CAR_Public/190625.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, June 25, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 126

                            Headlines

A. PIGNA & SON: Vosquez Seeks Overtime Compensation
A.O. SMITH: Federman & Sherwood Notes of Class Action Lawsuit
ABBOTT LAB: Powell Seeks OT Pay for Field Service Technicians
ABW CONSTRUCTION: Diaz-Zamora Seeks Overtime Pay for Workers
ACCELERIZE INC: Franchi Files Suit Over Sale to CAKE Software

ACCENTURE PLC: Bias Against Non-South Asians Staff, Walker Claims
ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
ALDI INC: Lacey-Salas Seeks Overtime Pay
ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: $23K Vandehey Suit Deal Has Final Approval
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Key Files Class Suit Over Contract Dispute

APERION CARE: Illegally Stores Biometric Info, Winters Suit Says
AQUANTIA CORP: Ward Balks at Merger Deal with Marvell
ARENA DES CANADIENS: Court Refuses to Authorize Class Action
ARMOUR COATINGS: Usadel Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
ASCENA RETAIL: Newman Sues over 2015 Merger Deal with ANN Inc.

ATLANTIC UNION: Ford Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
AVR REALTY: Fails to Pay Wages, Lindo Suit Says
BARKER BOATWORKS: $10.5M Sale of All Assets to Strike Force Granted
BIG FOUR: Woolf Seeks Minimum Wages for Restaurant Staff
BLOOM ENERGY: Issued Misleading Statement re IPO, Roberts Claims

BOOMTOWN ROI: Duarte Sues over Autodialed Text Messages
BOZE ENTERPRISES: Garcia Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
BP EXPLORATION: Godoy BELO Suit Moved to S.D. Texas
BYRIDER FINANCE: Niemynski Suit Alleges Harassment Under TCPA
CARDINAL HEALTH: Court Grants in Part 2nd & 3rd Demurrers in Potter

CARE FOR YOU: Lee Seeks Overtime Pay for Home Health Care Providers
CAROLE ROBERTSON: Young Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
CBL & ASSOCIATES: Roy Jacobs & Associates Files Class Action
CEMIG: Appeal in Consumer Classification Class Action Ongoing
CEMIG: Suit Against Light S.A.'s Director de Freitas Ongoing

CERIDIAN HCM: LaBarre Wants to Stop Illegal Use of Biometric Data
CITY VIEW MULTICARE: Campos Suit Asserts BIPA Violation
COCKTAILS LOUNGE: Knowlton Seeks Minimum Wage for Dancers
COMMUNITY WASTE: Quinones Seeks Unpaid Wages for Drivers
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Dias Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York

CORALREEF PRODUCTIONS: Hillow Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing
CORPORATE EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Clark Says
CREST FURNITURE: Accused by Flores Suit of Misclassifying Workers
CSX TRANSPORTATION: Court Partly OKs Summary Judgment in Bell Suit
CVS HEALTHCARE: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Aetna Merger

DALE COUNTY, AL: Faces Class Action Over Falsified Drug Tests
DAVE & BUSTER'S: Rung Seeks to Recover Damages Under FLSA & NYLL
DISH NETWORK: 4th Cir. Affirms Ruling in Robocall Class Action
DOMINION DIAMOND: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Amended Poms Suit
ESSEX PROPERTY: Final Approval Order of Giroux Settlement Amended

FABFITFUN INC: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FACEBOOK INC: Appeals Certification Order in Bigger FLSA Suit
FIORELLA INSURANCE: Johnson Sues over Autodialed Calls
FIREBIRDS OF RICHMOND: Knapp Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Damages
FIRST AMERICAN: Fails to Protect Confidential Info, Shakib Says

FIRST AMERICAN: Forney Files Class Action Over Data Breach
FIRST AMERICAN: Kuntz Sues Over Data Breach
FISHER-PRICE INC: Kimmel Files Suit Over Dangerous Sleepers
FORD MOTOR: Lessin Sues over Defective Trucks
FORT WILLIAM: Website not Accessible to Blind, Young Says

FOSTER & GARBUS: Dewick Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
FUSION CONNECT: Executives Face Securities Action
GENERAL MOTORS: Thomas Sues over Vehicle Engine Defects
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Sealing Orders in Avandia Mktg. Suit Vacated
GOMEZ DRYWALL: Must Pay Workers $180,000 in Overtime Back Wages

GULF COAST: Williams sues over Data Breach
HARDEMAN, TN: Perry Seeks to Recoup Wages for Deputies/Dispatchers
HERSHEY COMPANY: White Chocolate Label Misleading, Rivas Says
HOME DEPOT: Supreme Court Rules on Class Action Removal Issue
HORIZON HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Forced C-Sections

HORIZON HEALTH: Mothers Involved in Class Action Hold Meeting
HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA: McFadden Sues over Defective Airbags
IC SYSTEM: Sued by Siri Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
INTERMOLECULAR INC: Morgan Files Suit Over Sale to Merck
INTUIT INC: Settlement in Data Class Suit Has Final Approval

JONAS FITNESS: Spain Sues over Telemarketing Text Messages
KEITH MCCURDY: Kiler Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
KEYW HOLDING: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
KING RANS INVESTMENT: Perez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Finch Sues Over Data Breach

LADERA LENDING: Ochinero Seeks OT Pay for Mortgage Loan Officers
LANNETT CO: Court Nixes Bid to Dismiss Utesch Securities Fraud Suit
LGS STAFFING: Vaughns Seeks Overtime Wages for Workers
MAKE IT RIGHT: Court Grants Bid to Remand Francis Class Suit
MAMMOTH ENERGY: Scuderi Sues over PREPA Deal, Share Price Drop

MASTRIA BUICK: Sued by Sanderson for Not Paying Salespersons' OT
MDL 2672: Allen, et al., Remanded to Texas State Court
MDL 2672: July 26 Hearing on Dismissal Bids in Clean Diesel Suit
MDL 2886: Severance's Suit over Siding Defects Consolidated
MDL 2887: Russell Suit over Tainted Dog Food Consolidated

MDL 2887: Sawyer Suit over Tainted Dog Food Consolidated
MICHAEL C KOEHN: $5K Long FDCA Suit Settlement Has Final Approval
MIDLAND CONCRETE: Donald Seeks Overtime Pay
MOLSON COORS: Mathes Suit Transferred to District of Colorado
MONSANTO COMPANY: Schumacher Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MV TRANSPO: Bid to Conditionally Certify Miller Class Partly OK'd
NATIONAL SECURITIES: Arbitration Ruling in Rutella Suit Reversed
NATURMED INC: Court Grants Henson Leave to Amend Complaint
OBALTAN INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA and NYLL, Park Says
OCWEN LOAN: Amended $21.5MM Deal in Snyder Suit Has Final Approval

PAM TRANSPORT: Sued by Rieck for Not Properly Paying Truck Drivers
PETCO ANIMAL: Gatto et al. Seek OT Premium Pay for Groomers
PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Judges Hear Arguments on Funding Issue
PYXUS INTERNATIONAL: Jones Sues over Share Price Drop
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Henry Sues over Negligence, Data Breach

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Rahill Sues over Data Breach
RCI HOSPITALITY: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
RICHARD STOLLMEYER: Luxor Capital Files Statement of Good Cause
ROSADO NAIL: Nguyen Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime Pay
SANDALS RESORTS: McCoy Files Suit in S.D. Florida

SANTA CRUZ, CA: Ninth Cir. Appeal Filed in Kuhl Civil Rights Suit
SEJA INC: Sanders Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
SMITH MEDICAL: Sawyer Sues over Unsolicited Advertisements
SMITH VOLKSWAGEN: Rogers Files FCRA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
SOUTHLAND ROYALTY: Court Denies Bid to Compel in Ulibarri Suit

SSMK INC: Comonfort Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
STARBUCKS: Faces Class Action Over Toxic Pesticide Exposure
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Court Consolidates Velazquez with Butler
TIME INC: Hall Balks at Auto Renewal of Magazine Subscription
TRUCK INSURANCE: Wintersteen Appeals Judgment to Pa. Sup. Ct.

UBS FINANCIAL: 5th Cir. Dismisses Enron Collapse Class Action
UNITED STATES: Montrois Files Petition for Writ of Certiorari
USAA CASUALTY: Removes Mack Suit to Southern District of Florida
VERMONT: Court Denies Russell's Bid for Partial Summary Judgment
VILLA ROMA RESORT: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

VIRGINIA PARTNERS: Parshall Suit Challenges Merger With Delmar
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Nov. 25 Dishwasher Claims Filing Deadline Set
YALE UNIVERSITY: Students File Sexual Discrimination Class Action
ZAYO GROUP: Scarantino Says Proxy Statement Misleading
[*] Mass. Consumer Data Privacy Bill Expand Class Action Risk

[*] OFW Law Attorney Discusses Class Action Trend v. Food Cos.

                            *********

A. PIGNA & SON: Vosquez Seeks Overtime Compensation
---------------------------------------------------
SELVIN VOSQUEZ, the Plaintiff, vs. A. PIGNA & SON MASON
CONTRACTORS, INC., and ENRICO PIGNA, individually, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:19-cv-13562 (D.N.J., June 8, 2019), seeks to recover the
overtime compensation, wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees,
and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey
State Wage and Hour Law.

The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit against Defendants as a
collective action on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated -- who suffered damages as a result of
Defendants' violations of the FLSA pursuant to the collective
action provisions of 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).

Beginning in approximately January 2004, and January 2018, the
Defendants engaged in a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff
and members of the putative collective to regularly work in excess
of 40 hours per week, without providing overtime compensation at
one and one half times the regular rate of pay as required by
applicable federal and New Jersey state law, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff performed non-exempt masonry duties for the
Defendants based from their yard location of Scotch Plains, Union
County, New Jersey.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
          Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, No. 306
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (201) 687-9977
          Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
          E-mail: Aglenn@jaffeglenn.com
                  jjaffe@JaffeGlenn.com

A.O. SMITH: Federman & Sherwood Notes of Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that a class action lawsuit was filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin against A.O. Smith Corporation (NYSE: AOS). The complaint
alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5,
including allegations of issuing a series of material or false
misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period,
which is July 26, 2016 through May 16, 2019.

To learn how to participate in this action, please visit
https://tinyurl.com/y4hy53qy

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all A.O. Smith
Corporation shareholders who purchased common stock during the
Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described
above. You may move the Court no later than Monday, July 29, 2019
to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in
order to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant
to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights, please contact:

Contact:

         Robin Hester, Esq.
         Federman & Sherwood
         10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
         Oklahoma City, OK 73120
         Website: www.federmanlaw.com
         Email: rkh@federmanlaw.com [GN]


ABBOTT LAB: Powell Seeks OT Pay for Field Service Technicians
-------------------------------------------------------------
AARON POWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC., and ST. JUDE
MEDICAL S.C., INC., the Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00235-FL
(E.D.N.C., June 7, 2019), contends that Abbott violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938, by knowingly suffering and/or
permitting Powell and the putative collective members to work in
excess of 40 hours per week without properly compensating them at
an overtime premium rate for these overtime hours.

Powell brings this action on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated individuals. Plaintiffs were, or are, employed
by Defendants in the field as field service technicians (FST), or
other job titles performing similar duties, within three years of
the date this Complaint was filed. Plaintiffs' primary job duties
and responsibilities consist or consisted of non-exempt work:
installing, repairing, troubleshooting, servicing and maintaining
cardiovascular medical instrumentation and devices manufactured by
Defendants. FSEs and FSTs install, service, and repair the same
cardiovascular medical devices, with the exception of a device
called Mediguide, which only FSEs are permitted to work on.

According to the complaint, the Defendants suffered and permitted
Plaintiffs to work more than 40 hours per week without overtime
pay. The Defendants paid Powell a salary during each week of his
tenure with no overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40.

Powell estimates that during his tenure with Defendants, he worked
between 70 to 80 hours each week, including travel time, depending
on the needs of Defendants. Despite the fact that the Plaintiffs
did not meet any test for exemption, Defendants failed to pay them
the requisite overtime rate of 1-1/2 times their regular rate for
all hours worked more than 40 hours per week, the lawsuit says.

Abbott Laboratories is an American health care company with
headquarters in Lake Bluff.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

ABW CONSTRUCTION: Diaz-Zamora Seeks Overtime Pay for Workers
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against ABW Construction
and Brian Martinson for alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act. The case is captioned JOSE DIAZ ZAMORA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ABW
CONSTRUCTION and BRIAN MARTINSON, Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-02103 (S.D. Tex., June 11, 2019). Plaintiff Jose Diaz
Zamora alleges that the Defendants did not pay him and other
similarly situated employees one- and one-half times their regular
rates of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 per week. Plaintiff
also claims that the Defendants failed to accurately record and
report the hourly pay rates on their payroll records. Accordingly,
Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid wages and other damages owed by
Defendants to its current and former employees.

ABW Construction is a privately held company that conducts business
in Houston and counties surrounding Houston. It is an additions and
remodeling contractor based in Pearland, Texas. Brian Martinson is
the owner of ABW Construction. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alfonso Kennard, Jr., Esq.
     KENNARD LAW P.C.
     2603 Augusta Drive, Suite 1450
     Houston, TX 77057
     Telephone: 713-742-0900
     Facsimile: 713-742-0951
     E-mail: alfonso.kennard@kennardlaw.com


ACCELERIZE INC: Franchi Files Suit Over Sale to CAKE Software
-------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM FRANCHI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. ACCELERIZE INC., BRIAN ROSS, GREG ASKELRUD,
and MARIO MARSILLO, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01086-UNA (D.
Del., June 12, 2019) is a complaint alleging that the Defendants
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "1934 Act").

On May 15, 2019, the Board of Directors of Accelerize Inc. caused
the Company to enter into an asset purchase agreement with CAKE
Software, Inc., a subsidiary of Constellation Software Inc.,
pursuant to which the Company will sell substantially all of its
assets associated with its CAKE and Journey by CAKE businesses. On
June 3, 2019, defendants filed a proxy statement with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission, which recommends that
the Company's stockholders approve the Proposed Transaction via
written consent.

However, the Proxy Statement omits material information with
respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy
Statement false and misleading, the complaint asserts.

Plaintiff is the owner of Accelerize common stock.

Accelerize currently owns and operates CAKE and getcake.com, a
marketing technology business that provides a proprietary solution
for advanced analytics, attribution, and campaign optimization for
digital marketers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

     Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
     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: sdr@rl-legal.com
            bdl@rl-legal.com            
            gms@rl-legal.com


ACCENTURE PLC: Bias Against Non-South Asians Staff, Walker Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW WALKER, the Plaintiff, vs. ACCENTURE PLC and ACCENTURE LLP
FOR EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, the Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-00888 (D. Conn., June 7, 2019), contends that Accenture
engages in a pattern or practice of discrimination against
non-South Asian applicants and employees. This results in a
disproportionately low percentage of non-South Asians being hired
in the U.S. by the company.  The plaintiff seeks seeks declaratory,
injunctive, and other equitable relief, compensatory and punitive
damages, including pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys'
fees, and costs to redress Accenture's pervasive pattern and
practice of race discrimination.

Accenture's service offerings are consolidated into five separate
businesses: (1) Accenture Consulting; (2) Accenture Technology; (3)
Accenture Strategy; (4) Accenture Digital; and (5) Accenture
Operations. Accenture Consulting utilizes employees with expertise
and industry knowledge to provide technology, business, and
management consulting services to companies across a variety of
industries. Within this business entity, Accenture Consulting
operates a technology consulting segment designed to provide
technical advice and solutions to businesses located across the
U.S. by deploying consultants directly to client sites. Accenture
Technology, on the other hand, focuses on providing technology
services and solutions to businesses throughout the country, and
employees are deployed directly to client sites to implement these
services.

According to the complaint, the comparatively few South Asians who
are hired by Accenture are routinely denied promotions and
terminated at disproportionately high rates, as compared to their
South Asian counterparts. As a result of these practices, certain
divisions of Accenture's U.S. workforce are overwhelmingly South
Asian. For example, while roughly 1-2% of the United States
population, and about 12% of the relevant labor market, is South
Asian, approximately 70% (or more) of Accenture Consulting and
Accenture Technology's United States-based workforce is South Asian
(primarily from India). Accenture's employment practices violate
the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended, 42 U.S.C. section 1981,
the lawsuit says.

Accenture PLC is a global management consulting and professional
services company that is incorporated in Dublin, Ireland. It
provides information technology and consulting services to
customers worldwide. Accenture PLC owns and operates a number of
subsidiaries in the United States, including, for example,
Accenture LLP, Accenture Inc., and Accenture LLC. Accenture PLC
employs almost 459,000 employees worldwide, approximately
51,800 of whom are located in the United States.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and Putative Class are:

          Michael J. Reilly, Esq.
          CICCHIELLO & CICCHIELLO LLP
          364 Franklin Avenue
          Hartford, CT 06114
          Telephone: (860) 296-3457
          Facsimile: (860) 296-0676
          E-mail: mreilly@cicchielloesq.com

               - and -

          Daniel Kotchen, Esq.
          Michael von Klemperer, Esq.
          Lindsey Grunert, Esq.
          KOTCHEN & LOW LLP
          1745 Kalorama Road NW, Suite 101
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 471-1995
          Facsimile: (202) 280-1128
          E-mail: dkotchen@kotchen.com
                  mvk@kotchen.com
                  lgrunert@kotchen.com

ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky& Long, P.A. disclosed that it has filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware on behalf of holders of Advanced Disposal Services, Inc.
("Advanced Disposal") (NYSE:ADSW) common stock in connection with
the proposed acquisition of Advanced Disposal by Waste Management,
Inc. ("Waste Management") announced on April 15, 2019 (the
"Complaint"). The Complaint, which alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Advanced Disposal and its
Board of Directors (the "Board"), is captioned Sabatini v. Advanced
Disposal Services, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-00919 (D. Del.).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's
counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at Rigrodsky & Long,
P.A., 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220, Wilmington, DE 19801, by
telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl-legal.com or at
http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/

On April 14, 2019, Advanced Disposal entered into an agreement and
plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Waste Management.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of
Advanced Disposal will receive $33.15 per share in cash (the
"Proposed Transaction").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction, defendants
issued materially incomplete disclosures in a proxy statement (the
"Proxy Statement") filed with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission. The Complaint alleges that the Proxy Statement
omits material information with respect to, among other things,
Advanced Disposal's financial projections and the analyses
performed by Advanced Disposal's financial advisor. The Complaint
seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages on behalf of
holders of Advanced Disposal common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than July 16, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

With offices in Delaware, New York, and California, Rigrodsky &
Long, P.A -- http://www.rigrodskylong.com-- has recovered hundreds
of millions of dollars on behalf of investors and achieved
substantial corporate governance reforms in numerous cases
nationwide, including federal securities fraud actions, shareholder
class actions, and shareholder derivative actions. [GN]


ALDI INC: Lacey-Salas Seeks Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Aldi Inc. and AI
California LLC for alleged violations of the California Business
and Professions Code, the Private Attorneys General Act, the
California Labor Code and the applicable Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Orders. The case is captioned JENNIFER LACEY-SALAS,
an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. ALDI INC., a Corporation; AI
CALIFORNIA LLC, a Limited Liability Company; and Does 1 through 50,
Inclusive; Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00029288-CU-OE-CTL (Cal.
Super., San Diego Cty., June 7, 2019). Among other things,
Plaintiff Jennifer Lacey-Salas alleges that the Defendants failed
to pay overtime wages, failed to provide the required meal and rest
periods, failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and
are engaged in unfair competition practices.

Aldi Inc. is a corporation that conducted and continues to conduct
substantial and regular business throughout California. AI
California LLC is a limited liability company that conducted and
continues to conduct substantial and regular business throughout
California. Aldi and AI California LLC own and operate grocery
stores in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
     Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
     Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
     Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP
     2255 Calle Clara
     La Jolla, CA 92037
     Telephone: (858)551-1223
     Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
     Website: www.bamlawca.com


ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: $23K Vandehey Suit Deal Has Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JACQUELYN A. VANDEHEY on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES
MANAGEMENT, INC. and, JOHN AND JANE DOES NUMBERS 1 THROUGH 10,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00481-WCG (E.D. Wis.), Judge William
C. Griesbach of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin, Green Bay Division, granted the Parties' request for
final approval of the Class Settlement Agreement.

Judge Griesbach certified the following Settlement Class pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3): All persons to whom AllianceOne
Receivables Management, Inc. mailed an initial written to an
address in the State of Wisconsin, between March 27, 2017 and April
17, 2018, which sought to collect a defaulted debt whose balance
had been charged-off, and which: (i) listed Interest and or
Non-Interest Charges/Fees as $0; (ii) conveyed an offer for a
reduced amount if paid within 40 days of receiving the letter; and
(iii) stated "AllianceOne will notify our client that you have paid
your account."

The Judge approved a form of notice for mailing to the Settlement
Class.  He is informed that actual notice was sent by first class
mail to 755 Class Members by Class-Settlement.com, the third-party
settlement administrator.  A total of 68 envelopes were returned by
the United States Postal Service, 13 of which were returned with
forwarding addresses and successfully re-mailed. None of the Class
Members requested exclusion from, or objected to, the Settlement.

On May 15, 2019, the Court held a fairness hearing to which Class
Members, including any with objections, were invited, but none
appeared to voice any objection.  The Judge finds that the
Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and finally approved
the Parties' Agreement, including the Release and payments by
AllianceOne.

Upon the Effective Date, as that term is defined in the Agreement,
AllianceOne shall:

     (a) Create a class settlement fund of $23,070, which the Class
Counsel through the Settlement Administrator will distribute pro
rata to each Class Member whose Class Notice was not returned as
undeliverable and who did not him/herself from the Settlement.  The
Class Members will receive their share of the Class Recovery by
check, which will become void 60 days from the date of issuance.
Any checks that have not been cashed by the void date, along with
any unclaimed funds remaining in the Class Recovery will be
disbursed in the following order: (i) to pay the costs associated
with providing notice to Class Members and administering the Class
Recovery; and (ii) any remainder donated as a cy pres award to
Legal Action of Wisconsin.

     (b) Pay the Plaintiff $1,500.

     (c) Pay the Class Counsel $30,000 for their attorneys' fees
and costs incurred in the action based on their submitted hourly
rates and time expended.  The Class Counsel will not request
additional fees or costs from AllianceOne or the Class Members.

The Parties grant the following releases:

     (a) The Plaintiff, including each and every one of her agents,
representatives, attorneys, heirs, assigns, or any other person
acting on her behalf or for her benefit, and any person claiming
through her, releases and discharges AllianceOne, as well as its
parent corporations, predecessors and successors in interest and
present and former affiliates, subsidiaries, insurers, officers,
directors, agents, employees, members, shareholders, general
partners, limited partners, beneficiaries, representatives,
attorneys, or assigns, from all causes of action, suits, claims, or
demands, in law or in equity, known or unknown at this time which
Releasors now have or ever had against the Released Parties, or any
of them, under any legal theory, whether or not alleged, related to
or arising from matters that occurred from the beginning of time
through the date of the Agreement.

     (b) Each Class Member who did not exclude themselves from the
Settlement hereby releases and discharges the Released Parties of
all causes of action, suits, liability, and claims, including
claims for the payment of attorney's fees and costs arising out of
or related to AllianceOne's collection letter attached as Exhibit A
to the Plaintiff's Complaint.

     (c) The Plaintiff and each Class Member DO NOT release any
defense they may have with respect to the underlying debts
AllianceOne was attempting to collect, including (i) whether any
debt is in fact owed, (ii) the crediting of payments on any debt,
or (iii) the proper reporting of any debts to credit bureaus.

     (d) AllianceOne does NOT release its claims, if any, against
the Plaintiff or any Class Member for the payment of their alleged
debts. The underlying debts AllianceOne sought to collect are
unaffected by the Settlement.  The Settlement does not prevent
AllianceOne from continuing to attempt to collect the debts
allegedly owed by the Class Members.

The terms of the Agreement are incorporated into the Order.  The
Order will operate as a final judgment and dismissal without
prejudice of the claims in the action.

The Judge finds, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), that
there is no just reason for delay of enforcement of, or appeal
from, the Order.  The Parties are ordered to comply with the terms
of the Agreement and the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 15, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/z9KHYD from Leagle.com.

Jacquelyn A Vandehey, Plaintiff, represented by Francis R. Greene
-- Francis@SternThomasson.com -- Stern Thomasson LLP, Philip D.
Stern -- Philip@SternThomasson.com -- Stern Thomasson LLP, William
M. Clanton, Law Office of Bill Clanton PC & Andrew T. Thomasson --
Andrew@SternThomasson.com -- Stern Thomasson LLP.

AllianceOne Receivables Management Inc, Defendant, represented by
Michael S. Poncin -- Mike.Poncin@lawmoss.com -- Moss & Barnett PA &
Bradley R. Armstrong -- Bradley.Armstrong@lawmoss.com -- Moss &
Barnett PA.


AMERICAN MEDICAL: Key Files Class Suit Over Contract Dispute
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Medical
Collection Agency, Inc. over a contract dispute. The case is styled
as Ritzie Key individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. American Medical Collection Agency, Inc.,
Optum360, LLC, Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, Does 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 7:19-cv-05536 (S.D. N.Y., June 13, 2019).

American Medical Collection Agency or AMCA is a debt collection
agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeremiah Lee Frei-Pearson, Esq.
     Finkelstein Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP
     445 Hamilton Ave, Suite 605
     White Plains, NY 10601
     Phone: (914) 298-3281
     Fax: (914) 824-1561
     Email: jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com


APERION CARE: Illegally Stores Biometric Info, Winters Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
KEAMBER WINTERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. APERION CARE, INC., APERION CARE MORTON VILLA, LLC,
APERION CARE MORTON TERRACE, LLC, APERION CARE GALESBURG NORTH LLC,
and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-100, Case No. 2019CH06579 (Ill. Cir., Cook
Cty., May 29, 2019), arises from the Defendants' alleged violations
of the Biometric Information Privacy Act in that they unlawfully
collected, stored, and used Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
individuals' biometric identifiers and/or biometric information
without providing adequate written notice or obtaining informed
written consent.

Aperion Care, Inc., is an Illinois citizen organized under the laws
of the state of Illinois and is headquartered in Cook County.
Aperion Care Morton Villa, LLC is an Illinois citizen organized
under the laws of the state of Illinois.  Aperion Care, Inc. is the
sole member and owner of the Morton Villa Facility.

Aperion Care Morton Terrace, LLC is an Illinois citizen organized
under the laws of the state of Illinois.  Aperion Care, Inc. is the
sole member and owner of the Morton Terrace Facility.  Aperion Care
Galesburg North, LLC is an Illinois citizen organized under the
laws of the state of Illinois.  Aperion Care, Inc. is the sole
member and owner of the Galesburg North Facility.  The Plaintiff is
unaware of the true names or capacities of the Doe Defendants.

Aperion Care facilities offers a wide array of medical services
from short-term rehabilitation to long-term care and psychiatric
care. Aperion's Web site lists at least 33 current Illinois
locations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
          Lorrie T. Peeters, Esq.
          CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD.
          224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 763-6880
          E-mail: a.caffarelli@caffarelli.com
                  l.peeters@caffarelli.com


AQUANTIA CORP: Ward Balks at Merger Deal with Marvell
-----------------------------------------------------
The case, BRIAN WARD, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. AQUANTIA CORP., FARAJ AALAEI,
LIP-BU TAN, DMITRY AKHANOV, BAMI BASTANI, KEN PELOWSKI, GEOFFREY G.
RIBAR, SAM SRINIVASAN, and ANDERS SWAHN, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-05367 (S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2019), is a class action on behalf
of the public shareholders of Aquantia against the Company's Board
of Directors for their violations of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with a proposed sale
of the Company to Marvell Technology Group Ltd.

On May 6, 2019, Aquantia entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with Marvell. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Antigua
Acquisition Corp., an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Parent
will merge with and into the Company, with Aquantia surviving as a
privately held company (the "Merger").

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Marvell will acquire
all outstanding common shares of Aquantia for $13.25 per share in
an all-cash transaction valued at approximately $452 million. The
consummation of the Proposed Transaction is subject to certain
closing conditions, including the approval of the stockholders of
Aquantia.

On May 29, 2019, in order to convince Aquantia's stockholders to
vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Board authorized the
filing of a materially incomplete and misleading proxy statement
with the SEC (the "Proxy Statement"), in violation of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The Plaintiff asserts claims against Aquantia and the Board for
violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
14a-9. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from taking any steps
to consummate the Proposed Transaction unless and until the
material information discussed below is disclosed to Aquantia
stockholders before the vote on the Proposed Transaction or, in the
event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, recover damages
resulting from the Defendants' violations of the Exchange Act, the
lawsuit says.

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

Attorney for the Plaintiff is:

          Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
          LIFSHITZ & MILLER LLP
          821 Franklin Avenue, Suite 209
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 493-9780
          Facsimile: (516) 280-7376
          E-mail: jml@jlclasslaw.com

ARENA DES CANADIENS: Court Refuses to Authorize Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Bussiere, Esq. -- natalie.bussiere@blakes.com -- and
Francis Laperriere Racine, Esq. --
francis.laperriereracine@blakes.com -- of Blake, Cassels & Graydon
LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that in its recent decision
in Godin c. Arena des Canadiens inc. (Decision), the Quebec
Superior Court (Court) refused to authorize an employment class
action against Arena des Canadiens inc. and Arena du Rocket inc.
(Arenas).

The plaintiffs claimed that salaried employees were entitled under
Quebec law to overtime pay if they worked more than 40 hours in one
week. In Quebec, entitlement to overtime pay is a matter typically
addressed by an employment standards commission called the
Commission des normes, de l'equite, de la sante et de la securite
du travail (CNESST), however, in this case, the plaintiffs had
commenced a class action without the involvement of CNESST and
sought to obtain overtime pay under section 55 of Quebec's Act
respecting labour standards (Act).

The Court dismissed the motion for authorization of the class
action and confirmed that pursuant to section 55 of the Act,
employees who are paid on an annual basis are not entitled to
overtime pay for hours worked beyond the regular 40-hour workweek
as set out in the Act. The Court confirmed that the Act does not
prohibit remuneration on an annual basis and that the Quebec
legislature allows overtime pay only to employees paid on an hourly
wage.

Furthermore, the Court cautioned against the use of a class action
in the context of monetary claims under the Act, noting that the
principles of proportionality and sound administration of justice
do not argue in favour of allowing such class actions to proceed,
as the CNESST may make monetary claims under the Act on behalf of
an employee or a group of employees, which is a faster, more
efficient and less costly recourse for employees than a class
action.

BACKGROUND

The plaintiffs, two former Arenas employees (Plaintiffs), had been
employed by the Arenas pursuant to employment contracts whereby the
work schedule was determined by the Plaintiffs' supervisor based on
need; work hours would therefore vary. However, regardless of the
number of hours worked, the Plaintiffs' pay never fluctuated. The
Plaintiffs received an annual salary divided into 24 pay
instalments per year.

According to the Plaintiffs' respective schedules, the Arenas
granted leave based on the Plaintiffs' assignments, and the
duration of such leave did not depend on the number of hours worked
or the hours worked during a given week. The Plaintiffs argued that
despite their remuneration being on an annual basis, it was
possible for the Arenas to determine their usual hourly wage and,
in short, for the Plaintiffs to obtain overtime pay for hours
worked beyond the regular 40-hour workweek as set out in the Act.

DECISION

The three causes of action of the Plaintiffs can be summarized as
follows:

i. Remuneration of an employee on an annual basis does not allow an
employer to circumvent the overtime pay provisions of the Act

ii. The control exercised by the Arenas over the Plaintiffs' work
hours made it possible to determine the Plaintiffs' usual hourly
wage for the purpose of calculating overtime pay

iii. Section 39(1) of the Act allows for the CNESST to determine an
usual hourly wage for each employee.

Under Quebec law, the criteria for authorizing a class action are
set out in article 575 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP):

575. The court authorizes the class action and appoints the class
member it designates as representative plaintiff if it is of the
opinion that

(1) the claims of the members of the class raise identical, similar
or related issues of law or fact;

(2) the facts alleged appear to justify the conclusions sought;

(3) the composition of the class makes it difficult or
impracticable to apply the rules for mandates to take part in
judicial proceedings on behalf of others or for consolidation of
proceedings; and

(4) the class member appointed as representative plaintiff is in a
position to properly represent the class members.

As the Court pointed out, these criteria are cumulative: if any one
criterion is not met, the authorization must be refused. The Court
concluded that, in this Decision, criteria (1) and (4) had been
met, whereas criteria (2) and (3) had not.

After analyzing the criteria set out in sub-section 575(2) of the
CCP, the Court determined that there was no arguable case with
respect to the first cause of action, noting that both doctrine and
caselaw were unanimous on the matter: To the extent that an
employee is truly paid on the basis of an annual salary, regardless
of the number of hours worked, such employee is not entitled to
receive overtime pay based on his or her "usual hourly wage", as no
such wage exists for that employee.

The Court also indicated that the Act does not establish a
mandatory mode of remuneration, nor does it prohibit certain modes.
Section 55 of the Act explicitly provides that the right to
overtime is dependent on the existence of an hourly wage. An annual
salary implies a fixed, non-variable salary for one year and is in
no way dependent on the number of work hours. According to the
Court, the number of work hours may vary, but the annual salary may
not.

Furthermore, after analyzing sub-section 575(2) of the CCP, the
Court also determined that there was no arguable case with respect
to the second and third causes of action. It found no factual basis
demonstrating that the Arenas exercised effective control over the
hours of work of the Plaintiffs so as to establish a usual hourly
wage. In addition, Section 39(1) of the Act does not allow the
CNESST to establish, on any basis whatsoever, a fictitious hourly
wage for an employee when it is impossible to do so if that
employee, whose hours of work fluctuate from week to week, is paid
on the basis of an annual salary and if its employer does not
control work hours so as to be able to determine a usual hourly
wage.

The Court also found that the criterion set out in sub-section
575(3) of the CCP had not been met. The Court rejected the
Plaintiffs' arguments regarding sub-section 575(3) because the
class members were employees of the Arenas located in the nearby
cities of Montreal and Laval; the possibility of reprisals against
class members was unfounded since the employees could avail
themselves of the protections in section 122 of the Act against
retaliation for the exercise of a right under the Act; and the
class members appeared to be easily identifiable.

Moreover, the Court seemed to indicate that a class action was not
the appropriate procedural vehicle in this case, given that under
the Act, the CNESST has the role of ensuring compliance with the
Act and can bring monetary claims before civil courts on behalf of
employees. The CNESST may, on behalf of an employee or a group of
employees, exercise at no cost to them, any recourse in respect of
a monetary claim. Any such action brought by the CNESST is
considered urgent and is likely to be heard more promptly than a
class action. Class actions, even when authorized, are not heard on
an urgent basis.

Given that the composition of the class was easily identifiable and
that the CNESST can, on behalf of the members of the class,
undertake proceedings for monetary claims, the Court determined
that the criterion set out in Article 575(3) of the CCP had not
been met.

CONCLUSION

This Decision confirms that employees paid an annual salary are not
entitled to receive overtime pay. It also confirms that, in this
type of situation, a recourse exercised by the CNESST on behalf of
a group of employees to bring proceedings for a monetary claim
under the Act would be the preferred solution over a class action.

While employees who are paid an annual salary are not entitled to
overtime pay, the Court indicated that nothing prevents an employer
or employee from keeping a record of hours worked for purposes
other than determining remuneration. According to the Court, an
employee paid an annual salary could therefore refuse to work more
than 12 hours in a 24-hour period or more than 50 hours in a week,
as is set out in section 59.0.1 of the Act. However, according to
the Court, section 58 of the Act, which provides for a minimum
remuneration of three hours for employees who report for work, does
not apply to employees who are paid on an annual basis.

The Plaintiffs have 30 days to appeal the Decision. [GN]


ARMOUR COATINGS: Usadel Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN USADEL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ARMOUR COATINGS INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-00788-JPS (E.D.
Wisc., May 28, 2019), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection
Laws to recover alleged unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid agreed
upon wages, liquidated damages, costs and attorneys' fees.

Armour Coatings Inc. is a Germantown, Wisconsin corporation that is
a self-described multi-metal job shop custom powder coater and
sandblaster.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Walcheske, Esq.
          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          David M. Potteiger, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          15850 W. Bluemound Road, Suite 304
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Telephone: (262) 780-1953
          Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
          E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                  sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                  dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com


ASCENA RETAIL: Newman Sues over 2015 Merger Deal with ANN Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES NEWMAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ASCENA RETAIL GROUP, INC., DAVID R.
JAFFE and ROBERT GIAMMATTEO, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-13529
(D.N.J., June 7, 2019), is a federal securities class action on
behalf of all purchasers of Ascena common stock between September
16, 2015 and June 8, 2017 inclusive.

Excluded from the Class are Defendants, the officers and directors
of the Company, at all relevant times, members of their immediate
families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or
assigns and any entity in which Defendants have or had a
controlling interest.

On May 18, 2015, Ascena issued a press release announcing that it
had entered into a definitive merger agreement with ANN Inc., under
which Ascena will acquire ANN for a combination of cash and stock.
ANN is the parent company of Ann Taylor and LOFT and as of January
31, 2015, operated 1,030 Ann Taylor, Ann Taylor Factory, LOFT
Outlet and other stores in 47 states, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico and Canada.

Unbeknownst to investors, by the start of the Class Period, the ANN
Acquisition was a complete disaster for the Company as Ann's
operations were in far worse condition than had been represented to
the public. In order to mask the true condition of Ann, Defendants
improperly delayed recognizing an impairment charge to the value of
Ann's goodwill and, as a result, Ascena's reported income and
assets were materially overstated and the Company's financial
results were not prepared in conformity with Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles ("GAAP"). In addition, many of the brands
acquired in the ANN Acquisition were in steep decline and were also
materially overvalued on Ascena's Class Period financial
statements.

According to the complaint, the Defendants engaged in a scheme to
deceive the market, and a course of conduct that artificially
inflated the price of Ascena common stock and operated as a fraud
or deceit on Class Period purchasers of Ascena common stock by
failing to fully disclose and misrepresenting the adverse facts. As
Defendants' prior misrepresentations and fraudulent conduct were
disclosed and became apparent to the market, the price of Ascena
common stock fell over the course of the Class Period as the prior
artificial inflation dissipated. As a result of their purchases of
Ascena common stock during the Class Period, Plaintiff and other
members of the Class suffered economic losses, i.e., damages under
the federal securities law.

By failing to disclose to investors the adverse facts, the
Defendants presented a misleading picture of Ascena's business and
prospects. Defendants' materially false and misleading statements
and omissions had the intended effect and caused Ascena common
stock to trade at artificially inflated levels throughout the Class
Period, with Ascena common stock reaching as high as $14.20 per
share on October 8, 2015, before collapsing to $1.82 by the end of
the Class Period.

Ascena is a national specialty retailer of apparel for women and
tween girls. Ascena operates its business in four operating
segments: Premium Fashion, Value Fashion, Plus Fashion and Kids
Fashion.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          David R. Buchanan, Esq.
          Christopher L. Ayers, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
          Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
          Telephone: 973-639-9100
          Facsimile: 973-584-9393
          E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
                  dbuchanan@seegerweiss.com
                  cayers@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr.
          JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
          40 Powder Springs Street
          Marietta, GA 30064
          Telephone: 770 200-3104
          Facsimile: 770 200-3101
          E-mail: michaelf@johnsonfistel.com

ATLANTIC UNION: Ford Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atlantic Union Bank.
The case is styled as Tim Ford individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Atlantic Union Bank,
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00440-HEH (E.D. Va., June 13, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Atlantic Union Bank provides banking and related financial services
to consumers and businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bernard Joseph DiMuro, Esq.
     DiMuroGinsberg PC
     1101 King Street, Suite 610
     Alexandria, VA 22314-2956
     Phone: (703) 684-4333
     Fax: (703) 548-3181
     Email: bdimuro@dimuro.com


AVR REALTY: Fails to Pay Wages, Lindo Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------
ROLANDO LINDO on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. AVR REALTY COMPANY, LLC (a New York Limited Liability
Company); AVR HH, LLC (a New York Limited Liability Company); ALLAN
V. ROSE (individually); JOHN DOES 1-50 (principals, owners,
managers, employees, representatives and/or agents, partners,
officers, directors, and/or holders of controlling interests in
either AVR Realty Company, LLC or AVR-HH, LLC); and BUSINESS
ENTITIES A-J (corporations or other business entities that are
principals, owners or holders of controlling interests of either
AVR Realty Company, LLC or AVR- HH, LLC), Defendants, Case No.
7:19-cv-05511 (S.D. N.Y., June 13, 2019) seeks to right the wrongs
by Allan V. Rose in his failure to pay all wages earned, when
earned, and which remain unpaid to this day.

This is a matter related to a scheme perpetuated by Defendant Allan
V. Rose, a wealthy real estate investor, to avoid paying overtime
and all wages due and owing to his household employees by falsely
claiming that they are exempt employees and then attempting to hide
that they are household, domestic employees by funneling their
wages through his real estate company or in other ways to avoid
paying overtime. This matter evidences a willful scheme on behalf
of the individual and business defendants to refuse to pay these
employees all wages earned in violation of State and Federal laws,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff was nominally employed by AVR as a chauffeur for Rose,
directly, with his principal duties to drive Rose and his family
around the greater New York City area.

Defendant AVR is a national real estate development and leasing
company with its principal offices being located in Yonkers,
Westchester County, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Damian L. Albergo, Esq.
     Albergo Law Group, LLC
     15 Warren Street, Suite 36
     Hackensack, NJ 07601
     Phone: (201) 354-4999

          - and -

     Joshua M. Lurie, Esq.
     Lurie|Strupinsky, LLP
     15 Warren Street, Suite 36
     Hackensack, NJ 07601
     Phone: (201) 518-9999


BARKER BOATWORKS: $10.5M Sale of All Assets to Strike Force Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael G. Williamson of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Middle District of Florida authorized Barker Boatworks, LLC's sale
of substantially all assets to Strike Force Seven, LLC, for
$10,538,000.

The form and substance of the Purchase Agreement and the
transactions contemplated thereby are approved in all respects.
Section 2.3(e) of the Purchase Agreement will be deemed amended to
provide that the Purchaser, by way of an advance under the DIP Loan
Facility, will pay an additional $75,000 at the Closing to the
Debtor's bankruptcy counsel, Stichter, Riedel, Blain & Postler,
P.A.  After the date of entry of the Order, the Debtor and the
Purchaser may enter into any non-material amendment or modification
to the Purchase Agreement that is not adverse to the Debtor's
estate without the need of further notice and hearing or Court
order.

The sale is free and clear of all Encumbrances of any kind or
nature whatsoever, other than the Permitted Liens and the Assumed
Liabilities.  The Encumbrances securing the claims of any secured
creditors against the Assets will attach to the proceeds from the
sale of such Assets.

At the Closing, the Purchaser will escrow with the counsel to the
Purchaser the amount of $27,918, on which Sea Force's asserted
molder's lien on the Boat Molds will attach to the same extent,
validity, and priority as existed on such Boat Molds of the
Petition Date.  In the event that the asserted lien of Sea Force is
determined to be valid and enforceable, the Escrowed Funds will be
disbursed to Sea Force pursuant to an order of the Court
determining the allowed amount of the secured claim of Sea Force or
pursuant to an agreement between the Purchaser and Sea Force.  In
the event that the asserted lien of Sea Force is determined to be
invalid, the Escrowed Funds will be returned and disbursed to the
Purchaser immediately following entry of an order of the Court.  

Additionally, at the Closing, the Purchaser will escrow with
counsel to the Purchaser the sum of $2,500 as compensation to Sea
Force for any actual costs and expenses for removing the Boat Molds
from storage.  The Purchaser, the Debtor, and Sea Force will confer
among themselves as to the best and most cost-effective method of
removing the Boat Molds from storage.  Sea Force will be
compensated for its actual and reasonable costs and expenses
incurred in removing the Boat Molds from storage, as determined and
agreed upon by Sea Force, the Debtor, and the Purchaser.  

To the extent that the parties cannot agree upon the proper method
for removing the Boat Molds from storage, or the appropriate
compensation for same, the Court reserves jurisdiction to make a
final determination.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Boat Molds
will be transferred and sold to the Purchaser at the Closing free
and clear of all Encumbrances, including, without limitation, any
asserted lien of Sea Force.

Any real estate, personal property or other taxes related to the
Assets accruing prior to or on and after the Closing Date will be
the responsibility of the Purchaser, and the Purchaser will
indemnify the Debtor with respect thereto.  Upon the consummation
of the Closing on the purchase of the Assets, any taxing
authorities or governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the
Assets will have no further claim against the Debtor or its estate
for taxes (excluding income taxes) accruing prior to or on or after
the Closing Date.

The 14-day stays set forth in Rules 6004(h) and 6006(d) of the
Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure are waived, for good cause
shown, and the Order will be immediately enforceable and the
Closing under the Purchase Agreement with the Purchaser may occur
immediately following the entry of the Order.

The counsel for the Debtor is directed to serve a copy of the Order
as provided in the Order, and on all parties served with the Sale
Motion within three days after the entry of the Order and
thereafter to file a certificate of service with the Court.

                   About Barker Boatworks

Founded in 2014 by its current president, Kevin Barker, Barker
Boatworks, LLC designs and builds boats.  All Barker boats are
"built to order" to the exact specifications of the customer's
request.

Barker Boatworks sought protection under Chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. M.D. Fla. Case No. 19-03138) on April 5,
2019.  At the time of the filing, the Debtor estimated assets of
between $1 million and $10 million and liabilities of the same
range.  The case is assigned to Judge Michael G. Williamson.
Stichter Riedel Blain & Postler, P.A., is the Debtor's counsel.

BIG FOUR: Woolf Seeks Minimum Wages for Restaurant Staff
--------------------------------------------------------
DONALD A. WOOLF, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly-situated persons, as a class and collective action, the
Plaintiff, vs. THE BIG FOUR, LLC, ASHLEY WRIGHT and BRANDON WRIGHT,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03771 (N.D. Ill., June 6, 2019),
alleges that Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other
similarly-situated employees all earned minimum wages and all
earned wages. under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law, the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, and
the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance.

Defendants own and operate a restaurant and bar called "Hamburger
Mary's," located at 5400 North Clark Street, Chicago, Illinois. The
Plaintiff and the class and collective groups he seeks to represent
are current and former employees of Defendants working as hourly
restaurant workers, including some working as tipped employees.

The Defendants pay their tipped employees sub-minimum hourly wages
under the tip-credit provisions of the IMWL, the FLSA and the CMWO.
Those provisions permit employers of tipped employees to pay wages
less than full minimum wage, so long as employers comply with other
requirements of the tip-credit provisions. Defendants willfully
disregarded those requirements, by regularly assigning tipped
employees, paid sub-minimum wages, to perform duties unrelated to
the tipped occupation, and to perform excessive amounts of duties
related to the tipped occupation. In addition, Defendants failed to
inform the tipped employees of the provisions of the tip-credit
subsection of the FLSA. Accordingly, Defendants violated the IMWL,
the FLSA and the CMWO.

Further, the Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and other
similarly-situated employees all earned wages at the rate agreed to
by the parties, in violation of the IWPCA. In addition, Defendants
made unauthorized deductions from the wages of Plaintiff and other
similarly-situated persons, also in violation of the IWPCA.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff are:

          Jamie G. Sypulski, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE JAMIE GOLDEN SYPULSKI
          150 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 332-6202
          E-mail: jsypulski@sbcglobal.net

BLOOM ENERGY: Issued Misleading Statement re IPO, Roberts Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELISSA M. ROBERTS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. BLOOM ENERGY CORPORATION, KR SRIDHAR, RANDY
FURR, L. JOHN DOERR, SCOTT SANDELL, EDDY ZERVIGON, COLIN L. POWELL,
PETER TETI, and MARY A. AYOTTE, Case No. 3:19-cv-02935 (N.D. Cal.,
May 28, 2019), asserts non-fraud strict liability claims under the
Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of all persons, who purchased or
otherwise acquired Bloom Energy common stock pursuant or traceable
to the Form S-1 Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with its July 2018 initial public stock offering.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Registration Statement was
materially misleading as it failed to disclose known events and
trends that were severely affecting the Company's business and that
made investment in Bloom Energy significantly riskier than
presented in the Registration Statement.

Bloom Energy is a Delaware corporation with principal executive
offices located in San Jose, California.  The Individual Defendants
are directors and officers of the Company.

Bloom Energy designs, manufactures, and sells solid-oxide fuel cell
systems for on-site power generation.  The fuel cell systems, or
Energy Servers, convert fuel into electricity without combustion,
providing efficient energy generation with reduced operating costs
and lower greenhouse gas emissions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 405-7190
          E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          POMERANTZ, LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


BOOMTOWN ROI: Duarte Sues over Autodialed Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against BoomTown ROI, LLC
for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The case is captioned CLAUDIO DUARTE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. BOOMTOWN ROI, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-22415-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 11, 2019). Plaintiff Claudio
Duarte alleges that the Defendant utilized an automatic telephone
dialing system in sending telemarketing text messages to his
cellular telephone number ending in 2700 without his express
written consent. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to
halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the
invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the
daily life of thousands of individuals. Plaintiff also seeks
statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the class,
and any other available legal or equitable remedies.

BoomTown ROI is a Delaware corporation whose principal office is
located at 1505 King Street Ext, Suite 101, Charleston, SC. The
company provides real estate software for agents and brokers. It
directs, markets, and provides its business activities throughout
the state of Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and –

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


BOZE ENTERPRISES: Garcia Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------
JUAN ANTONIO GARCIA, Individually And on Behalf of All Similarly
Situated Persons, Plaintiff, v. BOZE ENTERPRISES II, LLC and
MICHAEL S. BOZE, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-02115 (S.D. Tex.,
June 12, 2019) is an action arising under the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), brought both as an individual action and
collective action to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, and attorney's fees owed to Plaintiff and all
other similarly situated employees employed by, or formerly
employed by Defendants, their subsidiaries and affiliated
companies.

During their tenure with the Defendants, Plaintiff regularly worked
in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff was paid on an hourly
basis and was not paid an overtime premium for hours worked over 40
hours per workweek, asserts the complaint.

Plaintiff Juan Antonio Garcia worked for Defendants as a route
driver from 2012 until May 20, 2019.

Boze Enterprises II, LLC ("B.E.") is a Texas limited liability
company and an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production
of goods for commerce.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
     Vijay Pattisapu, Esq.
     THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
     2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
     Houston, TX 77018
     Phone: 713-868-3388
     Facsimile: 713-683-9940
     Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
            vijay@buenkerlaw.com


BP EXPLORATION: Godoy BELO Suit Moved to S.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr. of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana transferred the case,
JOSE GODOY, v. BP EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION INC. ET AL, Civil
Action No. 18-11734 (E.D. La.), to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas.

The BELO portion of the Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement
Agreement in In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in
the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, MDL No. 2179, Record Doc.
No. 6427-1 at pp. 60-73, and the Court's Case Management Orders,
Record Doc. No. 14099 in MDL No. 2179 and Record Doc. No. 3 in the
captioned case, provide for determination by the Court, with the
input of the parties, of the appropriate venue for discovery and
dispositive proceedings.  The Defendants have filed a Motion to
Transfer Venue to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida.  Plaintiff Godoy has filed a competing Motion to
Transfer Venue to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas.

Having considered the record, the applicable law and the written
submissions of the counsel for the parties, Magistrate Judge
Wilkinson (i) denied the Defendants' motion, (ii) granted the
Plaintiff's motion, and transferred the instant matter to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

The Magistrate Judge finds that accommodating the convenience of
the key fact witnesses, the Plaintiff and his family members, is
the most significant factor in determining that venue should be in
the Southern District of Texas and serves the interests of justice.
Personal appearance of the Plaintiff and these witnesses at trial
is vital to the presentation of the case.  The Plaintiff's
residence in the Southern District of Texas and the convenience of
the parties and witnesses outweigh the convenience of the Florida
medical experts who may be witnesses and whose testimony at trial
could effectively be presented by video deposition.  Although a
substantial portion of the Plaintiff's relevant medical records may
be located in the Southern District of Florida, these documents
will be easily produced to all parties regardless of the placement
of this case in Florida or Texas.

For the foregoing reasons, Magistrate Judge Wilkinson finds that
venue is both proper and most appropriate in the Southern District
of Texas.  The convenience of the parties and witnesses and the
interests of justice warrant transfer of this case to the Texas
district.  A magistrate judge is authorized to transfer a case of
this sort to another district.  Accordingly, he transferred the
instant matter to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 15, 2019 Order and Reasons is
available at https://is.gd/Jk8wLj from Leagle.com.

Jose Godoy, Plaintiff, represented by Craig Downs --
info@downslawgroup.com -- Downs Law Group, PA & Nathan Lee Nelson,
Downs Law Group, PA.

BP Exploration & Production, Inc. & BP America Production Company,
Defendants, represented by Catherine Pyune McEldowney --
CPM@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley and Anderson LLC, Don
Keller Haycraft -- dkhaycraft@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis & Kevin
Michael Hodges -- khodges@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly, LLP.


BYRIDER FINANCE: Niemynski Suit Alleges Harassment Under TCPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN NIEMYNSKI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. BYRIDER FINANCE, LLC d/b/a CNAC, INC., Case No.
8:19-cv-01288-MSS-SPF (M.D. Fla., May 29, 2019), is brought
pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act alleging that the
Defendant intentionally harassed and abused the Plaintiff on
numerous occasions by calling several times during one day, and on
back to back days, with such frequency as can reasonably be
expected to harass.

Byrider Finance, LLC, doing business as CNAC, Inc., is a
corporation with its principal place of business in Carmel,
Indiana, and conducts business in the state of Florida.

CNAC provides commercial vehicle financing services.  The Company
offers new and used vehicle financing services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amanda J. Allen, Esq.
          William Peerce Howard, Esq.
          THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM
          4030 Henderson Boulevard
          Tampa, FL 33629
          Telephone: (813) 500-1500
          Facsimile: (813) 435-2369
          E-mail: Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
                  Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com

               - and -

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


CARDINAL HEALTH: Court Grants in Part 2nd & 3rd Demurrers in Potter
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID POTTER, Plaintiff, v. CARDINAL HEALTH 200, LLC.,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 2:19-CV-00007-JRG (E.D. Tex.), Judge
Rodney Gilstrap of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Texas, Marshall Division, (a) denied as moot Cardinal Health's
Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, Or in The Alternative Rule 12(e)
Motion for More Definite Statement ("First Demurrer") with respect
to Potter's Original Complaint; and (b) granted in part and denied
in part Cardinal Health's (i) Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, Or
in The Alternative Rule 12(e) Motion for More Definite Statement
("Second Demurrer") with respect to Potter's First Amended
Complaint, and (ii) Cardinal Health's 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss,
Or in The Alternative Rule 12(e) Motion for More Definite Statement
("Third Demurrer") with respect to Potter's Second Amended
Complaint.

Potter, who is currently 70 years old, was employed as a mold maker
at Cardinal Health's facility in Jacksonville, TX.  Cardinal Health
terminated Potter's employment on Aug. 31, 2018.

On Jan. 8, 2019, Potter filed his Original Complaint against
Cardinal Health asserting claims under the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA"), and the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").  On Feb. 12, 2019, Cardinal Health filed its First
Demurrer directed at Potter's Original Complaint, seeking dismissal
or a more definite statement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) and (e) as to Potter's ADEA and FLSA claims.

Potter subsequently filed his First Amended Complaint on Feb. 19,
2019.  He again asserted ADEA and FLSA claims.  On March 15, 2019,
Cardinal Health filed its Second Demurrer directed at Potter's
First Amended Complaint, seeking dismissal or a more definite
statement under Rule 12(b)(6) and (e) as to Potter's FLSA claims.

Potter again amended his Complaint on May 2, 2019, asserting ADEA
and FLSA claims.  On May 10, 2019, Cardinal Health filed its Third
Demurrer directed at Potter's Second Amended Complaint, again
seeking dismissal or a more definite statement under Rule 12(b)(6)
and (e) as to Potter's FLSA claims.

In light of Potter's First and Second Amended Complaints
superseding his Original Complaint, Cardinal Health's First
Demurrer will be denied as moot.  Although Cardinal Health's First
Demurrer sought dismissal of the ADEA and FLSA claims set forth in
Potter's Original Complaint, Cardinal Health's Second and Third
Demurrers only sought dismissal of the FLSA claims set forth in
Potter's First and Second Amended Complaints.  It did not urge
dismissal of the ADEA claims set forth in Potter's First and Second
Amended Complaints.  Cardinal Health did not file a Reply in
support of its Second Demurrer to clarify the issue.  Accordingly,
Judge Gilstrap finds that Cardinal Health's Second and Third
Demurrers do not encompass the ADEA claims set forth in Potter's
First and Second Amended Complaints.

Having reviewed Potter's First and Second Amended Complaints, the
Judge finds that the two complaints are substantially similar,
aside from paragraphs detailing a discovery dispute between the
parties.  Likewise, Cardinal Health's Third Demurrer, though
directed at Potter's Second Amended Complaint, substantially
overlaps with its Second Demurrer directed at Potter's First
Amended Complaint.  

Based on these alleged facts and making reasonable inferences in
favor of Potter as the non-movant, he finds that Potter has
sufficiently pled an FLSA claim for overtime wages.  Accordingly,
Cardinal Health's Second and Third Demurrers will be denied as to
Potter's FLSA wage claim.

The Judge also finds that ostensibly any employee of Cardinal
Health (former, current, or future) could be swept into Potter's
class.  Without any limiting parameters, discovery could easily
devolve into a fishing expedition in an effort to cobble together a
class.  As such, Potter's First and Second Amended Complaints fail
to meet the low bar of Rule 8 to provide Cardinal Health with
sufficient notice of an FLSA collective action claim.  Accordingly,
he finds that Potter has not plead a plausible claim for collective
relief under the FLSA.

Additionally, the Judge is persuaded that dismissal under Rule
12(b)(6) is warranted instead of ordering Potter to provide a more
definite statement under Rule 12(e).  Accordingly, he will order
that any claim for collective relief set forth in Potter's First or
Second Amended Complaints be dismissed without prejudice.

Finally, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Potter, the
Judge finds that Potter's First and Second Amended Complaints
sufficiently allege an FLSA retaliation claim.  Accordingly,
Cardinal Health's Second and Third Demurrers will be denied as to
this claim.

For the foregoing reasons, Gilstrap denied as moot Cardinal
Health's First Demurrer.  Additionally, he granted in part and
denied in part Cardinal Health's Second Demurrer and Third Demurrer
as set forth.  To the extent Potter's First and Second Amended
Complaints set forth any claim for collective relief under the
FLSA, such claims are dismissed.  However, the dismissal is without
prejudice to Potter filing a third amended complaint after Cardinal
Health has filed an Answer to Potter's Second Amended Compliant and
before the June 27, 2019, deadline to file amended pleadings.  

The Judge denied Cardinal Health's request for dismissal or a more
definite statement of Potter's FLSA retaliation and individual
overtime claims.  He therefore ordered that Cardinal Health will
file an Answer to Potter's Second Amended Complaint with 14 days of
the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 15, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and
Order is available at https://is.gd/TUKfwn from Leagle.com.

David Potter, Plaintiff, represented by Harry Bob Whitehurst, Bob
Whitehurst, Attorney at Law.

Cardinal Health 200, LLC., Defendant, represented by E. Cynthia
Uduebor Washington -- Cynthia.Washington@jacksonlewis.com --
Jackson Lewis PC & Kristin Leigh Bauer --
Kristin.Bauer@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis PC.


CARE FOR YOU: Lee Seeks Overtime Pay for Home Health Care Providers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Care For You Home
Health Care Agency, LLC and Shatanie Brewer for alleged violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Ohio Minimum Fair
Wage Standards Act. The case is captioned LASHAWNE LEE, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. CARE
FOR YOU HOME HEALTH CARE AGENCY, LLC, and SHATANIE BREWER,
Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01337-JRA (N.D. Ohio, June 10, 2019).
Plaintiff Lashawne Lee and the other home health care providers
were required to travel to and from more than on work location
within the same work day, but were not paid for this drive time.
Defendants' alleged failure to pay drive time resulted in overtime
violations.

Care For You is a for-profit Ohio corporation that is registered to
conduct business in Ohio. The company's principal place of business
is located in Akron, Ohio. Shatanie Brewer is the owner, statutory
agent, and incorporator of Care For You. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
     Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
     NILGES DRAHER LLC
     7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
     Massillon, OH 44646
     Telephone: (330) 470-4428
     Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
     Email: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
            hans@ohlaborlaw.com

            - and -

     Christopher J. Lalak, Esq.
     NILGES DRAHER LLC
     614 W. Superior Ave., Suite 1148
     Cleveland, OH 44113
     Telephone: (216) 230-2955
     E-mail: clalak@ohlaborlaw.com


CAROLE ROBERTSON: Young Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
----------------------------------------------------------------
JEREMY YOUNG, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CAROLE ROBERTSON CENTER FOR LEARNING,
Defendant, Case No. 2019CH07084 (Circuit Ct., Cook Cty., Ill., June
12, 2019) is a Class Action Complaint pursuant to the Illinois Code
of Civil Procedure against Defendant, its subsidiaries and
affiliates, to redress and curtail Defendant's unlawful collection,
use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiff's sensitive and
proprietary biometric data.

While many employers use conventional methods for tracking time
worked (such as ID badges or punch clocks), CRCL's employees are
required, as a condition of employment, to have their fingerprints
scanned by a biometric timekeeping device. Recognizing the need to
protect its citizens from situations like these, Illinois enacted
the Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), specifically to
regulate companies that collect, store and use Illinois citizens'
biometrics, such as fingerprints. Notwithstanding the clear and
unequivocal requirements of the law, CRCL disregards its employees'
statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects,
stores, disseminates, and uses employees' biometric data in
violation of BIPA, relates the complaint.

Plaintiff Jeremy Young is a natural person and a citizen of the
State of Illinois.

Carole Robertson Center for Learning is in the business of
providing educational and developmental programs for families in
Illinois, including this Circuit.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
     James B. Zouras, Esq.
     Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
     Stephan Zouras, LLP
     100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Phone: 312.233.1550
     Fax: 312.233.1560
     Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
            jzouras@stephanzouras.com
            aficzko@stephanzouras.com


CBL & ASSOCIATES: Roy Jacobs & Associates Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Jacobs & Associates disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the securities of
CBL & Associates Properties, Inc ("CBL" or the "Company") ("CBL")
during the period November 8, 2017 through March 26, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The action seeks to seeking to
recover damages caused by defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws.

The allegations of the Complaint allege that the Company and
certain executives (the "Defendants") made false statements and
failed to disclose in its SEC filings that the Company was the
target of a class action suit by its mall tenants that could result
in tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars in
liability. Defendants knew that CBL had no defense to the suit by
the mall tenants. When the truth was revealed, CBL shares
materially declined in price, injuring Plaintiff and the other
members of the proposed Class.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of CBL
during the Class Period should contact the Firm at your earliest
opportunity.

If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this
class action, please contact Roy L. Jacobs Esq. toll-free at
888-609-0503 or via e-mail at rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com [GN]


CEMIG: Appeal in Consumer Classification Class Action Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Companhia Energetica de Minas Gerais - CEMIG said in its Form 20-F
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
May 17, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that an
appeal made by the company and CEMIG D and ANEEL in a consumer
classification class action suit remains pending.

The Federal Public Attorneys' Office filed a class action against
CEMIG Distribuiçao S.A. (CEMIG D) and Agencia Nacional de Energia
Eletrica (ANEEL), to avoid exclusion of customers from
classification in the Low-income Residential Tariff Sub-category,
and also requesting an order for CEMIG D to pay 200% of the amount
allegedly paid in excess by customers in that sub-category.

Judgment at first instance was given in favor of the Federal Public
Attorneys, and CEMIG D and ANEEL have filed an appeal with Tribunal
Regional Federal (TRF). A decision by the Court in this case has
been pending since March 2008.

As of December 31, 2018 the amount involved in this case was
approximately R$303 million. The chance of loss has been classified
as "possible" due to the existence of other judgments, both in the
judiciary and in the administrative sphere, that are in favor of
the argument put forward by CEMIG D.

Companhia Energetica de Minas Gerais - CEMIG, through its
subsidiaries, engages in the generation, transmission,
distribution, and sale of electricity in Brazil. The company was
founded in 1952 and is headquartered in Belo Horizonte, Brazil.


CEMIG: Suit Against Light S.A.'s Director de Freitas Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Companhia Energetica de Minas Gerais - CEMIG said in its Form 20-F
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
May 17, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the
class action suit initiated against Ronald Cavalcante de Freitas,
Director of Communication of Light S.A., is still ongoing.

Mr. Ronald Cavalcante de Freitas, Director of Communication of
Light S.A. since December 11, 2015, is defendant in a class action
filed on February 23, 2016, before the First Public Accounts and
Authorities Court of the Legal District of Belo Horizonte (Minas
Gerais), which disputes the legitimacy of an institutional
advertising campaign relating to payment of the national minimum
salary for teachers, published by the Minas Gerais State Government
during the period in which Mr. Freitas acted as Undersecretary of
Communication of the Minas Gerais State Government, and is also
seeking return to the public funds of the amount spent on this
advertising.

In April 2018 the plaintiffs presented answer to the motion for
clarification filed by the Government of Minas Gerais State, and on
May 17, 2018 the judge gave judgment partially in favor of that
motion, revoking part of the decision that closed the disclosure
phase, and making an order requiring the defendants to state what
matters of fact the witness testimony would deal with.

On June 7, 2018 plaintiffs requested attachment to the case records
of the interlocutory appeal, which maintained the interim relief
given that had suspended publication of the institutional
advertising campaign discussed in the action, and on June 8, 2018
the defendants filed petition stating which facts they aimed to
clarify with the witness testimony that had been applied for.

CEMIG said, "At present a decision is awaited on the production of
the witness testimony."

Companhia Energetica de Minas Gerais - CEMIG, through its
subsidiaries, engages in the generation, transmission,
distribution, and sale of electricity in Brazil. The company was
founded in 1952 and is headquartered in Belo Horizonte, Brazil.


CERIDIAN HCM: LaBarre Wants to Stop Illegal Use of Biometric Data
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RACHEL LABARRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CERIDIAN HCM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2019CH06489 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., May 28, 2019), seeks to put a
stop to the Defendant's alleged unlawful collection, use, and
storage of the Plaintiff's and the putative Class members'
sensitive biometric data, in violation of the Biometric Information
Privacy Act.

Ceridian HCM, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the state of Delaware with its principal place of
business located in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Ceridian is a creator of a cloud-based time and attendance system
called Dayforce.  The Company offers biometric time clocks that
enable businesses to track their employees' time by using a
biometric finger scanner.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          J. Eli Wade-Scott, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: brichman@edelson.com
                  ewadescott@edelson.com

               - and -

          David Fish, Esq.
          John Kunze, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
          200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: (630) 355-7590
          Facsimile: (630) 778-0400
          E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
                  kunze@fishlawfirm.com


CITY VIEW MULTICARE: Campos Suit Asserts BIPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
JOSE CAMPOS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CITY VIEW MULTICARE CENTER, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2019CH07082 (Circuit Ct., Cook Cty., Ill., June 12, 2019)
is a Class Action Complaint pursuant to the Illinois Code of Civil
Procedure against Defendant, its parents and subsidiaries, to
redress and curtail Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage,
and disclosure of Plaintiff's sensitive biometric data.

Recognizing the need to protect its citizens, Illinois enacted the
Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), specifically to
regulate the collection and storage of Illinois citizens'
biometrics, such as hand geometry. Notwithstanding the clear and
unequivocal requirements of the law, Defendant disregards their
employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully
collects, stores, disseminates, and uses their biometric data in
violation of BIPA, asserts the complaint.

According to the complaint, City View improperly discloses
employees' hand geometric data to at least one third-party vendor,
Midwest Time Recorder, Inc. Defendant lacks retention schedules and
guidelines for permanently destroying Plaintiffs and other
similarly-situated individuals' biometric data and has not and will
not destroy their biometric data as required by BIPA. Plaintiff and
others similarly situated are aggrieved by Defendant's failure to
destroy the biometric data when the initial purpose for collecting
or obtaining such data has been satisfied or within three years of
the employee's last interactions with City View, adds the
complaint.

Plaintiff Jose Campos is a natural person and a citizen of the
State of Illinois.

City View is in the business of providing long-term and short-term
health care with its primary place of business in Cicero,
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
     James B. Zouras, Esq.
     Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
     Stephan Zouras, LLP
     100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Phone: 312.233.1550
     Fax: 312.233.1560
     Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
            jzouras@stephanzouras.com
            aficzko@stephanzouras.com


COCKTAILS LOUNGE: Knowlton Seeks Minimum Wage for Dancers
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Big B Ranch, Inc.
d/b/a Cocktails Lounge for alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Florida Minimum Wage Act. The case is
captioned MINNIE KNOWLTON, On Behalf of Herself and All Other
Similarly Situated Individuals, PLAINTIFF, v. BIG B RANCH, INC.
d/b/a COCKTAILS LOUNGE, DEFENDANT, Case No. 3:19-cv-00696 (M.D.
Fla., June 10, 2019). Plaintiff Minnie Knowlton alleges that the
Defendant misclassified her and all other members of the class and
collective as independent contractors. She further claims that the
Defendant failed to pay her and all other members of the class and
collective minimum wage compensation they were entitled to under
the FLSA and the FMWA.

Cocktails Lounge is a corporation formed in the State of Florida
that operates as a gentlemen's club featuring female exotic dancers
at the address 1553 Lane Avenue South, Jacksonville, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David B. Sacks, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF DAVID B. SACKS
     4494 Southside Boulevard, Suite 101
     Jacksonville, FL 32216
     Telephone: (904) 634-1122
     E-mail: david@lawofficejacksonville.com

             - and -

     Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
     ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
     8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
     Silver Spring, MD 20910
     Telephone: (301) 587-9373
     E-mail: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com


COMMUNITY WASTE: Quinones Seeks Unpaid Wages for Drivers
--------------------------------------------------------
JUAN QUINONES, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. COMMUNITY WASTE DISPOSAL, L.P., the
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-01375-B (N.D. Tex., June 7, 2019),
seeks to recover compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of Sections 207 and
216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and Texas common
law.

The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all
current and former Waste Disposal Drivers who worked for the
Defendant. The Plaintiff's FLSA claims are asserted as a collective
action under Section 16(b) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b),
while the Texas common law
claim is asserted as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Putative Class
Members routinely worked (and continue to work) in excess of 40
hours per workweek.

Community Waste knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate the
Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members for all hours worked in
excess of 40 each week on a routine and regular basis.

Specifically, Community Waste's regular practices including during
weeks when the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members worked in
excess of 40 hours (not counting hours worked "off-the-clock") was
(and is) to automatically deduct a 60-minute meal-period from the
Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members' daily time on each
weekday, and a 30-minute meal-period on each Saturday, even though
they regularly worked (and continue to work) "off-the-clock"
through their respective meal-period breaks.

Community Waste is a full-service solid waste company providing
waste collection, recycling and disposal services to commercial,
industrial and residential customers across the Dallas/Fort Worth
metroplex.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members are:

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

CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Dias Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent
Outsourcing, Inc. The case is styled as Wesley M. Dias individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03501
(E.D. N.Y., June 13, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CORALREEF PRODUCTIONS: Hillow Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing
-------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN HILLOW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CORALREEF PRODUCTIONS, INC. d/b/a NINE9, a
Michigan Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-22442-XXXX (S.D.
Fla., June 12, 2019) seeks to secure redress for violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

To promote its services, Defendant engages in unsolicited
marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process. Through
this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's
illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy,
harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of
thousands of individuals, the complaint asserts.

Plaintiff is a natural person who was a resident of Miami-Dade
County, Florida.

Defendant is an entertainment talent agency.[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


CORPORATE EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Clark Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARK S. CLARK, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. CORPORATE EXPRESS, INC. (D/B/A CORPORATE EXPRESS),
ROBERT DE DOMENICO, DANIEL CONTE, ANGEL ORTIZ, and ANTHONY DOE,
Case No. 1:19-cv-04983 (S.D.N.Y., May 29, 2019), alleges that the
Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the
hours that he worked, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Corporate Express, Inc., doing business as Corporate Express, is a
domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
state of New York.  The Individual Defendants serve or served as
owners, managers, principals, or agents of the Defendant
Corporation.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a bus rental service, which
operates in Manhattan and whose main office is located in Harrison,
New Jersey, under the name "Corporate Express."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com


CREST FURNITURE: Accused by Flores Suit of Misclassifying Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LORENZO CRUZ FLORES, SELVIN G. HERRERA LOBO, JUAN CARLOS RAMOS
LOBO, EVER JOEL PONCE-OYUELA and MARINO SANCHEZ NAJERA, On behalf
of themselves and all other similarly situated persons v. CREST
FURNITURE, INC., d/b/a VALUE CITY FURNITURE, also d/b/a
VALUECITYNJ, also d/b/a VALUE CITY FURNITURE ASHLEY FURNITURE HOME
STORE, also d/b/a PRICE POINT FURNITURE, also d/b/a IDEAL SLEEP;
ABC CORPS. 1-10 and JANE & JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. MID-L-004050-19
(N.J. Super. Middlesex Cty., May 29, 2019), alleges that the
Plaintiffs and putative class members were misclassified as an
independent contractors by Crest Furniture.

The Plaintiffs seek to recover damages for underpaid wages and
unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the New Jersey Wage and Hour
Law.

Crest Furniture, Inc., is a domestic, for-profit corporation,
organized and existing under the laws of the state of New Jersey,
with its main business address located in the Township of South
Brunswick (Dayton) in the County of Middlesex in the state of New
Jersey.  Crest is a home furnishing/household goods retailer, which
operates a number of home furnishing stores throughout the state of
New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ravi Sattiraju, Esq.
          THE SATTIRAJU LAW FIRM, P.C.
          116 Village Boulevard, Suite 200
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (609) 799-1266
          Facsimile: (609) 228-5649
          E-mail: rsattiraju@sattirajulawfirm.com


CSX TRANSPORTATION: Court Partly OKs Summary Judgment in Bell Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANIEL BELL et al., Plaintiffs, v. CSX TRANSPORTATION,
INC., Defendant, Civil No. JKB-18-0744 (D. Md.), Judge James K.
Bredar of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
granted in part and denied in part (i) Defendant CSXT's Motion for
Summary Judgment, to Stay Litigation Pending Arbitration, and/or to
Dismiss, and (2) the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend Their
Complaint.

The Court previously granted in part CSXT's motion when the Court
stayed further proceedings in the case pending completion of
Plaintiffs' arbitration claims under the Railway Labor Act.  In
making that ruling, the Court noted the stay would not prevent the
Court from ruling on the two motions that had become ripe prior to
the stay.  Now, without contradiction to the stay as previously
limited, the Court rules on other portions of CSXT's motion and all
of the Plaintiffs' motion.

The case is premised upon alleged violations by CSXT of the Family
and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA").  It is undisputed that CSXT
operates 24 hours per day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year.  The
Plaintiffs are or were working in CSXT's Train & Engine ("T&E")
service as conductors, engineers, trainmen, and yardmen.

Federal law places restrictions on the length of time an employee
who operates a train can work; thus, T&E employees can be on duty
for no more than 12 hours, and they must have at least ten
consecutive hours of rest between on-duty periods.  As a result,
when a T&E employee arrives at the away-from-home terminal, he
often stays overnight for the federally-mandated rest period and is
then called to operate a train back to his home terminal sometime
later.  Rather than working in pool service or on an extra board,
some T&E employees work jobs that have fixed hours and assigned off
days.  These types of jobs include yard jobs, and local or road
switcher assignments.  Yard jobs involve sorting freight cars into
trains through a process known as switching.  Local or road
switcher assignments involve operating trains that run on a fixed
schedule and service customers.

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs have made three contentions:
First, they have alleged CSXT unlawfully inflates the amount of
time employees are charged for FMLA leave by accounting for it by
the day instead of by the hour.  Second, the Plaintiffs allege
CSXT, in 2015, implemented an attendance policy that explicitly
punishes employees for taking lawful FMLA leave.  Third, they
allege CSXT unlawfully suspended or terminated over 100 employees
beginning in 2017 and continuing to the present because CSXT,
without factual basis, concluded they had taken FMLA leave over the
holiday times of Christmas 2017 and New Year's Eve and Day 2017-18
when they had no legitimate need to take it.  CSXT seeks summary
judgment as to discrete portions of the Plaintiffs' case,
specifically, the first and second contentions stated.

As to CSXT's Motion for Summary Judgment, Judge Bredar concludes
that the Plaintiffs' contention that they are systematically
overcharged for FMLA leave is wholly lacking in factual support and
is fundamentally flawed as a matter of law.  CSXT is entitled to
summary judgment on this issue.  Hew1 also concludes that, as a
matter of law, the CAPS Policy does not violate the FMLA.  CSXT is
entitled to summary judgment on this issue.

As to the Motion to Dismiss or Strike Class Allegations, the Judge
holds that the case is presently stayed while arbitration on
Plaintiffs' claims of improper disciplinary action proceeds.  At
the proper juncture in the case, he will entertain a motion for
class certification if the Plaintiffs choose to file one.  This
portion of CSXT's motion will be denied without prejudice.

As to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend Their Complaint, the
Judge concludes most of the proposed amendments are futile.  The
Plaintiffs continue to rely upon their unsustainable argument that
the CAPS Policy violates the FMLA by systematically overcharging
employees with FMLA leave and punishing them by not counting FMLA
leave to award them for good attendance.  Any allegations in
support of those contentions and any causes of action premised on
the same are futile.

In addition, he finds that the Plaintiffs baldly allege that their
serious health conditions within the meaning of the FMLA also
constitute disabilities within the meaning of the ADA.  No factual
allegations of any kind support that conclusional allegation.
Further, they baldly allege that CSXT violated the ADA's
antidiscrimination provisions by utilizing the CAPS Policy in
calculating good attendance credits.  Yet, they offer no plausible
factual allegations of nondisabled individuals who were treated
more favorably under the policy than the Plaintiffs who are
claiming they are disabled.  And they offer no plausible factual
allegations of disability discrimination based upon CSXT's
disciplinary actions against those whom CSXT accused of dishonesty
in connection with their use of FMLA leave at the holiday times of
Christmas 2017 and New Year's Eve and Day of 2017-18.  

He finds that the counts premised upon violations of the ADA are
not viable.  The only factual allegations that survive under a Rule
12(b)(6) analysis are those of individual Plaintiffs who claim they
were disciplined in violation of the FMLA.  The Plaintiffs' motion
will be granted to that extent but otherwise denied.  When the stay
is lifted, the  Plaintiffs may seek leave to file a complaint that
comports with the Court's opinion. Any statute of limitations as to
the proposed new Plaintiffs on their claim of retaliation in
violation of the FMLA will be tolled until 30 days after the stay
is lifted.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Bredar granted CSXT summary judgment
on the Plaintiffs' assertions of FMLA violations in relation to the
calculation of FMLA leave and the calculation of good attendance
credits.  He denied CSXT's request for dismissal or striking of the
class allegations as premature.  The Judge granted the Plaintiffs'
motion to amend their complaint to the extent of their FMLA
retaliation claims for new Plaintiffs but will be otherwise denied.
A separate order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 15, 2019 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/3ltae4 from Leagle.com.

Daniel Bell, Jeremy Bright, Andrew Brown, Jared Brown, Jeff
Burgess, Hank Crossman, Jr., Nathan Dove, Ken Enlow, Jason Ewing,
Justin Foringer, Scott Gales, Barry Gillum, Lamont Paulk, Joseph
Richardson, Moussa Sayed, Chris Scott, Jason Siewert, William
Wasdin, Cleatis Webb & Jeffrey Whisner, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Perry
Matthew Darby -- pmdarby@bsgfdlaw.com -- Berman, Sobin, Gross,
Feldman & Darby, Adam W. Hansen -- adam@apollo-law.com -- Apollo
Law LLC, pro hac vice, Jonathan L. Stone, The Moody Law Firm Inc,
pro hac vice & Nicholas D. Thompson -- nthompson@moodyrrlaw.com --
The Moody Law Firm, Inc.

CSX Transportation, Inc., Defendant, represented by Donald J. Munro
-- dmunro@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Joshua Ian Hammack --
jhammack@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Lindsay M. Cogley --
lcogley@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, pro hac vice, Nikki L. McArthur
-- nmcarthur@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, pro hac vice & Thomas R.
Chiavetta -- tchiavetta@jonesday.com -- Jones Day.


CVS HEALTHCARE: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Aetna Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nickeesha Swaby, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
shareholders claim in a class action that CVS Healthcare Corp.
misled investors about its merger with Aetna Inc. and acquisition
of Omnicare.

Filed by City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System in Rhode
Island Superior Court, the action is on behalf of investors who
purchased CVS stock traceable to a registration statement filed in
connection with CVS's November 2018 merger with healthcare company
Aetna.

According to the lawsuit, CVS issued approximately 274.4 million
new shares of CVS stock to former Aetna investors based on a
registration statement filed with the Securities Exchange
Commission rife with "false and misleading financial results,
trends and metrics."

In addition, the lawsuit alleges that the documents touted the
success of CVS's 2015 acquisition of Omnicare though by the time
the Aetna merger rolled around, CVS's financial condition was
"severely deteriorating as a result of rising costs and poor
results associated with the Omnicare acquisition."

Shareholders claim CVS was required to disclose such details in the
registration statement but neglected to do so.

"With the benefit of these misrepresentations and omissions in the
registration statement, defendants were able to complete the
merger," the lawsuit alleges.

On Feb. 20, 2019, CVS announced lower than expected guidance for
2019, and also revealed an additional $2.2 billion goodwill
impairment attributed to "industry wide challenges" impacting the
company's ability to expand on the Omnicare acquisition.

Following the news, CVS shares fell $7.53 to close at $62.35 per
share on Feb. 21, 2019, and continued to decline the over the
following days and weeks, trading as low as $52.36 per share by
commencement of this action, the lawsuit states.

The class is represented by Thomas W. Lyons III of Strauss Factor
Laing & Lyons in Providence, R.I.; Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Donald
A. Broggi and Rhiana L. Schwartz of Scott+Scott Attorney At Law LLP
in New York and Thomas C. Michaud of Vanoverbeke, Michaud &
Timmony, P.C. in Detroit.


DALE COUNTY, AL: Faces Class Action Over Falsified Drug Tests
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lance Griffin, writing for Dothan Eagle, reports that a civil
lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed by two
plaintiffs who claim a woman and her lab collection company
falsified drug screen tests submitted to the Dale County Department
of Human Resources.

The lawsuit, filed on May 21 in Henry County Circuit Court, is the
first civil suit to be filed since a woman was arrested recently
and charged with falsifying drug test reports to Dale County DHR.

Plaintiffs Amy Farver and Tiffany Long claim Brandy Murrah, owner
of A&J Lab Collections, collected specimens from both women and
purported to perform testing on the specimens. According to the
suit, A&J reported to Dale County DHR that the specimens tested
positive for illegal drugs although the plaintiffs claim they had
not used illegal drugs and no illegal drugs were present in their
bloodstream or urine specimen at the time of testing.

The civil suit is merely an allegation and is not proof of
wrongdoing. The suit must go through the legal process before any
responsibility is determined.

The suit seeks class action status, meaning it seeks to represent
"all persons who have submitted urine, blood, hair or other
biological specimens to the defendants for testing, with said
testing being performed incorrectly, reported incorrectly, or not
performed or reported at all."

The suit states the defendants suffered loss of reputation, loss of
custody/visitation, loss of freedom, loss of time spent attending
to DHR matters and loss of money in form of attorney fees, court
costs, fines and other related expenses as well as mental and
emotional distress.

The suit was filed by the firm of M. Adam Jones and Associates of
Dothan.

Murrah was arrested two weeks ago in Dale County and charged with
two misdemeanor counts of forgery. District Attorney Kirke Adams
said authorities are going through all test results provided by A&J
Lab Collections to Dale County DHR.

A judge must certify class action status before other similarly
situated potential plaintiffs can join the suit.

The suit states the proper jurisdiction for the suit is Henry
County because that is where Murrah is said to live. [GN]


DAVE & BUSTER'S: Rung Seeks to Recover Damages Under FLSA & NYLL
----------------------------------------------------------------
JILLIAN M. RUNG, THEODORE WRZOS, and REBEKAH MOSER, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. DAVE & BUSTER'S, INC.,
DAVE & BUSTER'S OF NEW YORK, INC., and DAVE & BUSTER'S MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-00684 (W.D.N.Y., May 28, 2019),
seeks to recover damages under the New York Labor Law and the Fair
Labor Standards Act alleging breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, and the doctrine of unjust enrichment.

Dave & Buster's, Inc., is a foreign business corporation duly
existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Missouri,
and licensed to do business in the state of New York.  Dave &
Buster's of New York, Inc., is a domestic business corporation duly
existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of New York,
and licensed in the state of New York.  Dave & Buster's Management
Corporation, Inc., is a foreign business corporation duly existing
under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Delaware, and
licensed in the state of New York.

The Defendants collectively own and operate a national chain of
dining and entertainment venues named "DAVE & BUSTER'S," with one
such restaurant being located at 1 Galleria Drive, in Cheektowaga,
New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Samuel Alba, Esq.
          FRIEDMAN & RANZENHOFER, P.C.
          74 Main Street
          PO Box 31
          Akron, NY 14001
          Telephone: (716) 542-5444
          E-mail: sam@legalsurvival.com

               - and -

          Lindy Korn, Esq.
          Catherine McCulle, Esq.,
          THE LAW OFFICES OF LINDY KORN, PLLC
          535 Washington Street, Ninth Floor
          Buffalo, NY 14203
          Telephone: (716) 856-5676
          E-mail: lkorn@lkorn-law.com


DISH NETWORK: 4th Cir. Affirms Ruling in Robocall Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Erika Williams, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Dish Network owes millions to unwilling robocall recipients, the
Fourth Circuit ruled on May 30, affirming a decision that the
telecom giant's dialing conduct violated federal consumer
protection rules.

"Telemarketing calls are also intrusive," U.S. Circuit Judge J.
Harvie Wilkinson III wrote for a three-judge panel in Richmond,
Virginia. "A great many people object to these calls, which
interfere with their lives, tie up their phone lines, and cause
confusion and disruption on phone records."

The ruling says Dish Network violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act by knowingly allowing sales calls to frequently
reach the ears of unwilling consumers.

The company is required to pay $61.5 million to those affected by
its business-soliciting calls.

Thomas Krakauer brought the underlying lawsuit against Dish Network
in 2015, vying to represent a class of people who received
unsolicited calls from the company's sales representative,
Satellite Systems Network (SSN), since at least 2009.

Krakauer said SSN repeatedly called to encourage him to buy Dish
Network Services, despite his being listed on the national "Do Not
Call Registry," as well as the company's own list of forbidden
numbers.  

The TCPA, which was enacted by Congress in 1991, forbids companies
and organizations from calling telephone numbers listed on the
Federal Trade Commission's "Do Not Call" registry.

Dish appealed to the Fourth Circuit after a federal judge in North
Carolina ruled in 2017 that the company was liable for its
representative's cold calls.

The Fourth Circuit affirmed on May 30, saying anyone who received
these nuisance calls were technically "injured" by Dish's actions.

"Dish's arguments, if accepted, would contort a simple and
administrable statute into one that is both burdensome and
toothless," Wilkinson wrote, referring to the telephone-abuse
preventing purpose of the TCPA.  

According to data from the Federal Trade Commission, the "Do Not
Call" registry contained 235,302,818 actively registered phone
numbers in 2018, up from 229,816,164 in 2017.

The number of consumer complaints about unwanted telemarketing
calls significantly decreased between those two years. For every
month in 2018, robocalls made up the majority of consumer
complaints about "Do Not Call" violations.

As of 2018, consumers most frequently reported robocalls or
pre-recorded messages involving reducing debt, medical and
prescriptions and imposter scams, the FTC says.


DOMINION DIAMOND: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Amended Poms Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NADAV POMS, Plaintiff, v. DOMINION DIAMOND
CORPORATION, JAMES GOWANS, THOMAS ANDRUSKEVICH, GRAHAM CLOW, TRUDY
CURRAN, TIM DABSON, DAVID SMITH, CHUCK STRAHL, JOSEF VEJVODA,
Defendant, Docket No. 655733/2017 (N.Y. Sup.), Judge Saliann
Scarpulla of the Supreme Court for the New York County granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint of Plaintiff
Poms.

Poms, on his own behalf and on behalf of the holders of common
stock of Dominion, initiated the proposed class action lawsuit
alleging claims for negligent misrepresentation, breach of
fiduciary duty and quasi-appraisal in connection with the proposed
acquisition of Dominion by the Washington Companies.  In the
amended complaint Poms seeks money damages and legal fees.  Poms
owns 22,000 shares, less than one percent, of Dominion's issued and
outstanding shares.

Dominion is a Canadian corporation with its principal place of
business in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.  Its registered office is
located in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.  It is listed on the New York
Stock Exchange and Toronto Stock Exchange. All the Directors
Defendants reside in Canada and/or the United Kingdom.  None of the
Defendants reside in New York.

On July 15, 2017, Dominion's Board of Directors approved a
definitive arrangement agreement with Northwest Acquisitions ULC,
an affiliate of the Washington Companies, pursuant to which each
share of Dominion's common stock would be converted into the right
to receive $14.25 per share in cash.  To enable Dominion's
stockholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction,
Dominion's Board authorized the filing of an Information Circular
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 23, 2017.  The
Circular was also mailed to Dominion's shareholders.

Poms alleges that the Circular violates New York and Canadian law
as it contains incomplete and materially misleading information
regarding (i) the process leading to the Proposed Transaction; (ii)
the financial analyses conducted by Dominion's financial advisors,
TD Securities Inc. and Morgan Stanley Canada Ltd., in connection
with the Proposed Transaction; and (iii) the projections relied
upon by TD Securities and Morgan Stanley in performing their
valuation analyses.

The Defendants argue that Dominion is a "foreign private issuer"
under the U.S. Securities laws and was therefore exempt from
Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which
concerns an issuer's obligations to file a proxy statement in
connection with a proposed merger or acquisition and the contents
thereof.  Dominion was required to follow the specific proxy rules
applicable under the Canada Business Corporations Act ("CBCA") and
the applicable Canadian Securities law.  According to the
Defendants, Dominion provided all required information required by
the applicable Canadian law about the Proposed Transaction.

As mandated under the CBCA, a hearing was held before the Ontario
Court regarding the merger.  Poms did not raise any objection or
oppose the merger in Canada, but instead commenced this action and
sought a preliminary injunction.  Judge Scarpulla denied the
preliminary injunction by decision and order dated Sept. 19, 2017.
The Dominion shareholders voted in favor of the transaction and the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice, entered a final order approving
the transaction as "fair and reasonable."

At the final hearing on Sept. 22, 2017, the Ontario Court noted
that no Dominion shareholders have delivered responding materials
to indicate an intention to oppose court approval of the
arrangement, as permitted by paragraphs 26 and 27 of the interim
order and that Poms has, through the counsel advised that he does
not oppose the order sought, but he intends to pursue the
litigation that he commenced in the State of New York for damages,
and if the State of New York is later found to be forum
non-conveniens, that he intends to pursue his claim for damages in
Ontario.  Poms has not exercised rights as a dissenting
shareholder.

After the Ontario Court issued its final order, Poms amended his
complaint in the action, and the Defendants now move to dismiss on
the grounds that (i) the Court lacks either general or specific
personal jurisdiction over either Dominion or the Director
Defendants; (ii) the Plaintiff's claims concerning the Circular
describes a wholly Canadian transaction with no connection to New
York and should be dismissed on the grounds of forum
non-conveniens; (iii) international comity, res judicata or
collateral estoppel apply because the Ontario Court has already
ruled that the transaction is fair and reasonable; (iv) the
Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 precludes state
law claims seeking damages on behalf of a class that allege
misrepresentations or omissions of material facts in connection
with the purchase or sale of securities listed on a national
exchange; (v) the Plaintiff's claim for negligent misrepresentation
fails to state a claim; and (vi) the Plaintiff's claim for 'quasi
appraisal' fails because quasi-appraisal is a remedy rather than a
cause of action and Poms fails to advance any underlying cause of
action that provides a basis for a quasi-appraisal remedy.

Judge Scarpulla holds that the fact that the Defendants consulted
attorneys who have an office in New York about a Canadian Proposed
Transaction (and some New York based attorneys may have even been
consulted about the Canadian Proposed Transaction) without more,
does not supply the required link between the Defendants' New York
presence and the subject matter of the litigation.  Instead Poms
lists a few, detached connections between the Defendants and New
York in an attempt to manufacture specific jurisdiction.  

These connections, however, she says, are not substantially related
to Poms' claim -- that disclosures concerning the proposed
acquisition in Canada of a Canadian company by an affiliate of a
Montana company were inadequate and/or misleading.  Poms list of
unconnected relationships between New York and his claims
concerning the Proposed Transaction in Canada are at best
tangential and insufficient to show the required affiliation
between the forum and the underlying controversy for New York to
exert specific jurisdiction over the proposed class action
litigation.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Scarpulla granted the motion of
Defendants Dominion, James Gowans, Graham Clow, Trudy Curran, Tim
Dabson, David Smith, Chuck Strahl, and Josef Vejvoda to dismiss the
amended complaint of Poms.  She dismissed the complaint.  The Clerk
is directed to enter judgment accordingly.  The Order constitutes
the decision and order of the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 15, 2019 Decision and Order is
available at https://is.gd/hDzaGn from Leagle.com.


ESSEX PROPERTY: Final Approval Order of Giroux Settlement Amended
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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.), Judge Haywood S.
Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, Oakland Division, the Court granted (i) the parties'
stipulation to amend the Final Approval Order, and (ii) their
stipulated entry of final judgment, based on the terms set forth in
the Final Approval Order and as modified by the Amended Final
Approval Order.

The Court previously approved the parties' proposed settlement on
March 14, 2019, along with the parties' motion for attorneys' fees
and costs.  On May 10, 2019, the parties filed a stipulation asking
the Court to amend its Final Approval Order due to a change in the
vendor retained to provide the identity protection services to
class members (Equifax, Inc. rather than AllClear).  The parties
also filed a stipulated entry of final judgment.

Plaintiff Giroux alleges that the Defendant, her current employer,
experienced a large-scale cybersecurity data breach.  As a result
of the breach, cybercriminals accessed personal identifying
information -- including full names, social security numbers, 2015
compensation information, and payroll deduction information -- for
approximately 2,500 of the Defendant's current and former
employees.  The Defendant notified the Plaintiff and the other
putative Class Members of the breach in March 2016.  The Plaintiff
asserts that the data breach resulted from the Defendant's failure
to implement reasonable security measures to detect and prevent
cyber-attacks.

Following extensive formal discovery and with the assistance of a
private mediator, the parties entered into a settlement agreement.
The parties filed the motion for preliminary approval on April 19,
2018.  The Court granted the motion on June 1, 2018.

On April 19, 2018, the parties submitted a class action settlement
agreement that details the provisions of the proposed settlement.
The Court held a final fairness hearing on Sept. 20, 2018, and
approved the settlement on March 14, 2019.  The parties then
notified the Court that AllClear, the vendor that had previously
agreed to provide identity protection services under the settlement
agreement, would no longer be providing those services.  The
parties were able to secure an alternative vendor.

The Class includes all present and former employees of Essex
Property Trust whose 2015 Form W-2 Wage and Tax Statements were
accessed by an unknown person without authorization by a "phishing"
incident on or about March 17, 2016.

The Defendant initially agreed to purchase an additional three
years of AllClear credit monitoring and identity protection
coverage for all the Class Members.  The Defendant previously
purchased two years of credit monitoring for all Class Members in
March 2016.  However, on March 25, 2019, after the Court granted
final approval of the settlement, AllClear informed the Defendant
that it had been acquired by Experian and would not provide the
credit monitoring and identity protection services.  Therefore, the
parties arranged for an alternative vendor, Equifax, to provide the
entire class with three years of identity protection coverage,
commencing from the date each Class Member enrolls with Equifax.

The Defendant will also establish a gross settlement fund
consisting of $350,000.  Each class member will receive a pro rata
share from the settlement fund.  The parties have estimated that
the individual Class Members' recovery, without including the value
of identity theft protection for an additional three years, will be
approximately $70.  The gross settlement fund includes
Court-approved attorneys' fees and costs, settlement administration
fees, and any additional incentive award to the Plaintiff as the
class representative.

The class will release the Defendant from all claims against it
that arise out of the facts alleged in the complaint and the claims
asserted by the Plaintiff.

The named Plaintiff requests an incentive award of $5,000.  The
Plaintiff requests attorneys' fees in the amount of $140,000, in
addition to costs and expenses in the amount of $9,500.

After considering and weighing the above factors, Judge Gilliam
finds that the settlement agreement, as modified with the new
vendor for the identity protection services, is fair, adequate, and
reasonable, and that the settlement Class Members received adequate
notice.  Accordingly, he granted the parties' stipulation to amend
the Final Approval Order.  The settlement administrator is directed
to send the revised Notice of Availability of Identity Protection
to all the Class Members in conjunction with the mailing of the
settlement payment.

He also granted the parties' stipulation of entry of final
judgment.  The parties and settlement administrator are directed to
implement the Amended Final Approval Order and the settlement
agreement in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement
and the Amended Final Approval Order.  The order terminates Docket
Number 87.  The Clerk is directed to file Docket Number 88, the
stipulated final judgment, and close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 14, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/aMH7Se 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.


FABFITFUN INC: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FabFitFun, Inc. The
case is styled as Lynette Tatum-Rios Individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FabFitFun, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05550 (S.D. N.Y., June 13, 2019).

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

FabFitFun, Inc. retails curated boxes of health and beauty products
to its customers through an online subscription service.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FACEBOOK INC: Appeals Certification Order in Bigger FLSA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Facebook, Inc., filed an appeal from the District Court's
certification order in the lawsuit entitled SUSIE BIGGER, on behalf
of herself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FACEBOOK, INC., Case No. 17 C 7753, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The appeal concerns the District Court's decision on the
Plaintiff-Appellee's motion for conditional certification of the
FLSA collective and, in particular, the scope, content, and
recipients for notice of such collective under 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Harry D.
Leinenweber (i) denied the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment;
and (ii) granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion
for Conditional Certification of an Fair Labor Standards Act
collective action.

The case concerns the Client Solutions Manager ("CSM") position at
Facebook, and whether that role constitutes an "overtime-exempt"
position under the FLSA and Illinois Minimum Wage Law.  Facebook is
a social media company that generates revenue primarily from
selling advertisements that are displayed on its various electronic
platforms.  Its sales structure is organized around industries
(known at Facebook as "verticals") and sales teams (known as
"pods").

The appellate case is captioned as SUSIE BIGGER, on behalf of
herself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FACEBOOK, INC., Case No. 19-1944, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.[BN]

The Plaintiff-Appellee is represented by:

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

The Defendant-Appellant is represented by:

          Anneliese Wermuth, Esq.
          Jenny R. Goltz, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          123 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1800
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 474-7900
          Facsimile: (312) 474-7898
          E-mail: awermuth@cozen.com
                  jgoltz@cozen.com

               - and -

          Michael B. de Leeuw, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          45 Broadway
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 908-1331
          Facsimile: (646) 461-2090
          E-mail: mdeleeuw@cozen.com

               - and -

          Jason E. Barsanti, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1610
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 434-1700
          Facsimile: (619) 752-1867
          E-mail: jbarsanti@cozen.com


FIORELLA INSURANCE: Johnson Sues over Autodialed Calls
------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Fiorella Insurance
Agency, Inc. for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA). The case is captioned FELICIA JOHNSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. FIORELLA INSURANCE AGENCY, INC, Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-00675-TJC-JRK (M.D. Fla., June 7, 2019). Plaintiff Felicia
Johnson alleges that Fiorella Insurance Agency, Inc. used an
automatic dialing equipment in making non-emergency calls to her
cellular telephone without her prior express consent.

Fiorella Insurance Agency, Inc. is a Florida-based insurance agency
conducting business in Florida and across the country.  The company
provides group health insurance, auto insurance, individual health
insurance, homeowners insurance and dental insurance. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Max Story, Esq.
     Austin J. Griffin, Esq.
     MAX STORY PA
     328 2nd Avenue North
     Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250
     Telephone: (904) 372-4109
                (904) 758-5333
     E-mail: max@storylawgroup.com
             austin@storylawgroup.com


FIREBIRDS OF RICHMOND: Knapp Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
John Knapp and Matthew Cramer, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Firebirds of Richmond 2
Belvedere, LLC and Firebirds International, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00761 (E.D. Va., June 12, 2019) seeks to recover unpaid
minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs as a result of the Defendants' willful
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs and the putative FLSA collective members were bartenders
who were victims of Defendants' common unlawful policies in
violation of the FLSA, including: failing to pay for all hours
worked; paying a reduced "tip-credit" rate for time spent on
non-tipped duties; shaving time from their records; failing to pay
for time spent working off-the-clock; and failing to pay minimum
wage for all hours worked. Plaintiffs were subject to the unlawful
common policies and practices of Defendants that violated the FLSA,
says the complaint.

Plaintiffs worked as bartenders at Defendants' Richmond-Belvedere,
Virginia location from approximately March 2016 through
approximately April 2019.

Firebirds International, Inc. is a North Carolina corporation, and
owns in whole or part, various Firebirds restaurants across the
country, including Firebirds of Richmond 2 Belvedere, LLC.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Curtis Daniel Cannon, Esq.
     GOLDBERG & FINNEGAN, LLC
     8401 Colesville Road, Suite 630
     Silver Spring, MD 20910
     Phone: (301) 589-2999
     Fax: (301) 589-2644
     Email: CCanon@GoldbergFinnegan.com

          - and -

     Jason T. Brown, Esq.
     BROWN, LLC
     111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
     Jersey City, NJ 07310
     Phone: (877) 561-0000
     Fax: (855) 582-5297
     Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com


FIRST AMERICAN: Fails to Protect Confidential Info, Shakib Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
FRED SHAKIB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Case No.
8:19-cv-01022 (C.D. Cal., May 28, 2019), arises from the
Defendant's alleged failure to protect the confidential information
of millions of consumers, including their names, bank account
numbers, bank account statements, mortgage records, tax records,
Social Security numbers, wire transaction receipts, drivers'
license images, and other personal financial information.

First American Financial Corporation is a Delaware Corporation with
its headquarters and principal place of business located in Santa
Ana, California.  FAFC is one of the largest title insurance
companies in the United States with more than 18,000 employees and
$5.7 billion in revenue in 2018.

FAFC provides title insurance, closing/settlement services,
property data, automated title plant records, home warranty
products, property and casualty insurance, trust and wealth
management services, and other related products and services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Theodore Maya, Esq.
          Alex R. Straus, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          10728 Lindbrook Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
                  tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
                  astraus@ahdootwolfson.com


FIRST AMERICAN: Forney Files Class Action Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
LASHEEDA FORNEY, RYAN GOODYEAR, and BROOKE WRAY HAGER,
individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs, v. FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION
and FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-05135 (C.D. Cal., June 12, 2019) is a case arising out of
Defendants' failure to adequately safeguard Plaintiffs' and the
other Class members' valuable and sensitive personally identifiable
information, including, but not limited to, their names, email
addresses, mailing addresses, dates of birth, social security
numbers, bank account numbers, lender details, mortgage and tax
records, driver's license images, and other personal information
(collectively, "PII") such that their PII was exposed to
unauthorized users.

Plaintiffs and the other Class members provided Defendants with
their PII when they contracted with Defendants for title insurance
and other real estate transaction closing services from Defendants.
The Defendants' failure to maintain adequate security measures
occurred despite their representations and promises to Plaintiffs
and the other Class members that their PII would be safeguarded. As
a result, Plaintiffs and the other Class members' PII was
compromised. They have suffered an ascertainable loss in that the
PII contained in documents on Defendants' website, including social
security numbers, addresses, dates of birth, banking information,
and more, was exposed. Furthermore, Plaintiffs and the other Class
members must undertake additional security measures, some at their
own expense, to minimize the risk of future data breaches
including, without limitation, closing credit card accounts, bank
accounts, debit card accounts, etc. But there is no guarantee that
such security measures will in fact adequately protect their PII.
As such, Plaintiffs and the other Class members have an ongoing
interest in ensuring that their PII is protected from past and
future cybersecurity threats, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Lasheeda Forney is a resident of the State of California
and Plaintiffs Ryan Goodyear and Brooke Wray Hager are residents of
the State of Colorado.

First American is the second largest provider of title insurance in
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

          - and -

     Ivy Ngo, Esq.
     FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     14426 East Evans Avenue
     Aurora, CO 80014
     Phone: (303) 757-3300
     Facsimile: (720) 213-5131
     Email: ngoi@fdazar.com


FIRST AMERICAN: Kuntz Sues Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------
PAUL E. KUNTZ JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-11749-SJM-SDD (E.D. Mich.,
June 12, 2019) is a class action lawsuit against First American
Financial Corporation (FAFC) because of its failure to protect the
confidential information of millions of consumers--including their
names, bank account numbers, bank account statements, mortgage
records, tax records, Social Security numbers, wire transaction
receipts, drivers' license images, and other personal financial
information.

In order to utilize the services provided by FAFC, an individual
must provide his or her Personal Information. FAFC stores this
information indefinitely, including the period after which any
customer relationship has ceased. FAFC expressly promises it will
maintain appropriate facilities and systems to protect against
unauthorized access to and corruption of its customers' Personal
Information. FAFC expressly promises it will use its best efforts
to ensure that no unauthorized parties have access to any of its
customers' Personal Information.

On May 24, 2019, it was revealed that FAFC's failure to protect its
customers' Personal Information resulted in the exposure of
approximately 885 million records related to mortgage deals dating
back 16 years. Many of the exposed files are records of wire
transactions with bank account numbers and other Personal
Information from both home/property buyers and sellers. In one of
the most reckless data breaches/exposures in modern history, the
FAFC website allowed anyone with a computer to access approximately
885 million records without asking for any authentication. The only
action required to exploit the vulnerability in FAFC's website was
tweaking a single digit in the address of a file. No password or
other login credentials were required to access all of FAFC's
customers' files and Personal Information.

The complaint notes that had FAFC informed its customers that it
would use inadequate security measures, consumers (like Plaintiff
and the members of the Classes) would not have been willing to sign
up for or pay for its title insurance and other services at the
price charged, if at all. FAFC's failure to implement adequate
security protocols jeopardized millions of consumers' Personal
Information, fell well short of its promises, and diminished the
value of the services provided. In other words, because FAFC failed
to disclose its gross security inadequacies, it delivered a
fundamentally less useful and less valuable service than the one
paid for. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings suit on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, to seek redress for FAFC's
unlawful conduct.

Plaintiff Paul E. Kuntz Jr. is a resident and citizen of the State
of Michigan.

FAFC provides title insurance, closing/settlement services,
property data, automated title plant records, home warranty
products, property and casualty insurance, trust and wealth
management services, and other related products and services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Nick Suciu III, Esq.
     BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC
     1644 Bracken Rd.
     Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
     Phone: 313-303-3472
     Email: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com


FISHER-PRICE INC: Kimmel Files Suit Over Dangerous Sleepers
-----------------------------------------------------------
CANDACE KIMMEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FISHER-PRICE, INC. and MATTEL, INC., Case No.
1:19-cv-00695 (W.D.N.Y., May 29, 2019), alleges that the
Defendants' Rock 'n Play Sleeper is inherently unsafe as a sleeper
and unfit for its intended use.

The Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper is an inclined "sleeper" that
Defendants, until April 12, 2019, marketed as suitable for all
night or prolonged sleep.  The Defendants' marketing of the product
as appropriate for prolonged sleep is intentional and overt, the
Plaintiff alleges.  The Plaintiff contends that this marketing was
dangerously false and misleading, as the product is not safe for
all-night or prolonged sleep for infants.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Rock 'n Play Sleeper is so dangerous
and has caused so many infant deaths, that, on April 12, 2019, the
Defendants, after making an incomplete disclosure on April 5, 2019,
were forced to recall approximately 4.7 million Rock 'n Play
Sleeper units in the United States.

Fisher-Price, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in East Aurora, Erie County, New York.
Fisher-Price manufactures and markets products for the care of
infants and preschool children to consumers throughout the United
States.  Fisher-Price is a wholly owned subsidiary of Mattel, Inc.

Mattel, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in El Segundo, California.  Mattel is the world's second
largest toy maker and is the corporate parent of Fisher-Price.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Terrence M. Connors, Esq.
          Caitlin M. Higgins, Esq.
          Katherine G. Howard, Esq.
          CONNORS LLP
          1000 Liberty Building
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: (716) 852-5533
          E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com
                  cmh@connorsllp.com
                  kgh@connorsllp.com

               - and -

          Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
          DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
          5 Greentree Centre
          525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
          Marlton, NJ 08053
          Telephone: (856) 797-9951
          Facsimile: (856) 797-9978
          E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com


FORD MOTOR: Lessin Sues over Defective Trucks
---------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Ford Motor Company
for violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the
California Unfair Competition Law, the California's False
Advertising Law, for fraudulent concealment, and for breaches of
express, implied and written warranties in connection with the
company's failure to disclose of the latent defects in the
suspension and/or steering linkage systems of Ford F-250 and F-350
trucks, model years 2005 through 2019. The case is captioned
WILLIAM LESSIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware corporation;
and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-01082-AJB-WVG (S.D. Cal., June 10, 2019).

Lessin brings this action to redress Defendants' violations of the
consumer protection statutes of California and also seek recovery
for Defendants' breach of express warranty, breach of implied
warranty, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and
common law fraud.

Ford Motor Company is a corporation doing business in all 50 states
and the District of Columbia and is organized under the laws of the
State of Delaware, with its principal place of business in
Dearborn, Michigan. Ford manufactured, sold, and warranted the
class vehicles throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard D. McCune, Esq.
     David C. Wright, Esq.
     Mark I. Richards, Esq.
     MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
     3281 Guasti Road, Suite 100
     Ontario, CA 91761
     Telephone: (909) 557-1250
     Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
     E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
             dcw@mccunewright.com
             mir@mccunewright.com
       
             - and -

     Douglas C. Sohn, Esq.
     SOHN & ASSOCIATES
     16870 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 400
     San Diego, CA 92127
     Telephone: (619) 237-7646
     Facsimile: (858) 759-4299
     E-mail: dsohn@sohnlaw.com


FORT WILLIAM: Website not Accessible to Blind, Young Says
---------------------------------------------------------
LAWRENCE YOUNG, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. THE FORT WILLIAM HENRY
CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05373 (S.D.N.Y., June
7, 2019), asserts claims under the Americans With Disabilities Act,
the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human
Rights Law against Defendant.

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

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

According to the complaint, because Defendant's website
https://www.fortwilliamhenry.com/, is not equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers and violates the ADA for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of
full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its
products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its
physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. Because Defendant's Website,
https://www.fortwilliamhenry.com/, is not equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers because it violates the ADA
and fails to identify and describe accessible features in the hotel
and guest rooms offered through its reservations service on its
Website in enough detail to reasonably permit individuals with
disabilities such as the Plaintiff to assess independently whether
a given  hotel or guest room meets his or her accessibility needs,
it violates the provisions of the ADA including certain regulations
promulgated thereunder (28 C.F.R. section 36.302(e)(1)), the
lawsuit says.

The Fort William Henry Corporation was founded in 1952. The
company's line of business includes operating sports, amusement,
and recreation services.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: 212 228 9795
          Facsimile: 212 982 6284
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com

FOSTER & GARBUS: Dewick Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Foster & Garbus, LLP.
The case is styled as Ephraim Dewick individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Foster & Garbus, LLP,
Progressive Legal Support Inc., John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case
No. 7:19-cv-05514 (S.D. N.Y., June 13, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Forster & Garbus LLP provides legal services. The Company
specializes in collecting debts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
     Stein Saks PLLC
     285 Passaic st
     Hackensack, NJ 07601
     Phone: (347) 668-9326
     Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com


FUSION CONNECT: Executives Face Securities Action
-------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Matthew D. Rosen,
Kevin M. Dotts, and Keith Soldan, officers of Fusion Connect, for
alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case
is captioned GRAND SLAM CAPITAL MASTER FUND, LTD., individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
MATTHEW D. ROSEN, KEVIN M. DOTTS, and KEITH SOLDAN, Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-05362 (S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2019). Plaintiff Gland
Slam Capital Master Fund, Ltd. acquired and held shares of Fusion
at artificially inflated prices during the class period and has
been damaged by the revelation of the company's material
misrepresentations and material omissions. During the class period,
and unbeknownst to investors, Fusion allegedly misled investors by
overstating its earnings (or understating its net loss), including
but not limited to, the quarters ending June 30, 2018 and Sept. 30,
2018, by failing to properly account for and capitalize costs
associated with the customer on-boarding process.

Fusion Connect, Inc. purports to be in the business of cloud
communications, cloud connectivity, cloud infrastructure, cloud
computing, and managed cloud-based applications solutions. The
company also purports to offer domestic and international voice
services to telecommunications carriers worldwide. Fusion was
incorporated pursuant to the laws of Delaware and maintains its
principal executive offices in New York, New York. Its stock trades
on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol FSNN. Matthew D. Rosen has
been the Chief Executive Officer of Fusion since March 2006. Kevin
M. Dotts was the Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
and Principal Accounting Officer of Fusion from February 2017 to
August 2018. Keith Soldan has been the Chief Financial Officer and
Principal Accounting Officer of Fusion since August 2018. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew M. Guiney, Esq.
     Kevin G. Cooper, Esq.
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
     270 Madison Avenue
     New York, NY 10016
     Telephone: (212) 545-4600
     Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
     E-mail: guiney@whafh.com
             kcooper@whafh.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Thomas Sues over Vehicle Engine Defects
-------------------------------------------------------
REBEKAH THOMAS, the Plaintiff, vs. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV19965 (Cal.
Super., June 7, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to disclose
oil consumption engine defect contained in Class Vehicles and their
engines. The Defendant has knowingly and intentionally concealed
material facts and breached its duty not to do so.

On June 5, 2010, the  Plaintiff purchased a 2010 Chevrolet Equinox,
vehicle identification number 2CNALPEW3A6362538. The Vehicle was
manufactured and/or distributed by Defendant. Vehicle was purchased
or used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. The
Plaintiff purchased the Vehicle from a person or entity engaged in
the business of manufacturing, distributing, or selling consumer
goods at retail.

In connection with the purchase, the Plaintiff received an express
written warranty, including, a 3-year/36,000 mile express bumper to
bumper warranty, a 5-year/100,000 mile powertrain warranty which,
inter alia, covers the engine and transmission, and subsequently
received a 10-year/120,000 mile extended coverage plan (e.g.
extended warranty) which covers engine in connection with the
excessive oil consumption. Defendant undertook to preserve or
maintain the utility or performance of the Subject Vehicle or to
provide compensation if there is a failure in utility or
performance for a specified period of time.

The warranty provided, in relevant part, that in the event a defect
developed with the Subject Vehicle during the warranty period,
Plaintiff could deliver the Vehicle for repair services to
Defendant's representative and the Vehicle would be repaired.

During the warranty period, the Vehicle contained or developed
defects, including but not limited to, defects causing the
Vehicle's engine to be unable to properly utilize engine oil and,
in fact, to improperly burn off and/or consume abnormally high
amounts of oil; defects requiring performance of Recall 12312;
defects requiring reprogramming of the engine control module
("ECM"); defects causing the failure and/or requiring the
replacement of the driver headlamp bulb; defects causing the
failure and/or requiring replacement of the left harness; defects
causing the illumination of the check engine light ("CEL"); defects
causing hesitation on acceleration; defects causing the storage of
Diagnostic Trouble Codes ("DTC") P0010, P0113 and/or P1113; defects
causing a low oil level; performance of Recall 14535; defects
causing the Vehicle to shudder; defects causing the failure and/or
requiring replacement of the exhaust camshaft solenoid; defects
causing failure and/or replacement of pistons and/or rings; defects
causing the failure and/or replacement of bolts, threads, gaskets,
clips, pins, seals, and/or timing chain; defects causing the
failure of the transmission cooler line, transmission valve body,
and/or engine valve cover; defects causing the failure and/or
requiring replacement of the wiper blades; defects causing the TPMS
light to intermittently go on and off; defects requiring the
reprogramming of the TPMS; defects causing a failure to accelerate;
defects causing the failure and/or requiring replacement of the 26
transmission, exhaust manifold, transmission control module
("TCM"); defects requiring the performance of Recall 43180; defects
requiring the replacement of the high pressure fuel pump; defects
causing the TPMS to defects requiring performance of an oil
consumption test; defects requiring and/or PCV hose; defects
requiring programming of the not reset; defects causing the failure
and/or requiring replacement of A/C compressor; defects causing the
failure of the engine cooling fan; defects causing the failure of
the radiator. The defects substantially impair the use, value, or
safety of the Vehicle.

By failing to disclose and concealing the defective nature of the
Class Vehicles and their engines with respect to the oil
consumption engine defect from Plaintiff and prospective Class
Members, Defendant violated California Civil Code section 1770(a),
as it represented that the Class Vehicles and their engines had
characteristics and benefits that they do not have, and represented
that the Class Vehicles and their engines were of a particular
standard, quality, or grade, when they were of another.

The Defendant's unfair and deceptive acts or practices occurred
repeatedly in Defendant’s trade or business, were capable of
deceiving a substantial portion of the purchasing public, and
imposed a serious safety risk on the public.

The Defendant knew that its Class Vehicles and their engines
suffered from an inherent defect because they were prone to
consuming abnormally high amounts of oil, were defectively designed
or manufactured, would fail prematurely, and were not suitable for
their intended use, the lawsuit says.

The Defendant was engaged in the business of designing,
manufacturing, constructing, assembling, marketing, distributing,
and selling automobiles and other motor vehicles and a motor
vehicle components in Los Angeles County.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Tionna Dolin, Esq.
          Daniel Tai, Esq.
          STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES
          A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 430
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 929-4900
          Facsimile: (310) 943-3838
          E-mail: tdolin@slpattorney.com
                  dtai@slpattorney.com

GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Sealing Orders in Avandia Mktg. Suit Vacated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge D. Brooks Smith of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
vacated the District Court's May and July Sealing Orders in the
case, IN RE: AVANDIA MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION. UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS LOCAL 1776
AND PARTICIPATING EMPLOYERS HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND; JB HUNT
TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC., Appellants, Case Nos. 18-2259, 18-2656
(3d Cir.).

GSK manufactures, markets, and sells Avandia, a drug indicated to
treat Type II diabetes.  The plans contend that GSK concealed
evidence of Avandia's cardiovascular risk and, instead, promoted
Avandia as providing cardiovascular benefits.  According to the
plans, this marketing strategy was false and misleading because
GSK's own studies showed that Avandia increased certain markers of
cardiovascular risk.  The plans assert that, for years, GSK buried
bad study results, misrepresented the truth about Avandia's
cardiovascular profile to doctors and pharmacy benefit managers,
and reaped billions of dollars in profits.

In 2007, an independent researcher published an article in the New
England Journal of Medicine claiming that Avandia increased the
risk of heart attack and cardiovascular disease.  Lawsuits ensued,
the United States Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
investigated, and even the United States Senate Finance Committee
released a report revealing GSK's misdeeds.

On May 21, 2010, in the midst of heightened regulatory and public
scrutiny of Avandia, United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776
and Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund ("UFCW") filed
suit against GSK in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.  UFCW alleged violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), as well as
various state consumer protection laws. J.B. Hunt Transport
Services, Inc. filed a complaint containing similar claims on June
20, 2011.  Both UFCW and J.B. Hunt ("plans") filed suit on behalf
of a proposed class of United States health benefit providers that
had purchased Avandia.  These third-party payor cases became part
of a multi-district litigation ("MDL"), which also included
consumer and personal injury cases.  As part of the MDL, the cases
were governed by a protective order, PTO 10, which covered
discovery of confidential materials.

In November 2010, GSK moved to dismiss the plans' complaints,
arguing that the plans lacked standing to bring RICO claims.  In
October 2013, the District Court denied that motion; it later
certified its decision for interlocutory appeal.  The Court granted
permission to appeal and, in October 2015, affirmed the District
Court's denial of GSK's motion to dismiss.

Less than a year later, GSK moved for summary judgment as to the
plans' consumer protection claims on federal preemption grounds.
GSK also contended that the plans' RICO claims should be dismissed
for failing to identify a distinct RICO enterprise.  In the course
of briefing GSK's motion for summary judgment, the parties filed
documents under seal pursuant to PTO 10.  At that time, neither
party raised any issue as to the confidentiality of the sealed
exhibits.  On Dec. 7, 2017, the District Court granted GSK's motion
for summary judgment.

After the plans appealed the District Court's summary judgment
ruling, GSK indicated that it wanted to maintain the
confidentiality of certain sealed documents that had been filed in
connection with the summary judgment motion.  GSK therefore moved
in the District Court to keep some of the summary judgment records
under seal.  On May 31, 2018, the District Court granted in part
and denied in part GSK's motion ("May Sealing Order"). App. 2459.
The Court unsealed its own summary judgment opinion but maintained
the confidentiality of the remainder of the documents.

A few weeks later, GSK again moved to maintain under seal
additional summary judgment records.  The District Court granted in
part and denied in part the second sealing motion on July 24, 2018
("July Sealing Order").  The Court directed GSK to file a redacted
statement of undisputed material facts but otherwise maintained the
seal.

The plans timely appealed the May Sealing Order and the July
Sealing Order.

Judge Brooks concludes that the District Court failed to apply the
proper legal standard for the common law right of access, which
requires as a starting point the application of a presumption of
public access.  By applying, instead, the Court's standard for a
protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, the able
District Judge incorrectly placed a burden on the plans to show an
interest in disclosure -- rather than on GSK to justify continued
sealing.  

Because the District Court should conduct the required
document-by-document review under the correct legal standard in the
first instance, he vacated and remanded the May Sealing Order as
well as the July Sealing Order to allow the District Court to
consider GSK's motions for continued confidentiality under the
appropriate standard.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 15, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/ObKsoQ from Leagle.com.

Hannah W. Brennan -- hannahb@hbsslaw.com -- [ARGUED] Edward
Notargiacomo -- ed@hbsslaw.com -- Thomas M. Sobol --
tom@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro 55 Cambridge Parkway
Suite 301 Cambridge, MA 02142.

James R. Dugan, Douglas R. Plymale, The Dugan Law Firm, 365 Canal
Street Suite 1000 New Orleans, LA 70130 Counsel for Appellant.

Kyle A. Dolinsky -- dolinskyk@pepperlaw.com -- Sean P. Fahey,
[ARGUED] Nina M. Gussack, Pepper Hamilton 3000 Two Logan Square
18th and Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103 Counsel for Appellee.

Christopher Morten, Yale Law School 127 Wall Street, P.O. Box
209090, New Haven, CT 06520. Counsel for Amicus Appellant.


GOMEZ DRYWALL: Must Pay Workers $180,000 in Overtime Back Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony McAuley, writing for The Advocate, reports that the U.S.
Department of Labor said on
May 21 it had forced a Florida-based contractor, Gomez Drywall
Construction Inc., to pay 108 Louisiana-based workers nearly
$180,000 in back pay for breaking federal rules on overtime
compensation.

The Department of Labor said the action followed an investigation
into claims Gomez misclassified workers as independent contractors
and subsequently failed to pay them overtime when they worked more
than 40 hours in a workweek, a violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Gomez' lawyer, Scott Huffstetler, of Kean Miller in Baton Rouge,
said "the client, and other than to say that they dispute some of
the statements in the (Department of Labor's) press release, they
are not going to otherwise comment."

The government's action follows a class-action lawsuit that was
brought up in August in the District Court in New Orleans by one of
Gomez's former workers, Edwin Murillo, which was subsequently
settled.

Labor Department spokesman Juan Rodriguez said the department
doesn't comment on how investigations are initiated but noted they
can be started by filing a lawsuit or filing a complaint directly.

The agency's action has echoes of details in the case, Edwin
Murillo et al vs Gomez Drywall Construction Inc., which was settled
in March. In that case, Murillo, who had been a general laborer for
the framing and drywall contractor, said Gomez had not paid any of
his workers overtime since at least April 2015, though they
regularly worked 55 or more hours a week. The lawsuit also
identified two other workers, Yony Ramirez and Marvin Ruiz, who had
been in the same situation as Murillo, and the District Court found
sufficient evidence that it was Gomez's policy to not pay any
overtime rates and allowed the class action.

The law requires employers to keep record of their workers' hours
and pay time-and-a-half for work over 40 hours a week.

"Violations like those found in this case are common in this
industry and are avoidable," said Troy Mouton, regional wage
regulator for the Labor Department in New Orleans. "The Wage and
Hour Division is committed to ensuring that employees receive the
wages they've earned and that employers compete on a level playing
field."

The Louisiana Workforce Commission, the state-level labor
department, also worked on the case as part of a task force set up
two years ago to fight the problem of misclassified workers,
according to LWC spokesman Michael Key. Dubbed "GAME ON," or
Government Against Misclassified Employees Operational Network, the
LWC conducts audits and works with the federal agency and the
Internal Revenue Service to gather tips and leads about abuses.
[GN]


GULF COAST: Williams sues over Data Breach
------------------------------------------
RICKY WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. GULF COAST PAIN CONSULTANTS, LLC D/B/A
CLEARWAY PAIN SOLUTIONS INSTITUTE, the Defendant, Case
3:19-cv-01659-RV-HTC (N.D. Fla., June 7, 2019), alleges that
Clearway failed to properly secure and safeguard protected health
information as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act ("HIPAA"), medical information, and other
personally identifiable information ("PII"), and for failing to
provide timely, accurate, and adequate notice to Plaintiff and
other Class Members that the integrity of their PII had been
compromised.

On or about April 4, 2019, Defendant notified approximately 35,000
of its patients and former patients that its electronic medical
record ("EMR") system had been accessed by an unauthorized third
party and exposed sensitive Patient PII including, but not limited
to, names, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, social
security numbers, dates of birth, insurance information, referring
providers, and other demographics ("Data Breach").

Despite the breadth and sensitivity of the PII that was exposed,
and the attendant consequences to Patients as a result of the
exposure, Clearway failed to disclose the Data Breach for at least
seven weeks from the time it was first discovered, further
exacerbating harm to its Patients. Moreover, to date, Clearway has
neither disclosed when unauthorized third parties first breached
its EMR system, nor for how long Patient PII has been in the
possession of criminals.

According to the complait, the Data Breach was a direct result of
Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable
cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect Patient
PII.  The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class
Members by: intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently
failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data
systems were protected against unauthorized intrusions; failing to
disclose that it did not have adequately robust computer systems
and security practices to safeguard Patient PII; failing to take
standard and reasonably available steps to prevent the Data Breach;
failing to monitor and timely detect the Data Breach; and failing
to provide Plaintiff and Class Members prompt and accurate notice
of the Data Breach.

As a result of Defendant's failure to implement and follow basic
security procedures, Patient PII is now in the hands of thieves.
Plaintiff and Class Members have had to spend, and will continue to
spend, significant amounts of time and money in an effort to
protect themselves from the adverse ramifications of the Data
Breach and will forever be at a heightened risk of identity theft
and fraud, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Joseph T. Waechter, Esq.
          Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
          Jean S. Martin, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: 813-223-5505
          Facsimile: 813-223-5402
          E-mail: jwaechter@ForThePeople.com
                  jcohen@ForThePeople.com
                  jeanmartin@ForThePeople.com

               - and -

          Jonathan S. Mann, Esq.
          Austin B. Whitten, Esq.
          PITTMAN, DUTTON & HELLUMS, P.C.
          2001 Park Place North, Suite 1100
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 322-8880
          Facsimile: (205) 328-2711
          E-mail: jonm@pittmandutton.com
                  austinw@pittmandutton.com

HARDEMAN, TN: Perry Seeks to Recoup Wages for Deputies/Dispatchers
------------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK D. PERRY; JUSTIN BRYANT; THOMAS CODY NAYLOR, CHERI BAKER,
CHRIS WILKERSON; MICHAEL HATCH, and ETHAN VASQUEZ on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. HARDEMAN COUNTY
GOVERNMENT, HARDEMAN COUNTY COMMISSION, HARDEMAN COUNTY SHERIFF'S
OFFICE, and JIMMY SAIN, Individually, Case No. 1:19-cv-01106 (W.D.
Tenn., May 29, 2019), arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Tennessee law to recover unpaid back wages, overtime wages, an
additional equal amount of liquidated damages, front pay, as well
as to obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and
costs.

The Plaintiffs are/were employed by the Defendants as non-exempt
Sheriff deputies and/or dispatchers of the Hardeman County
Sheriff's Office.

Hardeman County Government is a political subdivision organized and
existing under the laws of the state of Tennessee.  The County may
be served through its chief executive officer, Mayor Jimmy Sain, in
Bolivar, Tennessee.  Hardeman County Commission is a political
subdivision organized and existing under the laws of the state of
Tennessee.  Jimmy Sain is an adult resident of Hardeman County,
Tennessee.  Mr. Sain is the mayor of Hardeman County.

Hardeman County Sheriff's Office is a political subdivision
organized and existing under the laws of the state of Tennessee.
The Sheriff's Office may be served through its director, John
Doolen, in Bolivar, Tennessee.

The Defendants regularly held and/or exercised the authority to
hire and fire deputies/agents/officers/dispatchers of Hardeman
County Sheriff's Office.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William C. Sessions, Esq.
          HEATON AND MOORE, P.C.
          44 North Second Street, Suite 1200
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 531-7563
          E-mail: wsessions@heatonandmoore.com


HERSHEY COMPANY: White Chocolate Label Misleading, Rivas Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eva Rivas, Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. The Hershey Company, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03379 (E.D.N.Y., June 7, 2019),
contends that Hershey's white chocolate products are misleading
because despite being portrayed and represented as "white
chocolate," a complement to the dark and milk chocolate product
varieties, they do not contain white chocolate.  The Defendant
arranged for the Products to be placed (1) side-by-side with its
"opposite," dark chocolate variety and (2) on the shelves which
contain chocolate products as opposed to with other confections not
containing cacao fat, in retail stores. Average, reasonable
consumers and the public at large believe the Products contain
white chocolate, due to the actions and omissions of defendant, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiffs:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 303-0552
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

HOME DEPOT: Supreme Court Rules on Class Action Removal Issue
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brandi Buchman, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
offering a narrow view of procedures governing class actions, the
Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on May 28 that a new defendant cannot
remove such a case from state to federal court after an original
defendant files a counterclaim bringing in the new party.

George Jackson, a Home Depot customer with an unpaid credit card
debt, brought consumer-protection claims as a counterclaim to the
state collections action he faced in North Carolina.

The home improvement giant was not a party to the collections
action but instead was an original defendant to the counterclaim.
It sought to remove the matter to federal court, but a federal
judge refused and the Fourth Circuit affirmed.

In its petition for certiorari, Home Depot asked the Supreme Court
to decide "whether an original defendant to a class-action claim
can remove the class action if it otherwise satisfies the
jurisdictional requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act when
the class action was originally asserted as a counterclaim against
a co-defendant."

The high court also considered whether third-party counterclaim
defendants are covered by precedent from the 1941 case Shamrock Oil
& Gas Co. v. Sheets, which says an original plaintiff may not
remove a counterclaim against it.

Writing for the majority on May 28, Justice Clarence Thomas
explained that under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005,
Congress provided federal district courts with jurisdiction in
class action controversies exceeding damages of $5 million and
where at least one class member is a citizen of a state where the
defendant is not based.

A provision in the CAFA known as Section 1441, or the general
removal statute, stipulates that "any defendant without the consent
of all defendants" can remove a class action to federal court.

While the dissenters led by Justice Samuel Alito emphasized a
defendant is defined as "a person sued in a civil proceeding," the
majority in the May 28 decision took a broader interpretation.

Thomas said the phrase "the defendant or the defendants" cannot be
considered in a vacuum. While Home Depot argued it is a defendant
to a claim for the purposes of being able to remove a case to
federal court, the majority noted the text of the statute refers to
"civil actions," not claims.

"This court has long held that a district court, when determining
whether it has original jurisdiction over a civil action, should
evaluate whether that action could have been brought in a federal
court," Thomas wrote. "This requires a district court to evaluate
whether the plaintiff could have filed its operative complaint in
federal court, either because it raises claims arising under
federal law or because it falls within the court's diversity
jurisdiction."

Section 1441 of the CAFA does not allow removal based on
counterclaims "at all," Thomas continued, because counterclaims are
irrelevant to whether a district court had original jurisdiction
over civil actions.

"Home Depot asserts that reading 'the defendant' in §1441(a) to
exclude third-party counterclaim defendants runs counter to the
history and purposes of removal by preventing a party involuntarily
brought into state-court proceedings from removing the claim
against it," the majority's 11-page opinion states. "But the limits
Congress has imposed on removal show that it did not intend to
allow all defendants an unqualified right to remove."

Thomas was joined in the majority by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

In his dissent, Justice Alito called the majority's position
"irrational" and focused on the plain meaning of "defendant" in the
given context. He wrote that the majority opinion also creates a
loophole for consumers attempting to game corporations into
class-action lawsuits.

For example, plaintiffs could raise their class-action claim as a
counterclaim and hope that CAFA would not allow for removal.

"In a single stroke…a defendant's routine attempt to collect a
debt from a single consumer could be leveraged into an unremovable
attack on the defendant's 'credit and lending policies' brought on
behalf of a whole class of plaintiffs – all in the very state
courts that CAFA was designed to help class-action defendants
avoid," Alito wrote, citing a 2007 article written by a civil
procedure scholar.

The dissent states that Home Depot being named as a third party in
the case should make it clear enough that it is a defendant,
whether it's considered a claim or civil action.

"On a proper reading of Sec. 1441…third-party defendants are
'defend­ants' entitled to remove. Though a majority of district
courts would disagree, their exclusion of third-party defendants
has rested (in virtually every instance) on a misunderstanding of a
previous case of ours, and the mere fact that this misreading has
spread is no reason for us to go along with it," Alito wrote,
referring to the 1941 Shamrock Oil decision. (Parentheses in
original.)

Alito was joined in his dissenting opinion by Chief Justice John
Roberts and Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's Opinion is available for
free at https://tinyurl.com/y5e62s5t



HORIZON HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Forced C-Sections
---------------------------------------------------------
Christy Somos, writing for CTVNews.ca, report that concerned
mothers gathered in Moncton, N.B., on May 21 to voice concerns over
their labour and deliveries at Horizon Health Network -- the
operator of the hospital at the centre of a class-action lawsuit
alleging a nurse improperly drugged women to force risky emergency
C-sections.

"We're all waiting here, waiting for answers," said mom Caitlin
Middleton to CTV News Atlantic. "That's so hard, that's why we
should come together and share our stories."

Middleton is one of several mothers who believe their traumatic
births were the result of improper use of the drug Oxytocin.

Nicole Ruest, a former nurse at the hospital who is named as a
defendant in the lawsuit alongside Horizon Health Network, is
accused of secretly administering the drug Oxytocin to pregnant
women without their doctors' knowledge by puncturing their IV bags
and spiking the contents.

Oxytocin is often given to women to induce labour, but should be
carefully monitored as it can cause rapid contractions and affect
the fetal heart rate if not administered properly.

RCMP are investigating two cases, but a spokesperson for Horizon
Health Network said in April that they had received inquiries from
40 more women about their treatment at the hospital.

CTV News has learned that nearly two months after Ruest was fired,
the number of emergency C-sections at the Moncton hospital have
dropped down to levels recorded prior to 2015.

Ruest was seen on surveillance video disposing of IV bags that
revealed puncture marks and tested positive for traces of
Oxytocin.

Ruest was employed by the health network for over a decade, across
multiple facilities, meaning the potential number of plaintiffs
could be in the hundreds – but the hospital has only contacted
two.

"I think that's a failure," says class action lawyer John McKiggan,
who was present at the mothers' meeting to update them on the
lawsuit. "I don't think [the hospital] met their legal duty to
advise these mothers of a potential medical error or medical
mistake that could have impacted the health of the mom or the
baby."

A few couples at the meeting learned that their babies had to be
resuscitated only after demanding their medical records.

"There's no ownership and there's no information, and there's no
support. You have to actively and aggressively go get the
information. That's what the bigger problem is," said Sally Davis,
another concerned mother at the meeting.

The RCMP has not laid any charges and none of the allegations
against Ruest or the Health Horizon Network have been tested in
court. [GN]


HORIZON HEALTH: Mothers Involved in Class Action Hold Meeting
-------------------------------------------------------------
CTV Atlantic reports that mothers involved in a class-action
lawsuit against The Moncton Hospital and a former nurse are
reaching out to others who may share their concerns.

They believe their labour and deliveries were affected by a former
nurse who was fired for improperly administering a labour-inducing
drug.   

Caitlin Middleton organized the mothers' meeting on May 21 in
Moncton to provide concerned moms with a chance to ask questions
and find clarity together.

"What do we do moving forward?" Middleton said. "We're all waiting
here waiting for answers, and that's hard, so that's why we should
come together and share our stories."

She's just one of several moms who attended the meeting. They
believe their traumatic births were the result of the improper use
of a labour-inducing drug called oxytocin.

A class-action lawsuit has been filed against Horizon Health and
former nurse, Nicole Ruest.

"Both of the defendants have retained counsel and have indicated
that they intend to defend the action," said lawyer John McKiggan.

Lawyers leading the case were on hand at the meeting to explain the
class-action process in case more mothers want to get involved.

"We're still getting calls daily," McKiggan said. "There's a lot of
moms who believe they've been impacted."

Part of the mothers' outrage stems from the missing pieces in their
medical records.

"You have to actively and aggressively go get the information,"
said mother Sally Davis.

The thing the mothers are most frustrated about, however, is the
lack of response from the hospital, who they say has never reached
out to them.

"Things need to be a little more transparent," said Davis. "I'm
really frustrated that this wasn't initially owned up to by the
establishment first. They could've contacted us."

McKiggan says it's unacceptable.

"If the hospital is aware of facts that leads it to believe that
any particular mom, or dozens in this case, may have been injured
or impacted by one of their employees, I believe they have a legal
obligation to reach out and tell them that," he said.

Lawyers representing the hospital and Nicole Ruest have yet to file
a statement of defence in the class-action suit.

Lawyers say the defences should be at the courthouse.

McKiggan says the most important part of a class-action lawsuit is
the certification stage -- in which a court grants permission to
file the claim as a group.

This case has not yet been certified and McKiggan says it could
take from six to nine months, so a decision will likely come next
year.

With files from CTV Atlantic's Kate Walker. [GN]


HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA: McFadden Sues over Defective Airbags
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Hyundai Motor
America Inc., Kia Motor America Inc. and ZF TRW Automotive Holdings
Corp. for unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, breach of the
implied warranty of merchantability, and for alleged violation of
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The case is captioned CAROLYN
MCFADDEN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC., KIA MOTOR AMERICA, INC.,
and ZF TRW AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS CORP., Defendants, Case No.
8:19-cv-01154 (C.D. Cal., June 10, 2019).

This class action lawsuit arises from the failure of automakers and
their parts supplier to disclose the existence of a material defect
in the airbag control unit. Accordingly, Plaintiff Carolyn McFadden
seeks redress individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated for economic losses stemming from ZF-TRW, Hyundai and
Kia's manufacture, sale or lease, and false representations
concerning the defective airbags in the class vehicles, including
but not limited to their diminished value. Plaintiff, on behalf of
herself and those similarly situated, seeks to recover damages,
statutory penalties, and injunctive relief/equitable relief.

ZF-TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business located at 12001 Tech Center Drive,
Livonia, Michigan. The company is a major supplier of automotive
parts, including safety systems, to auto manufacturers Kia and
Hyundai. Hyundai Motor America, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with
its principal place of business located at 10550 Talbert Avenue,
Fountain Valley, California. Kia Motor America, Inc. is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business located at 111
Peters Canyon Road, Irvine, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
     Ryan J. McGee, Esq.
     Jean S. Martin, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
     201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Telephone: (813) 223-5505
     Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
     E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
             rmcgee@ForThePeople.com
             jeanmartin@ForThePeople.com

             - and -

     Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq.
     carnold@justice4you.com
     Joshua H. Watson, Esq.
     jwatson@justice4you.com
     CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, APLC
     111 W. Ocean Blvd, Fourth Floor
     Long Beach, CA 90802
     Telephone: (562) 216-8270
                (916) 777-7777
     Facsimile: (916) 924-1829


IC SYSTEM: Sued by Siri Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
OCTAVIO A. SIRI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. IC SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-04961-AT (S.D.N.Y.,
May 28, 2019), seeks to secure redress for the debt collection
practices utilized by IC, which violates the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, in connection with its attempts to collect alleged
debts from the Plaintiff and others.

IC System, Inc., is a corporation with its principal place of
business located in St. Paul, Minnesota.

The principal purpose of IC is the collection of debts using the
mail and telephone.  IC regularly collects or attempts to collect,
directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or
due another.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan Gentile, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF GUS MICHAEL FARINELLA PC
          110 Jericho Turnpike - Suite 100
          Floral Park, NY 11001
          Telephone: (516) 326-2333
          E-mail: rlg@lawgmf.com


INTERMOLECULAR INC: Morgan Files Suit Over Sale to Merck
--------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY MORGAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. INTERMOLECULAR, INC., CHRIS KRAMER, KENNETH
H. TRAUB, IRWIN FEDERMAN, MARVIN D. BURKETT, GEORGE SCALISE,
MATTHEW S. FURNAS, ADAM SCHEER, and JONATHAN B. SCHULTZ,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05489 (S.D. N.Y., June 12, 2019) is a
class action on behalf of the public shareholders of Intermolecular
against the Company's Board of Directors for their violations of
Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in
connection with the proposed sale of the Company to affiliates of
Merck KGaA: EMD Group Holding II, Inc., ("Parent") and EMB
Performance Materials Semiconductor Services Corp. ("Merger Sub").

On May 6, 2019, the Company announced that it had entered into a
definitive agreement with Merck, pursuant to which Merger Sub will
merge with and into the Company, with the Company continuing as the
surviving corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Merck.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, upon successful
completion of the merger, each Intermolecular common share issued
and outstanding will be converted into the right to receive $1.20
per share in an all cash transaction. The consummation of the
Proposed Transaction is subject to certain closing conditions,
including the approval of the stockholders of Intermolecular. On
May 28, 2019, in order to convince Intermolecular stockholders to
vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Board authorized the
filing of a materially incomplete and misleading proxy statement
with the SEC (the "Proxy Statement"), in violation of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, asserts the complaint.

Plaintiff asserts claims against Intermolecular and the Board for
violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
14a-9. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from taking any steps
to consummate the Proposed Transaction unless and until the
material information is disclosed to Intermolecular's stockholders
before the vote on the Proposed Transaction or, in the event the
Proposed Transaction is consummated, recover damages resulting from
the Defendants' violations of the Exchange Act, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff is the owner of Intermolecular common stock.

Intermolecular, a Delaware corporation, provides materials
innovation research services using high throughput experimentation
on a contract basis.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
     LIFSHITZ & MILLER LLP
     821 Franklin Avenue, Suite 209
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 493-9780
     Facsimile: (516) 280-7376
     Email: jml@jlclasslaw.com


INTUIT INC: Settlement in Data Class Suit Has Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE INTUIT DATA LITIGATION, THIS DOCUMENT RELATES
TO: ALL ACTIONS, Master Docket No. 15-CV-1778-EJD-SVK (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted the (i) Parties' motion for final
approval of the Class Action Settlement Agreement, dated Aug. 23,
2018; and (ii) the Class Counsel's motion for an award of
attorneys' fees and costs and for the Plaintiff service awards.

The matter came before the Court for hearing on May 9, 2019,
pursuant to the Court's Preliminary Approval Order dated Oct. 4,
2018, and on the Parties' motion for final approval of the
Agreement, as well as the Class Counsel's motion for an award of
attorneys' fees and costs and for the Plaintiff service awards.

The Class for purposes of the Order, will mean all persons in the
United States in whose identities fraudulent federal tax returns
for the Tax Years 2014, 2015, and/or 2016 were filed using
TurboTax, as determined by the United States Internal Revenue
Service.

Judge Davila reaffirmed that the Action is properly maintained as a
class action, for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(2) and 23(e).   

He granted the Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees, costs,
and the Plaintiff service awards.  The Class Counsel are awarded
attorneys' fees and costs in the total amount of $2.82 million
(with such total amount comprised of attorneys' fees of
$2,717,225.56, and reimbursement of litigation costs of
$102,774.44).  Intuit will pay such amount to the Class Counsel
pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, separate from and in
addition to the other benefits provided to Class Members pursuant
to the Settlement.

The Judge awarded service awards of $5,000 each, to Plaintiffs
Richard Brown, Christine Diaz, Carol Knoch, James Lebinski, David
Stock, and Marilyn Williams, to compensate them for their
commitments and efforts on behalf of the Class Members.  Intuit
will pay such amounts pursuant to the terms of the Agreement,
separate from and in addition to the other benefits provided to the
Class Members pursuant to the Settlement.

Eight objections to the Agreement and/or the Class Counsel's fee
request were submitted.  As stated at the hearing, the Judge has
considered the objections and overruled each of them.  

The Parties and Settlement Administrator are directed to implement
the Settlement in accordance with the terms and provisions
thereof.

The Judge dismissed the Action with prejudice, and without fees or
costs except as provided in the Agreement and the Order.  Without
further order of the Court, the Parties may agree to reasonably
necessary extensions of time to carry out any of the provisions of
the Settlement and to make other non-material modifications, in
implementing the Settlement, that are not inconsistent with the
Order.  There is no just reason for delay in the entry of the Final
Judgment and immediate entry by the Clerk of the Court is expressly
directed pursuant to Rule 54 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 15, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/arE7aR from Leagle.com.

Christine Diaz, Plaintiff, represented by David Christopher
Wright -- dcw@mccunewright.com -- McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, Jae
Kook Kim -- jkk@mccunewright.com -- McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP,
John A. Yanchunis -- JYanchunis@ForThePeople.com -- Morgan and
Morgan, P.A., pro hac vice, Michael W. Sobol -- msobol@lchb.com -
- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Rachel Lynn Soffin --
RSoffin@ForThePeople.com -- Morgan and Morgan, Roger Norton
Heller -- rheller@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP, Jason Louis Lichtman -- jlichtman@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser
Heimann Bernstein LLP, Joel R. Rhine, Rhine Law Firm, pro hac
vice, Joseph Jeremy Siprut, Siprut PC, Melissa Ann Gardner --
mgardner@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP,
Steven William Teppler, Abbott Law Group, P.A. & Richard D.
McCune, Jr. -- rdm@mccunewright.com -- McCune Wright Arevalo,
LLP.

David Stock, Plaintiff, represented by John A. Yanchunis, Morgan
and Morgan, P.A., pro hac vice, Julian Ari Hammond --
jhammond@hammondlawpc.com -- HammondLaw, PC, Melissa Ann
Gardner, Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Roger Norton
Heller, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Steven William
Teppler, Abbott Law Group, P.A. & Michael W. Sobol, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

James Lebinski, Plaintiff, represented by John A. Yanchunis,
Morgan and Morgan, P.A., pro hac vice, Mark S. Goldman --
mgoldman@labaton.com -- Goldman Scarlato & Penny, P.C., Melissa
Ann Gardner, Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Roger Norton
Heller, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Steven William
Teppler, Abbott Law Group, P.A. & Michael W. Sobol, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

Carol Knoch & Richard Brown, Plaintiffs, represented by Ariana J.
Tadler -- atadler@milberg.com -- Milberg Tadler Phillips Grossman
LLP, Henry J. Kelston -- hkelston@milberg.com -- Milberg Tadler
Phillips Grossman LLP, Melissa Ann Gardner, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Roger Norton Heller, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Steven William Teppler, Abbott Law
Group, P.A. & Michael W. Sobol, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP.

Marilyn Williams, Plaintiff, represented by Melissa Ann Gardner,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP & Roger Norton Heller,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

Intuit, Inc., Defendant, represented by Rodger R. Cole --
rcole@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West LLP, Alexis Caloza --
acaloza@fenwick.com -- Fenwick and West LLP, Chieh Tung --
ctung@fenwick.com -- Fenwick and West LLP & Nair Diana Chang --
dchang@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West LLP.


JONAS FITNESS: Spain Sues over Telemarketing Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, MALINDA SPAIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. JONAS FITNESS, INC., a Texas
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-233 (E.D.N.C., June 7,
2019), arises from Defendant's unauthorized text messages to
cellular subscribers who never provided Defendant with prior
express consent, as well as cellular subscribers who expressly
requested not to receive Defendant's text messages. As a result,
Defendant caused thousands of text messages to be sent to the
cellular telephones of the Plaintiff and Class Members who either
never provided Defendant with consent to contact them or who had
revoked any prior express consent, in violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendant provides Web-based health club and gym management
software solutions for clubs and fitness centers in the United
States. To promote its services, Defendant engages in unsolicited
marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Class:

          David M. Wilkerson, Esq.
          THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
          11 N. Market Street
          Asheville, NC 28801
          Telephone: 828 258-2991
          E-mail: dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com

               - and -

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

KEITH MCCURDY: Kiler Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------
MARION KILER, Individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. KEITH MCCURDY LLC d/b/a
Bang Bang, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03472 (E.D. N.Y, June 12,
2019) is a civil rights action against Bang Bang for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons.

The complaint alleges that Defendant is denying blind and
visually-impaired persons throughout the United States with equal
access to the goods and services it provides to their non-disabled
customers through http//:www.Bangbangforever.com. The Defendant's
denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore
denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction
with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act, says the complaint.

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

Keith McCurdy LLC operates Bang Bang Studios in New York State and
provides tattoos. Bang Bang Studios provides to the public
important and enjoyable goods and services such as tattoos by some
of the most famous tattoo artists, among other products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KEYW HOLDING: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. disclosed that it has filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland on behalf of holders of The KeyW Holding Corporation
("KeyW") (NasdaqGS: KEYW) common stock in connection with the
proposed acquisition of KeyW by Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
("Jacobs") announced on April 22, 2019 (the "Complaint").  The
Complaint, which alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 against KeyW, its Board of Directors (the "Board"), and
Jacobs, is captioned Wheby v. The KeyW Holding Corporation, Case
No. 1:19-cv-01459 (D. Md.).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's
counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at Rigrodsky & Long,
P.A., 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220, Wilmington, DE 19801, by
telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl-legal.com or at
http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/

On April 21, 2019, KeyW entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Jacobs.  Pursuant to the terms
of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of KeyW will receive $11.25
per share in cash (the "Proposed Transaction").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction, defendants
issued materially incomplete disclosures in a solicitation
statement (the "Solicitation Statement") filed with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission.  The Complaint alleges
that the Solicitation Statement omits material information with
respect to, among other things, KeyW's financial projections and
the analyses performed by KeyW's financial advisor.  The Complaint
seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages on behalf of
holders of KeyW common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than July 22, 2019.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

With offices in Delaware, New York, and California, Rigrodsky &
Long, P.A., -- http://www.rigrodskylong.com-- has recovered
hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of investors and achieved
substantial corporate governance reforms in numerous cases
nationwide, including federal securities fraud actions, shareholder
class actions, and shareholder derivative actions. [GN]


KING RANS INVESTMENT: Perez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
SUSANA PEREZ, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KING
RANS INVESTMENT LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, and KING
RANS INVESTMENT 2 LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, jointly
and severally, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-14202-XXXX (S.D. Fla.,
June 12, 2019) is a collective action brought pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938, to recover unpaid overtime wages on
behalf of Plaintiff and all others similarly-situated who were
formerly, or are currently, employed as hourly paid employees by
Defendants.

The complaint alleges that Defendants have had policies and
practices to require its employees to work more than 40 hours in a
work week, but only pay the employee their regular rate of pay
without any overtime compensation. The Defendants were made aware
that this illegal practice was taking place, but did nothing
whatsoever to remedy the problem and ensure that its hourly paid
employees were paid overtime compensation, says the complaint.

Plaintiff PEREZ worked for Defendants as an hourly paid retail
sales clerk from March 13, 2019 to May 9, 2019.

Defendants have owned and operated gas station/convenience stores
known as Raceway located in Sebring and Avon Park, Florida, within
the Southern District of Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert S. Norell, Esq.
     ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A.
     300 N.W 70th Avenue, Suite 305
     Plantation, FL 33317
     Phone: (954) 617-6017
     Facsimile: (954) 617-6018
     Email: rob@floridawagelaw.com


LABORATORY CORPORATION: Finch Sues Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------
DAVID FINCH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS
d/b/a LABCORP, and AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, INC.
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02307 (D. Kan., June 13, 2019) is a
class action lawsuit on behalf of a Nationwide class and a Kansas
Statewide sub-class to address Defendants' inadequate safeguarding
of class members' Sensitive Information.

This is data breach class action on behalf of 7.7 million patients
whose sensitive personal information was accessed by computer
hackers in a cyber-attack. Information compromised in the Data
Breach includes Social Security numbers, financial information
(e.g., credit card numbers and bank account information), medical
information, other protected health information as defined by the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
("HIPAA"), and additional personal information (collectively,
"Sensitive Information").

As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and class members have
been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and
identity theft. Plaintiff and class members must now and in the
future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against
identity theft. Plaintiff and class members may also incur out of
pocket costs for, e.g., purchasing credit monitoring services,
credit freezes, credit reports, or other protective measures to
deter and detect identity theft, says the complaint.

Plaintiff seeks remedies including but not limited to compensatory
damages, reimbursement of out-of pocket costs, and injunctive
relief including improvements to Defendants' data security systems,
future annual audits, and free credit monitoring services funded by
Defendants.

Plaintiff David Finch has been a patient of LabCorp when LabCorp
collected and received Plaintiff's Sensitive Information in Kansas
which LabCorp maintained in its database.

LabCorp a provider of medical diagnostic testing services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd C. Werts, Esq.
     Bradford B. Lear, Esq.
     LEAR WERTS LLP
     2003 West Broadway, Suite 107
     Columbia, MO 65203
     Phone: 573-875-1991
     Fax: 573-875-1985
     Email: lear@learwerts.com
            werts@learwerts.com

          - and -

     Ryan M. Callahan, Esq.
     CALLAHAN LAW FIRM, LLC
     222 W. Gregory Blvd., Ste. 210
     Kansas City, MO 64114
     Phone: 913-601-1620
     Email: ryan@callahanlawkc.com

          - and -

     Lynn Toops, Esq.
     COHEN & MALAD LLP
     One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
     Indianapolis, IN 46204
     Phone: 317-636-6481
     Fax: 317-636-2593
     Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com


LADERA LENDING: Ochinero Seeks OT Pay for Mortgage Loan Officers
----------------------------------------------------------------
DEBORAH OCHINERO, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.  LADERA
LENDING, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No. 8:19-cv-01136 (C.D. Cal., June 7, 2019), contends that the
Defendant failed to compensate its mortgage loan officers for all
hours worked, including minimum and overtime wages as required by
both federal and California state law.

The Plaintiff was paid a regular hourly draw rate of $12.00 (prior
to January 24, 2019 she was paid a regular hourly draw rate of
$11.00). This means that when Plaintiff makes a commission, these
hourly draw amounts she earned are deducted from her commissions.
Therefore, Plaintiff and all other MLOs are never paid any hourly
wages, free and clear, for their work performed. The Plaintiff
routinely worked 12-hour shifts, but was required by Defendant to
only record eight hours per work day, regardless of the hours she
actually worked.

Despite routinely working more than 40 hours per week, the
Plaintiff and other MLOs were not paid for all hours worked over
40. Similarly, Plaintiff and other MLOs are not paid an overtime
premium rate of 1-1⁄2 their regular hourly rate of pay for all
hours worked over 40 per work week, or for all hours worked over
eight per work day. For example, during the period of February 1,
2019 to February 15, 2019, the Defendant recorded Plaintiff as
working 88 hours but was only paid her straight hourly draw rate of
$12 for all of those hours worked, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff seeks remedies in the form of damages, liquidated
damages, injunctive relief, and all further relief as the Court may
deem just and proper.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff, the general public, and all others
similarly situated are:

          Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
          Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
          THIERMAN BUCK LLP
          7287 Lakeside Drive
          Reno, NE 89511
          Telephone: (775) 284-1500
          E-mail: mark@thiermanbuck.com
                  josh@thiermanbuck.com

               - and -

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

LANNETT CO: Court Nixes Bid to Dismiss Utesch Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN UTESCH, Plaintiff, v. LANNETT COMPANY, INC.,
ARTHUR P. BEDROSIAN AND MARTIN P. GALVAN, Defendants, Civil Action
No. 16-5932 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Wendy Beetlestone of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a
claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

The putative class action concerns statements made by
pharmaceutical firm Lannett and two of its top executives, Arthur
P. Bedrosian and Martin P. Galvan, which allegedly misled investors
about the state of the market for the Defendants' products in
violation of federal securities laws.  Specifically, the Defendants
are alleged to have made false or misleading statements between
July 2014 and October 2017 both about the impact of competition on
prices and sales of certain drugs and about the potential effects
on the company of regulatory investigations and antitrust actions
relating to industry-wide anticompetitive conduct.

In the past few years, various governmental authorities have
initiated investigations into price fixing and other
anticompetitive conduct across the generic drug industry.  The
Complaint details three such concurrent investigations, each of
which involve both Lannett and its competitors.

First, in December 2016, the Connecticut Attorney General (on
behalf of the attorneys general of 20 states), charged various
generic drug companies -- though at this point not Lannett -- with
engaging in anticompetitive conduct.  Second, the federal
Department of Justice ("DOJ") is engaged in an investigation into
price collusion in the generic drug industry, and as early as
November 2014 was investigating whether more than 12 generic drug
manufacturers -- including Lannett -- had engaged in criminal
conduct.  Third, in October 2014, members of the United States
Senate and House of Representatives requested Lannett provide
significant financial information to a Congressional investigation
into price spikes in the generic drug industry.

The Plaintiffs assert price-fixing and anticompetitive conduct that
raised the prices of five specific drugs produced by Lannett:
Doxycycline Monohydrate, Digoxin, Levothyroxine, Acetazolamide, and
Ursodiol.  These products represented most of Lannett's revenue
during the Class Period.  In 2015, Levothyroxine and Ursodiol alone
accounted for half of Lannett's revenue.  From 2013 to 2016, the
five drugs together accounted for as much as 72% of Lannett's total
annual sales.

At the times of the above-references price spikes for Digoxin,
Levothyroxine, Acetazolamide, and Ursodiol, those drugs were not
facing supply or production issues like clinical investigator
inspections, drug safety labelling changes, post-market
requirements and commitment studies required by the FDA, drug
shortages, new patents, or otherwise.

The first complaint in thecase was filed on Nov. 16, 2016.  It was
subsequently amended twice.  The securities fraud claims in the
Second Amended Complaint were premised on the allegation that the
Defendants themselves had engaged in anti-competitive conduct
including price-fixing.  When the Defendants moved to dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint, the Court granted the motion, concluding
that the Plaintiffs had failed to allege that the Defendants
participated in an anticompetitive scheme to price-fix certain
products with the required state of mind.   In other words, the
Second Amended Complaint depended on the assertion that Lannett was
committing anti-trust violations.

The Plaintiffs then filed the currently pending Third Amended
Complaint, this time alleging a modified set of facts and modified
theories of liability.  This time around, the Plaintiffs do not
rely on the theory that Defendants misrepresented their own
anticompetitive conduct.  Rather, the Plaintiffs' theory of
liability in the Third Amended Complaint is that Defendants misled
investors by stating that price increases were the result of
legitimate and competitive market forces, despite the Defendants'
knowledge that the market was being driven by antitrust violations
being committed by their competitors.  Further, the Third Amended
Complaint asserts that the Defendants misrepresented both the scope
of their internal investigation into potential anti-trust
violations and the likelihood that Lannett would be implicated in
the broader price-fixing prosecutions.  

The Defendants have filed a renewed motion to dismiss, which is now
before the Court.  They urge dismissal of the Complaint for the
Plaintiffs' failure to plead falsity, scienter, and loss causation.
They also argue that the Complaint fails to state a claim against
Bedrosian and Galvan as "control persons" under Section 20(a) of
the Securities and Exchange Act.

Taking the facts alleged in the Complaint together and as true,
which is required at this stage in the litigation, Judge
Beetlestone finds that the Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded that
the Defendants made material misstatements about the
competitiveness of the generic drug markets in which they
participated, and that these statements would have misled
reasonable investors.

Next, accepting the facts as pleaded, the Judge finds that it would
appear implausible that the Defendants were unaware of the
anti-competitive conduct driving prices for their products.
Therefore, the Plaintiffs have successfully pleaded that the
Defendants acted at least recklessly -- that is, that the
Defendants engaged in "an extreme departure from the standards of
ordinary care which presented a danger of misleading that was
either known to the Defendant or was so obvious that the actors
must have been aware of it.  Accordingly, she holds that the
Complaint will not be dismissed on scienter grounds.

The Judge also finds that the Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded
loss causation by alleging that Lannett stock prices dropped
steeply after the purportedly misleading statements were publicly
corrected.  Specifically, they allege that prices dropped
immediately after, among other public disclosures, the revelation
of an investigation into the pricing of Digoxin, the revelation
that Lannett had received grand jury subpoenas relating to
anti-competitive conduct across the generic pharmaceutical
industry, and the revelation that criminal charges would likely be
filed against many competitors in the industry (including against
Lannett).  As a result, she holds that the Plaintiffs have
adequately pleaded that the Defendants' misrepresentations caused
economic loss to investors.

Finally, she holds that the Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded
their Section 20(a) claim.  She finds that the Plaintiffs do not
allege that the Defendants engaged in price-fixing, but rather that
the Defendants knew about the price fixing committed by others, and
then that they lied about their knowledge.  So whether the
Defendants engaged in communications in furtherance of the
purported price-fixing scheme is not directly dispositive of the
claims at issue.  Second, the Complaint does assert the Defendants'
participation in the fraud at issue -- it asserts that the
Defendants made oral and written public statements misleading
investors about the competitiveness of the market and the forces
contributing to price spikes.

Based on this, Judge Beetlestone denied the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Complaint.  An appropriate order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 15, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/XM6UvD from Leagle.com.

UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Lead Plaintiff,
represented by LAWRENCE D. LEVIT, ABRAHAM FRUCHTER & TWERSKY LLP,
MATTHEW GUARNERO, ABRAHAM FRUCHTER & TWERSKY LLP, MITCHELL M.Z.
TWERSKY, ABRAHAM FRUCHTER & TWERSKY LLP, TODD KAMMERMAN, ABRAHAM
FRUCHTER & TWERSKY LLP, DAVID M. PROMISLOFF -- david@prolawpa.com
-- PROMISLOFF LAW, P.C. & JEFFREY J. CIARLANTO, Profy Promisloff &
Ciarlanto, P.C.

JOHN UTESCH, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by FRANCINE FRIEDMAN GRIESING --
fgriesing@griesinglaw.com -- GRIESING LAW LLC, JACOB A. GOLDBERG
--
jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, DAVID M.
PROMISLOFF, PROMISLOFF LAW, P.C. & MICHAEL J. HYNES --
info@hynesauto.com -- HYNES KELLER & HERNANDEZ.

LANNETT COMPANY, INC., ARTHUR P. BEDROSIAN & MARTIN P. GALVAN,
Defendants, represented by IAN M. COMISKY, BLANK ROME, LLP,
MATTHEW
DAVID LEE, FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP & NATHAN HUDDELL, FOX ROTHSCHILD
LLP.


LGS STAFFING: Vaughns Seeks Overtime Wages for Workers
------------------------------------------------------
KAREN VAUGHNS, Individually and On Behalf of Others Similarly
Situated, v. LGS STAFFING, LLC (LABOR GUYS, LLC), the Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-02088 (S.D. Tex., June 7, 2019), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Vaughns and other workers like her
worked for LGS on an hourly basis and regularly worked more than 40
hours a week. But LGS failed to pay Vaughns and the other workers
like her overtime as required by the FLSA.

Instead, LGS paid Vaughns and the other workers like her the same
hourly rate for all hours worked, including for those hours worked
in excess of 40 in a workweek.

LGS specializes in the provision of personnel to perform
disaster-related services. To provide services to many of its
customers, LGS retains workers to perform the services requested by
its clients. Many of these individuals worked for LGS on an hourly
basis, were paid the same hourly rate for all hours worked by LGS,
including those hours worked in excess of a 40 in a single week,
and make up the proposed Putative Class.

Vaughns' job duties consisted primarily of disaster-related manual
labor including, but not limited to, removing sheet rock, carpet,
furniture, and trash from residences. LGS paid Vaughns $11.00 per
approved hour worked. Vaughns reported the hours she worked to LGS
on a regular basis. If Vaughns worked fewer than 40 hours in a
week, LPG only paid Vaughns for the hours she actually worked at
her hourly rate of $11.00 per hour. But Vaughns normally worked
more than 40 hours in a week. When Vaughns worked more than 40
hours in a week, LPG paid Vaughns for all of the hours she worked
that week at her hourly rate of $11.00 per hour, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys in Charge for the Plaintiff are:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Lindsay R. Itkin, 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
                  litkin@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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

MAKE IT RIGHT: Court Grants Bid to Remand Francis Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand the
case, FRANCIS ET AL., v. MAKE IT RIGHT-NEW ORLEANS, LLC ET AL,
SECTION "L" (4), Civil Action No. 18-9906 (E.D. La.).

The MIR Foundation was formed in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina
with the initial goal of building affordable and sustainable houses
in the Lower 9th Ward neighborhood of New Orleans.  Plaintiffs
Lloyd Francis and Jennifer Decuir, purporting to represent a class
of all original and subsequent purchasers of the Lower 9th Ward MIR
Foundation homes, contend the houses are defective.  They sued the
MIR Foundation, two of its single-member subsidiaries, and several
of its current and former officers, directors, and employees in the
Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans.

Defendants Samuel W. Whitt, S.H. "Jim" Fogelman, and LaToya King,
former officers and directors of the MIR Foundation, removed the
action under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").  The
Plaintiffs now move to remand, arguing that (1) the Removing
Defendants have not established that CAFA's amount in controversy
is met, or (2) the action should be remanded under one of CAFA's
"exceptions."

By the Plaintiffs' calculation, there are a total of 113 original
and subsequent purchasers of the Lower 9th Ward MIR Foundation
homes.  They offer Accessor's Office records showing that 91 MIR
Foundation homeowners claimed homestead exemptions for the year
2018 as proof of the citizenship of the proposed class.  Judge
Fallon, guided by common sense and evidence of 91 homestead
exemptions for the year 2018, concludes that greater than 2/3 of
the proposed class of current and former Lower 9th Ward homeowners
were citizens of Louisiana when the Complaint was filed.

The MIR Foundation sued its executive architect in the Civil
District Court for the Parish of Orleans on Sept. 18, 2018 -- only
11 days after the Plaintiffs' filed their Complaint.  In its
state-court Petition, each of the MIR Foundation entities
identifies its principal place of business as 912 Magazine Street,
New Orleans, Louisiana.  Furthermore, a report filed with the
Louisiana Secretary of State on Dec. 13, 2018 identifies the MIR
Foundation's "principal business office wherever located" as its
Magazine Street office.

In sum, Judge Fallon recognizes that the "local controversy"
exception is a narrow one.  However, he finds that the Plaintiffs
have met their burden of showing that (1) greater than 2/3 of the
proposed class were citizens of Louisiana when the Complaint was
filed, and (2) the presence of at least one significant Louisiana
defendant.  Because this is a controversy that uniquely affects a
particular locality to the exclusion of all others, he granted the
Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 15, 2019 Order and Reasons is
available at https://is.gd/Cbz4S3 from Leagle.com.

Lloyd Francis, On behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated & Jennifer Decuir, On behalf of herself and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Ron Anthony Austin -- raustin@ronaustinlaw.com -- Austin &
Associates, LLC & Catherine Hilton -- chilton@ronaustinlaw.com --
Ron Austin & Associates.

Samuel W. Whitt, S.H. Fogleman, also known as Jim Fogleman, LaToya
King & Maurice Coleman, Defendants, represented by Wayne J. Lee --
wlee@stonepigman.com -- Stone, Pigman, Walther, Wittmann, LLC,
Justin Paul Lemaire -- jlemaire@stonepigman.com -- Stone, Pigman,
Walther, Wittmann, LLC & Paul James Masinter --
pmasinter@stonepigman.com -- Stone, Pigman, Walther, Wittmann,
LLC.

Brad Pitt, Defendant, represented by Kyle D. Schonekas, Schonekas,
Evans, McGoey & McEachin, LLC, Andrea V. Timpa, Schonekas, Evans,
McGoey & McEachin, LLC, Antonio M. Clayton, Clayton, Fruge & Ward,
LLC, Ellie T. Schilling, Schonekas, Evans, McGoey & McEachin, LLC,
Kristen Diane Amond, Fishman Haygood, LLP, Rebekka C. Veith,
Fishman Haygood, LLP & Sharonda R. Williams, Fishman Haygood, LLP.

Craig Turner, Defendant, represented by Thomas Matthew Beh, Elkins,
PLC & Yvonne Chalker, Elkins, PLC.


MAMMOTH ENERGY: Scuderi Sues over PREPA Deal, Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS SCUDERI, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MAMMOTH ENERGY SERVICES, INC., ARTY
STRAEHLA, and MARK LAYTON, the Defendants, Case No.
5:19-cv-00522-SLP (W.D. Okla., June 7, 2019), seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case
is a class action on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded Mammoth securities from October
19, 2017 through June 5, 2019, inclusive

On October 19, 2017, Mammoth announced in a press release that its
subsidiary, Cobra Acquisitions LLC, entered into a contract with
the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority to aid in the rebuilding
of Puerto Rico's energy infrastructure.  On November 11, 2017,
Mammoth filed a Form 10-Q with the SEC, which provided its
financial results and position for the fiscal quarter ended
September 30, 2017.  The 3Q 2017 10-Q contained signed
certifications under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 by Defendants
Straehla and Layton attesting to the accuracy of financial
reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the Company's
internal control over financial reporting and the disclosure of all
fraud.

On May 24, 2019, the Wall Street Journal published an article
entitled "FEMA Official Probed Over Puerto Rico Power Restoration,"
stating that the Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA")
Deputy Regional Administrator, who oversaw FEMA's response to the
damage wrought by Hurricane Maria, was under investigation by the
Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), relieved of her duties and
placed on administrative leave over allegations that she steered
work to Cobra.

Then, on June 5, 2019, while the market was open, the Wall Street
Journal published an article entitled Puerto Rico Grid Contractor
Caught Up in Federal Probes, stating that the Federal Bureau of
Investigation had "opened a related criminal inquiry" into the
origin of Cobra's contracts with PREPA.

On this news, the Company's shares fell $5.09 per share or over 45%
over the next two trading days to close at $6.11 per share on June
6, 2019, further damaging investors.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 North Pennsylvania Ave.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560
          Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                  lrosen@rosenlegal.com

MASTRIA BUICK: Sued by Sanderson for Not Paying Salespersons' OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN SANDERSON, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. MASTRIA BUICK, GMC CADILLAC, INC. and RICHARD MASTRIA
JR., Case No. 19 0689 (Mass. Super., Norfolk Cty., May 29, 2019),
arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay overtime wages
and Sunday Premium Pay to the Plaintiff and putative class
members.

The class consists of former and current employees of the
Defendants engaged in the sale of automobiles and related
products.

Mastria Buick, GMC Cadillac, Inc. is a domestic corporation with a
usual place of business located in Raynham, Massachusetts.  The
Individual Defendants are officers of the Company.

Mastria is a company operating a car dealership and selling
vehicles in Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raven Moeslinger, Esq.
          Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq.
          David T. Musen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C.
          99 High Street, Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 338-9400
          E-mail: rm@mass-legal.com
                  nfo@mass-legal.com
                  dtm@mass-legal.com


MDL 2672: Allen, et al., Remanded to Texas State Court
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted in part the Texas Plaintiffs'
motions to remand the the cases, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL"
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. This
Order Relates To: MDL Dkt. Nos. 3784, 3786, 3787, 3788, 3793, 3794,
3797, Bradshaw, No. 3:17-cv-5071-CRB, Allen, No. 3:17-cv-5149-CRB,
Christensen, No. 3:17-cv-5151-CRB, Nieto, No. 3:17-cv-5074-CRB,
Bersuch, No. 3:17-cv-5152-CRB, Dixon, No. 3:17-cv-5089-CRB,
Abiodun, No. 3:17-cv-5154-CRB, MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC) (N.D. Cal.).

The seven captioned cases were originally filed in Texas state
court, in October 2015, and then removed by Defendant VWGoA to
federal court, on diversity jurisdiction grounds, in August 2017.
Each case contains multiple Plaintiffs, all of whom are either
individuals or couples who bought or leased one or more Volkswagen,
Audi, or Porsche TDI diesel-engine cars.

There is no dispute that the jurisdictional requirements for
diversity jurisdiction are satisfied in these seven cases: there is
complete diversity of citizenship and each plaintiff has put more
than $75,000 in controversy.  But because these cases were all
removed more than one year after they were filed, they may remain
in federal court only upon a finding that the Plaintiffs acted in
bad faith to avoid removal.

The Court previously concluded that the Plaintiffs' counsel did act
in bad faith to avoid removal in at least one of these cases.  The
Counsel did so by voluntarily dismissing a separate case, which was
less than one-year old and which VWGoA had just removed, and adding
one of the dismissed Plaintiffs to Abiodun, a case that was more
than one-year old. T he Court explained that this shuffling
effectively repainted the lines between cases that could be removed
and cases that could not be removed.  It concluded that this
conduct constituted a bad faith attempt to avoid removal.

While finding that the Plaintiffs' counsel acted in bad faith, the
Court previously noted that the extent of the counsel's conduct was
less clear.  VWGoA had argued that the conduct was widespread and
affected all seven of the named cases, but it offered only the one
example of the Plaintiff that the counsel had added to Abiodun.  To
determine if the counsel's realignment strategy was more extensive,
the Court instructed VWGoA to submit evidence identifying all
remaining Plaintiffs who were moved from removable cases to
unremovable cases.

VWGoA has now submitted evidence supporting that 30 of the
remaining Plaintiffs in four of the captioned cases (Abiodun,
Bersuch, Christensen, and Dixon) were added to those cases after
being voluntarily dismissed from removable cases that were less
than one-year old.  They have confirmed that this number is
correct.  In contrast, the record supports that the other remaining
Plaintiffs in Abiodun, Bersuch, Christensen, and Dixon, and all of
the Plaintiffs in Allen, Bradshaw, and Nieto, were not shuffled
from removable cases to unremovable cases: they were either
original plaintiffs in the named cases, all of which were more than
one-year old when VWGoA removed them, or were moved to those cases
from other cases that were more than one-year old.

As to the 30 identified Plaintiffs in Abiodun, Bersuch,
Christensen, and Dixon, the Judge Breyer concludes that, for the
reasons stated in its March 28 Order, the Plaintiffs' counsel acted
in bad faith to avoid their removal.  The one-year procedural bar
on removal accordingly does not apply to them.  In contrast,
because there is no evidence supporting that counsel's bad-faith
conduct extended to any of the Plaintiffs in Allen, Bradshaw, or
Nieto, or to the other Plaintiffs in Abiodun, Bersuch, Christensen,
and Dixon, the one-year procedural bar on removal applies to them.

Because Allen, Bradshaw, and Nieto were removed based on diversity
jurisdiction more than one year after they were filed, and because
the one-year procedural bar applies to them, the Judge granted the
Plaintiffs' motions to remand them.  With respect to the other four
cases -- Abiodun, Bersuch, Christensen, and Dixon -- he severed the
claims therein.  The 30 Plaintiffs that VWGoA has identified will
be added to four new cases, which will remain part of the MDL.  The
other Plaintiffs in Abiodun, Bersuch, Christensen, and Dixon will
remain in those cases, and those cases will be remanded to state
court.

VWGoA's insistence that the original Plaintiffs in Abiodun,
Bersuch, Christensen, and Dixon should remain in federal court --
notwithstanding VWGoA's belated removal of their cases -- is
unpersuasive.  The Court has discretion to sever from the removed
actions those Plaintiffs who were added in a bad faith attempt to
defeat their removal.  Once those Plaintiffs' claims are severed
from Abiodun, Bersuch, Christensen, and Dixon, the Court can remand
the entire "actions" to state court.  VWGoA offers no authority to
support its contention that the original Plaintiffs must remain in
federal court even though their cases were removed late.  Remand of
their cases is accordingly warranted.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 14, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Arpyt3 from Leagle.com.

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

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

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

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


MDL 2672: July 26 Hearing on Dismissal Bids in Clean Diesel Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN 'CLEAN DIESEL' MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. This document relates
to: Nemet, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:17-cv-04372-CRB, MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC) (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California has entered the Parties' Stipulated Order
setting July 26, 2019 as the new hearing date for the Defendants'
Motions to Dismiss the Pre-Nov Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint.

On Jan. 15, 2019, Defendants Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,
Audi of America, LLC, Robert Bosch, LLC, and Robert Bosch GmbH
filed their motions to dismiss te Plaintiffs' First Amended Class
Action Complaint; on March 26, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed their
opposition to the Motions; and on May 2, 2019, the Defendants filed
their replies in support of the Motions.  The current hearing date
for the Motions is set for July 12, 2019.

Due to the unavailiabilty of te counsel for one of the Parties on
the current hearing date, the Parties have conferred and have
agreed to set the hearing on the Motions for July 26, 2019, at
10:00 a.m, subject to the Court's approval.

Therefore the Parties stipulated and agrred, through their
respective counsel of record, and Judge Breyer granted, that on
July 26, 2019 at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 6 of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, located at 450
Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102-3489, the Court will
hear oral argument on the Motions.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 15, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/ZeDH4Y from Leagle.com.

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

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

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

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


MDL 2886: Severance's Suit over Siding Defects Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, ROBERT SEVERANCE, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. PLYCEM USA, LLC,
PLYCEM USA, INC., ELEMENTIA USA, INC., ELEMENTIA, S.A.B. DE C.V.,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-88 (Filed May 13, 2019), was
transferred fromn the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina (Charleston) on June 7, 2019. The District of South
Carolina Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-01659-DCN to the
proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Siding of Plaintiff's and Class
Members' homes suffers from an inherent defect resulting in the
Siding cracking, splitting, warping, and breakage. The cracking
splitting, warping, and breakage create paths for eventual water
and moisture intrusion as a result.

Despite the Defendants' representations that the Siding meets the
applicable standards and building codes for performance and weather
resistance, the Siding fails prematurely and is not suitable for
use as an exterior building product.

However, as a result of the defect in the Siding, Plaintiff and
Class Members have incurred and will incur thousands of dollars in
damages to replace the Siding.

The Defendants actions in connection with the manufacturing and
distributing of the Siding evidences a lack of good faith, honesty
in fact, and observance of fair dealing, so as to constitute
unconscionable commercial practices in violation of the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, the lawsuit says.

The Severance case is being consolidated with MDL 2886 in re:
ALLURA FIBER CEMENT SIDING PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The MDL
was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel
Multidistrict Litigation on April 2, 2019.

The Panel finds that these actions involve common questions of
fact, and that centralization will serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of
this litigation. All actions share factual questions concerning
alleged defects in exterior fiber cement siding products
manufactured and sold by common defendants Plycem USA, LLC,
Elementia USA, LLC, and Elementia S.A.B. de C.V., which allegedly
are close corporate affiliates and act as alter egos of one
another.

More specifically the actions commonly allege that (1) defendants'
fiber cement siding products sold under the names Allura and
Maxitile are defective because they have a propensity to crack,
peel, warp, and break off soon after installation; (2) defendants
misrepresent that the products have a service life of 50 years, but
fail in less than five years; and (3) defendants uniformly
misrepresent to customers that the problems are caused by improper
installation, rather than a known product defect.

Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent
inconsistent pretrial rulings, especially with respect to class
certification and Daubert motions; and conserve the resources of
the parties, their counsel and the judiciary

In its April 2, 2019  Order, the MDL Panel conclude that the
District of South Carolina is an appropriate transferee forum. One
action on the motion is pending there, and the district is
conveniently located for a number of parties and potential
witnesses in the southeastern region of the country. Defendants
support this district if centralization is granted over their
objection. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. David C. Norton. The
lead case is Case No.2:19-mn-02886-DCN.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Matthew D. Schultz, Esq.
          William F. Cash, III, Esq.
          LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS,
             MITCHELL, RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, P.A.
          316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600
          Pensacola, FL 32503
          Telephone: (850) 435-7140
          Facsimile: (850) 436-6140
          E-mail: mschultz@levinlaw.com
                  bcash@levinlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          George V. Granade, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
                  ggranade@reesellp.com

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          Hannah Y Shay Chanoine, Esq.
          O'MELVENHY & MYERS LLP
          7 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 326-2000
          Facsimile: (212) 326-2061

MDL 2887: Russell Suit over Tainted Dog Food Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------
The case, MICHAEL RUSSELL and JODI RUSSELL, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. HILL'S PET
NUTRITION, INC., HILL'S PET NUTRITION SALES, INC., and JOHN DOES
1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19 cv 395 (Filed Feb. 11, 2019),
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas (Kansas City)  on June 7, 2019. The District of Kansas Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-02285-JAR-TJJ to proceeding. The
case is assigned to the Chief District Judge Julie A. Robinson. The
suit alleges Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act violation. The lead case is
Case No. 2:19-md-02887-JAR-TJJ.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated consumers. Plaintiffs seek monetary
relief and an order forcing Hill's Pet to provide appropriate
injunctive relief by ensuring that all potentially affected
products are identified on Hill's website and removed from
shelves.

The Russell case is being consolidated with MDL 2887 in re: HILL'S
PET NUTRITION, INC., DOG FOOD PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The
MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel
Multidistrict Litigation on June 4, 2019.

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

In its June 5, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel select the District of
Kansas as the transferee district. Hill's is headquartered in that
district, and it represents that its key evidence and witnesses are
located there. Eight potential tagalong actions are pending in the
District of Kansas, and its selection is supported by both Hill's
and a number of plaintiffs. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon.
Judge Julie A. Robinson. The lead case is Case No.
2:19-md-02887-JAR-TJJ.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Matthew D. Schultz, Esq.
          William F. Cash, III, Esq.
          LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS,
          MITCHELL, RAFFERTY &
          PROCTOR, P.A.
          316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600
          Pensacola, FL 32503
          Telephone: (850) 435-7140
          Facsimile: (850) 436-6140
          E-mail: mschultz@levinlaw.com
                  bcash@levinlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          George V. Granade, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
                  ggranade@reesellp.com

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          Hannah Y Shay Chanoine, Esq.
          O'MELVENHY & MYERS LLP
          7 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 326-2000
          Facsimile: (212) 326-2061

MDL 2887: Sawyer Suit over Tainted Dog Food Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------
The case, KELLY BONE, CHRISTINA SAWYER and JANINE BUCKLEY, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC., HILL'S PET NUTRITION
SALES, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00831 (Filed Feb. 11, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District New York, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City)  on June 7,
2019. The District of Kansas Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-02284-JAR-TJJ to proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Chief District Judge Julie A. Robinson. The suit alleges
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act violation. The lead case is Case No.
2:19-md-02887-JAR-TJJ.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated consumers. Plaintiffs seek monetary
relief and an order forcing Hill's Pet to provide appropriate
injunctive relief by ensuring that all potentially affected
products are identified on Hill's website and removed from
shelves.

The Sawyer case is being consolidated with MDL 2887 in re: HILL'S
PET NUTRITION, INC., DOG FOOD PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The
MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel
Multidistrict Litigation on June 4, 2019.

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

In its June 5, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel select the District of
Kansas as the transferee district. Hill's is headquartered in that
district, and it represents that its key evidence and witnesses are
located there. Eight potential tagalong actions are pending in the
District of Kansas, and its selection is supported by both Hill's
and a number of plaintiffs. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon.
Judge Julie A. Robinson. The lead case is Case No.
2:19-md-02887-JAR-TJJ.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Joseph S. Tusa, Esq.
          TUSA, P.C.
          P.O. Box 566
          Southold, NY 11971
          Telephone: (631) 407-5100
          E-mail: joseph.tusapc@gmail.com

               - and -

          Jennifer W. Sprengel, Esq.
          Nyran Rose Rasche, Esq.
          Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES M. ERIWETHER
            & SPRENGEL LLP
          150 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 3000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 782-4880
          Facsimile: (312) 782-4485
          E-mail: jsprengel@caffertyclobes.com
                  nrasche@caffertyclobes.com
                  dherrera@caffertyclobes.com
                  jscheflow@caffertyclobes.com

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          Hannah Y Shay Chanoine, Esq.
          O'MELVENHY & MYERS LLP
          7 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 326-2000
          Facsimile: (212) 326-2061

MICHAEL C KOEHN: $5K Long FDCA Suit Settlement Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRUCE LONG, individually on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL C. KOEHN and, JOHN
AND JANE DOES NUMBERS 1 THROUGH 10, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-00943-WCG (E.D. Wis.), Judge William C. Griesbach of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Green
Bay Division, granted the Parties' request for final approval of
the Class Settlement Agreement.

The Judge certified the following Settlement Class, for settlement
purposes only, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3): All persons to
whom Michael C. Koehn mailed an initial written communication to an
address in the State of Wisconsin, between June 21, 2017 and July
12, 2018, which stated a static amount as being the amount due even
though the debts were accruing interest.

He approved a form of notice for mailing to the Settlement Class.
He is informed that actual notice was sent to 738 Class Members by
Class-Settlement.com, the third-party settlement administrator.  A
total of 45 envelopes were returned by the United States Postal
Service, 18 of which were returned with forwarding addresses and
successfully re-mailed.  No Class Members requested exclusion from,
or objected to, the Settlement.

On May 15, 2019, the Court held a fairness hearing to which the
Class Members, including any with objections, were invited.  The
Judge finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate
and finally approved the Agreement submitted by the Parties,
including the Release and payments by Koehn.  

Upon the Effective Date, as that term is defined in the Agreement,
Koehn shall:

     (a) Create a class settlement fund of $5,000, which the Class
Counsel through the Settlement Administrator will distribute pro
rata to each Class Member whose Class Notice was not returned as
undeliverable and who did not him/herself from the Settlement.  The
Class Members will receive their share of the Class Recovery by
check, which will become void 60 days from the date of issuance.
Any checks that have not been cashed by the void date, along with
any unclaimed funds remaining in the Class Recovery will be
disbursed in the following order: (i) to pay the costs associated
with providing notice to the Class Members and administering the
Class Recovery; and (ii) any remainder donated as a cy pres award
to Legal Action of Wisconsin.

     (b) Pay the Plaintiff $1,500.

     (c) Pay the Class Counsel $20,315 for their attorneys' fees
and costs incurred in the action, which is based on their
reasonable hourly rates and time expended in the litigation.  The
Class Counsel will not request additional fees or costs from Koehn
or the Class Members.

The Parties granted the following releases:

     (a) The Plaintiff, including each and every one of his agents,
representatives, attorneys, heirs, assigns, or any other person
acting on his behalf or for his benefit, and any person claiming
through him, releases and discharges Koehn, as well as his
predecessors and successors in interest and present and former
affiliates, subsidiaries, insurers, officers, directors, agents,
employees, members, shareholders, general partners, limited
partners, beneficiaries, representatives, attorneys, or assigns,
from all causes of action, suits, claims, or demands, in law or in
equity, known or unknown at this time which the Releasors now have
or ever had against the Released Parties, or any of them, under any
legal theory, whether or not alleged, related to or arising from
matters that occurred from the beginning of time through the date
of the Agreement.

     (b) Each Class Member who did not exclude themselves from the
Settlement releases and discharges the Released Parties of all
causes of action, suits, liability, and claims, including claims
for the payment of attorney's fees and costs arising out of or
related to Koehn's collection letter attached as Exhibit A to
Plaintiff's Complaint [Doc. 1].

     (c) The Plaintiff and each Class Member do not release any
defense they may have with respect to the underlying debts Koehn
was attempting to collect, including (i) whether any debt is in
fact owed, (ii) the crediting of payments on any debt, or (iii) the
proper reporting of any debts to credit bureaus.

     (d) Koehn does not release its claims, if any, against the
Plaintiff or any Class Member for the payment of their alleged
debts.  The underlying debts Koehn sought to collect are unaffected
by the Settlement.  The Settlement does not prevent Koehn from
continuing to attempt to collect the debts allegedly owed by the
Class Members.

The terms of the Agreement are incorporated into the Order.  The
Order will operate as a final judgment and dismissal without
prejudice of the claims in the action.  The Judge finds, in
accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), that there is no just reason
for delay of enforcement of, or appeal from, the Order.  The
Parties are ordered to comply with the terms of the Agreement and
the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 15, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Vi9uJr from Leagle.com.

Bruce Long, individually on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Francis R. Greene --
Francis@SternThomasson.com -- Stern Thomasson LLP, Philip D. Stern
-- Philip@SternThomasson.com -- Stern Thomasson LLP & Andrew T.
Thomasson -- Andrew@SternThomasson.com -- Stern Thomasson LLP.

Michael C Koehn, Defendant, represented by Joseph P. Trevino --
jtrevino@salawus.com -- SmithAmundsen LLC.


MIDLAND CONCRETE: Donald Seeks Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Midland Concrete &
Sand Transportation, Inc. and Donald Bergen for alleged violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Ohio Minimum Fair
Wage Standards Act. The case is captioned TERRANCE DONALD, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
MIDLAND CONCRETE & SAND TRANSPORTATION, INC., and DONALD BERGEN,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01347 (N.D. Ohio, June 11, 2019).
Plaintiff Terrance Donald challenges Midland Concrete's policies
and practices that concerns the underpayment of overtime wages to
non-exempt employees. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants did not
fully account for all hours worked per workweek by changing
compensation from hourly to Per-Tonnage.

Midland is a for-profit Ohio corporation, located in Cleveland,
Ohio. Midland can be served through its registered agent, Donald
Bergen, at 2235 W. 5th St., Cleveland, OH 44113. Bergen is the
principal/owner, statutory agent, and incorporator of Midland. The
company operates a local freight business, in which it employs
Plaintiff and others similarly situated to haul rock or sand from
Ohio quarries or stock yards to Ohio locations. The hauls originate
in Ohio and are dumped in Ohio, where they will be used in projects
such as building or road construction. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
     NILGES DRAHER LLC
     34 N. High St., Ste. 502
     Columbus, OH 43215
     Telephone: (614) 824-5770
     Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
     E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com
     
             - and -
             
     Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
     Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
     NILGES DRAHER LLC
     7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
     Massillon, OH 44646
     Telephone: (330) 470-4428
     Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
     E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
             sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com


MOLSON COORS: Mathes Suit Transferred to District of Colorado
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JACOB MATHES individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Molson Coors Brewing
Company, Mark R Hunter, and Tracey I Joubert, the Defendants, and
Metropolitan Transportation Authority Defined Benefit Public Plan
Master Trust; Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating
Authority Pension Plan; Iron Workers Local 580 Joint Funds; and
Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103 I.B.E.W. (Local 103),
Movants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01162 (Filed Feb. 15, 2019), from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (Denver) on June
7, 2019. The District of Colorado Court clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-01665-SKC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge S. Kato Crews.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities, other than Defendants and
their affiliates, who purchased publicly traded Molson Coors
securities from February 14, 2017 through February 11, 2019, both
dates inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by
Defendants' violations of federal securities laws and pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

          Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
          FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
          111 W. Jackson St., Suite 1700
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 984-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 214-3110
          E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com

               - and -

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                  lrosen@rosenlegal.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Schumacher Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------------
A case has been filed against Monsanto Company seeking to recover
damages suffered by the Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result
of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active
ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The case is captioned as DEA ANNA SCHUMACHER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
SURVIVING HEIR OF GEORGE SCHUMACHER, DECEASED; CARRIE DULA; NINA
STEWART; MARY ELLYN NEGLEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SURVIVING HEIR OF
RALPH NEGLEY, DECEASED; DALE WILLIAMS; DOYLE WILSON; SUSAN VOKE;
ELIZABETH SCHUCH; GERALD ACUFF, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SURVIVING HEIR
OF PHYLLIS ACUFF, DECEASED; JOHN HOWELL; CHARLENE CARLI,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SURVIVING HEIR OF JAMES CARLI, DECEASED; NATHAN
KUEHN; MARY GIRARDI, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SURVIVING HEIR OF HARRY
SOBER, DECEASED; LORETTA COLLINS, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY; JOHN DOES 1 through 100 inclusive, the Defendants
Case No. 4:19-cv-01650(S.D. Fla., June 7, 2019).[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Emily J. Kirk, Esq.
          Kristy M. Arevalo, Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
          3281 East Guasti Road, Suite 100
          Ontario, CA 91761
          Telephone: (909) 557-1250
          Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
          E-mail: ejk@mccunewright.com
                  kma@mccunewright.com

               - and -

          Daniel R. Weltin, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL R. WELTIN , P.C.
          14895 E. 14 th Street, Suite 350
          San Leandro, CA 94578-2988
          Telephone: (510) 856-4421
          Facsimile: (510) 856-3624
          E-mail: daniel@danielweltin.com

MV TRANSPO: Bid to Conditionally Certify Miller Class Partly OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WAYNE MILLER, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MV TRANSPORTATION, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-CV-538-RP (W.D. Tex.), Judge Robert Pitman
of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas,
Austin Division, granted in part Miller's Motion for Conditional
Certification.

The case is a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") action concerning
overtime compensation for employees of Defendant MV Transportation,
Inc. ("MVTI"), a services contractor for Austin's Capital Metro.
Miller alleges that he and similarly situated employees were denied
overtime because MVTI shaved their time and deducted time for meal
breaks that were actually spent working.  

Miller was a parts manager for MVTI's maintenance division from
October 2015 until March 2018.  He says that he was an hourly
employee who often worked more than 40 hours per week, but that
MVTI would "shave" his hours to deny him overtime compensation.  He
also says that MVTI would automatically reduce his time worked by
30 minutes for lunch, even on days when he worked through some or
all of his lunch break.

According to Miller, other maintenance department employees told
him that they had experienced the same problems.  One of those
other employees, James Ortego, filed a declaration lodging
essentially the same allegations.  Miller believes that the
time-shaving and lunch-docking constituted a de facto company
policy because the practice was commonly practiced and widely
known, but never remedied.  In sum, Miller and Ortego allege that
they and other MVTI maintenance employees were (1) paid on an
hourly basis, (2) non-exempt and overtime eligible, and (3) subject
to hours-reductions policies designed to reduce their overtime
compensation.

He seeks to certify the action as a collective action under the
FLSA.  To that end, he asks the Court to certify the following
class and send order that notice be sent to potential class
members: All current and former maintenance employees who were
treated by Defendant as FLSA non-exempt and who worked for
Defendant in Austin, Texas, within the past three years.  In
subsequent briefing, Miller agrees to limit the class to only those
employees who worked at the facility where he worked: the UT
Shuttle Division.  

MVTI opposes class certification on several grounds.  First, MVTI
argues that conditional certification is inappropriate both because
the potential Plaintiffs' claims are too individualized and because
the only common policy is a lawful one.  Second, it also argues
that conditional certification is inappropriate because there is no
evidence of other interested potential Plaintiffs.  Third, it
argues that the scope of the class is overbroad because many
members belong to a union whose collective bargaining agreement
precludes them from joining this action.  Separate from its
arguments against conditional certification, MVTI also objects to
the content and method of Miller's proposed class notice, and to
tolling the statute of limitations for potential class members.

Judge Pitman finds it true that proof of the allegations will
require, to a certain degree, an individualized analysis of each
employee's time records and the reasons for reducing the employee's
time or refusing to increase it.  But these allegations describe
two policies common to the class, provable by evidence common to
the class, which creates a "factual nexus" between the Plaintiffs'
claims.  These allegations are enough to find Miller's potential
Plaintiffs -- at least, the subset of them who worked at the UT
Shuttle Division -- similarly situated under Section 216(b) at this
stage, notwithstanding the fact that proof of each Plaintiff's
damages will be individualized.  As Miller points out, the need to
determine the class members' damages on an individualized basis
should not bar conditional certification if the proposed class is
otherwise similarly situated.

Next, the Judge finds that conditional certification is especially
appropriate in light of additional allegations that MVTI has a de
facto policy to shave maintenance employees' time to reduce their
overtime hours.  There is no question that the purposeful
alteration of employee time records to reduce overtime compensation
violates the FLSA.

While it is true that some courts require more concrete evidence of
interested potential plaintiffs at the conditional-certification
stage, the Judge finds that the Court has previously held that such
a requirement is not based on the FLSA and is indeed inconsistent
with the FLSA.  Miller and Ortego's declarations are enough
evidence of other potential Plaintiffs at this early stage in the
litigation.  For the reasons given above, he finds that Miller's
proposed class, modified to apply only to the UT Shuttle Division,
should be conditionally certified.  What remains to be determined
is the scope of the class, the content of the notice, and whether
to equitably toll the statute of limitations for the Plaintiffs who
opt in.  He also holds that the CBA does not affect the scope of
the class to be conditionally certified.

The Judge does not share MVTI's concerns on the content and form of
Miller's proposed notice and will approve reminder notice in the
case as it has in other FLSA collective actions.  As for MVTI's
other objections, the parties will confer about a joint notice
form, and the Court will address any objections that remain after
the parties' conference.

Finally, the Judge finds that Miller has provided no evidence that
the potential opt-in Plaintiffs have been unaware of their rights
or prevented from joining the action.  Indeed, tolling the
limitations period as Miller requests would entail giving Mr.
Ortego, who has been aware of his rights since at least the date of
his declaration but has not sought to be joined as a named
Plaintiff, extraordinary relief without justification.  Miller has
not met his burden to establish that such relief is justified for
Mr. Ortego or the rest of the proposed class.

For these reasons, Judge Pitman granted in part Miller's Motion for
Conditional Certification.  He granted the motion as he granted
Miller the following relief and no other: (1) The Court
conditionally certified the following class for purposes of
providing notice to potential class members and allowing potential
class members to opt in: All current and former maintenance
employees who were treated by Defendant as FLSA non-exempt and who
worked for Defendant's UT Shuttle Division in Austin, Texas, within
the three years preceding the date of Miller's motion for
conditional certification.

The parties will confer about the form and content of class notice,
as well as a proposed schedule for issuing that notice, receiving
responses, and briefing MVTI's motion for decertification.  Given
Miller's concerns about the limitations period, the parties will
submit a joint proposed class notice and schedule by May 21, 2019.
If the parties cannot agree on the class notice or schedule, they
will submit a joint advisory by May 21, 2019, in which they
describe the areas of their disagreement and request a telephone
conference to resolve them.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 14, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/f5Mb4i from Leagle.com.

Wayne Miller, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas B. Welmaker --
doug@welmakerlaw.com -- Moreland Verrett, PC.

MV Transportation, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lauren B.
Timmons -- Lauren.Timmons@tklaw.com -- Thompson & Knight LLP,
Robert F. Friedman -- rfriedman@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson,
P.C. & Jonathan G. Rector -- jrector@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, PC.


NATIONAL SECURITIES: Arbitration Ruling in Rutella Suit Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NICO RUTELLA, ETC., Appellant, v. NATIONAL SECURITIES
CORPORATION, ET AL., Respondents, Case No. 2017-03539 (N.Y. App.
Div.), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York,
Second Department, reversed the order of Judge Timothy S. Driscoll
of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered Oct. 3, 2016, granting
that branch of the Defendants' motion which was pursuant to CPLR
7503 to compel arbitration of the Plaintiff's individual claims and
stay all proceedings in the action pending arbitration.

In a putative class action to recover damages for violations of
Labor Law articles 6 and 19, the Plaintiff appeals from an order of
the Supreme Court, Nassau County.  The order, insofar as appealed
from, in effect, granted that branch of the Defendants' motion to
compel arbitration of the Plaintiff's individual claims and stay
all proceedings in the action pending arbitration.

The Appellate Division (i) reversed the order, insofar as appealed
from, on the law, with costs; and (ii) denied that branch of the
Defendants' motion which was to compel arbitration of the
Plaintiff's individual claims and stay all proceedings in the
action pending arbitration.

The Plaintiff executed a Registered Representative Independent
Contractor Agreement pursuant to which he allegedly worked selling
or marketing financial products on behalf of the defendants, which
were both members of the Financial Industries Regulatory Authority
("FINRA").  The Agreement provided that any disputes arising out of
or relating to the Agreement would be settled by FINRA arbitration.


The Plaintiff also executed a Uniform Application for Securities
Industry Registration or Transfer ("Form U4"), by which he
registered with FINRA as a general securities representative of the
Defendant National Securities.  Pursuant to the Form U4, the
Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate any dispute arising between him and
his firm that is required to be arbitrated under the rules,
constitutions, or by-laws of FINRA.

The Plaintiff thereafter commenced the putative class action to
recover damages for violations of Labor Law articles 6 and 19 on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, alleging that the
Defendants had failed to pay required minimum and overtime wages.
The Defendants moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 7503 to compel
arbitration of the Plaintiff's individual claims and to stay all
proceedings in the action pending the arbitration.  The Plaintiff
opposed the motion, arguing that his claims in the action, since
they were asserted as class claims, did not fall within the
parties' arbitration agreement.  The Supreme Court, in effect,
granted that branch of the motion, and the Plaintiff appeals.

The Appellate Division holds that the Plaintiff correctly contends
that the parties did not agree to arbitrate the claims asserted by
the him in the putative class action.  The parties' agreement
required that any controversy between the parties arising out of
the Agreement would be settled by FINRA arbitration.  Any claim
settled by FINRA arbitration must be settled according to FINRA
rules.

Under FINRA Rule 13204(a)(4), the Defendants are not permitted to
enforce an arbitration agreement against a member of a putative
class action with respect to any claim that is the subject of the
putative class action, unless, among other things, class
certification is denied.  By agreeing to apply this rule to any
arbitration between the parties, the Defendants agreed not to
arbitrate any claim that is the subject of a putative class
action.

The Defendants' contention that the Agreement contained a broad and
unequivocal arbitration provision that required the parties to
arbitrate all disputes without exception ignores the clause
"settled by FINRA arbitration" and the implications of agreeing to
arbitrate before that forum.  They further contend that the
Plaintiff is using the class action as a device to avoid
arbitration and that he should not be permitted to avoid
arbitration so easily, particularly given the public policy
favoring arbitration.

However, the Appellate Division finds that prohibition against
enforcing arbitration agreements against members of a putative
class action becomes inapplicable if class certification is denied.
Thus, to actually avoid arbitration, the Plaintiff cannot merely
allege class claims in a complaint.  The Plaintiff must ultimately
establish his entitlement to class certification.  To do so, he
must prove, among other things, that a class action is superior to
other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of
the controversy.  In short, the Defendants' contention that the
assertion of a class action provides a ready means to circumvent
the parties' arbitration agreement is without merit.

Accordingly, the Appellate Division holds that the the Supreme
Court should have denied that branch of the Defendants' motion
which was pursuant to CPLR 7503 to compel arbitration of the
Plaintiff's individual claims and to stay all proceedings in the
action pending the arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 15, 2019 Decision and Order is
available at https://is.gd/WHEx8K from Leagle.com.

Virginia & Ambinder, LLP, New York, NY (James E. Murphy --
jmurphy@vandallp.com -- Jack L. Newhouse -- jnewhouse@vandallp.com
-- and Leeds Brown Law, P.C. (Jeffrey K. Brown --
jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com -- Daniel Markowitz, and Brett R. Cohen,
of counsel), for appellant.

Baker & Hostetler LLP, New York, NY (Daniel J. Buzzetta --
dbuzzetta@bakerlaw.com -- and Amy J. Traub --
dbuzzetta@bakerlaw.com -- of counsel), for respondents.


NATURMED INC: Court Grants Henson Leave to Amend Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES HENSON, Plaintiff, v. NATURMED, INC. D/B/A
INSTITUTE FOR VIBRANT LIVING, Defendant, Civil Case No. ELH-18-1102
(D. Md.), Judge Ellen L. Hollander of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Maryland (i) granted the Plaintiff's Motion for
Leave to Amend the Complaint, for Joinder of Additional Parties,
and to Amend the Scheduling Order; and (ii) denied the Defendant's
motion to compel answers to interrogatories and the production of
documents.

The suit was filed on April 17, 2018.  The Defendant filed its
Answer on July 10, 2018.  The Court held a telephone conference
with counsel on Aug. 22, 2018.  Thereafter, on Aug. 27, 2018, the
counsel submitted a Joint Proposed Scheduling Order.  The Judge
approved it on the same date.  The Scheduling Order set a deadline
of Oct. 15, 2018, for joinder of parties and amendment of
pleadings.

On Oct. 31, 2018, the Plaintiff attempted to file a motion for
leave to amend the Complaint, so as to join additional parties, and
to amend the Scheduling Order.  However, the Clerk advised that it
was not properly filed.  On Nov. 4, 2018, the Plaintiff again
sought to amend.  Again, the Clerk advised that the filing was not
properly made.  Thereafter, on Nov. 7, 2018, NaturMed filed its
motion to compel, supported by a memorandum and exhibits.  

The Court held a status conference with counsel on Nov. 15, 2018.
And, in an Order of Nov. 16, 2018, Judge Hollander directed the
Plaintiff to submit his overdue discovery responses by Nov. 25,
2018.  She also directed the Plaintiff to submit a corrected motion
to amend the complaint by Nov. 30, 2018.

On Dec. 3, 2018, the Plaintiff moved for leave to amend the
complaint, but once again it was improperly filed.  Two days later,
on Dec. 5, 2018, the Plaintiff properly filed the Motion, along
with over 200 pages of exhibits.  Of relevance, the Plaintiff
sought leave to add four parties, described by him as
indispensable: (1) Bactolac Pharmaceutical, Inc.; (2) Independent
Vital Life, LLC; (3) HKW Capital Partners III, L.P.; and (4)
William Ruble.

On March 11, 2019, NaturMed's attorneys asserted that NaturMed is
now a dissolved corporation and moved to withdraw from the case.
That motion was granted by an Order of the same date.  The
Defendant, a corporation, has been advised of the need to secure
counsel.  But, to date, no attorney has appeared for the
Defendant.

As noted by NaturMed, the Plaintiff failed to address the Rule
16(b) good cause standard in his Motion, and instead focused his
argument on Rule 15(a)'s more lenient standard.  Henson also did
not file a reply brief to address NaturMed's Rule 16(b) arguments.
A failure to address Rule 16(b) in a motion to amend is "a lack of
diligence -- without which the court is hard-pressed to conclude
that good cause exists to modify the scheduling order.
Nevertheless, Henson's carelessness is not dispositive.

Henson alleges that the Court should grant leave to amend because
he could not have complied with the deadline in the Scheduling
Order.  He maintains that, while in the process of designating an
expert witness about matters not previously known to him, he very
recently discovered four indispensable parties that must be added
to the Complaint: Bactolac, Independent Vital, HKW Capital, and
Ruble.  Henson also asserts that there has been no undue delay or
bad faith on his part.  Additionally, he claims that because the
amended complaint would not assert a new cause of action against
NaturMed, it would not be prejudicial.

In opposition to the Motion, NaturMed claims that Henson has shown
a complete lack of diligence throughout the case.  For example,
NaturMed points to Henson taking over a month to properly file his
Motion after initially filing it incorrectly.

Judge Hollander holds that although the Plaintiff was tardy in his
filings, delay alone is not dispositive.  Henson did not display
the type of carelessness and lack of diligence that are hallmarks
of failure to meet the good cause standard.  In fact, his discovery
of the parties reflects his diligence.  Additionally, the Court
must consider whether Henson "acted in good faith," the length and
effect of his delay, and whether delay will prejudice NaturMed.

NaturMed does not contend, nor does the Judge see, any indication
that Henson filed his Motion in bad faith.  Moreover, the
Plaintiff's delay in seeking to add the parties does not prejudice
NaturMed, especially given that it is in default and has allegedly
dissolved.  Therefore, Henson has satisfied Rule 16(b)(4)'s good
cause standard, notwithstanding his delay.  For the same reasons,
Henson has also satisfied Rule 15(a)'s liberal standard.

For the reasons set forth, Judge Hollader (i) denied as moot the
Defendant's Discovery Motion, and (ii) granted the Plaintiff's
Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint, for Joinder of Additional
Parties, and to Amend the Scheduling Order.  An Order follows,
consistent with the Memorandum.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 15, 2019 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/07WAhA from Leagle.com.

James Henson, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Henry Edwards, IV
-- charles.edwards@robihoodlawyers.com -- Law Office of Barry R
Glazer PC.

NaturMed, Inc., doing business as Institute for Vibrant Living,
Defendant, pro se.

Bactolac Pharmaceutical, Inc., Independant Vital Life, LLC & HKW
Capital Partners III, L.P., Defendants, represented by Charles
Henry Edwards, IV, Law Office of Barry R Glazer PC.


OBALTAN INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA and NYLL, Park Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Do Hyun Park, on behalf of himself and other Plaintiffs similarly
situated known and unknown v. Obaltan Inc. d/b/a Miss Korea BBQ and
Sophia Lee, Case No. 1:19-cv-03196 (E.D.N.Y., May 29, 2019), arises
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law for
the Defendants' alleged failure to pay overtime compensation.

Obaltan, Inc., is a New York corporation doing business as Miss
Korea BBQ.  Sophia Lee is the president and owner of Obaltan, Inc.

The Defendants operate a Korean Barbeque Restaurant in Manhattan,
New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OCWEN LOAN: Amended $21.5MM Deal in Snyder Suit Has Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KEITH SNYDER and SUSAN MANSANAREZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. OCWEN LOAN
SERVICING, LLC, Defendant, TRACEE A. BEECROFT, Plaintiff, v. OCWEN
LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 14 C 8461, Consolidated
with Case No. 16 C 8677 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Matthew F. Kennelley of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, (i) granted the motion for final approval of the
amended settlement, subject to the modifications, and (ii) granted
in part the motion for attorneys' fees.

The Plaintiffs in these consolidated cases filed suit against Ocwen
on behalf of a putative class, alleging, among other things,
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").  They challenged
Ocwen's alleged practice of making debt-collection calls using an
automated telephone dialing system without the call recipients'
prior consent.

The parties reached a classwide settlement and moved for the Court
to approve it.  After thoroughly reviewing the settlement, the
Court declined to approve it.  

Following the Court's denial of the motion to approve the final
settlement agreement, the parties returned to mediation.  A fourth
mediation session -- the second with retired Judge Denlow --
occurred on July 20, 2017 and resulted in an improved settlement.
A number of the settlement's terms were unchanged from the original
proposal.

For instance, the settlement still provides for $1.6 million in
administration and notice costs and requests $75,000 (to be split
three ways) in incentive payments for the named Plaintiffs.
Likewise, the class counsel still requests a total of $96,380 in
costs -- $29,600 to be paid to Mark Ankcorn (reduced from his
original request for $35,000) and the remaining $66,780 to be
divided among the other firms that shared in representing the
Plaintiffs.

But the proposed amended settlement also makes several significant
changes.  Most significantly, the settlement fund provided for in
the agreement has increased by $4 million from $17.5 million to
$21.5 million.  Moreover, the class counsel seeks $500,000 less in
attorneys' fees, bringing that figure down from $5,289,250 in the
original settlement to $4,789,250 in the amended settlement.  Next,
the amended settlement also provides for dismissal of only the
Snyder and Beecroft suits against Ocwen and does not seek to
release the claims against the bank defendants.  Finally, the
proposed amendment adds to the injunctive relief described in the
original settlement.

The upshot, then, is that the proposed amendment provides at least
$4.5 million more for payment of the claims of the class members
who submitted claim forms and leaves the class free to pursue
claims against the bank defendants if it chooses.  Given the number
of class members who submitted claim forms, if the Court approves
the costs, fees, and incentive awards in the amounts requested,
each claim will be worth between $53 and $74, depending on the
Court's handling of disputed claim submissions and opt-outs.  Even
the lower end of this range compares quite favorably to the
approximately $39 recovery each claimant would have received under
the original settlement.

The Plaintiffs now move for final approval of the first amendment
to the settlement and for attorneys' fees.

Judge Kennelley concludes that the proposed settlement is fair,
reasonable and adequate.  He overruled the three objections made by
members of the Plaintiff class and further concludes that no
additional notice is necessary for approval of the amended
settlement.  Finally, he finds that certain late and otherwise
imperfect claims and opt-outs are authorized to proceed.

In the background of the discussion looms Mark Ankcorn's
ill-advised conduct in the months preceding the first proposed
settlement.  Ankcorn agreed to prosecute the case jointly with the
counsel from four other firms on behalf of the Plaintiff class.
Ankcorn's firm served as the lead class counsel for most of the
history of the case.  But in November 2017 Ocwen filed a motion
alleging that Ankcorn had potentially committed an ethical
violation by encouraging high-value members of the class he
represented to opt out and pursue their claims individually and had
violated the Court's protective order regarding information
produced by Ocwen.

The April 5 hearing also revealed several pieces of evidence that
tend to contradict Ankcorn's characterizations of his conduct.
First, Ankcorn's co-counsel pointed out that, by the time the first
round of letters was sent in the fall of 2016, there was no
investigation remaining to be done on the motion for a preliminary
injunction -- contrary to his testimony regarding the rationale for
the letters.  Second, contrary to Ankcorn's own representations to
the Court that he had never represented class members in individual
litigation against Ocwen, Ankcorn admitted that he had filed at
least one lawsuit in Florida on behalf of a small group of class
members with high-value claims.  Third, and perhaps most
importantly, the Court learned during the April 5 hearing that
Ankcorn's firm sent at least one member of the Snyder class a
retainer agreement for individual representation as an attachment
to a second-round letter.

The Judge concludes that Ankcorn's conduct created an unacceptable
risk to the Plaintiff class's settlement negotiations, for his own
gain and in conflict with the class' interests.  Likewise, although
Ankcorn is correct that his letter-writing campaign alone probably
could not have triggered paragraph 11.4 as it was eventually
written, his attempts to minimize the risk he created are
unconvincing.  Finally, he finds that the risk created by Ankcorn's
conduct was not harmless.  It is not possible to quantify exactly
what effect this loss in individual claim value to be discharged by
the settlement had on the agreement eventually reached by the
parties.  But it is clear that by encouraging high-value class
members to opt out of the class to pursue individual lawsuits,
Ankcorn harmed the class's interests in violation of his fiduciary
duty to it.

Because Ankcorn's conduct increased the risk of nonpayment for him
and for his co-counsel, the Judge will limit the Ankcorn Law Firm
to the $601,697.50 that Ankcorn represented the firm's services to
be worth in the April 2018 statement of lodestar hours.  Terrell
Marshall, Burke, Cabrera, and Heaney remain free to distribute the
remaining attorneys' fees according to their own internal agreement
or in any other reasonable manner -- so long as that distribution
does not allocate Ankcorn more than the amount awarded by the Court
in the order.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Kennelley granted the the motion for
final approval of the amended settlement subject to modifications,
while he granted in part the motion for attorneys' fees.  He
modified the settlement such that the distribution of the $21.5
million common fund is as follows: (1) $1.6 million to Epiq for the
costs of notice and administration; (2) $96,380 to the Plaintiffs'
counsel for costs; (3) $4,789,250 to the Plaintiffs' counsel for
fees, less any amount greater than $601,697.50 that the Ankcorn Law
Firm would have received by way of a risk multiplier, agreement
among the counsel, or otherwise; (4) $30,000 to named Plaintiffs
Keith Snyder, Susan Mansanarez, and Tracee Beecroft as incentive
awards; and (5) the remainder to compensate claimants as set
forth.

The Judge also ordered the class counsel to submit, by May 21,
2019, a status report detailing (1) the precise amount that the
Ankcorn Law Firm would be receiving but for the Court's order
(which per this order must be reallocated to the fund from which
claimants are compensated) and (2) how the class counsel intend to
allocate the remaining attorneys' fees award.  The Counsel are also
to submit by that date a draft judgment and order embodying the
Court's rulings.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 14, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/P8QZ4N from Leagle.com.

Keith Snyder, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Daniel Ankcorn --
MARK@ANKCORNLAW.COM -- Ankcorn Law Firm, PLLC, Adrienne D. McEntee
-- amcentee@terrellmarwill.com -- Terrell Marwill Law Group PLLC,
pro hac vice, Alexander Holmes Burke -- ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com --
Burke Law Offices, LLC, Ann Marie Hansen, Ann Marie Hansen, Beth
Ellen Terrell -- bterrell@terrellmarwill.com -- Terrell Marwill
Law
Group PLLC, pro hac vice, Daniel J. Marovitch, Burke Law Offices,
LLC, Guillermo Cabrera --  gil@cabrerafirm.com gil@cabrerafirm.com

-- The Cabrera Firm, Apc, Jared Matthew Quient, The Cabrera Firm,
pro hac vice & Mark Luther Heaney -- mark@heaneylaw.com -- Heaney
Law Firm, Llc.

Susan Mansanarez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Daniel Ankcorn,
Ankcorn Law Firm, PLLC, Adrienne D. McEntee, Terrell Marwill Law
Group PLLC, pro hac vice, Alexander Holmes Burke, Burke Law
Offices, LLC, Beth Ellen Terrell, Terrell Marwill Law Group PLLC,
pro hac vice & Daniel J. Marovitch, Burke Law Offices, LLC.

Tracee A. Beecroft, Plaintiff, pro se.

Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, Defendant, represented by Simon A.
Fleischmann -- sfleischmann@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP, Brian
Vincent Otero -- botero@hunton.com -- Hunton & Williams LLP, pro
hac vice, Chethan G. Shetty -- cshetty@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord
LLP, David F. Standa -- dstanda@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP,
Ryan Andrew Becker -- rbecker@hunton.com -- Hunton & Williams LLP,
pro hac  vice, Stephen Roy Blacklocks -- sblacklocks@hunton.com --
Hunton & Williams LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Justin Cunningham --
tcunningham@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP.

Zachariah C. Manning, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Erea
Lynette Stone, The Stone Law Office.

Wilmington Trust, N.A., Movant, represented by Frank A. Hirsch,
Jr.
-- frank.hirsch@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP, pro hac vice &
Kenneth Michael Kliebard -- kenneth.kliebard@morganlewis.com --
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

U.S. Bank, N.A. & Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Movants,
represented by Michael Kliebard -- william.kraus@morganlewis.com
--
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & William James Kraus, Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP.


PAM TRANSPORT: Sued by Rieck for Not Properly Paying Truck Drivers
------------------------------------------------------------------
NATHAN RIECK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. P.A.M. TRANSPORT, INC., and PAM CARTAGE CARRIERS, LLC,
Case No. 5:19-cv-05104-TLB (W.D. Ark., May 29, 2019), accuses the
Defendants of violating the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

Mr. Rieck alleges that the Defendants misclassified him and other
truck drivers as independent contractors when they are, in fact,
employees of the Defendants, have not been paid all minimum wages
owed to them, and have had improper deductions taken from their
pay.

P.A.M. Transport, Inc., is an Arkansas corporation headquartered in
Tontitown, Arkansas.  PAM Cartage Carriers, LLC, is located in
Indianapolis, Indiana.  The Defendants are in the transport
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Hillary Schwab, Esq.
          Rachel Smit, Esq.
          FAIR WORK, P.C.
          192 South Street, Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 607-3260
          Facsimile: (617) 488-2261
          E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com
                  rachel@fairworklaw.com


PETCO ANIMAL: Gatto et al. Seek OT Premium Pay for Groomers
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Petco Animal
Supplies, Inc. for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938, the New York Labor Law, and the common law. The case is
captioned CINDY GATTO; OLIVIA WILLIAMS; NICOLE TRAVIS; and, SHAY
BOYD, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated employees,
Plaintiffs, v. PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-03394-ARR-RML (E.D.N.Y., June 7, 2019). Plaintiffs allege
that the Defendant has violated the FLSA, NYLL and the common law
by its corporate policies and practices of failing to maintain
accurate records of time worked by Plaintiffs and the other
groomers, falsifying Plaintiffs and the other groomers' time
records, and failing to pay straight time and overtime wages.
Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant has a policy of altering or
overriding the time records in order to reduce the compensable work
time for times other than the lunch breaks.

Petco Animal Supplies, Inc., an American privately held pet
retailer with stores throughout the United States, maintains its
corporate headquarters in San Diego, California, owns and operates
over 1,000 stores in the states of New York, Florida, Illinois,
Idaho and other states. Petco sells pet products and services
(grooming, adoption, training), as well as certain types of live
animals. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Joseph H. Chivers, Esq.
     THE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS GROUP, LLC
     First & Market Building, Suite 650
     ICQ First Avenue
     Pittsburgh, PA 15222
     Telephone: (412) 227-0763
     Facsimile: (412) 774-1994
     E-mail: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com


PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Judges Hear Arguments on Funding Issue
----------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Canfield, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that sixteen judges on the Fifth Circuit heard arguments on May 14
on whether Texas can sever Planned Parenthood from the state's
Medicaid program, in a case stemming from a 2015 sting video made
by anti-abortion activists that supposedly shows clinic
representatives bartering the sale of fetal tissue.

The court's decision could also affect funding for Planned
Parenthood in Louisiana and Mississippi.

Texas Solicitor General Kyle Hawkins argued before the full panel
of New Orleans-based U.S. circuit judges on May 14 that it is
within the discretion of the states to choose which groups receive
Medicaid funds. Hawkins also said individual Medicaid recipients
cannot sue a state for denying funding to particular providers, as
recipients did in the 2017 suit at issue in the Fifth Circuit
hearing.  

Hawkins told the judges Planned Parenthood "had the opportunity to
avail themselves of the remedies that are built into the Medicaid
Act," but did not.

Jennifer Sandman, arguing for plaintiffs, said cutting Medicaid to
Planned Parenthood would violate plaintiffs' "free choice of
provider" rights.

A unanimous ruling in January from a three-judge panel of the Fifth
Circuit overturned a decision that barred Texas from eliminating
Planned Parenthood from the state's Medicaid program.

Following the release of the heavily edited fetal tissue-related
videos in 2015, Texas officials claimed Planned Parenthood and its
affiliates had misrepresented the services it provides, saying the
clinics engage in a "policy of agreeing to" and "willingness to
violate medical and ethical standards."

They alleged Planned Parenthood alters the type and timing of
abortions performed for the purposes of harvesting tissue.

In November 2015, five Planned Parenthood affiliates and seven Jane
Doe plaintiffs filed a federal class action seeking to preserve
Medicaid coverage for birth control, cancer screenings and other
non-abortion related health services that could affect as many as
11,000 people in Texas.

The full New Orleans-based federal appeals court agreed to hear the
case, which challenges a February 2017 preliminary injunction
issued by U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks in Austin.

Sparks found that Texas Health and Human Services Commission
"likely acted to disenroll qualified health care providers from
Medicaid without cause" and that doing so would violate Medicaid
recipients' rights and disrupt the care of thousands of patients.

The three-judge Fifth Circuit panel -- which included Judges Edith
Jones and Grady Jolly, both Reagan appointees, and Judge Catharina
Haynes, an appointee of George W. Bush -- sent the case back to
Judge Sparks for review in a January order, saying Sparks hadn't
followed the proper standard in his decision to issue the
injunction and that he should examine more closely whether Planned
Parenthood clinic staff members are "qualified" under Medicaid's
medical and ethical standards. The ruling also asked the court to
take a closer look at the issue, which led to the May 14 full-court
hearing.

Judge Sparks' injunction noted that investigations into the state's
allegations came up empty and said the sensational details,
including "secretly recorded video, fake names, a grand jury
indictment, [and] congressional investigations," added up to "a
best-selling novel rather than a case concerning the interplay of
federal and state authority through the Medicaid program."

The Fifth Circuit's January ruling, however, found that Planned
Parenthood Gulf Coast has sold tissue for outside research and
directed Sparks to give greater consideration to state findings on
whether clinic staff members are "qualified" under Medicaid's
medicinal and ethical standards.

The appeals court judges said that Texas' investigation of the
videos found that Planned Parenthood had "violated 'generally
accepted medical standards, and thus [was] not qualified to provide
medical services.'"

In 2017 the Fifth Circuit issued a split 7-7 decision on whether
Louisiana could withhold Medicaid funding from Planned Parenthood,
which ultimately upheld a district court ruling preserving the
funding. In December, the Supreme Court ruled against the state's
appeal.

In a statement after the May 14 hearing, the Texas Attorney
General's office said Hawkins' oral arguments made clear that
individual Medicaid recipients cannot use lawsuits to force
taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood.

"As the raw footage makes clear, Planned Parenthood is an
ethically-challenged organization at best," Hawkins said in the
statement. "This is exactly why Texas made the perfectly legal
decision to strip it of Medicaid funding."

"Texans shouldn't have to send any more precious tax dollars to
such a morally bankrupt organization," Hawkins added.

Planned Parenthood did not immediately reply on May 14 to a request
for comment.


PYXUS INTERNATIONAL: Jones Sues over Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------
DONNA JONES, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. PYXUS INTERNATIONAL, INC. f/k/a/
ALLIANCE ONE INTERNATIONAL, INC., J. PIETER SIKKEL, and JOEL L.
THOMAS, the Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00234 (E.D.N.C., June 7,
2017), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934. The case is a class action on behalf of persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Pyxus securities
between June 7, 2018 and November 8, 2018, inclusive.

On November 8, 2018, the Company disclosed that sales declined
approximately 12% year-over-year due to the timing of shipments and
the larger crop last year in South America. On this news, the
Company's share price fell $7.01, or nearly 28%, to close at $18.26
on November 8, 2018, on unusually heavy trading volume.

On November 9, 2018, the SEC announced that the Company had settled
charges that it had materially misstated financial statements with
the Commission from at least 2011 through the second quarter of
2015 due to improper and insufficient accounting, processes, and
control activities for inventory, deferred crop costs, and revenue
transactions in Africa. On this news, the Company's share price
fell $2.88, or nearly 16%, to close at $15.38 on November 9, 2018,
on unusually heavy trading volume.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company was experiencing longer shipping
cycles; (2) that, as a result, the Company's financial results
would be materially affected; (3) that the Company lacked adequate
internal control over financial reporting; (4) that the Company's
accounting policies were reasonably likely to lead to regulatory
scrutiny; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, the lawsuit says.

Pyxus is an agricultural company that historically focused on
purchasing, processing, and shipping tobacco to manufacturers of
cigarettes and other consumer tobacco products throughout the
world. In February 2018, the Company announced its plans to
diversify to include cannabis products. The Company changed its
name from Alliance One International, Inc. to Pyxus on September
12, 2018.[BN]

Attorneys for the the Plaintiff are:

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

               - and -

          Dhamian A. Blue, Esq.
          Daniel T. Blue, Jr., Esq.
          Daniel T. Blue, III, Esq.
          BLUE LLP
          205 Fayetteville Street, Suite 300
          Raleigh, NC 27601
          Telephone: (919) 833-1931
          Facsimile: (919) 833-8009
          E-mail: dab@bluellp.com
                  danblue@bluellp.com
                  dtb3@bluellp.com

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Henry Sues over Negligence, Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against American Medical
Collection Agency, Inc. (AMCA), Laboratory Corporation of America
Holdings (LabCorp), Quest Diagnostics Incorporated (Quest),
Optum360, LLC (Optum360), BioReference Laboratories, Inc. for
negligence, breach of implied contract, and for alleged violations
of the New York General Business Law and the Florida Deceptive And
Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA). The case is captioned KAESHA
GAYE CAMILIA HENRY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION
AGENCY, INC., LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, QUEST
DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED, OPTUM360, LLC, BIOREFERENCE LABORATORIES,
INC., and DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05392 (S.D.N.Y.,
June 7, 2019).

Plaintiff Kaesha Gaye Camilia Henry alleges that the Defendants, by
and through their negligent actions and/or inactions, breached
their duties to her and the class members by failing to design,
adopt, implement, control, manage, monitor, and audit their
processes, controls, policies, procedures, and protocols for
complying with applicable laws and safeguarding and protecting
Plaintiff's and nationwide class members' personal information
within their possession, custody, and control. In addition, the
Defendants have breached their implied contracts with Plaintiff and
the class by failing to safeguard and protect their personal
information and by failing to provide timely and accurate notice
that their personal information was compromised as a result of the
data breach. Defendants also failed to enact adequate privacy and
security measures to protect class members' personal information
from unauthorized disclosure, release, data breaches, and theft.
Plaintiff also asserts that the Defendants have violated the FDUTPA
by failing to inform their consumers including her and class
members, of its unsecure, non-compliant, and otherwise insufficient
data and information security practices. The Defendants still
advertised, sold, serviced, and otherwise induced those consumers
to purchase goods and services from Defendants.

AMCA also known as Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc., is a
New York corporation founded in 1977, with its principal place of
business in Elmsford, New York. It purports to be the leading
recovery agency for patient collections. Quest is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business in Secaucus, New
Jersey. It purports to be the world's leading provider of
diagnostic information services. Optum360 is a Delaware corporation
with its principal place of business in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. It
purports to be a leading information and technology-enabled health
services business. BioReference is a subsidiary of OPKO Health Inc.
Its principal place of business is in Elmwood Park, New Jersey. It
purports to be the nation's third-largest clinical laboratory.
LabCorp is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Burlington, North Carolina. It claims to be a leading
global life sciences company that is deeply integrated in guiding
patient care through its comprehensive clinical laboratory and
end-to-end drug development services. [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) 772-4707
     E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com
             mchoi@kaplanfox.com

             - and -

     Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
     Joel B. Straus, Esq.
     David A. Straite, Esq.
     850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Telephone: (212) 687-1980
     Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
     E-mail: ffox@kaplanfox.com


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Rahill Sues over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------
DEANNA RAHILL, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly
situated, the the Plaintiff, vs. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS and AMERICAN
MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-13510
(D.N.J., June 7, 2019), seeks a declaration that Class Members'
personally identifiable information ("PII") and/or personal health
information ("PHI"), and other sensitive information was accessed,
compromised, or stolen in the Quest/AMCA Data Breach.

The Plaintiff brings this action for herself and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated whose "PII" and/or PHI was compromised
by the Defendants when the information of up to 11,900,000
consumers may have been accessed as part of a breach of AMCA's
computer database.

The Plaintiff used the Quest Diagnostics facility located in Fort
Myers, Florida on numerous occasions, and has had laboratory work
conducted at the Fort Myers location recently.

In June of 2019, the Plaintiff reviewed news accounts suggesting
that the Plaintiff's PII and PHI may have been compromised in the
Quest/AMCA Data Breach. In addition to the damages, the Quest/AMCA
Data Breach has caused the Plaintiff Rahill to be at substantial
risk for further identity theft.

Quest employs AMCA, a billing collections vendor, as its agent for
collection of unpaid accounts and/or for other purposes. In the
course of that relationship, Quest entrusted AMCA with the PII and
PHI of Quest's patient customers. That PII and PHI included, among
other things, credit card numbers, bank account information,
medical information, and Social Security Numbers.

On June 3, 2019, Quest filed a Form 8-K with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission. In that Form 8-K, Quest stated
that, on May 14, 2019, AMCA notified Quest and its revenue cycle
management provider, Optum360, LLC, "of potential unauthorized
activity on AMCA's web payment.

Quest's June 3, 2019 Form 8-K went on to state that, AMCA informed
Quest and Optum360, LLC that "between August 1, 2018 and March 30,
2019 an unauthorized user had access to AMCA's system that
contained information that AMCA had received from various entities,
including Quest Diagnostics, and information that AMCA collected
itself; the information on AMCA's affected system included
financial information (e.g., credit card numbers and bank account
information), medical information and other personal information
(e.g., Social Security Numbers); as of May 31, 2019, AMCA believes
that the number of Quest Diagnostics patients whose information was
contained on AMCA's affected system was approximately 11.9 million
people; and AMCA has been in contact with law enforcement regarding
the incident."

Quest's June 3, 2014 Form 8-K also states that Quest "has insurance
coverage in place for certain potential liabilities and costs
relating to the incident; this insurance is limited in amount and
subject to a deductible."

In a statement that AMCA issued on June 3, 2019, AMCA stated that
it had received "information from a security compliance firm that
works with credit card companies of a possible security compromise"
at AMCA.

The Quest/AMCA Data Breach poses potential and actual problems for
consumers, including the ability of a perpetrator to gain access to
different areas of a victim's digital life (such as bank accounts,
social media, and credit card details) and to harvest other
sensitive data, as well as information belonging to family,
friends, and colleagues.

Healthcare and insurance companies have for years been on high
alert due to the risk of a criminal cyber-attack or other data
breach. There have been a number of high-profile data breaches in
the industry, and the FBI and others have warned companies they
will continue to be targets because they maintain sensitive,
personal information that is also highly valuable to
cybercriminals. In particular, the combination of social security
numbers, PII such as names, addresses, and birth dates, and PHI,
including medical histories, allows criminals to engage in
identity
theft as well as medical fraud which, for example, can cause
patients to receive a bill for medical treatment they never
received or to be denied treatment because of inaccuracies in their
records, the lawsuit says.

On its website, www.questdiagnostics.com, Quest touts itself as
"the world's leading provider of diagnostic information services."
Quest also states that it "touches the lives of 30 percent of
American adult each year," "serves about half of the physicians and
hospitals in the U.S.," and has "access to approximately 90% of
U.S. insured lives Quest was listed among the 2018 Fortune 500
Companies and in the Forbes 2018 Global 2000. In 2017, Quest's
revenues were approximately $7.71 billion, again according to
Quest's website. According to AMCA's website, www.amcaonline.com,
"AMCA is one of the nation's top agencies managing over $1BN in
annual receivables."[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class are:

          Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
          Newark, NJ 7102
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000
          Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
          E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
          Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
          Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
          SAUDER SCHELKOPF, LLC
          555 Lancaster Avenue
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (610) 200-0580
          Facsimile: (610)727-4360
          E-mail: jgs@sstriallawyers.com
                  mds@sstriallawyers.com
                  jbk@sstriallawyers.com

RCI HOSPITALITY: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, captioned Hoffman v. RCI Hospitality
Holdings, Inc. et al., (Case No. 4:19-cv-01841), on behalf of
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired RCI
Hospitality Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: RICK) ("RCI Hospitality" or the
"Company") securities between February 14, 2018 and May 10, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").

Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from May 21,
2019, the date of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff in this action.

On December 11, 2018, RCI Hospitality stated that it could not
timely file its annual report with the SEC due to "delays in
completing the audit of its financial statements for the year ended
September 30, 2018."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.37, or
approximately 6%, to close at $22.33 per share on December 12,
2018, thereby injuring investors.

Then, on May 10, 2019, RCI Hospitality stated that it could not
timely file its quarterly report with the SEC for the period ended
March 31, 2019 due to pending investigations concerning negative
articles published in mid- and late 2018 about the company.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.67, or over 7%, to
close at $20.48 per share on May 13, 2019, thereby injuring
investors further.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company engaged in numerous transactions
with the CEO, including lending him significant sums of money; (2)
that these practices were reasonably likely to lead to regulatory
scrutiny of the Company; (3) that, as a result of investigations
into the Company's governance, the Company would be unable to
timely file its financial statements; and (4) that, as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased RCI Hospitality securities during the Class
Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date
of this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff.
To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this
time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and
remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more
about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925
Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at
310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.
[GN]


RICHARD STOLLMEYER: Luxor Capital Files Statement of Good Cause
---------------------------------------------------------------
Counsel for Plaintiffs in the case captioned LUXOR CAPITAL
PARTNERS, LP, LUXOR CAPITAL PARTNERS OFFSHORE MASTER FUND, LP,
LUXOR WAVEFRONT, LP, and LUGARD ROAD CAPITAL MASTER FUND, LP, on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated stockholders
of MINDBODY, INC., Plaintiffs, v. RICHARD L. STOLLMEYER, BRETT
WHITE, and ERIC LIAW, Defendants, Case No. 2019-0442 filed a
Statement of Good Cause with the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware on June 12, 2019.

It is the opinion of counsel that this action should not be
assigned to a Master in the first instance because this is an
action for breach of fiduciary duty arising from the $1.9 billion
acquisition of Mindbody, Inc. Related actions have been assigned to
Chancellor Bouchard.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

          - and -

     Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
     Jeroen van Kwawegen, Esq.
     Christopher J. Orrico, Esq.
     Andrew E. Blumberg, Esq.
     BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
     1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
     New York, NY 10020
     Phone: (212) 554-1400


ROSADO NAIL: Nguyen Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
VAN NGUYEN, the Plaintiff, vs. ROSADO NAIL & SPA SALON LLC and
IVETTE ROSADO, the Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-01397 (M.D. Fla.,
June 7, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid wages and/or overtime,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs owed to
Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Mr. Nguyen worked for Defendants from October 2018 to February 25,
2019. He was promised payment of $700.00 per week for 47.5 hours of
work each week or an equivalent rate of $12.73 per hour. The
Defendants failed to correctly pay Mr. Nguyen for the work he
performed in the week of January 20, 2019 to January 25, 2019. He
was paid $256.15 for the week instead of the $700 that he was owed.
Additionally, the Plaintiff worked on February 25, 2019 and was
never paid the wages owed of $140 for the 9.5 hours of work he
performed on that day.

The lawsuit notes that the Plaintiff's duties were such that they
did not satisfy the requirements of any of the exemptions to
minimum wage, hourly pay, and over time set forth in the FLSA and
other applicable law.  His job duties and responsibilities did not
include the authority to hire and fire employees, and his
recommendations in this regard were not given weight over those of
other employees, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Gary L. Printy, Jr., Esq.
          PRINTY & PRINTY, P.A.
          3411 W Fletcher Ave, Ste A
          Tampa, FL 33618
          Telephone: (813) 434-0649
          Facsimile: (813) 423-6543
          E-mail: garyjr@printylawfirm.com
                  jason.imler@printylawfirm.com
                  toni.harrold@printylawfirm.com

SANDALS RESORTS: McCoy Files Suit in S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sandals Resorts
International LTD. The case is styled as MICHAEL MCCOY on his own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Sandals Resorts International LTD doing business as: Sandals,
Unique Vacations Inc. doing business as: Unique Vacations,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-22462-BB (S.D. Fla., June 13, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Sandals Resorts is a Jamaican operator of all-inclusive resorts for
couples in the Caribbean and part of Sandals Resorts International,
parent company of Sandals Resorts, Beaches Resorts, Grand Pineapple
Beach Resorts, Fowl Cay Resort and several private villas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel Wayne Grammes, Esq.
     Marc E Weiner, Esq.
     Jason Robert Margulies, Esq.
     Michael A. Winkleman, Esq.
     Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina, and Winkleman, P.A.
     2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1776
     Miami, FL 33131
     Phone: (305) 962-6988
     Fax: (305) 373-6204
     Email: dgrammes@lipcon.com
            mweiner@lipcon.com
            crewlawyer@aol.com
            mwinkleman@lipcon.com

          - and -

     Howard Mitchell 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: howard@moskowitz-law.com
            joseph@moskowitz-law.com


SANTA CRUZ, CA: Ninth Cir. Appeal Filed in Kuhl Civil Rights Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Alicia Kuhl, et al., filed an appeal from a Court ruling
in their lawsuit titled Alicia Kuhl, et al. v. City of Santa Cruz,
et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-01898-EJD, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, San Jose.

The nature of suit is stated as other civil rights.

The appellate case is captioned as Alicia Kuhl, et al. v. City of
Santa Cruz, et al., Case No. 19-16104, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Plaintiffs-Appellant ALICIA KUHL, and All Others Similarly Situated
Residents of The Ross Homeless Encampment, of Santa Cruz,
California, appears pro se.[BN]

Defendant-Appellee CITY OF SANTA CRUZ is represented by:

          Anthony P. Condotti, Esq.
          ATCHISON, BARISONE, CONDOTTI & KOVACEVICH
          333 Church Street
          Santa Cruz, CA 95060
          Telephone: (831) 423-8383
          E-mail: acondotti@abc-law.com

Defendant-Appellee TAKE BACK SANTA CRUZ is represented by:

          Brad C. Brereton, Esq.
          BRERETON LAW OFFICE APC
          1362 Pacific Avenue, Suite 220
          Santa Cruz, CA 95060
          Telephone: (831) 429-6391
          E-mail: bcb@brereton.law


SEJA INC: Sanders Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN D. SANDERS, and others similarly situated v. SEJA, INC., a
Florida corporation, DOWNTOWN 36484, INC., a Florida corporation,
NUMBER FIVE, INC., a Florida corporation, 25063 FRENCH AVE
CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, and ALEXANDRE DEGAN,
individually, Case No. 6:19-cv-00992-RBD-GJK (M.D. Fla., May 29,
2019), seeks to recover alleged overtime wages owed to the
Plaintiff and all current and former similarly situated convenience
store clerks pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Seja, Inc., is a Florida Corporation having its principal place of
business is Orange County, Florida.  25063 French Ave Corporation
is a Florida Corporation having its principal place of business is
Seminole County, Florida.  Downtown 36484, Inc., is a Florida
Corporation having its principal place of business is Orange
County, Florida.  Number Five, Inc., is a Florida Corporation
having its principal place of business is Orange County, Florida.

The Defendants all operate convenience stores in Orange and
Seminole Counties, Florida, under the fictitious names of "7-11"
and all Defendants are owned and operated by Defendant Alexandre
Degan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          N. James Turner, Esq.
          DEBT RELIEF LAW CENTER
          100 S. Bumby Avenue
          Orlando, FL 32803
          Telephone: (888) 877-5103
          E-mail: njtlaw@gmail.com


SMITH MEDICAL: Sawyer Sues over Unsolicited Advertisements
----------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM P. SAWYER, M.D,, individually and as the representative of
a class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. SMITH
MEDICAL PARTNERS, LLC and H.D. SMITH, LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-03803 (N.D. Ill., June 7, 2019), challenges Defendants'
practice of sending "unsolicited advertisements" by facsimile,
pursuant to 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
September 15, 2017. The Fax promotes the availability or quality of
Defendants' property, goods or services by way of offering "Fast,
secure distribution services."[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          Ross M. Good, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: 847-368-1500
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
                  rgood@andersonwanc.com

SMITH VOLKSWAGEN: Rogers Files FCRA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SMITH VOLKSWAGEN,
LTD. The case is styled as AALIYAH ROGERS on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SMITH VOLKSWAGEN, LTD.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02567-AB (E.D. Pa., June 13, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Smith Volkswagen, Ltd. has been a Volkswagen dealer for over 50
years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     RICHARD H. KIM, ESQ.
     The Kim Law Firm, LLC
     1635 Market St., Suite 1600
     PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
     Phone: (855) 996-6342
     Fax: (855) 235-5855
     Email: rkim@thekimlawfirmllc.com


SOUTHLAND ROYALTY: Court Denies Bid to Compel in Ulibarri Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GERALD ULIBARRI and WHITE RIVER ROYALTIES, LLC,
Plaintiffs, v. SOUTHLAND ROYALTY COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:16-cv-00215-RB-JHR (D. N.M.), Magistrate Judge Jerry H. Ritter of
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico denied the
Defendant's Motion to Compel

Plaintiff Ulibarri filed his Class Action Complaint on Oct. 16,
2015 in the Eleventh Judicial District Court in San Juan New
Mexico, alleging that Southland underpaid royalties to him and to
other members of the putative class on natural gas produced by
Southland from wells located in the state of New Mexico since Jan.
1, 2015.  Southland removed the action from state court on March
22, 2016.  The parties are engaged in discovery in advance of and
pertaining to the class certification hearing set for Sept. 9,
2019.

At issue in the instant Motion are Southland's Interrogatory No. 4
and Request for Production No. 9 to Plaintiff Ulibarri:

     a. Interrogatory No. 4: Identify each Royalty Interest you own
or have owned in any natural gas producing property.  For each
interest, state (1) the type of interest (i.e., royalty, overriding
royalty interest, or unleased mineral interest), (b) the geographic
location of the property by county and state, (c) the well name or
number, (d) your percentage of interest, (e) the names of all
payors, current and past, (f) the names of all operators, current
and past (g) the name of any unit to which the interest is
committed, (h) the dates of your ownership of such interests, (i)
how the property was acquired, e.g., by gift, purchase, exchange,
inheritance or devise, or any other method by which you acquired or
claim to have acquired such interest, and if by multiple
conveyances, separately identify each conveyance by grantor,
grantee, date and percentage ownership conveyed, (j) the
methodology used to calculate that interest, (k) the dates upon
which you became aware of the methodology, (l) how you became aware
of the methodology, (m) all social security numbers or taxpayer
identification numbers under which you have received payments
attributable to any mineral interest you claim to own, and (n) the
total amount of royalties you received from each payor.

     b. Request for Production No. 9: With respect to Interrogatory
Number 4, (a) all documents relating to the basis for paying
royalties identified in Interrogatory 4, and the method for
calculating such payments; (b) all contracts, agreements, and other
instruments relating to your working interests; (c) all leases,
division orders, unit agreements, and other agreements relating to
your payment of Royalties; and (d) all documents relating to your
payment of Royalty Interests, including samples of each type of
check detail or monthly statement used in making such payments.

Through the discovery requests, Southland seeks information
regarding Plaintiff Ulibarri's knowledge and understanding of
royalty payment language, custom and industry practice.  According
to Southland, Plaintiff Ulibarri's participation in and
understanding of the natural gas industry, including leases and
royalty payments is directly relevant to the certification of the
putative class, specifically Rule 23(a)'s commonality, typicality,
and adequate representation requirements.

Plaintiff Ulibarri objected to these discovery requests as overly
broad as they are not limited in geographical or temporal scope.
He further objected on relevance grounds, asserting that the
information sought is not relevant to the claims in the litigation,
which are based on Southland's New Mexico natural gas production
since Jan. 1, 2015, or to the class certification requirements set
forth by Rule 23(a).

The parties attempted in good faith to resolve their discovery
disputes.  However, the parties were not able to come to an
agreement relative to Southland's requests for information about
each royalty interest that he currently owns or has owned in any
natural gas producing property, which Southland claims is relevant
for purposes of class certification, and now seeks to compel.

Southland states in conclusory fashion that Plaintiff Ulibarri's
experience with other contracts, which is the core of the discovery
requests at issue, will shed light on the question of commonality.
However, Magistrate Judge Ritter finds that it fails to explain how
or why Plaintiff Ulibarri's experience with other contracts bears
on whether there are material differences in the leases of the
putative members of the class in the litigation which would
threaten the commonality of their claims.  Moreover, none of the
authority on which Southland relies in support of this argument
involves an analysis of the potential relevance of third-party
contracts which were not at issue in the cases at bar.

Under Rule 23, typicality requires that the claims of the class
representative and the putative class be based upon the same
alleged conduct and legal theory.  This inquiry does not require
consideration of the class representative's knowledge or experience
in the industry from which the claims are borne.  Accordingly, the
Magistrate is not persuaded that the discovery sought is relevant
to the typicality requirement.

Finally, Southland maintains that Plaintiff Ulibarri's experience
and understanding of the natural gas industry, including leases and
royalty payments is relevant to his understanding the nature of his
claim and the nature of the claims of the putative class members
"who are factually dissimilar."  According to Southland, one way to
demonstrate that Plaintiff Ulibarri possesses sufficient
information or is otherwise invested in the interests of putative
class members who are factually dissimilar to meet Rule 23's
adequacy requirement is to review his participation in the natural
gas industry, including his other natural gas interests.  

However, the Magistrate finds that Southland has not articulated
how Plaintiff Ulibarri's participation in the natural gas industry,
including his natural gas interests unrelated to the litigation,
are relevant to his general understanding of the claims at issue.
Nor has Southland indicated that such participation in the natural
gas industry would inform the Court's analysis of any potential
conflict of interest between Plaintiff Ulibarri's interests and
those of the putative class.

For the foregoing reasons, Magistrate Judge Ritter finds that
Southland has not demonstrated that Plaintiff Ulibarri's
understanding of and participation in the natural gas industry,
leases, and royalties, outside the context of the present case is
relevant to the requirements for class certification.  Accordingly,
he denied the Defendant Southland's Motion to Compel.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 15, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and
Order is available at https://is.gd/I1NNd6 from Leagle.com.

Gerald Ulibarri, Plaintiff, represented by George Barton --
gab@georgebartonlaw.com -- Law Offices of George Barton, P.C. &
Stacy Burrows -- stacy@georgebartonlaw.com -- Law Offices of George
A. Barton, PC.

Southland Royalty Company LLC, Defendant, represented by Matthew A.
Zidovsky -- mzidovsky@montand.com -- Montgomery & Andrews, P.A.,
Sharon Theresa Shaheen -- sshaheen@montand.com -- Montgomery &
Andrews & Mark D. Christiansen, McAfee & Taft, P.C., pro hac vice.


SSMK INC: Comonfort Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Comonfort, Manuel Calderon Menendez, and Silbino Tellez Gomez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. SSMK, Inc. d/b/a Triple A Restaurant, and Jack Shin,
as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05498 (S.D. N.Y.,
June 12, 2019) seeks to recover damages for violations of state and
federal wage and hour laws arising out of Plaintiffs' employment
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Although Plaintiffs worked approximately 60 hours or more per week
during the period of their employment by Defendants, they were not
paid time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation
of the overtime provision contained in the FLSA and NYLL, says the
complaint.

Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants from February 2007 until
March 2019.

SSMK, Inc. d/b/a Triple A Restaurant is a corporation organized
under the laws of New York with a principal executive office at
2061 2nd Avenue, New York, NY 10029.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
     Helen f. Dalton & Associated, P.C.
     80—02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
     Kew Gardens, NY 11415
     Phone: 718-263-9591
     Fax: 718-263-9598


STARBUCKS: Faces Class Action Over Toxic Pesticide Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Naham, writing for Law & Crime, reports that a class action
lawsuit was filed on May 21 against Starbucks at the New York State
Supreme Court, alleging that the coffee company exposed customers
to a "toxic pesticide" Dichlorvos (DDVP) and "knowingly put its
customers' well-being at risk" in Manhattan stores.

Christopher George, Jessica Chandra, Lisa Jame, Chelsea Maley,
April Boddie, Mickael Louis, Eduardo Leach, Josh Folan, Logan
Vairo, and Basma Attieh are named plaintiffs in the class. They and
lawyers at Wigdor LLP alleged that Starbucks stores in Manhattan
have "for many years been permeated with a toxic pesticide" known
as DDVP. DDVP was described as a "highly poisonous and completely
unfit for use in proximity to food, beverages and people."

The lawsuit says that DDVP is an ingredient in a product called
No-Pest Strips. The product is meant to emit DDVP into the airspace
of "unoccupied structures" to "rid such structures of vermin, bugs
and insects."

"However, they are explicitly not to be used anywhere human beings
are present, and especially in situations where the pesticide could
come into contact with food and/or drinks," the lawsuit said. It
was further alleged that Starbucks employees and "third-party
exterminators" informed regional and district managers "[o]n
numerous occasions over the last several years" about the the use
of No-Pest Strips in Manhattan stores.

Plaintiffs alleged violations of General Business Law §349 and §
350, and demand a jury trial.

"New Yorkers deserve to know what they are putting in their bodies
and we call upon Starbucks to explain, as we allege in the
complaint, its failure to take appropriate care for its customers'
well-being," attorney Douglas H. Wigdor said in a statement
obtained by Law&Crime.

A Starbucks spokesperson pushed back on these claims, however.

"We take pride in creating a safe environment for our employees and
customers, and any products used in our stores must meet high
safety standards in order to comply with our company guidelines,"
the spokesperson told Law&Crime. "Upon hearing reports that
employees had used a product that violated company guidelines,
Starbucks immediately instructed local leadership to remove these
products. We can confirm that these products have been removed and
our stores are safe."

"Additionally, we consulted with experts who concluded that
employees and customers were not exposed to health risk," the
spokesperson continued.

Starbucks itself also released a statement, saying the lawsuit
lacks merit and is an attempt to "incite public fear."

"The lawsuits filed by the plaintiffs and their attorneys lack
merit and are an attempt to incite public fear for their own
financial gain. We go to great length to ensure the safety of our
partners and customers, and we are confident they have not been put
at risk," the statement said. "Starbucks takes the concerns of its
partners very seriously and does not take action or retaliate
against partners who express them." [GN]


SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Court Consolidates Velazquez with Butler
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JON-ADRIAN VELAZQUEZ, Plaintiff, v. SUFFOLK COUNTY and
SUFFOLK COUNTY JAIL, Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-5115 (JS) (ARL)
(E.D. N.Y.), Judge Joanna Seybert of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York granted the Plaintiff's
application to proceed in forma pauperis.

On Sept. 7, 2018, incarcerated pro se Plaintiff filed a Complaint
together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis but did
not submit the required Prisoner Litigation Authorization form
("PLRA").  By Notice of Deficiency dated Sept. 11, 2018, the
Plaintiff was instructed to complete and return the enclosed PLRA
within 14 days in order for his case to proceed.  On Sept. 19,
2018, he timely filed the PLRA and, on Sept. 27, 2018, the
Plaintiff filed an application for the appointment of pro bono
counsel to represent him in the case.

Upon review of the declarations in support of the application to
proceed in forma pauperis, Judge Seybert finds that the Plaintiff
is qualified by his financial status to commence the action without
prepayment of the filing fee.  Accordingly, she will grant his
application to proceed in forma pauperis.

Pursuant to the Court's Jan. 23, 2012 Order of Consolidation in
Butler, et al. v. DeMarco, et al., No. 11-CV-2602 (JS) (GRB), the
Judge has reviewed the instant Complaint and finds that it relates
to the subject matter of the Consolidated Action.  Accordingly, the
instant action will be consolidated with the Consolidated Action.

This affects Plaintiff in the following ways:

     1. The Plaintiff in th action will become a member of the
certified classes in Butler (11-CV-2602);

     2. Any claims in the instant Complaint that are not included
in the Consolidated Amended Complaint in Butler will be severed
(see Order of Consol. at 17 (describing the process for proceeding
with any severed claims after the resolution of the Consolidated
Action)); and

     3. The Plaintiff, as a member of the class, will be
represented by pro bono counsel, Shearman & Sterling LLP.

A copy of the Order of Consolidation and the operative complaint in
Butler -- the Consolidated Amended Complaint -- are annexed to the
Order.

If the Plaintiff does not wish to proceed as a member of the
Consolidated Action, he must so indicate in a letter to the Court
within 30 days of receiving a copy of the Order.  Upon receipt of
such a letter, the Court will direct the Clerk of the Court to
sever the Complaint from the Consolidated Amended Complaint and
reopen and reinstate his individual pro se action.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Seybert granted the Plaintiff's
application to proceed in forma pauperis.  The Clerk of the Court
is directed to consolidate the matter with Butler.  Given the
consolidation, the Judge denied as moot the Plaintiff's application
for the appointment of pro bono counsel.  The Clerk of the Court is
directed to mail a copy of the Order, the Order of Consolidation,
and the Consolidated Amended Complaint to the Plaintiff at his last
known address; and to mark the case closed.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 15, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/qOmGvk from Leagle.com.

Jon-Adrian Velazquez, Plaintiff, pro se.


TIME INC: Hall Balks at Auto Renewal of Magazine Subscription
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Time, Inc. and
Meredith Corp. for alleged violations of the California's Unfair
Competition Law, the California's Automatic Renewal Law, the
California Penal Code section 496, and conversion. The case is
captioned LINDA HALL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. TIME, INC., a Delaware
corporation; MEREDITH CORP., an Iowa corporation; and DOES 1-100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-01153 (C.D. Cal., June 10,
2019).

Hall alleges that the Defendants failed to present the automatic
renewal offer terms or continuous service offer terms in visual
proximity to the request for consent to the offer before the
subscription or purchasing agreement was fulfilled. Plaintiff also
claims that the Defendants charged her and the class members'
credit and debit cards, or third-party accounts without first
obtaining their affirmative consent to the agreement containing the
automatic renewal offer terms or continuous service offer terms.

Meredith Corporation is, according to its website,
https://www.meredith.com, the largest magazine company in the
world. Meredith is an Iowa corporation with its headquarters in Des
Moines, Iowa.

Time, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
office and headquarters in New York and its principal office in the
state of California located in Los Angeles, California. Time is a
subsidiary of Meredith Corporation. Time publishes, markets and
sells magazine subscriptions in the United States and California.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Trotter, Esq.
     David P. Pruett, Esq.
     CARROLL, KELLY, TROTTER, FRANZEN, McBRIDE & PEABODY
     111 West Ocean Boulevard, 14th Floor
     Post Office Box 22636
     Long Beach, CA 90801-5636
     Telephone: (562) 432-5855
     Facsimile: (562) 432-8785
     E-mail: mitrotter@cktfmlaw.com
             dppruett@cktfmlaw.com


TRUCK INSURANCE: Wintersteen Appeals Judgment to Pa. Sup. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Mark Wintersteen, et al., filed an appeal to the Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania from the Appellate Court's Judgment entered
on August 24, 2018, in their lawsuit entitled Mark Wintersteen,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et
al., Appellants v. Truck Insurance Exchange, Appellee, Case No.
1730 EDA 2017, in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

The Supreme Court case is styled Wintersteen, M., et al. v. Truck
Insurance Exchange, Case No. 13 EAP 2019.

The Lower Court case is titled Mark Wintersteen, Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al. v. Truck
Insurance Exchange, in the Philadelphia County Court of Common
Pleas.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Jack A.
Panella of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed the trial
court's orders granting partial summary judgment to Truck's
insureds, Konrad Kurach and Mark Wintersteen on the issue of
whether general contractor overhead and profit ("GCOP") is to be
included in an actual cash value settlement under their insurance
policies with Truck.

The trial court finds that all four factors weigh heavily in favor
of permitting immediate appeal.  As to the first factor, there is a
significant relationship between the adjudicated breach of contract
claim and the remaining issues in the case, which are: (1) whether
class certification is appropriate, (2) the Plaintiff's claim for
bad faith, and (3) the Plaintiff's damages.  Its analysis of
Truck's insurance policy language and its determination that Truck
may not withhold general contractor overhead and profit from Step-1
actual cash value payments are central to determining whether the
case may proceed as a class action.  This is because the putative
class members are likely subject to identical contractual
language.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Wintersteen, Mark, et al., are represented
by:

          Howard Glenn Silverman, Esq.
          KANE & SILVERMAN, P.C.
          2401 Pennsylvania Ave., Suite 1A5
          Philadelphia, PA 19130-3010
          Telephone: (215) 232-1000
          E-mail: hgs@palegaladvice.com

               - and -

          James C. Haggerty, Esq.
          HAGGERTY, GOLDBERG, SCHLEIFER & KUPERSMITH, P.C.
          1835 Market St., Suite 2700
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 350-6600
          E-mail: jhaggerty@hgsklawyers.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Wheeler, Esq.
          JONATHAN WHEELER, P.C.
          1270 1 Penn Ctr.
          1617 John F Kennedy Blvd.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 568-2900
          E-mail: jwheeler@wdblegal.com

Defendant-Appellee Truck Insurance Exchange is represented by:

          Robert N. Feltoon, Esq.
          Andrew Kabnick Garden, Esq.
          CONRAD O'BRIEN PC
          Centre Square West Tower
          1500 Market St., Suite 3900
          Philadelphia, PA 19102-2100
          Telephone: (215) 864-8064
          E-mail: rfeltoon@conradobrien.com
                  agarden@conradobrien.com


UBS FINANCIAL: 5th Cir. Dismisses Enron Collapse Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Levi Lass, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that the
Fifth Circuit dismissed a class action against UBS Financial
Services Inc. brought by individual retail-brokerage customers
affected by the fall of Enron in the early 2000s.

The action against UBS was previously tied to a multidistrict
litigation against Enron until the class opted to continue on its
own. That complaint was eventually amended multiple times and
finally dismissed for failure to state a claim, and was also found
to be untimely by the Fifth Circuit.

The plaintiffs fell into two categories, retail-brokerage customers
who bought Enron securities, and former employees who optioned for
stock through employment securities, according to the 22-page
ruling. Enron's actions spurred the world's largest Chapter 11
bankruptcy at the time.     

"According to the complaint, Enron began to 'seriously manipulate
its financials,' to conceal the negative effects of its accounting
practices on public financial statements." Wrote Judge Patrick
Higginbotham.  "After a series of financial disclosures and
restatements, events spiraled. The company's CFO, Andrew Fastow,
was placed on a leave of absence, the Board of Directors formed a
special committee to investigate the financial disclosures, and
eventually, Enron filed for bankruptcy."

The class argued that Enron and UBS had a "mutually self serving
relationship that took precedence over and conflicted with the
interests of UBS's retail customers." The class also claimed UBS
knew of Enron's "financial chicanery," and knew about sensitive
nonpublic material concerning Enron's "financial manipulations."

Following a stay from the Supreme Court pending a separate case,
the class moved to amended its complaint a fourth time which was
denied as untimely by the district court, which the Fifth Circuit
approved.

Judge Patrick E. Higginbotham wrote that the revised complaint was
untimely as the class waited two years after the Supreme Court stay
was lifted to pursue their amended claim.           


UNITED STATES: Montrois Files Petition for Writ of Certiorari
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Brittany Montrois, et al., filed with the Supreme Court
of United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter
styled Brittany Montrois, et al. v. United States, Case No.
18-1493.

Response is due on July 1, 2019.

The Lower Court Case is titled BRITTANY MONTROIS, CLASS OF MORE
THAN 700,000 SIMILARLY SITUATED INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES, ET AL.
v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 17-5204, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The District Court case is captioned Brittany Montrois, et al. v.
USA, Case No. 1:14-cv-01523-RCL, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia.

The Plaintiffs-Petitioners want the Supreme Court to determine
whether a U.S. court of appeals can explicitly decline to follow
U.S. Supreme Court precedent requiring a voluntary act and a
"special benefit" for an agency to charge a user fee, and instead
apply its own three-pronged test to determine whether user fees can
be charged annually under 31 U.S.C. Section 9701 to a class of
approximately 1,500,000 tax return preparers with respect to
registration and re-registration of a permanent identification
number used by the Internal Revenue Service?

According to the Petition, under SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194
(1947), when the administrative record clearly shows the grounds
for an agency's charging of user fees via seven (7) separate clear
consistent statements and the lawfulness of those grounds is
invalidated by a U.S. court of appeals, can the agency's simple
mention of a potential favorable byproduct in a related regulation
supply the basis for the same court of appeals to uphold agency
action?  To Petitioners' knowledge, these issues have not been
previously addressed by any U.S. district court or U.S. court of
appeals.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge
Padmanabhan Srikanth Srinivasan (i) vacated the judgment of the
district court that IRS lacks statutory authority to charge the
fee; and (ii) remanded the case for further proceedings.

Tax-return preparers are persons who prepare clients' tax returns
for compensation.  The IRS regulations require preparers to obtain
from the agency (and renew annually) a unique identifying number
known as a Preparer Tax Identification Number ("PTIN").  Preparers
must list that PTIN on any return they prepare.

In 2010, the IRS began charging tax-return preparers a fee to
obtain and renew PTINs.  The fee is designed to recoup the costs to
the agency of issuing and maintaining a database of PTINs.  As
authority to exact the PTIN fee, the IRS relies on the Independent
Offices Appropriations Act, which allows federal agencies to charge
fees for services in certain conditions.

A group of tax-return preparers challenged the first set of
regulations: the registered-tax return preparer system establishing
a registration and credentialing system for preparers.  The
Plaintiffs argued that the IRS lacks authority under the Internal
Revenue Code to establish a licensing system for tax-return
preparers.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners Brittany Montrois, et al., are represented
by:

          Allen Buckley, Esq.
          ALLEN BUCKLEY LLC
          2727 Paces Ferry Road, Suite 750
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (404) 610-1936
          E-mail: ab@allenbuckleylaw.com

Defendant-Respondent United States of America is represented by:

          Noel J. Francisco, Esq.
          SOLICITOR GENERAL
          UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20530-0001
          Telephone: (202) 514-2000
          E-mail: SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov


USAA CASUALTY: Removes Mack Suit to Southern District of Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
USAA Casualty Insurance Company removes the case, LEROY MACK,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendant, Case
No. CACE-19-008703 (Filed April 22, 2019), from the Circuit Court
of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida, to
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on May 31, 2019. The Southern District of Florida Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 0:19-cv-61366-MGC to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges he was insured under a Florida motor vehicle
insurance policy issued by USAA CIC. The Plaintiff further alleges
that he was involved in a motor vehicle accident on or about
February 7, 2019. The Plaintiff made a claim with USAA CIC arising
from this accident, and USAA CIC declared the vehicle a total loss
under the applicable insurance policy.

The Plaintiff has filed suit against USAA and asserts one count for
declaratory relief and one count of breach of contract. Plaintiff
is seeking class certification with respect to both claims pursuant
to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

         Scott R. Jeeves, Esq.
         THE JEEVES LAW GROUP, P.A.
         954 First Avenue North
         St. Petersburg, FL 33705
         E-mail: sjeeves@jeeveslawgroup.com
                 khill@jeeveslawgroup.com
                 pashe@jeeveslawgroup.com
                 lawclerk@jeeveslawgroup.com
                 rmandel@jeevesmandellawgroup.com

              - and -

         Craig E. Rothburd, Esq.
         CRAIG E. ROTHBURD, P.A.
         320 W Kennedy Blvd, Suite 700
         Tampa, FL 33606
         E-mail: craig@rothburdpa.com
                 crothburd@e-rlaw.com
                 maria@rothburdpa.com

              - and -

         Casim Adam Neff, Esq.
         NEFF INSURANCE LAW, PLLC
         P O Box 15063
         St. Petersburg, FL 33733
         E-mail: cneff@neffinsurancelaw.com

              - and -

         Edward H. Zebersky, Esq.
         Mark S. Fistos, Esq.
         ZEBERSKY PAYNE, LLP
         110 SE 6th Street, Suite 210
         Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301
         E-mail: ezebersky@zpllp.com
                 mfistos@zpllp.com
                 ndiaz@zpllp.com

              - and -

         Alec H. Schultz, Esq.
         Carly A. Kligler, Esq.
         LEON COSGROVE, LLP
         255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 800
         Coral Gables, FL 33134
         E-mail: aschultz@leoncosgrove.com
                ckligler@leoncosgrove.com
                eperez@leoncosgrove.com

              - and -

         Arthur M. Murray, Esq.
         MURRAY LAW FIRM
         Suite 2150 Poydras Center
         650 Poydras Street
         New Orleans, LA 70130
         E-mail: amurray@murray-lawfirm.com

Attorneys for Defendant USAA CIC:

         Frank A. Zacherl, Esq.
         Sidney C. Calloway, Esq.
         SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP
         200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 4100
         Miami, FL 33131
         Telephone: (305) 358-6300
         Facsimile: (305) 381-9982
         E-mail: LMFernandez@shutts.com
                 KRicketts@shutts.com
                 FZacherl@shutts.com
                 SCalloway@shutts.com
                 JGoodwin@shutts.com

              - and -

         Martina T. Ellerbe, Esq.
         Rodger L. Eckelberry, Esq.
         BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
         200 Civic Center Drive, Suite 1200
         Columbus, OH 43215-4138
         Telephone: 614 228 1541
         Facsimile: 614 462 2616
         E-mail: reckelberry@bakerlaw.com
                 eprouty@bakerlaw.com

VERMONT: Court Denies Russell's Bid for Partial Summary Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUSTIN RUSSELL, Petitioner, v. ANDREW PALLITO, CYNTHIA
MASON, RICHARD BILODEAU, and LISA MENARD, Respondents, Case No.
5:15-cv-126 (D. Vt.), Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Vermont (i) denied Russell's
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; (ii) denied Menard and
Pallito's Motion for Summary Judgment; (iii) granted Mason and
Bilodeau's Motion for Summary Judgment; (iv) granted Russell's
Motion for Reconsideration of the court's March 23, 2017 Opinion
and Order; and (v) denied Russell's Renewed Motion to Certify Class
and Motion to Reopen Discovery.

Plaintiff Russell, an inmate of the Vermont Department of
Corrections ("DOC"), brought the civil-rights lawsuit against four
officials and employees of the DOC: Andrew Pallito, the former
Commissioner; Lisa Menard, the current Commissioner; Cynthia Mason,
a Correctional Officer; and Richard Bilodeau, a Correctional
Facility Shift Supervisor.  Russell alleges that Pallito violated
his rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment
when he instituted a policy that Muslim prisoners would be provided
with kosher meals rather than halal meals.  He alleges that Menard
has continued this policy during her time as Commissioner.

Currently ripe for decision are the following motions: Russell's
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; Pallito and Menard's Motion
for Summary Judgment; Mason and Bilodeau's Motion for Summary
Judgment, Russell's Motion for Reconsideration; and Russell's
Renewed Motion to Certify Class Action and Motion to Reopen
Discovery.  On Jan. 7, 2019, the U.S. Magistrate Judge issued his
Report and Recommendation on these motions.  The Magistrate Judge
recommended granting Mason and Bilodeau's Motion for Summary
Judgment and Russell's Motion for Reconsideration.  He recommended
denying the rest of the pending motions.

Russell's objections were filed on Jan. 19, 2019.  He challenges
the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny class certification
and additional discovery, deny Russell's Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment on his free exercise claim against Pallito, and grant
Mason's Motion for Summary Judgment.

Pallito and Menard's objections were filed on March 6, 2019.  They
challenge the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to deny their
Motion for Summary Judgment.

After careful review of the record, the Magistrate Judge's thorough
Report and Recommendation, and the objections, Judge Crawford
adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendations in full for the
reasons stated in the Report.  The Magistrate Judge carefully
considered each claim and his recommendations are supported by case
law and undisturbed by the parties' objections.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 15, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/t1llGz from Leagle.com.

Justin Russell, Plaintiff, represented by David E. Bond, Esq. --
david@strouse-bond.com -- Strouse & Bond PLLC.

Andrew Pallito & Lisa Menard, Defendants, represented by David R.
McLean, Esq., Vermont Office of the Attorney General & Tabitha M.
Bono, Esq., TKS Holdings, Inc., pro hac vice.


VILLA ROMA RESORT: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Villa Roma Resort and
Conference Center, Inc. The case is styled as Brian Fischler
Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Villa Roma Resort and Conference Center, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03513 (E.D. N.Y., June 13, 2019).

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

The Villa Roma Resort and Conference Center is located in
Callicoon, NY, part of the Catskill Mountains and offers family
activities, nightlife, 5 swimming pools, go-karts, multiple sports
facilities, formal and casual dining as well as a Championship Golf
Course.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



VIRGINIA PARTNERS: Parshall Suit Challenges Merger With Delmar
--------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL PARSHALL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. VIRGINIA PARTNERS BANK, JOHN A. JANNEY, LLOYD B.
HARRISON, III, WALLACE N. KING, SR., MONA D. ALBERTINE, LEWIS W.
GRAVES, SR., LUCY G. HARMAN, KENNETH R. LEHMAN, STEVEN R. MOTE,
GEORGE P. SNEAD, WILLIAM J. VAKOS, III, and DELMAR BANCORP, Case
No. 3:19-cv-00395 (E.D. Va., May 28, 2019), alleges that the Form
S-4 Registration Statement filed with the United States Securities
and Exchange Commission in connection with the proposed merger with
Delmar omits material information, including the analyses performed
by the Company's financial advisor, in violation of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The action stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant to which
Partners will be acquired by Delmar.  On December 13, 2018,
Partners' Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger with Delmar.  Pursuant to the terms of
the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Partners will receive 1.7179
shares of Delmar common stock for each share of Partners common
stock they own.

Partners is a Virginia chartered bank and maintains its principal
executive offices in Fredericksburg, Virginia.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

Partners was organized in 2008 and maintains three full service
offices in Fredericksburg, Virginia, a branch in La Plata,
Maryland, and a loan production office in Annapolis, Maryland,
operating under the name Maryland Partners Bank.

Delmar is a Maryland corporation and a party to the Merger
Agreement.  Delmar is the parent company of The Bank of
Delmarva.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David G. Browne, Esq.
          SPIRO & BROWNE, PLC
          6802 Paragon Place, Suite 410
          Richmond, VA 23230
          Telephone: (804) 573-9220
          Facsimile: (804) 836-1855
          E-mail: dbrowne@sblawva.com

               - and -

          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310

               - and -

          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324-6800


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Nov. 25 Dishwasher Claims Filing Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paula Duhatschek, writing for CBC News, reports that a man in
London, Ont., said he'll think twice about leaving his dishwasher
running overnight after the appliance's control board overheated
and caught fire and left his kitchen covered in soot.

Geoff Evans had kicked up his feet to watch TV on May 12 when he
heard an unusual buzzing noise coming from his kitchen. He went
upstairs to investigate and saw a flame coming out of the top
corner of his KitchenAid dishwasher.

"You don't think the appliance filled with water is gonna catch
fire," said Evans, who, after a moment of shock, opened the door of
the dishwasher to deactivate it.

It worked, but not the way he'd hoped.

"I opened the door, the flame went away, and then the massive gust
of black electrical fire [and] soot filled the house," he said.

"So that was [the] initial moment of, 'What the hell just
happened?'"

'No idea' about class-action suit, settlement
Turning to Google for answers, Evans learned his KitchenAid
dishwasher was among those included in a class-action lawsuit
settled last July.

The settlement affects dishwashers made between October 2000 and
January 2006 with "Rushmore" or "Rush" electronic control boards,
which are manufactured by Whirlpool Corp.

It concerns alleged "past or future overheating events," according
to the website dishwashersettlement.ca, and may entitle members of
the class to:

   * Certain past repair expenses.

   * Partial reimbursement for replacing the dishwasher.

   * A cash rebate on the purchase of a new Whirlpool, Kenmore or
KitchenAid brand dishwasher.

Whirlpool told CBC News it strongly disagrees with the lawsuit's
allegations but that the settlement spared all parties the expense
of litigation.

"Whirlpool continues to stand behind its dishwashers, which are
safe, reliable, designed and tested using our award-winning safety
processes, and include multiple built-in safety features," the
company said in an email statement.

Evans's KitchenAid dishwasher is one of several in a series with a
model number beginning with the letters "KUD."

Dishwashers sold under the Kenmore and Whirlpool brands are also
included in the settlement.

Evans, who bought his home in 2006 with the appliances already
installed, said he'd had no contact with the manufacturers and was
"completely in the dark" about the lawsuit.

On May 21, Whirlpool contacted Evans and told him the company would
buy back the unit at its original price from 16 years ago, $1,499,
he told CBC News. The company also said it would pick up the
dishwasher so an engineering team could examine it, and offered to
examine his kitchen for any health or safety concerns caused by the
fire (Evans declined).

As part of the settlement, Whirlpool sent notices in December 2018
to people who bought an affected dishwasher. The company also ran
newspaper and online banner ads and created the
dishwasher-settlement website the same month.

Evans said he missed all of that.

"[I had] no idea, until there [was] a fire that I should be doing
some research into possible recalls [and] risks," he said.

'Big onus on the shoulders of the consumer'
Situations like the one Evans found himself in demonstrate a common
problem with consumer products that are the subject of recalls or
lawsuits, said Kersi Antia, an associate professor of marketing at
Western University's Ivey Business School in London, Ont., about
190 kilometres southwest of Toronto.

"Here we have somebody who didn't buy the product originally. It
came with his house, and as a result of that, he was not
contactable by the manufacturer," said Antia.

"It's almost incumbent on the person who's taking over a house to
look up the serial number by individual appliance and [do a] Google
search … So, it's a big onus on the shoulders of the consumer."

In the aftermath of the fire, Evans said he's done just that,
checking the make and model of every major appliance in his house.

He has also bought two fire extinguishers and vowed never to leave
his dishwasher running while he's sleeping or out of the house.

Evans said he wants to warn other people about the possible risks
of products that are already in their homes.

"If you didn't buy the original appliances . . .figure out what the
brand is, what the model is, go to Google and see what you can
find," he said.

The deadline to register claims for affected dishwashers has been
extended to Nov. 25, 2019, Whirlpool Corp. said. [GN]


YALE UNIVERSITY: Students File Sexual Discrimination Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In New Haven, some women are tackling sexual discrimination
head-on.

NBC Connecticut's Keisha Grant sat down with the students
spearheading a lawsuit against Yale University and its fraternities
to find out why they call the culture on campus dangerous.

Anna McNeil and Ry Walker are both juniors at Yale, but they're
more than just classmates and friends -- they're young women on a
mission.

"It's a class action lawsuit on behalf of all women," McNeil
explained. "I'm proud to lead this charge. "

These women are using their voices to take on a 300-year-old
institution.

"Our lawsuit against Yale and the fraternities allege gender
discrimination. It also alleges a hostile environment in terms of
sexual misconduct and sexual harassment," McNeil said.

They are two of three students who filed an 85-page class action
lawsuit against Yale in federal court.

"We're really filing this lawsuit to try to correct the harm that
so many people experience.," McNeil said.

It's an experience Walker said she never thought she'd encounter
when she set foot on campus for the first time.

"When I first got to campus I didn't know how dominant Greek like
would be in the social life at Yale," Walker said.

"I was being touched, I was being groped without my consent in
these very dark, very cramped spaces which are fueled by alcohol,"
she added.

"Nothing in Yale's promotional material suggests that frat culture
is as influential as it is and is as dangerous as it is," McNeil
said.

Yale's fraternities are technically off-campus, but these students
are calling for more accountability from the university.

"They've been aware of this conduct for decades and have been
warned by many different people that fraternities are dangerous and
have chosen to do nothing about it," McNeil said.

A Yale spokesperson had no comment on the lawsuit, but did share a
letter to students from the Dean of Yale College following a
year-long review of the climate on campus and on Fraternity Row.

It condemns the culture and lays out a plan to change it, including
providing more opportunities for students to socialize on campus,
and an initiative to help recognize, prevent and respond to sexual
misconduct.

But for McNeil and Walker, it's too little too late.

"A big reason why we're challenging Yale in this lawsuit is we're
trying to show Yale -- you have an obligation to these students,"
McNeil said.

"Not only is (Yale) letting down its students because it promised
an environment of equal opportunity but it's also turning a blind
eye to harassment that's actively happening on the campus," Walker
said.

They'd like to see Yale get even tougher, like some rival
institutions have recently done. But for now, they'll take it one
step at a time, and it starts in the courts.

"Change is in the air a lot of these conversations have started to
really pick up momentum in just the last couple of years," McNeil
said. "And we think this change can be part of that legacy and that
history. "

An attorney for the fraternities named in the suit calls the
allegations "baseless and unfounded."

For its part, Yale filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, but that
motion was denied, due to an amended complaint.

The university now has until May 29 to try to have it thrown out
again. [GN]


ZAYO GROUP: Scarantino Says Proxy Statement Misleading
------------------------------------------------------
The case, RICHARD SCARANTINO, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ZAYO GROUP HOLDINGS,
INC., DAN CARUSO, RICK CONNOR, SCOTT DRAKE, DONALD GIPS, STEVEN
KAPLAN, CATHY MORRIS, LINDA ROTTENBERG, YANCEY SPRUILL, and EMILY
WHITE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01068-UNA (D. Del., June 7,
2019), seeks to preliminarily and permanently enjoing Defendants
and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating, or closing a proposed transaction, and in the event
Defendants consummate the Proposed Transaction, rescinding it and
setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages.

The action stems from a proposed transaction announced on May 8,
2019, pursuant to which Zayo Group Holdings, Inc. will be acquired
by affiliates of Digital Colony Partners and EQT Infrastructure
Fund.

On May 8, 2019, Zayo's Board of Directors caused the Company to
enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Front Range TopCo,
Inc. and Front Range BidCo, Inc. Pursuant to the terms of the
Merger Agreement, Zayo's stockholders will receive $35.00 in cash
for each share of Zayo common stock they own.

On June 3, 2019, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with
the Proposed Transaction.

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

Zayo provides mission-critical bandwidth to the world's most
impactful companies. The company has a 130,000-mile network in
North America and Europe, including extensive metro connectivity to
thousands of buildings and data centers. Zayo's communications
infrastructure solutions include dark fiber, private data networks,
wavelengths, Ethernet, dedicated Internet access, and colocation
services. The Company owns and operates a Tier 1 IP Backbone and 51
carrier-neutral data centers.[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
          SE-mail: rm@maniskas.com

[*] Mass. Consumer Data Privacy Bill Expand Class Action Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
Peter J. Guffin, Esq. -- pguffin@pierceatwood.com -- Donald R.
Frederico, Esq. -- dfrederico@pierceatwood.com -- Melanie A.
Conroy, Esq. -- mconroy@pierceatwood.com -- of Pierce Atwood LLP,
in an article for The National Law Review, report that earlier this
year, Massachusetts state senators introduced a consumer data
privacy bill with a private right of action that could become the
broadest in the country. The proposed law, An Act Relative to
Consumer Data Privacy (S.120) would create a new category of
litigation in local, state, and federal courts against businesses
that collect personal information from Massachusetts consumers.

The bill was recently referred to the Joint Committee on Consumer
Protection and Professional Licensure. If enacted, S.120 would
follow in the wake of a series of data privacy laws in Europe,
California, and Illinois that have dramatically increased data
privacy litigation risks for companies that collect consumer data,
potentially bringing a potential surge of data privacy class
actions to Massachusetts courthouses.

The proposed Massachusetts bill follows other legislation aimed at
protecting consumer data privacy, including the General Data
Protection Regulation (EU Regulation 2016/679) (GDPR), the
California Consumer Privacy Act (AB-375) (CCPA) and the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act (740 ILCS/14) (BIPA). The bill
adopts many key features from CCPA and BIPA, with important
distinctions.

Key features of S.120 include:

   * Application to for-profit businesses that collect personal
information from Massachusetts consumers if they have either annual
gross revenues over $10 million or derive more than 50% of annual
revenues from third-party disclosures of consumer information.

   * Expansive definitions of Personal Information and Biometric
Information.

   * Consumer rights to notice about the collection of personal
information, to disclosure of the business purpose of personal
information collection, to request copies of collected personal
information, to direct the deletion of personal information, to
opt-out of third-party disclosures, and to non-discrimination.

   * Exceptions for aggregated data, employee information, First
Amendment news gathering, clinical trials, and scientific
research.

A non-waivable private right of action for statutory damages of
$750 per violation of any provision of the law (plus attorney's
fees and costs) that might be recoverable in class actions without
a requirement that plaintiffs demonstrate actual injury to
establish standing. There is no requirement that violations be
negligent, reckless, or intentional, and any contractual provision
that would waive or limit a right under the law would be deemed
unenforceable.

Based on these key provisions, it is difficult to overstate the
magnitude of class action litigation risk the proposed law may
create for businesses collecting data from Massachusetts consumers.
These businesses and their advisors should follow closely the
progress of S.120, and be prepared to creatively formulate
litigation risk strategies to confront a potential new tidal wave
of consumer class actions in Massachusetts. If the bill, or one
like it, is enacted, business litigators will need to evaluate
potential defenses to class-wide liability under existing precedent
and constitutional limitations. [GN]


[*] OFW Law Attorney Discusses Class Action Trend v. Food Cos.
--------------------------------------------------------------
OFW Law Principal Attorney Michael J. O'Flaherty --
moflaherty@ofwlaw.com -- posted a blog piece at The Food Institute
regarding the need for federal oversight regarding the ongoing
trend of class action lawsuits filed against food companies
regarding product labeling.]

Since its enactment in 1938, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FD&C Act), along with FDA regulations implementing it, has
served to safeguard consumer interests by requiring food labeling
that is not false or misleading, and that declares specified
mandatory information. While legally authorized to regulate food
labeling, even the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), since 1971, has
acknowledged that FDA "will exercise primary jurisdiction over all
matters regulating the labeling of foods." [See: Memorandum of
Understanding Between the Federal Trade Commission and the Food and
Drug Administration (MOU 225-71-8003).]

FDA's exercise of such primary jurisdiction has "stood the test of
time." Whereas in 1938 most food was both produced and sold
locally, today most foods are made in one locality and sold
nationwide (and globally). The FD&C Act, as administered by FDA,
has continued to serve its purpose very well throughout this food
market evolution.

Recognizing and fostering successful continuance of this evolution,
in 1990 Congress legislated that mandatory aspects of food labeling
must be nationally uniform. [See: Pub. L. No. 101-535 Sec. 6 (Nov.
8, 1990) (now codified at 21 U.S.C. Sec. 343-1).] This legislation
was mutually beneficial both for consumers — because it
harmonized presentation of important food labeling information --
and for food manufacturers -- because it foreclosed being subjected
to differing food labeling requirements across our 50 States.
Moreover, the law placed responsibility for administering the
harmonized aspects of food labeling within the experienced purview
of FDA. Finally, while not required by the law, the FTC expressly
committed to keeping its enforcement practices for nutrient content
claims and health claims made in food advertising in essential
harmony with FDA's food labeling requirements. [See: Enforcement
Policy Statement on Food Advertising (May 13, 1994); See also
Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. Secs. 45(a)(1), 52,
55(a)-(b).]

The U.S. food marketplace has evolved further -- albeit differently
— since 1990, especially over the past decade. During this
period, plaintiffs' class action attorneys annually have sent food
manufacturers hundreds of "demand letters" that allege a company's
food labeling and/or advertising representations are false or
misleading/deceptive and, therefore, in violation of some State
consumer protection law(s) (i.e., laws other than the FFD&C Act,
which may not be privately enforced). These demand letters assert
that class action litigation will ensue, unless the matter is
settled by the food manufacturer by (i) instituting corrective
action that addresses the alleged misrepresentation, and (ii)
paying the alleged class members monetary damages -- which sub
silencio include substantial attorneys' fees.

This class action trend has been helpful to the extent that it has
removed some misrepresentations about foods from the marketplace in
situations where FDA lacks enough resources to intervene.
Nonetheless, from a public policy perspective, condoning its
continuance is ill-advised:

* The demand letters invariably challenge food labeling
representations that are not the subject of national uniformity
and, therefore, are not preempted. This being the case, the
allegations may be theoretical and/or contrary to FDA's
authoritative perspective and/or administrative regulatory goals.

* Class action cases are filed in a limited number of
jurisdictions, perceived by plaintiffs' counsel as having a
receptive jury pool. For example, the federal District Court for
the Central District of California is now characterized as the
"Food Court."

* The class action trend has renewed the legal landscape that
historically prompted enactment of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 343-1. Consumers
and food manufacturers are not guaranteed a uniform meaning for a
representation nationwide. Judicial decisions have binding legal
effect solely in the jurisdiction of the deciding court.

* Courts rendering decisions that do not defer to FDA's primary
jurisdiction in regulating food representations can
facilitate/foster non-uniformity.

* The plaintiffs' class action attorneys that identify food
misrepresentation cases have other than uniformity/regulatory
motivations in mind.

* Dollars would be better allocated as FDA appropriations, to fund
its assurance of uniform meanings for food representations
nationwide, than as attorneys' fees for food labeling resolutions
having no such effect.

A legislative endeavor presently is warranted once again to
safeguard and foster national uniformity in regulation and
enforcement of food labeling representations.

As a potential model, California's Prop 65 requires that private
attorneys give at least 60-days' notice to the Attorney General
(AG) and the relevant district attorney, city attorney, or
prosecutor -- and find no public action commenced and diligently
prosecuted by these authorities -- before commencing a private
action for Prop 65 enforcement. Cal. Health & Safety Code Section
25249.7(d). In appropriate circumstances, the AG may notify the
private attorney that the AG believes there is no merit to the
action. Cal. Health & Safety Code Section 25249.7(e)(1)(A). A
similar prior notice approach would be beneficial for food labeling
representations.

Congress should be approached and persuaded to re-engage national
uniformity as it did in 1990. The FD&C Act ought to be amended to
require that private attorneys give prior notice to FDA before
sending a demand letter or initiating litigation challenging, under
a consumer protection law, any representation made in food
labeling. This would give FDA, our federal agency with most
expertise in such matters, an opportunity -- bearing national
uniformity in mind -- to prohibit the challenge, to pursue the
challenge itself, or to authorize the private attorney to proceed.

A food industry trade association(s) should assume responsibility
for reconciling national uniformity in food labeling with the
ongoing class action trend. [GN]



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***