hogan's claim to arbitration pursuant to his
agreement, to dismiss or stay Hogan's case pending arbitration, and
to dismiss Hogan's case for failure to state a specific claim upon
which relief could be granted.

On March 12, 2018, the Court denied both defendants' Motion to
Dismiss for failure to state a claim, denied the Motion to Compel
Arbitration as to SGRP (because as drafted by SBS, the arbitration
clause did not reference or protect SGRP), denied the Motion to
Stay as to SGRP, and allowed the Motion to Stay as to SBS pending
the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision in Epic Systems Corp.
v. Lewis.

In May 2018, the Supreme Court decided arbitration clauses that
include an express waiver of a worker's right to bring or
participate in a class action did not violate the National Labor
Relations Act, which resulted in all SBS disputes (but not any SGRP
disputes) being sent to arbitration.

On April 24, 2018, SGRP filed a notice of appeal with the First
Circuit of the District Court's decision that the arbitration
clause (as written by SBS) did not protect SGRP. SGRP and Hogan
agreed to stay the District Court litigation pending the First
Circuit's decision on SGRP's appeal. Briefing on SGRP's appeal
closed on August 8, 2018 and the appeal hearing was heard by the
First Circuit on September 11, 2018.

On January 25, 2019, the First Circuit issued a judgment affirming
the District Court's decision that the arbitration clause (as
written by SBS) did not protect SGRP and remanding the case back to
the District Court for further proceedings. As a result, SGRP would
have been required to go to trial without SBS.

Facing lengthy and costly litigation and significant potential
damages in the Hogan Case, on March 27, 2019, SGRP entered into
mediation with the plaintiffs and plaintiff's counsel in the Hogan
Case to try to settle any potential future liability for any
possible judgment against SGRP in that case.

SBS and its stockholders were no longer involved in that case and
so were not involved in that mediation. After extensive
discussions, SGRP reached a settlement and entered into a
memorandum of settlement agreement, which is subject to court
approval and not likely to become final until later in 2019 if and
when the settlement is approved by the court.

If approved, SGRP will pay a maximum settlement amount of $250,000
(in three installments) one hundred eighty (180) days after the
settlement becomes final, and the Company will be released by
plaintiff and the settlement class from all other liability under
the Hogan Case (the "Hogan Settlement").

SPAR Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides
merchandising and marketing services worldwide. SPAR Group, Inc.
was founded in 1967 and is headquartered in White Plains, New
York.


SQUARETRADE INC: Swinton Seeks Final Approval of Class Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled DAVID M. SWINTON, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. SQUARETRADE, INC.,
Case No. 4:18-cv-00144-SMR-SBJ (S.D. Iowa), seeks final approval of
class action settlement.

The Settlement Class includes any person or entity in the United
States who, during the class period, purchased a SquareTrade
Protection Plan on Amazon.  Excluded from the settlement class are
the judge approving the settlement, the judge's immediate family,
Defendant, any entities in which Defendant has a controlling
interest or which have a controlling interest in Defendant, and the
officers, directors, employees, affiliates, and attorneys for
Defendant.  The total class encompasses millions of purchasers of
protection plans that fall within the class definition.

The Plaintiff and the Class purchased product protection plans from
the Defendant through its Amazon storefront on Amazon.com.  The
Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the Defendant violated
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act through its sales practices
associated with the sales of its protection plans to the Plaintiff
and the Class.

In general, the proposed nationwide class settlement provides the
following relief to class members: (a) changes to webpages offering
Defendant's protection plans; (b) product refunds to select class
members, less any attorney fees the Court awards based on the
amount of product refunds, not to exceed 15%; (c) an agreement to
not deny warranty claims under the Defendant's protection plans on
the grounds that the covered product was not purchased through
Amazon; (d) a coupon provided to all class members in the amount of
$10 to be used towards the purchase of the Defendant's protection
plan for a mobile phone; and (e) $25,000 in attorney fees paid by
Defendant.

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to dismiss with prejudice the
pending action in its entirety, to permanently enjoin Settlement
Class members from filing, joining, or prosecuting any claims,
suits, or administrative proceedings regarding claims released by
the Settlement, and to confirm that the parties remain bound by the
terms of the settlement agreement and release, including the
section on confidentiality, and that the Court retains jurisdiction
to enforce its terms.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harley C. Erbe, Esq.
          ERBE LAW FIRM
          2501 Grand Avenue
          Des Moines, IA 50312
          Telephone: (515) 281-1460
          Facsimile: (515) 281-1474
          E-mail: harleyerbe@erbelaw.com

               - and -

          Steven P. Wandro, Esq.
          WANDRO & ASSOCIATES
          2501 Grand Avenue
          Des Moines, IA 50312
          Telephone: (515) 281-1475
          Facsimile: (515) 281-1474
          E-mail: swandro@2501grand.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John F. Lorentzon, Esq.
          NYEMASTER GOODE, P.C.
          700 Walnut St., Suite 1600
          Des Moines, IA 50309
          Telephone: (515) 283-3156
          E-mail: jfl@nyemaster.com

               - and -

          Douglas A. Winthrop, Esq.
          Michael A. Berta, Esq.
          Katelyn Rey, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center 10th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 471-3174
          Facsimile: (415) 471-3400
          E-mail: douglas.winthrop@arnoldporter.com
                  michael.berta@arnoldporter.com
                  katelyn.rey@arnoldporter.com


ST. LOUIS, MO: Appeals Decision in Ahmad Suit to Eighth Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The City of St. Louis filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Maleeha Ahmad, et al. v. City of St. Louis,
Missouri, Case No. 4:17-cv-02455-CDP, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the ACLU of
Missouri filed a class action lawsuit against the City of St. Louis
on behalf of protesters--alleging the City has retaliated against
them for expressing their right to free speech, unreasonably seized
them, applied undue force and violated their due process rights
with methods including "kettling," gassing them and spraying them
without fair warning.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court on behalf of lead plaintiffs
Maleeha Ahmad and Alison Dreith, who was also pepper-sprayed at the
downtown protest.  Dreith is also executive director of NARAL
Pro-Choice Missouri.

Both Dreith and Ahmad were protesting downtown on the afternoon of
September 15, 2017.  That was just hours after the announcement
that former St. Louis police officer Jason Stockley had been found
not guilty of murder, and well before any of the damage that would
result later in the weekend following the end of organized
protests.

The appellate case is captioned as Maleeha Ahmad, et al. v. City of
St. Louis, Missouri, Case No. 19-2062, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript is due on or before July 3, 2019;

   -- Appendix is due on July 15, 2019;

   -- Brief of Appellant City of St. Louis, Missouri, is due on
      July 15, 2019;

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the Court
      issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
      appellant; and

   -- Appellant reply brief is due 21 days from the date the
      Court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the
      appellee brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees Maleeha S. Ahmad, W. Patrick Mobley and Pamela
Lewczuk are represented by:

          Omri E. Praiss, Esq.
          Anthony E. Rothert, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION
          906 Olive Street
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 652-3114
          E-mail: opraiss@aclu−mo.org
                  trothert@aclu−mo.org

               - and -

          Jessie M. Steffan, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION
          454 Whittier Street
          Saint Louis, MO 63108-0000
          Telephone: (314) 652-3114
          E-mail: jsteffan@aclu−mo.org

               - and -

          Gillian R. Wilcox, Esq.
          ACLU OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION
          406 W. 34th Street, Suite 420
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 470-9938
          E-mail: gwilcox@aclu−mo.org

Defendant-Appellant City of St. Louis, Missouri, is represented
by:

          Megan Kathleen G. Bruyns, Esq.
          Robert Henry Dierker, Jr., Esq.
          Abby Duncan, Esq.
          Brandon David Laird, Esq.
          Amy Raimondo, Esq.
          CITY COUNSELOR'S OFFICE
          314 City Hall
          1200 Market Street
          Saint Louis, MO 63103-0000
          Telephone: (314) 622-3361
          E-mail: duncana@stlouis-mo.gov


STEPHEN EINSTEIN: Manashirova Files FDCPA Class Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stephen Einstein &
Associates, P.C. The case is styled as Lyubov Manashirova, on
behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers,
Plaintiff v. Stephen Einstein & Associates, P.C. and Crown Asset
Management, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03488 (E.D. N.Y.,
June 12, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Law Firm of Stephen Einstein & Associates, P.C. was established
in 1989 as a law firm focused on a creditor rights, collections,
litigation and real estate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
   Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
   735 Central Avenue
   Woodmere, NY 11598
   Tel: (516) 668-6945
   Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com




SUPERIOR REAL: Rodriguez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Albert Rodriguez, Individually and on behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Superior Real Estate Solutions,
LLC, and Alvin Franks, Jr., Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00405-DPM
(E.D. Ark., June 11, 2019) is a collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, for
declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys'
fees, as a result of Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and other
hourly-paid construction laborers lawful overtime compensation for
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiff and other construction laborers worked more than 40 hours
in most workweeks. However, the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff
and other construction laborers one and one-half times their
regular rate for any hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek; rather, Defendants paid them their regular hourly rates
for all recorded hours worked, says the complaint.

Plaintiff has been employed by Defendants as a painter from
approximately November of 2018 until the present.

Defendants conduct business within the State of Arkansas, owning
and operating a real estate renovation company in Vilonia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Steve Rauls, 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
            josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


TAL EDUCATION: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Class Suit in NY Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TAL Education Group said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 16, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended  February 28, 2019, that the motion to dismiss
the consolidated class action suit entitled, In re Tal Education
Group Securities Litigation, Case No. 1: 18-cv-05480-LAP-KHP, is
ongoing.

On June 18, 2018 and July 17, 2018, two putative shareholder class
action lawsuits were filed against the company and certain officers
of the company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

The putative class action lawsuit is captioned Lea v. TAL Education
Group, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-05480-RWS (S.D.N.Y.) (filed on June
18, 2018); Extract v. TAL Education Group, et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-06440 (filed on July 17, 2018).

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons who allegedly
suffered damages as a result of their trading activities related to
the company's American depositary shares (ADSs) from April 26 to
June 13, 2018.

The plaintiffs allege that certain press releases and financial
statements made by our company during the alleged class period
contained material misstatements and omissions in violation of the
federal securities laws, and advances claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.
Sections 78(b) and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5 (2013).

On September 27, 2018, the Court consolidated the two lawsuits as
In re Tal Education Group Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:
18-cv-05480-LAP-KHP.

On December 28, 2018, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint.

On February 26, 2019, the Company filed its motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. On April 22, 2019, Plaintiffs filed
its opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss. The Company is
scheduled to file its reply on May 22, 2019.

The actions remain in its preliminary stages.

TAL Education said, "We are defending the action vigorously."

TAL Education Group provides K-12 after-school tutoring services in
the People’s Republic of China. The company was founded in 2003
and is headquartered in Beijing, the People’s Republic of China.


THINKDIRECT MARKETING: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Chung Says
------------------------------------------------------------
CHIEHEN CHUNG, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. THINKDIRECT MARKETING GROUP,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-01370-MSS-AEP (M.D. Fla.,
June 5, 2019), seeks damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act for
Defendant's failure to pay minimum wage.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff Chung began working for
Defendant as a verification operator in May 20, 2017, and he still
works in this capacity. The Plaintiff and Members of the Class
worked hours at the direction of Defendant, and they were not paid
at least the applicable minimum wage for all of the hours that they
worked.

Specifically, the Defendant has failed to pay Plaintiff any wages
for the last month of his employment. To this day, Defendant
continues to fail to pay Plaintiff his earned wages. Defendant's
actions were willful, and showed reckless disregard for the
provisions of the FLSA, the lawsuit says.

ThinkDirect Marketing Group, Inc., a direct marketing company,
provides direct sales, call transfer, and lead generation services
to businesses in the United States.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Direct: 813-337-7992
          Main: 813-224-0431
          Facsimile: 813-229-8712
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
                  twells@wfclaw.com

TRANS WORLD: Conditional Class Certification in Spack Suit Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
Trans World Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
2, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the
motion for conditional certification filed in Spack v. Trans World
Entertainment Corp., has been granted.

There are two pending class actions. The first, Spack v. Trans
World Entertainment Corp. was originally filed in the District of
New Jersey, April 2017(the "Spack Action").

The Spack Action alleges that Trans World misclassified Store
Managers as exempt nationwide. It also alleges violations of New
Jersey and Pennsylvania State Law with respect to the Trans World's
use of the fluctuating workweek method to pay Senior Assistant
Managers at stores located in those two states, and that managers
and assistant managers worked "off-the-clock."

The second, Roper v. Trans World Entertainment Corp., was filed in
the Northern District of New York, May 2017 (the "Roper Action").

The Roper Action also asserts a nationwide misclassification claim
on behalf of Store Managers.

Both actions were consolidated into the Northern District of New
York, with the Spack Action being the lead case.

Plaintiffs moved for conditional certification, June 2018 and
partially granted in January 2019. The opt-in period for the
collective that was certified closed on April 6, 2019.

Trans World said, "Once the scope of the conditionally certified
collective is known, opt-in discovery relating to that collective
will commence. Company plans to move to decertify that collective.
The Company believes the case is without merit."

Trans World Entertainment Corporation is a music retailer that
operates stores in the United States. The Company operates
mall-based stores and freestanding stores under the names Camelot
Music, Record Town, The Wall, F.Y.E., Coconuts Music and Movies,
Strawberries Music, Spec's, and Planet Music. Trans World also
operates an electronic commerce music and entertainment Web site.
The company is based in Albany, New York.


TRANS WORLD: Loyalty Memberships & Subscriptions Class Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Trans World Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
2, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the
company continues to defend a class action lawsuit over loyalty
memberships and magazine subscriptions.

On November 14, 2018, three consumers filed a putative class action
complaint against Trans World Entertainment Corporation and Synapse
Group, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts Boston Division (Case No.1:18-cv-12377-DPW)
concerning enrollment in the Company's Backstage Pass VIP loyalty
program and associated magazine subscriptions.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's
"negative option marketing" misled consumers into enrolling for
membership and subscriptions without obtaining the consumers'
consent. The complaint seeks statutory and actual damages.

The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the case which remains
pending; however the court has already dismissed the plaintiffs'
only claim under federal law.

Trans World said, "The court has not yet decided the rest of the
motion, but has indicated its preliminary agreement with
significant portions of that motion, including that the case should
not be able to proceed as a class action. The Company believes it
has meritorious defenses to the plaintiffs' claims and, if the
court does not grant the Company's motion to dismiss in full, the
Company intends to vigorously defend the action."

Trans World Entertainment Corporation is a music retailer that
operates stores in the United States. The Company operates
mall-based stores and freestanding stores under the names Camelot
Music, Record Town, The Wall, F.Y.E., Coconuts Music and Movies,
Strawberries Music, Spec's, and Planet Music. Trans World also
operates an electronic commerce music and entertainment Web site.
The company is based in Albany, New York.


TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Shupe Moves to Certify Class of Policyholders
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled JOYCE SHUPE, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. TRANSAMERICA LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:19-cv-00045-KEM (N.D. Iowa), moves
for an order certifying a class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure consisting of:

     all TransUltra 115 policyholders who have been subjected to
     Transamerica's monthly deduction rate increase since 2017.

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint her as Class
Representative and to appoint the law firm of Squitieri & Fearon,
LLP as Class Counsel.

Ms. Shupe challenges the recent cost-of-insurance increase that
Transamerica imposed upon her and the proposed Class of TransUltra
115 policyholders.  She alleges that the cost increase breached the
contract between Transamerica and its policyholders, including
her.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jenna L. Green, Esq.
          HUPY AND ABRAHAM, S.C., P.C.
          6600 Westown Parkway, Suite 270
          West Des Moines, IA 50266
          Telephone: (515) 984-0091
          Facsimile: (515) 777-3399
          E-mail: jgreen@hupy.com

               - and -

          Stephen J. Fearon, Jr., Esq.
          Paul V. Sweeny, Esq.
          SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
          32 East 57th St., 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 421-6492
          Facsimile: (212) 421-6553
          E-mail: stephen@sfclasslaw.com
                  paul@sfclasslaw.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: O'Hanlon Suit Asserts ADA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
PAUL O'HANLON, an individual, JONATHAN ROBISON, an individual,
GAYLE LEWANDOWSKI, an individual, IRMA ALLEN, an individual, on
behalf of themselves and all individuals similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
RASIER, LLC, a Delaware Corporation, and RASIER-CA, LLC, a Delaware
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00675-DSC (W.D. Pa., June
11, 2019) seeks to remedy ongoing discrimination against persons
with mobility disabilities who want to, but cannot, use the
on-demand transportation service operated by Uber Technologies,
Inc.

According to the complaint, Uber's policies and practices are
discriminatory and deny individuals who need wheelchair accessible
vehicles equal access to the service it provides, and prevent them
from obtaining the benefits of its service. In the Pittsburgh area,
Uber provides no wheelchair accessible vehicles through its
transportation service at all. Such conduct violates the Americans
with Disabilities Act. Plaintiffs contacted Uber to request that it
reasonably modify its policies and practices so that persons who
need wheelchair accessible vehicles would have full and equal
access to the on-demand transportation service Uber provides in
Allegheny County. But Uber failed to make such modifications,
thereby leaving Plaintiffs no choice but to file this lawsuit.

Plaintiffs are individuals who uses motorized wheelchairs and would
use Uber but for the unavailability of wheelchair accessible
Ubers.

Uber Technologies, Inc. is a for-profit corporation that provides
on-demand transportation services throughout Pennsylvania,
including in Allegheny County.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
     Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
     Kevin W. Tucker, Esq.
     Bryan A. Fox, Esq.
     CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
     1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
     Pittsburgh, PA 15222
     Email: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com
            kiverson@carlsonlynch.com
            ktucker@carlsonlynch.com
            bfox@carlsonlynch.com

          - and -

     Stuart Seaborn, Esq.
     Michelle Iorio, Esq.
     Melissa Riess, Esq.
     DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES
     2001 Center Street, 4th Floor
     Berkeley, CA 94704-1204
     Email: sseaborn@dralegal.org
            miorio@dralegal.org
            mriess@dralegal.org


UNIVERSAL DEVELOPMENT: Burgess Alleges FACTA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
SHAEDA BURGESS, individually, and on behalf of other similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSAL CITY DEVELOPMENT
PARTNERS, LTD., a Florida limited partnership, d/b/a UNIVERSAL
ORLANDO RESORT, the Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-01041-CEM-LRH (M.D.
Fla., June 5, 2019), targets Defendant's violation of the Fair and
Accurate Credit Transactions Act ("FACTA") amendment to the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, which requires persons that accept debt cards
or credit cards for the transaction of business to truncate certain
card number information on printed receipts provided to consumers.


Despite the clear language of the statute, Defendant knowingly or
recklessly failed to comply with FCRA by printing Plaintiff's full
credit card account number on transaction receipts. As a result of
Defendant's unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the Class who conducted
business with Defendant have suffered a violation of their
substantive rights under section 1681c(g), an invasion of their
privacy, breach of their confidence in the safe handling of their
account information, exposure to an elevated risk of identity
theft, and were unfairly burdened with the need to keep or destroy
the receipt, so as to prevent further disclosure of their account
information, the lawsuit says.

According to the complaint, on February 20, 2019, the Plaintiff
made a purchase using her personal American Express credit card at
the Fire Eaters Grill (TM), located at the Universal Orlando
Resort, in Orlando, Florida. The Plaintiff was subsequently
provided an electronically printed receipt bearing her full credit
card account number. As a direct result of Defendant's printing of
her full credit card account number, the Plaintiff felt compelled
to take action to safeguard the receipt. The printing of
Plaintiff's full credit card account number invaded her privacy by
disclosing her private financial information to anyone who might
come in contact with the receipt.

Identity theft is a serious issue affecting both consumers and
businesses. As of 2018, a Harris Poll revealed that nearly 60
million Americans have been affected by identity theft. There were
a record high 16.7 million victims of identity fraud in 2017 alone,
and count takeovers (when a thief opens a credit card account or
other financial account using a victim's name and other stolen
information) tripled in 2017 from 2016, causing $5.1 billion in
losses.[BN]

Attorneys for Shaeda Burgess, individually, and on behalf of other
similarly situated individuals are:

          Scott D. Owens, Esq.
          SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
          3800 S. Ocean Dr., Ste. 235
          Hollywood, FL 33019
          Telephone: 954-589-0588
          Facsimile: 954-337-0666
          E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com

               - and -

          James S. Giardina, Esq.
          THE CONSUMER RIGHTS LAW GROUP, PLLC
          3104 W. Waters Ave., Ste. 200
          Tampa, FL 33614
          Telephone: 813-413-5610
          Facsimile: 866-535-7199
          E-mail: james@consumerrightslawgroup.com

UQM TECHNOLOGIES: 3 Merger-Related Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
UQM Technologies, 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 the Lopez v. UQM
Technologies, Inc., et al., ETS Logistics Inc. v. UQM Technologies,
Inc., et al., and Franchi v. Vanlandingham, et al. suits have been
voluntarily dismissed.

On January 21, 2019, the Company announced it had entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Danfoss
Power Solutions (US) Company ("Danfoss"). Under the terms of the
Merger Agreement a wholly owned subsidiary of Danfoss will merge
with and into the Company, and the Company will continue as the
surviving corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Danfoss (the
"Merger"). The board of directors of the Company unanimously
approved and declared advisable the Merger.

During the quarter ended March 31, 2019, seven legal complaints,
including five putative class actions, were filed by purported
stockholders of UQM challenging the Merger and/or the Company's
disclosures in the proxy statements filed with the SEC related to
the Merger.  

The following five cases were filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado: (i) Carter v. UQM Technologies,
Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-502; (ii) Lopez v. UQM Technologies, Inc.,
et al., No. 19-cv-543; (iii) ETS Logistics Inc. v. UQM
Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-602; (iv) Poston v. UQM
Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-648; and (v) Arukala v. UQM
Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-650.  

One case was filed in Colorado state court: Franchi v.
Vanlandingham, et al., No. 19-cv-30217 (Weld County, CO.).  One
case was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York: Gunderson v. UQM Technologies, Inc., et al.,
No. 19-cv-2219 (S.D.N.Y.) (collectively, such state and federal
actions are referred to herein as the "Lawsuits").  

The six federal lawsuits asserted claims under Section 14(a) and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder, based on an alleged failure to disclose certain
information in the  preliminary proxy statement filed by the
Company on February 11, 2019 and the definitive proxy statement
filed by the Company on March 7, 2019.  

The state lawsuit (Franchi) alleged, among other things, that the
Company's Board of Directors failed to disclose certain information
in the preliminary proxy statement filed by the Company on February
11, 2019 constituted a breach of fiduciary duty. Carter and Franchi
also included other breach of fiduciary duty claims against the
Company's directors in connection with the Merger.  

All of the Lawsuits sought or seek: (i) injunctive relief to
prevent the parties from proceeding with, consummating, or closing
the Merger unless certain omitted information was disclosed in the
proxy statement; (ii) an accounting for alleged damages sustained
by the plaintiffs; and (iii) unspecified costs and attorneys' and
experts' fees.

UQM continues to believe that the claims asserted in the Lawsuits
are and were without merit, and further believes that no
supplemental disclosure was required under applicable law.  

However, UQM determined that, to avoid the risk of litigation
delaying or adversely affecting the Merger, UQM would make certain
supplemental disclosures, in a Current Report on Form 8-K that was
filed by the Company with the SEC on April 25, 2019. In connection
with the filing of that Current Report on Form 8-K, all of the
plaintiffs agreed to voluntarily dismiss all claims asserted in
their Lawsuits within five days of the closing of the Merger.
Plaintiffs in Lopez, Franchi, and ETS Logistics have already
voluntarily dismissed their Lawsuits.  

The dismissals are subject to the plaintiffs requests for fees,
which fees are not estimable at this time.  Therefore, no provision
has been made in the financial statements for the ultimate
resolution of the Lawsuits.  

Management believes that the final resolution of the Lawsuits will
not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
position.   

UQM Technologies, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, and sells electric motors, generators, power
electronic controllers, and fuel cell compressors in the United
states, Canada, the Asia Pacific, and Europe. UQM Technologies,
Inc. was founded in 1967 and is headquartered in Longmont,
Colorado.


URGO HOTELS: Fischler Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
--------------------------------------------------------
Urgo Hotels LP is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Brian
Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Urgo Hotels LP doing business as: Whiteface
Lodge, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03352 (E.D. N.Y., June 5,
2019).

Urgo Hotels LP develops, owns, operates, and manages hotels in the
United States, Canada, and the Caribbean. It offers investment and
development services, including acquisition and entitlement,
design, financing, rehabilitation, and repositioning. Urgo Hotels
LP was formerly known as Urgo Butts & Company. The company was
founded in 1968 and is based in Bethesda, Maryland.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Wins More Time to Object to Cert. Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Edward G. Smith grants the motion for extension of time to
file opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification and notice under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) in the
lawsuit titled ANGELA ROPER and RENEE JOHNSON, for themselves and
all others similarly situated v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
VERIZON PENNSYLVANIA LLC, and CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON
WIRELESS, Case No. 5:18-cv-05270-EGS (E.D. Pa.).

The time for the Defendants to file a response to the motion for
conditional certification and notice is stayed until further order
of the Court.

With the consent of the Defendants, the Fair Labor Standards Act
statute of limitations is tolled for the potential members of the
collective action until (1) the Defendants file a response to the
motion for conditional certification and notice under 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b), or (2) further order of the Court.

The parties shall have until August 26, 2019, to conduct limited
discovery on the issue of whether Verizon Communications, Inc. is a
joint or single employer of the Plaintiffs.

The parties may file motions for summary judgment on the limited
issue identified in this Order by no later than September 25, 2019.
The parties may file responses in opposition to any motions for
summary judgment by no later than October 25, 2019.  The parties
may file any reply briefs to opposition submissions by no later
than November 8, 2019.

The Court will hold oral argument on the motions for summary
judgment on November 14, 2019, at 10:00 a.m.[CC]


VERU INC: July 11 Hearing on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Veru Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 15, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019, that the hearing on the parties cross-motions
for summary judgment in the consolidated class action suit in
Illinois is set for July 11, 2019.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on April 15,
2019 which are set for hearing on July 11, 2019.

In response to the acquisition of Aspen Park Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(APP), two purported derivative and class action lawsuits were
filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, captioned Glotzer v.
The Female Health Company, et al., Case No. 2016-CH-13815, and
Schartz v. Parrish, et al., Case No. 2016-CH-14488.

These lawsuits were originally filed on or about October 21, 2016
and November 7, 2016, respectively. On January 9, 2017, these two
lawsuits were consolidated. On March 31, 2017, the plaintiffs filed
a consolidated complaint.  

The consolidated complaint named as defendants Veru, the members of
the company's board of directors prior to the closing of the APP
Acquisition and the members of the company's board of directors
after the closing of the APP Acquisition.

The consolidated complaint alleged, among other things, that the
directors breached their fiduciary duties, or aided and abetted
such breaches, by consummating the APP Acquisition in violation of
the Wisconsin Business Corporation Law and NASDAQ voting
requirements and by causing the company to issue the shares of its
common stock and Series 4 Preferred Stock to the former
stockholders of APP pursuant to the APP Acquisition in order to
evade the voting requirements of the Wisconsin Business Corporation
Law.

The consolidated complaint also alleged that Dr. Steiner, a
director and the Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of
Veru and a co-founder of APP, and Dr. Fisch, a director and Vice
Chairman of Veru and a co-founder of APP, were unjustly enriched in
receiving shares of the company's common stock and Series 4
Preferred Stock in the APP Acquisition.

On May 5, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint. On August 15, 2017, the court entered an
order dismissing without prejudice the claims that the
post-acquisition directors aided and abetted the alleged breaches
of fiduciary duties by the pre-acquisition directors and that Dr.
Steiner and Dr. Fisch were unjustly enriched.  

The court did not dismiss the claims that our directors prior to
the closing of the APP Acquisition breached their fiduciary duties
and the claims that Veru consummated the APP Acquisition in
violation of the Wisconsin Business Corporation Law and NASDAQ
voting requirements.  

On November 30, 2018, plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated
Complaint. The Amended Consolidated Complaint makes allegations
similar to those in the original consolidated complaint as to the
claims that were not dismissed and names as defendants Veru and the
members of our board of directors prior to the closing of the APP
Acquisition. The Amended Consolidated Complaint also makes claims
against Dr. Steiner for allegedly aiding and abetting the
pre-acquisition directors' breach of fiduciary duty and for unjust
enrichment.  

Like the original consolidated complaint, which was previously
dismissed in part, the Amended Consolidated Complaint seeks
equitable relief, including rescission of the APP Acquisition,
money damages, disgorgement of the shares of our common stock and
Series 4 Preferred Stock issued to Dr. Steiner, and costs and
expenses of the litigation, including attorneys' fees.  

On December 14, 2018, the defendants filed their answer to the
Amended Consolidated Complaint wherein they denied any and all
liability and asserted additional defenses. On January 14, 2019,
the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.

On May 6, 2019, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion and certified
a class consisting of "All holders of common stock of the Female
Health Company as of October 31, 2016 and their successors in
interest, excluding the named defendants to the Action and any
person, firm, trust, corporation or other entity related to or
affiliated with any of the Defendants."  The parties filed
cross-motions for summary judgment on April 15, 2019 which are set
for hearing on July 11, 2019.

Veru believes that this action is without merit and is vigorously
defending itself.

Veru Inc. operates as an oncology and urology biopharmaceutical
company. The company operates through two segments, Commercial, and
Research and Development. The company was formerly known as The
Female Health Company and changed its name to Veru Inc. in July
2017. Veru Inc. was founded in 1896 and is headquartered in Miami,
Florida.


VICTORIA'S SECRET: Lee Seeks Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
Victoria's Secret, Victoria's Secret Stores, LLC and L Brands, Inc.
for alleged violations of the California Labor Code and California
Business & Professions Code. The case is captioned SHAUNTESE LEE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, V. VICTORIA'S SECRET, a Delaware 1711 Corporation;
VICTORIA'S SECRET STORES, LLC.; Delaware Corporation; L BRANDS,
INC., a Ohio Corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 30-2019-01072480-CU-OE-CXC (Cal. Super., Orange Cty., May
28, 2019). Among other things, Plaintiff Shauntese Lee alleges that
the Defendants failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements,
failed to pay wages including overtime, failed to pay timely wages,
and failed to provide meal and rest periods.

Victoria's Secret, Victoria's Secret Stores, LLC, and L Brands,
Inc. own and operate a chain of retail and casual clothing apparel
businesses throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James R. Hawkins, Esq.
     Gregory Mauro, Esq.
     Michael Calvo, Esq.
     JAMES HAWKINS APLC
     Research Drive, Suite 800
     Irvine, CA 92618
     Telephone: (949) 387-7200
     Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
     E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
             Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com
             Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com


VILLAGE SUPER: Court Won't Review Yang Conditional Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, YING YANG, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VILLAGE SUPER MARKET, INC.,
VILLAGE SUPER MARKET Of NJ, LP, RONALD L. GOLEY, HUA HUANG, JOAQUIM
BATISTA IMPROPERLY NAMED AS JACK BATISTA, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 18-cv-10486 (WHW) (CLW) (D. N.J.), Judge William H. Walls of
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied the
Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration.

Plaintiff Ying Yang was hired as a chef for the Chinese food outlet
of ShopRite in Livingston, New Jersey on about Sept. 20, 2016, and
remained employed there until April 27, 2018.  The Plaintiff
claimed he was entitled to recover unpaid overtime wages of at
least one-and-a-half times the regular pay at which they were
employed for every hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a single
workweek.

He filed a Collective Class Action Complaint in the Court on June
12, 2018.  He then moved for conditional certification of all
hourly paid, non-managerial individuals employed by the Defendants
for their failure to pay overtime pay as required under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  The Court engaged in the standard
two-step certification analysis as directed by the Third Circuit.


On March 20, 2019, after finding that Yang had made a modest
factual showing and produced evidence beyond pure speculation of a
factual nexus between the manner in which the employer's alleged
policy affected him and the manner in which it affected other
employees, resulting in him being similarly situated to the
putative class through record evidence suggesting that the
Prospective Collective Action Members were subject to the same
employment practices, the Court conditionally certified the class.


The Defendants ask the Court to reconsider its Opinion and Order,
contending that the Court's finding as to the Plaintiff being
similarly situated to other members of the putative class "was in
error."  They claim that the Court erred in certifying a class of
all non-managerial employees rather than limiting the class to
other salaried chefs who worked in the Asian food section of the
ShopRite stores in Livingston and Union.  They posit that because
Plaintiff Yang's position is that he was improperly categorized as
an "exempt" employee under the FLSA when he was not, he needed to
demonstrate he was "similarly situated" to other improperly
categorized employees, and that he did not.  

The Defendants likewise argue that even if the Plaintiff has shown
he is similarly situated to other class members, they are not
subject to an actual uniform policy to deprive non-managerial
employees of overtime compensation.  They the Court reconsider its
motion "and limit any collective action to salaried Chinese food
chefs who worked at Village's Livingston and Union stores.

Judge Walls holds that the Defendants are impermissibly repeating
old arguments that the Court has already rejected. It found that
Yang had shown that he is similarly situated to the putative class
through record evidence suggesting that the Prospective Collective
Action Members were subject to the same employment practice.
Although the Petitioner may not like the way the Court ruled, his
arguments were explicitly addressed in the joint Opinion and
Order.

Importantly, the Judge holds that the Court found that when
reviewing the record evidence, the Plaintiff's duty to demonstrate
a modest factual showing had been recently described as a "very low
burden," and that this lenient standard is typically easily met and
usually results in conditional certification.  The motion for
reconsideration does not grapple with the Court's discussion about
the low bar the Plaintiff had to hurdle.

The Defendants finally contend that if the Court does not
reconsider its decision in its entirety then it should certify a
more limited class.  But having relegated this suggestion to a
footnote in their original opposition brief, the Judge holds now is
not the time to propose new class definitions or to make new
arguments.

Having not met their burden to demonstrate a clear error of law,
Judge Walls denied the Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 14, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/1Y927p from Leagle.com.

YING Y. YANG, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by JEREMY J. JACKSON --
jeremy.jackson@wanggaolaw.com -- Wang, Gao & Associates & HENG WANG
-- heng.wang@wanggaolaw.com -- WANG GAO & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

VILLAGE SUPERMARKETS, INC., doing business as SHOPRITE, VILLAGE
SUPER MARKET, INC. & VILLAGE SUPER MARKET OF NJ, L.P., doing
business as SHOPRITE, Defendants, represented by ANDREW M.
MOSKOWITZ -- amoskowitz@lawjw.com -- Javerbaum Wurgaft Hicks Kahn
Wikstrom and Sinins & RUBIN SININS -- rsinins@lawjw.com --
Javerbaum Wurgaft Hicks Kahn Wikstrom & Sinins.

RONALD L. GOLEY, HUA HUANG & JACK BATISTA, Defendants, represented
by ANDREW M. MOSKOWITZ, Javerbaum Wurgaft Hicks Kahn Wikstrom and
Sinins.


VYTEK INC: Cando Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premium
----------------------------------------------
FIDEL CANDO, individually and on behalf of those individuals
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. VYTEK, INC., RAMON
CRISFULLI, and JOAN CRISFULLI, the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-03318 (E.D.N.Y., June 5, 2019), seeks monetary damages, and
declaratory and affirmative relief caused by Defendants' violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that he is entitled to recovery from
Defendants for overtime premium for all hours worked in excess of
40 hours per week; interest on all compensation Defendants withheld
from his earned pay; an award of $5,000, the maximum penalty for
violation of NYLL.[BN]

Vytek, Inc. was founded in 2000. The company's line of business
includes manufacturing industrial machinery.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff is:

          Christopher k. Collotta, Esq.
          Michael A. D'Auria, Esq.
          ZABELL & COLLOTTA P.C.
          1 Corporate Drive, Suite 103
          Bohemia, NY 11716
          Telephone: (631) 589 7242
          Facsimile: (631) 563 7475
          E-mail: Ccollotta@laborlawsny.com
                  MDAuria@laborlawsny.com

WHOLESOME FACTORY: Santos et al Seek Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MISAEL CRUZ SANTOS, JUAN MUNOZ, BRAULIO REYES RAMIREZ and JOSE
PRIEGO, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. WHOLESOME FACTORY INC., DERHIM N. NASSER, and JI
MIN KIM, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05335 (S.D.N.Y., June 6,
2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys'
fees and cost, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs work as a non-exempt
food preparers/kitchen helpers, produce handlers/packers, and stock
persons. The work performed by Plaintiffs was and is directly
essential to the business operated by Defendants.

The Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiffs
their lawfully earned overtime compensation in direct contravention
of the FLSA and New York Labor Law, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          10 Grand Central
          155 East 44th Street 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
          E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com

WILLIAMS INDUSTRIAL: Appeal in Budde Class Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Williams Industrial Services Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 15,
2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the
plaintiff's appeal in the class action suit entitled, Budde v.
Global Power Equipment Group Inc., is still pending.

A putative shareholder class action, captioned Budde v. Global
Power Equipment Group Inc., was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas naming the Company and certain
former officers as defendants.

This action and another action were filed on May 13, 2015 and June
23, 2015, respectively, and on July 29, 2015, the court
consolidated the two actions and appointed a lead plaintiff. On May
1, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed a second consolidated amended
complaint that named the Company and three of its former officers
as defendants.

It alleged violations of the federal securities laws arising out of
matters related to the Company's restatement of certain financial
periods and claims that the defendants made material
misrepresentations and omissions of material fact in certain public
disclosures during the putative class period in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5, as promulgated thereunder.

The claims were filed on behalf of a putative class of persons who
acquired the Company's stock between September 7, 2011 and May 6,
2015, and sought monetary damages of "more than $200 million" on
behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses,
including attorneys' fees and experts' fees.

On June 26, 2017, the Company and the individual defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint. After full briefing, on December
27, 2017, the court issued a memorandum opinion and order granting
the motion to dismiss and allowing the plaintiffs until January 15,
2018 to file an amended complaint.

The court found that, with respect to each of the defendants,
plaintiffs failed to plead facts supporting a strong inference of
scienter, or the required intent to deceive, manipulate or defraud,
or act with severe recklessness.

On January 15, 2018, the plaintiffs filed their third amended
complaint, and in response the Company filed a renewed motion to
dismiss. After full briefing and oral argument, on September 11,
2018, the court dismissed with prejudice the third amended
complaint. The court found that, even with plaintiffs' amended
allegations, plaintiffs failed to plead facts supporting a strong
inference of scienter.

Also on September 11, 2018, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Plaintiffs' appeal is briefed and currently pending before that
court.

Williams Industrial said, "Litigation is subject to many
uncertainties, and the outcome of this action is not predictable
with assurance. At this time, the Company is unable to predict the
possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with the
resolution of this litigation, or any potential effect such may
have on the Company or its business or operations."

Williams Industrial Services Group Inc. provides general and
specialty construction, maintenance and modification, and plant
management support services to the nuclear, hydro and fossil power
generation, pulp and paper, refining, petrochemical, and other
process and manufacturing industries. The company was formerly
known as Global Power Equipment Group Inc. and changed its name to
Williams Industrial Services Group Inc. in June 2018. Williams
Industrial Services Group Inc. was founded in 1998 and is based in
Tucker, Georgia.


YOGAWORKS INC: Bid to Dismiss IPO-Related Suit Due July 23
----------------------------------------------------------
YogaWorks, 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 must file
their motion(s) to dismiss the Inter-Local Pension Fund GCC/IBT
class action suit by July 23, 2019.

Four substantially similar putative class action complaints were
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Los Angeles, captioned Salazar v. YogaWorks, Inc., et al. (filed
November 26, 2018); Johnson v. YogaWorks, Inc., et al. (filed
December 19, 2018); Lowinger v. YogaWorks, Inc. et al. (filed
December 21, 2018); and Mirza v. YogaWorks, Inc., et al. (filed
January 17, 2019).

These four state court actions were consolidated into the Salazar
case by the Court on April 17, 2019 and assigned to Judge Maren
Nelson for all purposes.

Additionally, two putative class action complaints, substantially
similar to the state court securities actions, captioned Cohen v.
YogaWorks, Inc., et al. (filed December 27, 2018) and Dellinger v.
YogaWorks, Inc., et al. (filed February 8, 2019) were filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Central
California.

These lawsuits were brought by purported stockholders of YogaWorks
alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933 for alleged
misstatements and omissions in offering documents related to
YogaWorks' initial public offering (IPO) that took place on August
11, 2017.

The lawsuits name as defendants YogaWorks, certain of its current
and former officers and directors, YogaWorks' majority shareholder,
and certain underwriters of YogaWorks' IPO.

A status conference has been set for the consolidated Salazar
matter for June 28, 2019. Pending further order of the court, no
response is currently due.

On March 21, 2019, the federal court actions were consolidated, and
Inter-Local Pension Fund GCC/IBT's were appointed as Lead
Plaintiff. On April 3, 2019, the Court ordered that Lead
Plaintiff's amended complaint is due by May 21, 2019; Defendants'
motion(s) to dismiss is due by July 23, 2019; Plaintiffs'
opposition(s) to the motion(s) to dismiss is due by September 24,
2019; Defendants' reply/replies in support of their motion(s) to
dismiss are due by November 21, 2019; and the hearing on
Defendants' motion(s) to dismiss is set for December 9, 2019 at
1:30 p.m.

YogaWorks said, "The outcomes of the legal proceedings are
inherently unpredictable, subject to significant uncertainties, and
could be material to YogaWorks' financial condition, results of
operations, and cash flows for a particular period. YogaWorks
intends to vigorously defend the claims asserted against it."

YogaWorks, Inc. operates yoga studios under the YogaWorks and Yoga
Tree brand names in the United States. It primarily provides yoga
classes, workshops, teacher training programs, and yoga-related
retail merchandise. The company was formerly known as YWX Holdings,
Inc. and changed its name to YogaWorks, Inc. in April 2017.
YogaWorks, Inc. was founded in 1987 and is headquartered in Culver
City, California.



                            *********

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 ***